7/31/2004
PROFILE OF THE WEEK: This Sunday commences what should be a regular event for Hawkeye Republican: Profile of the Week. Each week, this site will profile one person who is highly admired by the author of this site. As such, the person will typically excel in fields valued by the author - often times, business and politics, though it will not be limited to such.
With that said, this week's (and the first ever) Profile of the Week is Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
A graduate of the Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, Romney first made a name for himself, not to mention considerable wealth for himself, as an executive brought in to turn around struggling businesses. In doing so, he made the businesses more efficient and provide better products for the public. What a man of the people.
The best example of this is the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, which he headed. According to the Weekly Standard, the Salt Lake City Games were $379 million in debt upon Romney arrival. When all was said and done, these games had turned a $40 million profit - this for an event widely suspected to be a terrorist target.
He received a $275,000 salary per year for the Olympic games, assuming they run a profit. They did, so Romney took his compensation, then promptly gave it to charity. Unlike many liberal politicians, who order Americans to give to others against their will through taxing-and-spending and then take credit for the program, Romney willingly gave hundreds of thousands out of his own goodwill but said little about it.
As a citizen of Massachusetts, Romney has called on John Kerry to do the people of Massachusetts a favor and resign his senate seat so he can concentrate on his Presidential campaign and someone committed solely to serving Massachusetts can act in the Senate. In doing so, Romney has taken a courageous stand on behalf of his state.
Governor Romney works every day for the conservative movement in what is arguably the most liberal state in the country. He battles a state senate of 33 Democrats and 7 Republicans, and a state house of 138 Democrats and 22 Republicans. Yet Governor Romney pushes for such Republicans ideals such as preserving the 5,000 year definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
There is already talk of a 2008 bid for President by Governor Romney. While he still hasn't won the heart of this site, which holds allegiance to Condoleezza Rice - after all, this author had the thrill of personally asking Condi if she would consider a run in 2008 - Hawkeye Republican supports Governor Romney and is proud to make him the site's inaugural "Profile of the Week."
With that said, this week's (and the first ever) Profile of the Week is Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
A graduate of the Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, Romney first made a name for himself, not to mention considerable wealth for himself, as an executive brought in to turn around struggling businesses. In doing so, he made the businesses more efficient and provide better products for the public. What a man of the people.
The best example of this is the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, which he headed. According to the Weekly Standard, the Salt Lake City Games were $379 million in debt upon Romney arrival. When all was said and done, these games had turned a $40 million profit - this for an event widely suspected to be a terrorist target.
He received a $275,000 salary per year for the Olympic games, assuming they run a profit. They did, so Romney took his compensation, then promptly gave it to charity. Unlike many liberal politicians, who order Americans to give to others against their will through taxing-and-spending and then take credit for the program, Romney willingly gave hundreds of thousands out of his own goodwill but said little about it.
As a citizen of Massachusetts, Romney has called on John Kerry to do the people of Massachusetts a favor and resign his senate seat so he can concentrate on his Presidential campaign and someone committed solely to serving Massachusetts can act in the Senate. In doing so, Romney has taken a courageous stand on behalf of his state.
Governor Romney works every day for the conservative movement in what is arguably the most liberal state in the country. He battles a state senate of 33 Democrats and 7 Republicans, and a state house of 138 Democrats and 22 Republicans. Yet Governor Romney pushes for such Republicans ideals such as preserving the 5,000 year definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
There is already talk of a 2008 bid for President by Governor Romney. While he still hasn't won the heart of this site, which holds allegiance to Condoleezza Rice - after all, this author had the thrill of personally asking Condi if she would consider a run in 2008 - Hawkeye Republican supports Governor Romney and is proud to make him the site's inaugural "Profile of the Week."
7/29/2004
IN CASE YOU FORGOT: John Kerry served in Vietnam.
THANKS, RUSH: Rush Limbaugh gives us yet another gem in his July 29, 2004, show. In response to John Kerry's entrance to the Democratic convention, which includes riding into Boston Harbor on a boat to remind us of his roots as a Vietnam Veteran, Rush asks: "Did John Edwards enter chasing an ambulance?"
Ouch!
Ouch!
NEWSWEAK: In the July 12, 2004, issue of Newsweek, columnist Anna Quindlen wrote of Vice-President Cheney's comment to Senator Patrick Leahy:
"If the vice president of the country feels comfortable - nay, exultant - about using the word on the Senate floor, can the vice president of the student council be far behind? I can't wait for the principal's reaction the first time a smart teenage uses the Cheney defense verbatim[.]"
"One interesting aspect of this presidential race is that by traditional standards, Kerry has the masculinity factor sewn up; an inveterate jock and a war hero trumps a former cheerleader and a stay-at-home guardsman."
My letter to Newsweek, which, of course, was not printed:
"Sadly, Anna Quindlen’s latest column, 'A Foul Mouth and Manhood,' is so filled with vitriol toward the Bush White House that she cannot identify the fallacies of her arguments.
As is often said, actions speak louder than words. With that said, Quindlen ought be less worried about Vice-President Cheney telling Senator Leahy to perform an obscene act on himself, and should have been more critical when former President Clinton acted out similarly obscene acts in the Oval Office with a starry-eyed intern.
Quindlen worries about a student council Vice-President following Cheney’s judgment and uses equally foul language; why did she not worry about a student council Vice-President following Clinton’s judgment and coercing a girl less than half his age to perform oral sex on him?
Quindlen gives the liberals free passes, just like later in her column when she chastises our President as a “stay-at-home guardsman,” but never criticizes Clinton for dodging the draft, and later calls our President the “anti-intellectual C student,” though he actually had a higher GPA at Yale than Al Gore had at Harvard.
Ms. Quindlen, you have a wonderful opportunity to influence millions – please don’t squander it with petty hypocrisy."
"If the vice president of the country feels comfortable - nay, exultant - about using the word on the Senate floor, can the vice president of the student council be far behind? I can't wait for the principal's reaction the first time a smart teenage uses the Cheney defense verbatim[.]"
"One interesting aspect of this presidential race is that by traditional standards, Kerry has the masculinity factor sewn up; an inveterate jock and a war hero trumps a former cheerleader and a stay-at-home guardsman."
My letter to Newsweek, which, of course, was not printed:
"Sadly, Anna Quindlen’s latest column, 'A Foul Mouth and Manhood,' is so filled with vitriol toward the Bush White House that she cannot identify the fallacies of her arguments.
As is often said, actions speak louder than words. With that said, Quindlen ought be less worried about Vice-President Cheney telling Senator Leahy to perform an obscene act on himself, and should have been more critical when former President Clinton acted out similarly obscene acts in the Oval Office with a starry-eyed intern.
Quindlen worries about a student council Vice-President following Cheney’s judgment and uses equally foul language; why did she not worry about a student council Vice-President following Clinton’s judgment and coercing a girl less than half his age to perform oral sex on him?
Quindlen gives the liberals free passes, just like later in her column when she chastises our President as a “stay-at-home guardsman,” but never criticizes Clinton for dodging the draft, and later calls our President the “anti-intellectual C student,” though he actually had a higher GPA at Yale than Al Gore had at Harvard.
Ms. Quindlen, you have a wonderful opportunity to influence millions – please don’t squander it with petty hypocrisy."
BARBARA BOXER ON FREE TRADE: "John Kerry believes in fair trade...[free trade with countries whose companies pay low wages] is not fair for workers."
How about what's fair for the consumers, Senator Boxer? Restricting trade with certain countries restricts the opportunity for individuals to choose what is best for them. The result is that we Americans as a whole pay higher prices for our everyday goods. There is also the subsidiary effect that many companies are forced to pay higher prices for input products - this stunts growth in these sectors and passes on even higher costs to the consumers.
Other countries have economic advantages that Americans do not have, labor costs being one of them. Let other countries do what they do best, because America excels in many other areas. We have the best educated adults, the world's most advanced technology, and vast resources to use in production. Opening ourselves to trade with others will only increase our markets for business.
Some make the argument that free trade will create an America of hamburger flippers. This is not a new argument. One hundred years ago, some argued that technology would live Americans unemployed. It didn't happen. Twenty years ago, when many pushed for free trade with Canada and Mexico, some argued we'd lose all our good jobs. The 1990's showed us how wrong that was.
Free trade with countries with "sweatshops" isn't cruel, either. No one forces people in India, the Philippines, and other Asian countries to work in sweatshops. These people choose to - willingly! Without American businesses like Nike investing in these countries, many who currently work in the sweatshops would be working in less desirable situations; some as prostitutes, as an example.
These countries use sweatshops as a starting point in the development to an industrialized society. South Korea did this, as did Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.
Senator Boxer, free trade is fair trade. Restricting free trade is unfair, not only to our consumers, but to the rest of the world.
How about what's fair for the consumers, Senator Boxer? Restricting trade with certain countries restricts the opportunity for individuals to choose what is best for them. The result is that we Americans as a whole pay higher prices for our everyday goods. There is also the subsidiary effect that many companies are forced to pay higher prices for input products - this stunts growth in these sectors and passes on even higher costs to the consumers.
Other countries have economic advantages that Americans do not have, labor costs being one of them. Let other countries do what they do best, because America excels in many other areas. We have the best educated adults, the world's most advanced technology, and vast resources to use in production. Opening ourselves to trade with others will only increase our markets for business.
Some make the argument that free trade will create an America of hamburger flippers. This is not a new argument. One hundred years ago, some argued that technology would live Americans unemployed. It didn't happen. Twenty years ago, when many pushed for free trade with Canada and Mexico, some argued we'd lose all our good jobs. The 1990's showed us how wrong that was.
Free trade with countries with "sweatshops" isn't cruel, either. No one forces people in India, the Philippines, and other Asian countries to work in sweatshops. These people choose to - willingly! Without American businesses like Nike investing in these countries, many who currently work in the sweatshops would be working in less desirable situations; some as prostitutes, as an example.
These countries use sweatshops as a starting point in the development to an industrialized society. South Korea did this, as did Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.
Senator Boxer, free trade is fair trade. Restricting free trade is unfair, not only to our consumers, but to the rest of the world.
7/28/2004
GORE BORES: No doubt, Al Gore's speech did not live up to his recent maniacal diatribes such as, "George Bush betrayed our country! He played on our fears!" The man's much less funny when he remembers to take his medication.
But on the other hand, he does look strikingly similar to Jeffrey Jones, better known as Principal Rooney from Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
But on the other hand, he does look strikingly similar to Jeffrey Jones, better known as Principal Rooney from Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
7/27/2004
LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT: Democrats complain that the Republicans have used 9/11 for political gain. Then at the Dems' convention, they have a speaker talk about the husband she lost in 9/11. Ronald Reagan dies in June, and Democrats argue that Republicans will use this to promote George Bush's reelection. Then at the convention, they have Ron Reagan speak (though he's covering the convention for MSNBC; so much for journalistic integrity).
This is no worse than the Dems saying that the Bush administration questions the patriotism of anyone who criticizes the war in Iraq - never mind that this has never happened. But then, the Kerry campaign gives the title of "patriot" to donors who give the maximum amount. If I don't donate hundreds of dollars to the Kerry campaign, are they calling me unpatriotic?
This is no worse than the Dems saying that the Bush administration questions the patriotism of anyone who criticizes the war in Iraq - never mind that this has never happened. But then, the Kerry campaign gives the title of "patriot" to donors who give the maximum amount. If I don't donate hundreds of dollars to the Kerry campaign, are they calling me unpatriotic?
7/25/2004
Welcome: Welcome to my Blog entitled Hawkeye Republican. Welcome, also, to the first entry in what will hopefully be many entries.
One may wonder what is the point to yet another anonymous blog in the vast world of the internet? At times, I wonder the same thing myself. But here we are in 2004, with the stakes higher than they have been in decades. The polls show a dead heat between Senator Kerry and President Bush. On top of this, the partisan arguments have been more vitriolic than ever.
I just cannot allow myself to sit back and watch and hear the arguments from the left without an outlet to respond, perhaps vent. Granted, I may be speaking to an audience of few, but it's fine.
The current Presidential election is the most critical of our lifetime. Not since 1968 have we had a close election between two men espousing grossly different futures for America. It's a referendum on the Bush Doctrine of attacking those states that aid terrorists; it's a question between who better can make the best decisions for a person - himself, or the government; it's a question on whether our schools should be challenged to improve and to meet tough standards.
With that said, thanks for stopping in, and keep checking for updates. Expect rapid updates and changes as Hawkeye Republican gets its feet off the ground.
One may wonder what is the point to yet another anonymous blog in the vast world of the internet? At times, I wonder the same thing myself. But here we are in 2004, with the stakes higher than they have been in decades. The polls show a dead heat between Senator Kerry and President Bush. On top of this, the partisan arguments have been more vitriolic than ever.
I just cannot allow myself to sit back and watch and hear the arguments from the left without an outlet to respond, perhaps vent. Granted, I may be speaking to an audience of few, but it's fine.
The current Presidential election is the most critical of our lifetime. Not since 1968 have we had a close election between two men espousing grossly different futures for America. It's a referendum on the Bush Doctrine of attacking those states that aid terrorists; it's a question between who better can make the best decisions for a person - himself, or the government; it's a question on whether our schools should be challenged to improve and to meet tough standards.
With that said, thanks for stopping in, and keep checking for updates. Expect rapid updates and changes as Hawkeye Republican gets its feet off the ground.
