Wednesday, July 21, 2004
10:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Arnold Schwarzenegger (R - CA), the Governor of California, made some waves over the weekend by calling members of the legislature who have failed to pass a budget "girlie-men." One would think that the San Francisco delegation wouldn't like being called out, but he was talking about more than just them. The California legislature seems to be taking a page from the US Senate - stall legislation so you don't actually have to vote on it. Last week, the US Senate failed to vote on cloture for the Federal Marriage Amendment. What this means is that these folks can go home and campaign, and try to convince the conservative among their constituency that they're not really against it, but they just didn't have a chance to vote for it.
This is the same technique the same estimable body of legislators has used to keep judicial nominees from receiving their due up/down vote. These “elected leaders” also voted not to change cloture motion voting rules, so that each takes successively fewer and fewer votes to break a filibuster. As the author in article stated, the now Democrat minority in the Senate is using a technicality to thwart the will of the people - and these are the folks who were screaming 4 years ago that voters were disenfranchised! They've taken Slick Willie's obfuscation to a whole new level - the Republicans can't use my voting record against me if I don't actually vote!
This really comes down to a character issue. One of the favorite slogans of the Democrats in elections past was that character didn't matter - only a candidate's ability to do the job. I submit that the job of President of the United States, or Federal legislator, demands character - these critical leadership positions are chosen by the people based on what the candidates say. Now, I know political double-speak has been around for longer than I have; what I'm talking about is the lack of character, as a whole.
These people may just be a reflection of today's society. Can you believe someone when they tell you “'til death do us part?” 2,000,000+ couples a year can't. You used to be able to believe someone if they said they would do something - now, you end up suing them for breach of contract when they don't do what they signed saying they would do. Politicians have long talked out of both sides of their mouths; but, you usually were able to go to their voting record and see if their actions and words agreed. The new “girlie-man” technique removes this - how do you know for whom to vote if you don't know how those folks would vote on the issues? This was Gov. Schwarzenegger's point - are you going to represent your constituents by voting the way they want you, or by voting the way Political Action Committees want you vote? As it turns out, there is a third option - throw a hissy-fit over a hyphenated word (lifted from a skit on SNL), and prove that the Governator had you pegged all along.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
3:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
He's at it again. The 42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Blythe (Slick Willie, Bubba) Clinton, has resurfaced to promote his new book. Some folks fault him for not accepting the Sudan's offer to give us Osama bin Laden several years ago. In his defense of himself, he's providing many of us a reminder of just how grating he is to listen to. Did he admit that he had dropped the ball on that particular occasion? (Come on - are you kidding?) Did he adamantly deny this charge? He tried - he said "There was a story, which is factually inaccurate, that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that."
That's not a denial, folks; that's an assertion. “Factually inaccurate” means that the story could have the wrong date, or inaccuracies in the timeline - the phrase sounds nice, but it had a different meaning than “substantively inaccurate,” which is how I would describe something like that. (Actually, I probably would have called it a “pack of lies” or something like that…) And to his next phrase - he can't bring himself to say “I didn't do it,” he uses the cop-out “There's not a shred of evidence of that.” (If you'll recall, he's used that phrase before - when speaking of Mark Rich, the fundraising of Charlie Trie (paragraph 3), even when describing his own life. I saw that one person said “The proper way to parse that statement (“There's not a single shred of evidence”) is 'There are many shredded pieces of evidence.'” And, as if that's not a wishy-washy enough statement, he preceded it by saying “as far as I know.” Does this mean he's not sure whether there are shreds of evidence (or maybe even whole pages his staffers missed)?
This is the sort of pedantic double-speak that makes Clinton so dear to his party, and so frustratingly annoying to those not in his party. I would think that someone who was trying to rehabilitate their reputation would start talking straight. Ladies, think about it - if you accused your husband of having an affair with someone, and he said “As far as I know, there's not a shred of evidence that we ever had an affair,” would you be satisfied with that answer? What you would hear is something like “We did, but we covered our tracks really well, I think.” Back when the Godfather (Rush Limbaugh for those in Rio Linda) came into popularity (way back during Bush 41's presidency), one of his most common themes was that “words mean things.” (Sounds like a no-brainer, right?) Through Clinton's use of terms like this, and his creative narrowing of common terms such as is and sex, he harmed the moral fabric of this country immensely.
This mysogynistic, impeached rapist, who was held in contempt of court while seated as this nation's top executive officer, needs to go back into the shadows from where he came. The policy differences some folks have with our current President are nowhere close to Clinton's pattern of personal corruption, abuse of power, and illegal activities. Let's just hope against hope he doesn't become our first “First Gentleman”…
Passage of the Day
“For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” –
2 Corinthians 5:14-15(ESV)