Redstate

the afternoon/evening session in summation

By haystack Posted in Special Events — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

What a day it was. Again, I first tip a bit Stetson to the folks at National Review for such a well-organized, professional, and interesting event.

I have decided I really AM getting old. I did the whole 14 hour event (well, OK, I snuck out for a beer with Ben & a friend…but heck-he paid for it, how could I say no to that?).

The evening session ended with a speech from Mitt Romney. I know there are many readers and writers here at Redstate pondering or already fully engaged in a Romney ’08 campaign. I will leave my personal opinions to a subsequent article, however based on his comments I suggest you seek medical help and anti-depressants…you are in for a long, long ride my fellow Americans.

On to the review, and some “Citizen Journalism”…

More below the fold…

First, the Agenda:

1:45 PM Editors and the Leaders
Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne Q&A with Rep. John Boehner and Rep. Eric Cantor

2:30 PM Presentation: A Conservative Agenda on Social Issues
Robert P. George, Maggie Gallagher, Ed Whelan
Moderated by Robert Bork

3:30 PM Debate
Resolved: Bush’s planned “surge” of troops into Iraq is a mistake.
Lawrence Korb versus Bill Kristol
Moderated by Rich Lowry

4:30 PM Panel Session: Trumping the Race Card
Michael Steele, Ward Connerly, and Abigail Thernstrom
Moderated by John Miller

6:00 PM RECEPTION

7:00 PM DINNER
Speech by Mitt Romney, Master of Ceremonies Mark Steyn

The panel discussion with Lowry, O’Beirne, Boehner, and Cantor was relatively informal. A question would be asked of either Cantor or Boehner, and the other could chime in as they saw fit.

Cantor stated that the Republicans went on a “retreat” to understand “Why we are where we are”. He said the consensus was that it was “Iraq in part, but we lost a moral authority to lead and Katrina made that possible, because it showed the GOP to be inept and incompetent.”

He(Cantor) also said Boehner’s call to the new minority was that they “needed to EARN the majority back”. Cantor said the GOP needed to get back to the first principles of “liberty and limited government”. Boehner chimed in here that “we know what we stand for”.

They discussed Iraq successfully being used against them, as well as immigration. Boehner then brought up the “first 100 hours” since the Democrats took over. He admitted that some number of Republicans had crossed the aisle on one or more of these initiatives, in large part because they had run on them and had to show their respective voters they were up there to do what they had promised in the campaigns. Many other Republicans went along in the name of supporting their colleagues, “but they never expected they’d actually get enacted”.

I report, you decide how that statement makes you feel.

Boehner then offered this:

Our government was designed NOT to work. 435 in the house, 100 in the Senate – getting your stuff through is impossible. Making a system work that was designed NOT to work is very difficult. Governing is finding a way to make it work.

Again, you decide.

Next session was “A conservative Agenda on Social Issues”, was moderated by Robert Bork, and speeches were made by Robert George, Maggie Gallagher, and Ed Whelan.

Though my pay will be docked, I must admit to sneaking in after Bork had finished and George was halfway through his piece. I came in as he was finishing up on stem cells with statistics on how many fetuses it takes to support stem cell research, and how these places look like factories where thousands of fetuses are lined up waiting to mature and be harvested like a manufacturing line of death (my words).

He moved on to assert that staving off same-sex marriage WAS not, and SHOULD not be the marriage issue the GOP stands up for. Rather, it should be about marital strength, valuing the notion of “family”, and keeping them intact.

Maggie Gallagher followed with a strong argument about this same idea; that the marriage and family values issues need to stop being “framed™ as homosexuality and bigotry issues.

Marriage and family values are about Fathers being in their children's lives, and about the value and benefit of the parents that conceived these children actually living together in the same home nurturing their children together. In discussing the “crisis” today in the American family, she used the term “Family Fragmentation”.

She called the Democrats versus the Republicans fight on this/these issues a “Contest of Competing Moral Narratives”, and suggested the Democrats are outplaying the GOP.

“Conservatives need to determine when it is appropriate to use laws to address these types of issues”, and suggested that Democrats have no problems using laws in every case.

And, as long as laws are created, and charges of discrimination and bigotry can be leveled at any who would NOT support gay marriage, for example, a whole sub-section of our society continues to be slowly dismantled.

Non-profits, Community and Faith-based charities and initiatives and programs; ALL can and many HAVE had their licenses or permits canceled, their status downgraded, their funding removed. Catholic Charities in Massachusetts and their work facilitating adoptions was mentioned as an example because they had to stop doing adoptions there when they stated it was their policy NOT to support gay marriage or adoptions to gay couples – a new dilemma created in the wake of the Massachusetts Supreme court requiring the Legislature to “create” laws allowing for, and fully recognizing the rights of gay couples to marry and adopt children.

Last up was Ed Whelan, and his focus was on the courts. His opening salvo:

The Supreme Court of the United States is the primary aggressor on culture issues.

He suggested it should be a major goal of the GOP to get courts out of the way, and that so far we have done poorly.

He mentioned that the GOP was in serious trouble at the Appeals level, and that even in the minority it could be possible to win over enough Democrats to fall back on Cheney. "It is still “do-able” but we have to get this judge issue moving forward again".

He made a strong case for how critically important the 2008 Presidential race is becoming. Opining that it is not much of a stretch to imagine the next President getting re-elected, this person will likely replace upwards of six justices, reminding us of the ages of the oldest 6 on the bench, and further suggesting this is NO time to be putting a Democrat in the White House(my specific words, his innuendo).

Next up was a debate between Larry Korb and Bill Kristol and moderated by Rich Lowry titled “Bush’s planned surge of troops in Iraq is a mistake.”

[note: I am a little biased in this area, as some may have heard, but I will try to be fair and balanced and just report the facts. I promise I won’t be so generous in my follow up op-ed on the summit]

Korb went first with a 5 minute statement. He thought Saddam was contained and the war was not necessary to begin with. He referred to this latest surge proposal as the third such surge, and described it as nothing more than a repeat of a strategy which has failed twice before.

He believes all this will accomplish is to add more targets for insurgents and terrorists to aim at, and will increase Iraqi dependence on us. He also suggested this will undermine the Iraqi readiness already established, that it is contrary to the wishes of the Iraqi people, and he referred to this war as a war of choice, suggesting that we now implement the “strategic redeployment” plan already proposed by Democrats.

He suggested we don’t need to train Iraqis, we need to motivate them. Further, we are sending soldiers in this new surge who have less training than the Iraqis they will help train, that until Iraq themselves fix everything, nothing we do will matter.

My personal favorite? He suggests Iraqis don’t want al Qaeda there, and were the US to leave, the Iraqis would clear them out themselves. He suggested this:

If we leave now, today, Iraq will become al Qaeda’s Viet Nam.

[but I promised no editorial comment here…really]
Kristol was up next, and spent nearly half his allotted time rambling on about Bill Buckley, his effects on media and his contributions to so many of the lives of people in the room and out in the media and journalism, and even the political world. By the time he finished, he only had a short stretch left to respond to Korb’s comments, but he jumped right in with both feet, saying this:

It’s Iraq’s country, but it’s our war.

He supports the surge because he trusts the decision makers to make decisions based on the facts, and there are plenty of facts they have that we do not. He believes the surge deserves a chance, has the potential to succeed, and however much we all may argue about how bloody or bad things may get, “we simply can’t afford to lose”.

He further argued that Petraeus needed a chance to implement this and he deserved a shot at being successful as part of determining whether Iraq is truly serious about surviving.

He also suggested that it was irresponsible to pass a “ridiculous resolution”, and that it “only discourages the people in Iraq that want to live. It has become Viet Nam at home, is meaningless, and dilutes Petraeus’ ability to do his job, unless of course they were never planning on him being able to do his job when they confirmed him”.

Korb’s rebuttal is worth capturing here if only for a look in to the minds of the Democrats and how they think. While Kristol suggests the Senate resolution sends the wrong message to the US military and the Iraqi people, Korb said this:

The Senate resolution didn’t give a discouraging message to Iraq, November 2006 did, and the Senate is just reflecting America’s will.

Kristol, in his comments during Q&A, stated that here will be two things to choose from should we leave Iraq without victory: an al Qaeda center of operations in Anbar, or Genocide. He also suggested that the Democrats seem fine with genocide because they insist al Qaeda is only there because of us in the first place.

Korb, in his response, had this to say:

Genocide is bad-we have it in other places in the world-but it is not a security threat to us.

This was an excellent time to put the fire out, so I detoured to a watering hole around the corner and missed the "trumping the Race Card" panel, and have nothing official to report. I "heard" in the hallway musings and chit-chat that Steele did an excellent job and is a strong speaker. Sorry...but the beer was free, and this was my shot-no way I'm missing Romney...and dinner of course.

Some of my seniors here at Redstate will appreciate the teaser monologue with Steyn before dinner. At one point he suggested that they couldn't sit K Lo next to Romney at dinner for fear her meds would wear off too soon.

[note: this is one of those inside jokes...you had to be there kinda deals...but I have to give a LITTLE something back, you know?]

Romney opened up his speech explaining his background in business. In doing so, he described HIS model (which worked for him in business) which presumably is how he has and will govern. The list:

Get a team
Gather data
Analyze data
Define a strategy
Implement

He offered experiential anecdotes to support how he has come to perfect this approach, and gave examples of how he has applied it consistently as Governor...of reducing government always without raising taxes.

He touted MAKING everyone get insurance in Massachusetts as the way to fix healthcare.

He defended his original position of pro-choice, having based the position on the liberty and freedom of the woman to choose. He associated himself with Reagan, reminding the audience that Reagan TOO had once been on the other side of the life debate.

He went on to explain that he came to change his position after learning and coming to understand the real and detailed specifics of what goes on at cloning farms, and “factories” where fetuses are created for the purpose of later being culled to develop stem cell lines for research. When he learned that the lives are allowed to develop 14 days before they are killed, he forever shifted his position on life vs. abortion, now choosing life, he said.

He moved on to discuss his perspective on the problems in Washington, citing spending, entitlements, and earmarks.

He specifically mentioned Asia as the new model and focus on trade and how we need to look at trade in an Asia model, not the older Europe model. He said there is nothing as vulnerable as entrenched success (I think he quoted someone else, but I missed who he credited for it), suggesting that “we get this right or we end up like France.”

On the differences between Democrats and Republicans, he said “Ask Democrats why America is great, and they say because of the Government. Ask Republicans, and they will say it’s because of the American people”. “When America is troubled, Democrats grow government and have government solve problems, but conservatives look to the people”.

On jihad Mitt suggests this “follows with Nazism and Communism", etc, and it is “misunderstood”, suggesting the world doesn’t see that it is “devastating to civilization”. He stated outright that he believed that this is a pursuit of a Caliphate.

On Iran, he said “we have to recognize they must and CAN be stopped”. His way to deal with them has 5 dimensions:

Tighten economic sanctions (and referenced the sanctions used to defeat apartheid)
Isolate them from the rest of the world, not letting them travel to any country
Indict Ahmadinejad for “incitement to genocide
Communicate with the people of Iran. “They think nuclear power is ‘pride’. They need to know it’s NOT pride, it’s terror, and we could be the terrorists".

Finally, on jihad, Romney suggests we redefine and restructure NATO in accordance with our new war being on jihad-we no longer fight the war NATO was built to defend against.

His closing remarks were to remember that the Anniversary of the loss of Christa McAuliffe was Sunday January 28. He said that every year he reflects on that day, and America’s loss, and he uses this memory to remind himself just how Americans CAN pull together.

I went home. Due to other commitments, I was unable to attend the Sunday sessions. Darn, another pay docking admission. They're not going to let me go out and play again, unsupervised, if I keep this up.

I plan to be back soon with my OPINION about this summit and its attendees, but I wanted you to get the NEWS of it first.

haystack out