4/30/2005
In today’s New York Times John Tierney covers why the Democrats are so upset about the Presidents social security plan. Bush has finally called their bluff. Which party is concerned about the poor? The Republicans.
Democrats have good reason to be aghast at President Bush’s new proposal for Social Security. Someone has finally called their bluff.
They tried yesterday to portray him as just another cruel, rich Republican for suggesting any cuts in future benefits, but that’s not what the prime-time audience saw on Thursday night. By proposing to shore up the system while protecting low-income workers, Mr. Bush raised a supremely awkward question for Democrats: which party really cares about the poor?
For decades Democrats have pointed to Social Security as a triumph of communal generosity, proof that Americans (or at least non-Republican Americans) will work together to make sure that no widow is reduced to eating cat food. The program has been wonderful for liberals’ self-esteem. What it has actually done for the poor is another matter.
It’s true, as Democrats love to point out, that the poverty rate among the elderly has declined from 35 percent a half-century ago to 10 percent today. But when you consider how much money is being taken out of Americans’ paychecks - most workers now pay more to Social Security than to the I.R.S. - you’re entitled to wonder why there are any poor widows remaining.
As a poverty-fighting program, Social Security is woefully inefficient because most of the money goes to people who aren’t poor. It would take just 20 percent of what Social Security dispenses to move every elderly American out of poverty, according to June O’Neill, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
[…] […] […] f income-related redistribution in Social Security is a lot less than people think,” said Jeffrey Liebman, a Harvard economist and a former official in the Clinton administration. “If you get the details right, you can design a personal-account retirement system in which groups with high risks of poverty in old age come out at least as well as with the current system.”So why are his fellow Democrats so dead set against it? Their usual answer has been that any move to privatization would doom the poor along with the whole Social Security program. If you let the middle and upper classes opt out and finance their own retirement, the argument has gone, there will be no political support for even the modest subsidies that Social Security now provides to low-income workers - just look at what Republicans did to welfare and public housing programs.
But the elderly poor are different from the younger poor. For one thing, they’re more likely to vote, a fact not lost on even the most hardhearted Republican. They also arouse much more public sympathy. Kicking 25-year-olds off welfare was popular because it was thought to be good for them. Nobody claims that forcing that widow to eat cat food will build character.
That’s why even the most ardent free-marketeers are not trying to eliminate the safety net for the elderly. The libertarians at the Cato Institute are trying to strengthen it with a proposal that has been introduced by Republicans in Congress. If your individual account left you with a paltry pension, their plan would guarantee you a subsidy to lift you above the poverty line - and well above what many retirees are now getting from Social Security.
Democrats like to portray Mr. Bush as King George or Marie Antoinette. But on Thursday night, when he promised to improve benefits for the poor while limiting them for everyone else, he sounded more like Robin Hood, especially when he rhapsodized about poor people getting a chance to build up assets that they could pass along to their children.
It was the kind of talk you might expect to hear from a Democrat, except that Democrats don’t talk about much these days except the glories of the New Deal. They know that Social Security doesn’t even have the money to sustain a program that leaves millions of elderly people in poverty. But it’s their system, and they’re sticking to it.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
4/29/2005
I’ve been thinking about last nights press conference a little more. I thought today I would pick and choose some questions from last night and answer them for the media as if I were the President.
QUESTION: Your top military officer, General Richard Myers, says the Iraqi insurgency is as strong now as it was a year ago. Why is that the case? And why haven’t you been more successful in limiting the violence?
We’re at war. There’s going to be violence. We are succeeding in Iraq though. We had a turn over of sovereignty, an election, and now the Iraqi people are working hard on their constitution.
QUESTION: Several times we’ve asked you or your aides what you could do about the high price of gasoline. And very often the answer has come back: “Congress needs to pass the energy bill.”
As President of the United Sates I cannot do anything to lower gas prices immediately. The energy policy bill will help get us out of this situation eventually. It is extremely important that we be independent from mid-east oil, and this bill will do that. What can we do in the near term to lower gas prices in the near term? Well, it’s important that mid-east countries put some more oil on the market, that will increase supply to handle the increased demand.
QUESTION: Mr. President, your State Department has reported that terrorist attacks around the world are at an all-time high. If we’re winning the war on terrorism, as you say, how do you explain that more people are dying in terrorist attacks on your watch than ever before?
I assume by terrorist attacks you mean the ones taking place overseas, particularly in Iraq. Like I said before, we are at war. The terrorists are fighting back against us, that’s how I explain it. Let me remind you though, we haven’t had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11, and that’s because we’ve chosen to take the fight to the terrorists rather than sit back and wait for them to hit us here at home. We are winning the GWOT, but it will cost us. This is unlike any war ever fought before. It’s not like WW II where there was an identifiable enemy country, these terrorists come from many different countries and sometimes it’ll be difficult to get at them. And, sometimes such as in Afghanistan and Iraq it will look like more of a conventional war.
QUESTION: Sir, you’ve talked all around the country about the poisonous, partisan atmosphere here in Washington. I wonder, why do you think that is? And do you personally bear any responsibility in having contributed to this atmosphere.
Well, I’m disappointed in the way the Democrats have behaved. They’ve obstructed my judicial nominees, they’ve worked very hard against almost every piece of legislation put in front of them. So, no, I don’t think I have much to do with the situation. I wish we could return to the bipartisanship we had in the days immediately following 9-11, but I guess you’ll have to ask the minority about that.
These were fictional answers to real questions last night. I think the President did a very good job of answering them himself, I’m just a little more blunt.
4/28/2005
First of all, watching tonight’s press conference didn’t bring to mind the image I thought it would. One would think that it would bring to mind the image of a bunch of responsible adults asking responsible questions so that they might better inform the public…… WRONG!! Tonight’s press conference actually brought to mind the image of a pack of rabid animals feeding on a man who is simply overwhelmed by their numbers. I’ve never heard so many snarky, uncalled for cheap questions in my life.
Secondly, why is it that, according to the media, the party that won the election is reponsible for the bitter, partisan, or divided atmosphere in Washington? Why isn’t that question asked of Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, or any number of Democrats — who lost the election, and have had diarehea of the mouth lately.
Finally, check out Archbishop Chaput’s column from yesterday. I am not a Catholic, however I can certainly sympathize with his comments. From the column:
“One of the lessons from last year that too many American Catholics still don’t want to face is that it’s OK to be Catholic in today’s public square as long as we don’t try to live our beliefs too seriously; as long as we’re suitably embarrassed by all those ‘primitive’ Catholic teachings; as long as we shut up about abortion and other sensitive moral issues and allow ourselves to be tutored in the ways of ‘polite’ secular culture by experts who have little or no respect for the Christian faith that guides our lives.”
Hat Tip: Hugh
4/27/2005
Up Or DownVote Needed To Preserve Senate Tradition
Former Senator Bob Dole explains today in the New York Times why an up or down vote on judicial nominees is needed to preserve tradition in the Senate. Of all the politicing going on over the “nuclear option”, I think that the most obsurd statement I’ve heard from Democrats is that we need to preserve the filibuster in order to preserve tradition in the Senate. The truth is (as Dole explains) that the tradition lies in an up or down vote.
But let’s be honest: By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the Senate to function as an institution.
This tradition has a bipartisan pedigree. When I was the Senate Republican leader, President Bill Clinton nominated two judges to the federal bench - H. Lee Sarokin and Rosemary Barkett - whose records, especially in criminal law, were particularly troubling to me and my Republican colleagues. Despite my misgivings, both received an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor and were confirmed. In fact, joined by 32 other Republicans, I voted to end debate on the nomination of Judge Sarokin. Then, in the very next roll call, I exercised my constitutional duty to offer “advice and consent” by voting against his nomination.
When I was a leader in the Senate, a judicial filibuster was not part of my procedural playbook. Asking a senator to filibuster a judicial nomination was considered an abrogation of some 200 years of Senate tradition.
4/25/2005
When You Win The Election, Only Talking To Our Base Means Talking To The Majority
Note to Paul Krugman: Republicans won the election. When a party wins an election, talking to ones base means talking to the majority of the population — unless your the Governor of Washington state that is. What am I talking about? Well, Krugman has a op-ed column in the Times today criticizing the President for not listening to the “majority of Americans” who think that the economy is bad.
According to John Snow, the Treasury secretary, the global economy is in a “sweet spot.” Conservative pundits close to the administration talk, without irony, about a “Bush boom.”
Yet two-thirds of Americans polled by Gallup say that the economy is “only fair” or “poor.” And only 33 percent of those polled believe the economy is improving, while 59 percent think it’s getting worse.
First question Mr. Krugman, how many of those polled have a degree in economics, and how many of those polled know anything more about the global economy than what’s in their wallet?
Is the administration’s obliviousness to the public’s economic anxiety just partisanship? I don’t think so: President Bush and other Republican leaders honestly think that we’re living in the best of times. After all, everyone they talk to says so.
Since November’s election, the victors have managed to be on the wrong side of public opinion on one issue after another: the economy, Social Security privatization, Terri Schiavo, Tom DeLay. By large margins, Americans say that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and Mr. Bush is the least popular second-term president on record.
While I’ll admit, public opinion about Social Security Reform is pretty low, I think that’s more because the Republican party has done a bad job of getting their message out. As far as the Senate and House getting involved in the Terri Schiavo matter, there have been many polls that have come out that say the exact opposite from what Mr. Krugman claims. Mr. Krugman is probably referring to one of the many “pre-death” polls that mis-stated Mrs. Schiavo’s health condition. As far as Mr. DeLay’s situation, there have been reports that several Democratic Senators and congressmen have done the same thing….without the “public” outrage.
What’s going on? Actually, it’s quite simple: Mr. Bush and his party talk only to their base - corporate interests and the religious right - and are oblivious to everyone else’s concerns.
Once again, like I said above, when you win an election, and you talk to your base, your talking to the majority… that’s what matters. Mr. Krugman, the nation has rejected your point of view.
This has been a horrible, mistaken point of view since January of 2000, this idea that the majority has to share governance with the minority. The republican party allowed that to happen after a close race and never gave up the idea. Sooner or later though, someone has to stand up and lead. With a broader margin of victory in 2004, it’s time for the Republicans to do that.
I received a newsletter today from syndicated radio talkshow host Laura Ingraham. In it, she lays down the case that I have been trying to make the last couple of weeks about the (justified, in my opinion) anger on the right over the spinelessness of Republican figures such as Chaffee, Voinovich, McCain and others. Here is the newsletter in it’s entirety.
There is an undeniable fury building among Republican voters coast to coast. It has now been almost six months since that euphoric day last year — November 2nd — when Republicans stunned Democrats across the board. Not only did President Bush handily beat John Kerry, but the GOP did what few predicted — it managed to pick up four seats in the Senate. John Thune’s victory over Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota was extra sweet.
That seems like six years ago, not six months ago. Talk to your average Republican voter today and you will find a mood that ranges from anxious/concerned to enraged/frustrated. Yes, the Iraqi elections were amazing. Yes, the President’s commitment to the spread of liberty is stalwart. Yes, his European “Unplugged” tour was a necessary step. The focus here is not President Bush (although in an ideal world he would be stronger on the stump on issues beyond social security reform). After the mid-term elections, President Bush will be on his way out, a “short-timer.” The future of the Republican Party depends more on what happens now in Congress.So what has our Republican majority in both houses of Congress gotten us lately? Well, the Terri Schiavo bill-regardless of what you think about its merits — was at least bold. Then there was the bankruptcy bill. Good stuff, though hardly the legislation that will get voters running to the polls next election.
Of course being in the majority sometimes requires deal-making. Sometimes it requires delaying victory on one issue in order to win support on another more important issue. But sometimes being in the majority just requires that you act like you are in the majority.
This year, with a Republican majority in Congress, we have watched as 20 percent of the President’s appellate court nominees are left twisting in the wind. With a Republican majority presiding, we have watched as John Bolton, the President’s nominee for U.N. ambassador, has been personally and professionally maligned. With a Republican majority, we have seen spending skyrocket to obscene levels. With a Republican majority, we have seen the Democrats out-maneuver Republicans in the public-relations game with lame lines and gross misrepresentations.
Okay, the Senate did pass tort reform.
But a bill here or a bill there is simply not going to be enough to stem the tide of Republican voters’ righteous anger about what many are calling “Creeping Wimpiness.” Did thousands of volunteers work tirelessly to give the GOP this majority only to allow the minority to roll them on judges, policy, and other nominations? Did millions of generously open their wallets to the RNC only to see John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, and George Voinovich help the Democrats when we needed them most?
Now is not the time for Republican Senators to cling to niceties. It is not the time to call for more discussions or negotiations. Now is the time for action. Allowing the Bolton nomination to be delayed was unforgivable. (Chairman Richard Lugar was caught totally off-guard by Voinovich’s joining the Dems push to delay the Bolton vote.) Allowing Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer to brand nominees such as Janice Rogers Brown (an African American California Supreme Court justice) “extreme”, was a colossal mistake. Most of the country still does not know that never before in the history of this country has the filibuster been used to block a vote of an appeals court nominee!
The frustration felt by many GOP voters has created a unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for conservative politicians. For the first time in decades, we have no clear front-runner for the next GOP nomination. For the first time since George W. started his presidential campaign in the late 1990s, there is no clear standard-bearer for conservatives to rally round.
If a senator or governor can seize this moment, and create the type of bond with conservatives that Bush created during his nomination battle with McCain, that person could be on his way to the White House. If no one steps forward, and conservative voters increasingly watch their party kowtow to the McCains, Hagels, and Chafees of the mushy middle, then those voters will disengage from this party, meaning that the mainstream press will enjoy covering the elections of 2006 and 2008 a lot more than they enjoyed the election 2004.
4/24/2005
The NY Times calls Senator Voinovich’s betrayal of his President’s nomination for ambassador to the UN striking. Not really. Voinovich is a McCain republican, that small number of RINO’s that side with the Democrats as often as they do their own party.
What really galls me about this opinion piece is the idea that the Republican party is overreaching it’s mandate.
We are not optimistic, or naïve, enough to call it a trend yet, but there have been signs that some sensible Republicans are starting to realize that the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, are vastly overreaching any plausible electoral mandate in their quest for one-party control of every aspect of government and their demands for mute party fealty.
The sensible Republicans they refer to are exactly who I referred to earlier; John McCain Republicans who side with the Democrats as much or more than they do their own party. When you hear names such as Chaffee, Colliins, DeWine, Hagel, Snowe, Sununu, McCain, Voinovich and Warner being praised by the left as moderates or bipartisan you’ll know what’s going on.
Mr. Bush is still sticking with Mr. Bolton and Mr. DeLay. But Republican concerns undercut his attempt to paint the criticism of both men as partisan. The fast-emerging question for him and the other Republicans is, when they will realize that nothing in the American system provides for the party that wins an election to do whatever it wants, no matter what objections are raised by the minority party or even some of its own members? The point is not lost on American voters: primal party loyalty is no substitute for effective, democratic government. [Italics mine — TR]
This is really what this is all about. The Democrats can’t seem to get it through their heads that this is what the American people wanted. We the people put one party in office, and we did it because we were tired of Democrat obstructionism. We’re tired of the systematic destruction of the miltary, and we’re tired Democratic offiacials bowing to their special interest groups which are far outside mainstream America. The democratic process has worked almost perfectly over the last decade, and that’s what’s lost on our Demcrat friends.
One thing that the Republicans need to keep in mind though is that we put them there to do a job, and if they can’t do that job we will find and fund those who will. The Republican base is getting tired of weak kneed Republicans as well.
There’s Hatefilled Rhetoric, But Not From The Right
Hugh’s column in World Magazine points out that the hate filled rhetoric that the left has been talking about lately is coming from the left side of the isle, not the right. Here’s the three key paragraphs.
“Loonies,” “the American Taliban,” “Frist Jihadists,” “the Ayatollah bin Dobson”—all these terms and more were thrown at evangelical Christians last week as the controversy surrounding the abuse of the filibuster by Senate Democrats grew in scope and volume.
Any regular visitor to leftist blogs such as DailyKos and Legal Fiction is accustomed to the brass-knuckled bigotry directed at Christians who also happen to be conservative. In fact, the posts at DemocraticUnderground are even more vituperative. Many media and political circles are showing a rise in Christian-bashing.
Some on the left might say that evangelicals deserve this abuse given their own harsh rhetoric, but careful reading of the leaders of the evangelical movement reveals nothing paralleling this level of hate and anger. It is certainly true that evangelical leaders typically oppose same-sex marriage and demand an end to filibusters of people of faith like Judge William Pryor—a devout Catholic whom Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) found unsupportable because of Mr. Pryor’s “deeply held beliefs.” Evangelical leaders also support care for the very young and the very old, and urge robust participation in public affairs by people of faith. But they do not engage in personal attacks that equate their opponents with terrorists or jihadists.
I have yet to hear James Dobson, Tom DeLay or Bill Frist compare anyone on the left to the Taliban, Hitler, or the Ayatollah. When I hear someone on the right making these kind of charges then I will criticize them. Until then, it is extremely disingenuous for those on the left to call the right hateful.
4/23/2005
PC Pledge Or Political Statement
Miss Lucero thought she had a good idea. She thought that in honor of the anniversary of the shootings at Columbine she would change the words to our Pledge of Allegiance from “one Nation under God” to “Under your own belief system” . She thought she would change it to include others. Unfortunately, she didn’t stop to think she would offend the majority of Americans.
DENVER — The students in Vincent Pulciani’s seventh-grade class were reciting the Pledge of Allegiance this week when they heard the voice over the intercom say something they’d never heard before, at least not during the Pledge.
Instead of “one nation, under God,” the voice said, “one nation, under your belief system.”
The bewildered students at Everitt Middle School in Wheat Ridge never even got to “indivisible,” according to Vincent’s mother, Christina Pulciani-Johnson.
[…] […] […] Marge Lucero, the eighth-grade guidance counselor at the school, substituted the phrase “under your belief system” as she led the recitation of the Pledge on Wednesday.
After irate phone calls poured in from parents, Principal Kathleen Norton, who normally leads the Pledge but was out of the building at the time, apologized to students Thursday and sent home letters of apology yesterday.
“The principal called me later. She said she was dumbfounded. She wasn’t in the building. She didn’t approve it,” Mrs. Pulciani-Johnson said.
Meanwhile, Jefferson County School District spokesman Rick Kaufman was engaged in damage control, describing Miss Lucero’s decision to rewrite the Pledge as “inappropriate” and stressing that she had acted independently, without consulting the district or other school officials.
Mr. Kaufman said Miss Lucero had been spurred by the date, April 20, the sixth anniversary of the Columbine High School slayings. Both Columbine and Everitt are within the Jefferson County school district.
“The day was the sixth anniversary of Columbine, and she felt she should be all-inclusive, so she replaced the word ‘God,’” he said.
Mr. Kaufman refused to say whether Miss Lucero had been disciplined by the district, citing private personnel matters. He did say she was still working at Everitt.
Parents said Miss Lucero had been slated to leave Everitt at the end of the year, and Shelley Pierce, whose daughter is in seventh grade, said it appeared that the counselor was clearing out her office.
Her daughter, Bailey, told her about the incident after school Wednesday. “I was really angry,” Mrs. Pierce said.
“Legally, that’s our Pledge of Allegiance, and I don’t think anyone has the right to change it,” she said. “I’m very happy with the way the district has handled it. Nobody’s trying to defend it.”
Miss Lucero could not be reached for comment.
The episode marks the second time this year the Pledge has made headlines in Colorado. In March, voters in Estes Park recalled a councilman, David Habecker, who refused to stand for the Pledge during town meetings.
Now, I can’t begin to comprehend what Columbine has to do with changing the Pledge of Allegiance. But, then again, I’m not on of those all knowing teacher types. Color me skeptical, but considering the shape of our education system today I can’t help but wonder if this was more of a political statement than an attempt to be inclusive.
Hat Tip: Best Destiny
4/22/2005
What On Earth Is Going On In Florida?
I watched Hannity & Colmes in horror last night with millions of Americans. They announced that the news of the day was that precious little Jessica Lundsford had been sexually assaulted and buried alive.
My face burned hot with anger as I thought about what that poor girl went through in the last hours of her life. To make things worse I’ve heard that the two people who shielded the animal who did this (John Couey) from the authorities will not be charged. There has been some speculation that Jessica was still alive and on the property when police originally contacted the residents. But, the DA in Homosassa county has said that refusing to give information to the police is not a crime. He needs to loose his job.
The people who were involved in this crime should pay with their lives. No, I don’t mean life in prison or dying in prison after an endless appeals process either, I mean D…E…A…D dead. I know many on the left will think that I am a horrible person calling for the state to take the life of another person, but I really don’t care. This animal, and the people he was staying with terrorized, raped, and buried alive an innocent little girl.
Colorado has a list of convicted sex offenders in the state, and I believe that most states have the same information available. Please, if you live in Colorado, go check out this list and take note of those living in your area. Those in other states, contact your county DA’s office and find out how to get a list of offenders in your area. Children are a special gift from God. They are our future, and we must protect them.
Thanks to Jared @ Exultate Justi for the link to CBI’s list of convicted sex offenders.
4/21/2005
Joe runs a blog that called Oklahoma Democrat. Obviously looking at the name we disagree on more than we agree on. But, Joe puts out a well thought out post, and I respect that. So I went over to his site and read his most recent post and decided I would respond to it.
His first paragraph starts out:
When you boil away the jargon and look at results, you find that life in the United States has gotten far worse in recent years. Yes, terrorists had something to do with it. Giving away too many rights to the so-called “Patriot” Act had something to do with it. Extremely twisted government had a lot to do with it. That is, of course, why the jargon can’t be boiled away. With the Dubya, there wouldn’t be much left.
First of all, I wouldn’t necessarily say that life in the U.S. has gotten worse in recent years. I will say that there have been financial difficulties both in terms of the budget and the markets due to 9/11 and the GWOT, but to say that things are “far worse” is an exaggeration. Secondly, I don’t believe we have handed away too many rights to the Patriot Act. Finally, twisted government? Come on… the biggest problem we have in America right now are Democrats who continue to obstruct the work of the people.
[…] […] […] In the Senate, the Republican battle cry is “Give The President His Way!” As Democrats and some moderate Republicans fight attempts by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and others to end judicial filibusters, Americans are reminded that removing the filibuster in any form opens a wound in our Republic by allowing one-Party rule. Having one political Party is never good. Remember our friends in Germany in World War II and Russia during the Cold War? Those guys had one-Party rule and their parties also came to power legally. Do Republicans want all-Democrat government? No. Do Democrats want all-Republican government? No. Don’t allow it to happen.
I noticed a comment on Joe’s comment page that handles this quote beautifully.
How is it that denying a vote on an issue is helping multi-party rule? Not voting on a subject is not the high-ground here, let the system work, and vote. If your out-voted, well sorry, that’s democracy.
While the concept of the filibuster had its roots in a necessary idea, like many ideas, it has been used way too often. The filibuster is one of the reasons not much gets done in congress. I am not advocating a one-party system, I am just advocating that the votes be allowed, after discussion of course, but not allowing a vote is standing in the way of progress not aiding democracy.
The only thing I would add is that we need to keep in mind that the Republicans are not talking about getting rid of the filibuster on legislative items, just judicial nominees.
Of course, I didn’t answer or post all of Joe’s post. These are my key disagreements though. Once again, Joe’s post has been very well thought out, and I respect that. I just disagree.
When I began blogging over a year ago I never in my wildest imagination thought that I would ever reach the day when I needed to upgrade my bandwidth. Well, I have, and I would like to thank everyone who has visited this site. You all have made this possible (and necessary). When I was laying in a hospital bed hoping I would be able to do something — anything — again, I never thought I would have 150 people per day coming to read what I had to say. Truly, thank you all.
4/18/2005
I received an email today from the American Family Association. In it, Don Wildmon indicates that the vote to end the filibuster will take place next week. Included in the email is a letter reportedly sent from Senator McConnell to Senator Harry Reid.
April 18, 2005
The Honorable Harry Reid
S-221, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Harry:
I have reviewed your March 15, 2005 letter to Majority Leader Frist. While I certainly agree with your call to work together on the judicial nominations process, I am greatly concerned about your statement regarding shutting down Senate business and, by extension, the federal government. A government shut down would be rash and unwise, and the American people deserve better from us than such an act, which is surely inconsistent with “working together.” I urge you to reconsider taking this action.
We can all agree there is much important work to be done in the Senate. While our economy is strong, gas prices are way too high; people feel these costs every time they fill up at the pump. This Senate needs to enact a long-term energy policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In addition, our transportation infrastructure needs improving. Millions of Americans take the roads and rails everyday to get to work and keep this country moving. It is thus critical that the Senate pass a highway bill. We also must reform America’s tax code so that it is fairer for all Americans and leads to a robust economy. We need to continue our efforts to reform Social Security so it is strong and secure for future generations.
Rather than work with us in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation, the Democratic Caucus has indicated it will continue its blockade of circuit court nominees. Democrats’ continued insistence on obstructing judicial nominees threatens our Constitution’s careful separation of powers among the three branches of government. Never before in the history of the country has a minority of senators filibustered—on a systematic, repeated, and partisan basis—well-qualified judicial nominees. But in the last Congress, it occurred on ten different circuit court nominations within only sixteen months.
Majority Leader Frist has repeatedly sought to afford your caucus generous time in which to debate these nominations. But he has been consistently rebuffed, including being told on one occasion that “there is not a number [of hours] in the universe that would be sufficient” to discuss a nominee. Nevertheless, Senator Frist continues his efforts to reach an accommodation. He has invited Democrats to come to the table and work with us to restore the 200-year-old norms and traditions of the Senate. Instead of shutting down the government, I urge you to work with the Majority Leader to repair our broken judicial confirmation process.
Sincerely,
Mitch McConnell
4/17/2005
Michael over at Best Destiny has written a strong letter to Republican Senators to express his feelings — and the feelings of a growing number of the electorate. I have to say, I probably wouldn’t have said it with as much tact or as eloquently as Michael, but I agree completely.
For the second time in as many days the NY Times (this time courtesy of Frank Rich) has unleashed a mean spirited editorial against people of faith. The only thing missing in Rich’s editorial is the truth.
What is the truth? The truth is that despite months of partisan investigation DeLay has yet to be convicted of anything. The truth is that despite months of partisan investigation, Tom DeLay has yet to even be charged with anything. The truth is that this is a partisan witch hunt and Frank Rich has now thrown Christianity into the fray, and for no other reason than he cannot stand the religious right. What a shame that the paper of record [sic] has allowed it’s pages to be used for such a horrible reason.
Religious War Over Democrat Obstructionism
The New York Times, in it’s editorial yesterday takes on Senate Majority Leader Frist for daring to speak to a group of Religious leaders. To make their point though, they throw up an anti-religion smoke screen.
It is one thing when private groups foment this kind of intolerance. It is another thing entirely when it’s done by the highest-ranking member of the United States Senate, who swore on the Bible to uphold a Constitution that forbids the imposition of religious views on Americans. Unfortunately, Senator Frist and his allies are willing to break down the rules to push through their agenda - in this case, by creating what the senator knows is a false connection between religion and the debate about judges.
I wonder if the Times Editorial board knows that the separation of church and state as it has been used lately was taken from a letter from Thomas Jefferson and not from our Constitution.
Senator Frist is to appear on a telecast sponsored by the Family Research Council, which styles itself a religious organization but is really just another Washington lobbying concern. The message is that the Democrats who oppose a tiny handful of President Bush’s judicial nominations are conducting an assault “against people of faith.” By that, Senator Frist and his allies do not mean people of all faiths, only those of their faith.
As far as I’m concerned the Democrats are conducting an assault against people of the Christian faith. The primary excuse put forward by the left for holding up the vote on these judges has been that they are people of faith, and they don’t trust them to not use a faith litmus test in their decisions.
Furthermore, last time I checked it wasn’t illegal to talk to a group of your constituents about an issue that concerns them.
Senator Frist and his backers want to take away the sole tool Democrats have for resisting the appointment of unqualified judges: the filibuster. This is not about a majority or even a significant number of Bush nominees; it’s about a handful with fringe views or shaky qualifications. But Senator Frist is determined to get judges on the federal bench who are loyal to the Republican fringe and, he hopes, would accept a theocratic test on decisions.
The Times claims that this is the only way the minority has of resisting unqualified judges. What happened to the old fashioned way of garnering enough support to vote them down. The truth is the Democrats don’t have enough votes to vote down the nominees. So, what this is really all about is the minority trying to impose their will on the majority. Shame on the Democrats and the NY Times for calling it anything else.
4/15/2005
John “RINO” McCain has betrayed his party again. In my opinion he’s worse than jumpin’ Jim. At least Jeffords left the party and his damage was over relatively quickly. McCain hangs around causing trouble like a bad case of pneumonia. Here’s his latest betrayal in words.
On Thursday, one wavering Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, told a television interviewer, Chris Matthews, that he would vote against the change.
“By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees,” Mr. McCain said.
We the electorate are getting fed up with spineless Republicans who will not do what we sent them to Washington to do. The Republicans (across the board) said during their campaigning that getting George Bush’s judicial nominations through the Senate was their number two priority. Well, so far it looks as if priorities have changed since November.
A word of advice to John McCain and others like him; get your act together or pack your bags. We put you in Washington for a reason. If you won’t do what we sent you there to do then we’ll find someone else who will.
Captain Ed has a great post on the gutless wonders that we have allowed to infect the capital building. I hope Bill Frist and the rest of the leadership in Washington grow some courage soon.
4/12/2005
Big Media Asks “Gee Why Don’t They Trust Us”
Nicholas Kristof is not a happy man. He found a study by the Pew Research center that says no one trusts big media and he just can’t understand why. He spends a good bit of his column talking about how unfair the public attitude toward journalists is. Eventually he comes up some common sense solutions to the problem. Solutions such as being more willing to print corrections, more ombudsmen, and explaining to the public why they choose to call someone a terrorist.
I don’t see any easy solutions, but print, radio and television all need to take much bolder steps to reconnect with the public.
More openness, more willingness to run corrections, more ombudsmen, more acknowledgment of our failings - those are the kinds of steps that are already under way and that should be accelerated. It would help if news organizations engaged in more outreach to explain themselves, with anchors or editors walking readers through such minefields as why we choose to call someone a “terrorist,” or how we wield terms like “pro-life” or “pro-choice.”
Then Mr. Kristof talks about changing hiring practices.
We also need more diverse newsrooms. When America was struck by race riots in the late 1960’s, major news organizations realized too late that their failure to hire black reporters had impaired their ability to cover America. In the same way, our failure to hire more red state evangelicals limits our understanding of and ability to cover America today.
If you want to hire more conservatives then that’s great. I would love to see Bill Kristol or Hugh Hewitt writing a column for you, until then here’s one piece of advice:
Mr. Kristof, we in the “red states” do not need your sarcasm. We just need news given to us without the personal bias. If your paper cannot do that, maybe it should call itself an opinion journal.
4/11/2005
Time’s 100 Most Influential People
It’s sad really. To have a list of the 100 most influential leaders and revolutionaries and not include Jesus Christ. What other Man has influenced and led more people. Jesus lived over 2000 years ago and He is still leading and influencing tens of thousands of people. Wars have been fought in His name. People have died calling out for Him. But, Time didn’t see fit to include Him in their list. Here’s who they included.
George Bush
Condoleezza Rice
Bill Clinton
Barack Obama
Bill Frist
Donald Rumsfeld
Mark Malloch Brown
Gordon Brown
Ali Husaini Sistani
Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi
Hu Jintao
Kim Jong Il
Manmohan Singh
Thabo Mbeki
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Mahmoud Abbas
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ariel Sharon
Javier Solana
John Howard
Chen Shui-bian
Hugo Chavez
Muslim murderer and terrorist extraordinaire Abu Musab al–Zarqawi made the list along with North Korea’s thug - in - chief Kim Jong Il.
Under their Hero’s and Icons section I looked for Jesus there. Apparently there’s no room for Him there either.
Bill Gates
Oprah Winfrey
LeBron James
Eliot Spitzer
Melissa Etheridge
The Dalai Lama
Nelson Mandela
Viktor Yushchenko
Dina Astita
Hania Mufti
Wangari Maathai
Mary Robinson
Lubna Olayan
Ellen MacArthur
John Stott
Michael Schumacher
Stephen Lewis
Plenty of room for people I’ve never heard of, but no room for Jesus. How about under Scientists and Thinkers. Surely there must be room for him there if by thinker Time means philosopher.
Jeffrey Sachs
Malcolm Gladwell
Robert Klein
Andrew Weil
Burt Rutan
Karl Rove
Rick Warren
Brian Atwater
Mitchell Baker
Timothy Garton Ash
Natan Sharansky
Abdolkarim Soroush
Peter Singer
Richard Pound
Lee Kuan Yew
Larry Summers
No room there either. I’m really disappointed.
UPDATE: Time made their lists based on those who are live.
Red, White, And Blue Now Seen As Gang Colors
There’s a little thirteen year old girl in Mt. Pleasant New York who has made a necklace to remember the troops, two in particular who are family members. It’s made of red white and blue beads.
Unfortunately, her teachers didn’t like this and ordered her to take it off because it resembled gang colors. Red, white, and blue beads — in that order. This is ridiculous. Raven has now sued the school for the right to wear the necklace, and in retribution for the suit the school has given her an in-school suspension. Here’s the story.
Hat Tip: Gribbits Word
4/10/2005
February 1st, 2003. That was the day that the Space Shuttle Columbia came apart on re-entry. It was also the last day of the only trip I never completed. See, before I became your humble opinionated blogger I was an over the road truck driver. I ran all lower forty eight states and Canada for quite some time, then the last four years of my career I ran the eleven western states. That’s where February 1st found me. In Phoenix, Az sick, tired, and I didn’t know I was getting sicker by the minute.
These pictures are from the height of the storm. So far nine inches of snow and 30-40 mph winds.
No, that’s not sun flare on the lens. It’s near whiteout conditions.
Whoohoo, blizzard blogging. I might be able to see the same type of storm I missed in March of 2003. I missed that one because I was in ICU. We’re expecting to see 16 - 30 inches of quality sierra cement (it’s called sierra cement because of it’s wet concrete like consistancy). I hope to have some more pictures to post later today.
This was taken yesterday… yes, yesterday:
This is today as the storm is just beginning:
So far we’re about three and a half hours into the storm and we already have about six inches on the picnic table in the back yard. The pine tree that you can barely make out in the distance is in our neighbors backyard.
4/7/2005
PEA Caught Campaigning When They Were Supposed To Be Teaching
Our very own Ben Degrow who writes at Mt. Virtus drew my attention to these guys. If their claims are true, and the evidence certainly points that way, this could be big. It could lead to the complete re-vamping of the teachers union in Colorado. As I find out more about their situation I will let you know.
Dear Friends:
My name is Wayne Rutt. Together with Paul Marrick, I have filed a complaint with the Colorado Secretary of State against the Poudre Education Association. This is the teachers union in the Fort Collins school district. The hearing is scheduled for 9:00 AM on May 2, 2005, at 1120 Lincoln Street in Denver.
As outlined in our complaint we believe that the union, directed by their president who is paid as a school district employee using tax money, conducted a political campaign for the election of Bob Bacon. Using teachers, and school resources, during the school day they campaigned at the expense of our children.
We do not believe this problem is unique to our school district. Evidence would suggest this type of election activity was happening across the state. However, what is unique is our ability to take action against this affront to our children, our election process, and the misuse of our tax money.
4/6/2005
I’ve gotten some comments about my post from yesterday afternoon. Today I would like to post those comments and respond to them. The first one is from Jason C.
Seperation of church and state means you shouldn’t have to worry about a doctors religion coming into play when you go to him. That would set up a horrible precedent. If you can’t see the things that could be wrong with that there is no help for you.
By the way do you ever actually write anything yourself on your blog? All you do is quote articles and then other peoples opinions.
Comment by Jason Cuevas — 4/5/2005 @ 9:58 pm
Jason, first of all, read the first amendment. This is what it says:
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment works both ways. Those on the left are fond of not wanting religion anywhere near government. But those of us who are religious don’t want government interfering with our religion either.
As far as whether or not I write anything original… I think that on about 99% of my posts I have atleast one paragraph of original commentary on anything I link to.
The second comment was left by Morris.
If there was equality of choice as to which hospital a person could go to (ie. a religious and non-religious hospital next door to each other each offering an equal standard of care)then I might agree that the faith based hospital should be able to define some of its own rules. There isn’t so it shouldn’t.
Many of the good hospitals in this country are county hospitals or non religious hospitals. In Denver alone we have University Hospital, Denver General, and sweedish. In Dallas you have Parkland. In Chicago you have Cook County General. In New York you have NYU Medical Center. These hospitals recieve a good deal of the city’s trauma, and the nurses and doctors there truly do an awesome job. If anything, their standard of care is far beyond anything a lot of the religious hospitals are equipped to provide.
4/5/2005
RMPN And Democrats In Favor Of Violating Religious Freedom
Friend of the alliance David Harsanyi writes this week of HB 1042. “The pill bill” mandates that “religious” or Catholic hospitals “inform” rape patients about “emergency contraception”. It also mandates that the hospital dispense the pill or refer the patient to a nearby pharmacy.
Where does RMPN come into this? Well a few days ago I and some of the other members of the RMA received the following email from RMPN
“I am a victim of rape, two different times of my life. The first time left me pregnant and I immediately had an abortion. I have never in my life regretted the decision to terminate this pregnancy. And that was 22 years ago. This may not be everyone’s choice, but I am not God and it is not up to me to make that decision for anyone else.”
That was one of almost 900 responses to our poll. So far, more than 98% of respondents believe that Governor Owens Should support HB 1042 allowing victims of rape to receive information to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
Unfortunately, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family sent an alert to his followers pressuring Governor Owens to veto this bill.
EMAIL A LETTER TO THE EDITOR TODAY: click on a link below to write a letter now urging Governor Owens not to bow to extremists:
openforum@denverpost.com Denver Post
letters@RockyMountainNews.com Rocky Mountain News
openforum@dailycamera.com Boulder Daily Camera
letters@greeleytrib.com Greeley Tribune
opinion@coloradoan.com Fort Collins Coloradoan
gtop@gazette.com Colorado Springs Gazette
newsroom@chieftain.com Pueblo Chieftain
letters@gjds.com Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
Online submission form Durango HeraldPlease also send us a copy of your letter.
And if you have not yet voted or commented in our poll or have not invited your friends to participate, please do so now at: http://www.progressnow.org/poll.
We will hand deliver the poll results and your comments to Governor Owens’ office on Monday. Thank you for your participation. The health of Colorado women is at stake.
Sincerely,
Maria Handley
Outreach Director
David Harsanyi makes a good point in his article; what happened to the first amendment?
Sometimes people forget that separation of church and state works both ways.
That must have been the case when the Colorado legislature passed House Bill 1042, which coerces Catholic hospitals to offer what the state calls “emergency contraception” to rape victims.
[…] […] […] Last time I checked, the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion: not the free exercise of religion when pro-choice activists give the OK, or the free exercise of religion when there is a human tragedy involved, or even when it’s the “right” thing to do.
You see, Democrats and pro-choicers can’t have it both ways. If they want separation of church and state as defined by the courts then this bill is in direct violation of the first amendment. Come on guys, let’s try a little consistency.
As for me, I’ll join David Harsanyi in asking the Governor to veto this bill.
UPDATE: I just received an email from a source inside the State Capital Building. Governor Owens has vetoed HB 1042. Here’s the key graph:
Throughout Colorado – and our country – citizens benefit from the extra dimensions of care offered by hospitals founded by faith communities. These institutions, rooted in deeply held religious and moral values, have the right to provide comprehensive care in keeping with those values. This bill would unfairly and inappropriately infringe on the freedom of these institutions and diminish the free exercise of religion that is one of the bedrock rights Americans hold dear.
This bill does not give patients all the information that they deserve, nor does it safeguard basic freedom of conscience. Accordingly, I have vetoed this bill.
Sincerely,
Bill Owens
WW II had it’s heroes. Audie Murphy, General Eisenhower, and others. Vietnam had it’s heroes also, though they were not widel