Yesterday evening, Senate Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement on judicial nominations, and the use of the filibuster, to allow most of President Bush's nominees to receive floor votes. Lots of folks are heralding this as a good thing - but, to me, this is a failure. It is true that getting 5 judges voted on (and, most likely, in) is better than none - but this is the first President in history to have his nominations clear the Judiciary Committee (where unqualified judges are generally weeded out), but be filibustered on the floor of the full Senate. This list, culled from the Washington Times by radio host Neal Boortz, shows the percentage of nominations by post-WWII Presidents that have been approved. In prior administrations, the lowest was 77% (JFK), and there were three who were in the 80% range. President George W. Bush's judicial confirmation rate is currently 53.1%.
There are also huge problems wording of the “Memorandum of Understanding” part II. In it, these 14 folks state categorically that this agreement means nothing (as the “extraordinary circumstances” are not defined (how ordinary is a Supreme Court nomination? not very?)) and that, in effect, the Republican leadership loses (as they agree to not support a rule change, commonly called the “nuclear option”). This is unbelievable to me - why would 7 Republican Senators go along with such a spineless decision? Former Senate Majority / Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) was defeated in the most recent election, as the people of South Dakota let the nation know how they felt about his obstructionist tactics - do these folks have that short of a memory? Republicans won a clear majority in both houses of Congress, and President Bush was reelected with a clear majority of both the electoral college (which matters) and the American people (which doesn't).
My opinion - nuke 'em. Invoke the nuclear/Constitutional option, force these people to make a vote for obstructionism. The American people want results, and are growing weary of this unmitigated power grab by the minority party.
And, a few side notes…
Notice in the Memo, that it's "Majority Leader Frist and “Democrat Leader Reid” - I'm pretty sure that Senator Reid's title is not “Democrat Leader,” but “Minority Leader.” Even in a “bi-partisan” compromise, the Democrat spin machine is on high.
While on vacation last week, I had the opportunity to finish a book I started over Christmas vacation - Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror by Ann Coulter. In it, she meticulously (and I mean meticulously - there are 877 footnotes throughout 292 printed pages) details how the left, liberals, Democrats (pick your favorite label); these folks have been wrong about almost every foreign policy decision they've made over the last 50 years. (Today, another revelation occurred that, to me, shows that it hasn't stopped yet - but more on that later.)
The book starts with a look at Alger Hiss and Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy is probably one of the most unfairly maligned people in United States history - especially since, within the last decade, declassified Soviet cables (intercepted by the Venona Project) have proved his allegations true. First, she makes the excellent point that Senator Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with the House Unamerican Activities Committee (HUAC). Instead, his modest job was to identify loyalty risks serving in sensitive positions. He was very good at his job, and identified several people that needed to be moved - not fired, not tried for treason and hanged, just moved out of the sensitive positions where they were currently.
Over the past 50+ years, the left has consistently been for containment, appeasement, and has been more than willing to cede portions of our national security to keep us from having to fight wars. I can't recall who said it, but the gist of it was “If these folks were just stupid, the laws of chance would dictate that they'd occasionally be right!” One paragraph (on page 154 of the paperback edition) summarizes just how duped they were in the Cold War, while debunking the claim that Truman's policies actually won the Cold War, it just took until Reagan's administration for them to work.
To review the record, as part of Truman's yeoman work on the Cold War, he cooperated with the Soviets at the Nuremberg Trials, white-washing their joint aggression with Hitler under the Nazi-Soviet Pact. He looked the other way when the Soviet Union murdered three million Russian prisoners of war returned home by the Allies. On his watch, the Soviet army consolidated its control over nine countries, China became a Communist dictatorship, and tens of millions of people were murdered under Communist tyrannies. Truman defended Communist spy Alger Hiss as a patriot who was framed by Republicans, and he tried to indict Whittaker Chambers for perjury. He refused to remove members of his administration identified to him by J. Edgar Hoover and others as Communist agents, including Harry Dexter White, whom Truman appointed to U. S. representative of the IMF. Among the Soviet spies advising Truman on China was Frank Coe, who refused to answer the question: “Are you a Soviet agent, Mr. Coe?” Soon thereafter Coe fled to Communist China, where he became a top policy-maker to Chairman Mao, helping the Chinese murder tens of millions of their own people. Truman was considered such a dupe of the Communists that the Army refused to tell him about the Venona Project. And that's how Truman won the Cold War!
Ann continues in other chapters to discuss the Bay of Pigs invasion, where we went back on our word by not supporting the Communist resistance there when Castro had very little power; Vietnam, where we were starting to make progress until a Democrat-controlled Congress used Watergate as an excuse to leave before winning; Grenada, where we went in and defeated Communism over a weekend; the Cold War, where an arms race did prove to be the way to bankrupt the Soviet economy; Iraq, where the same arguments once used against Vietnam and Grenada were once again being brought up, but yet we prevailed (not by appeasement, or inspections, but through force); and North Korea, where recent administrations have dropped the ball, but the current one is taking a strong stand.
While those who know Ann Coulter know that she simply delights in shredding the left to pieces, the content of this book is much more important that her amusing delivery method. What this book shows is that, using the 20/20 benefits of hindsight, the left's approach to defending our country only makes us weaker. When the decision was made to not prosecute Jane Fonda for her treasonous actions during the Vietnam War, the message was sent that this country wasn't interested in prosecuting anyone for these types of actions. So, Hollywood and the media have been more than willing to participate in this as well - which brings us to today's happenings.
Last week, Newsweek magazine ran a story that claimed that, as an interrogation technique, the Army had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. This caused riots in Afghanistan, where 15 people have been killed and over 100 injured. Today, they ran another article where they said that their source for that piece of information is now unsure that that's what happened. (Separately, they have claimed that this is not a retraction of the story.) So, what we've got here is an international news magazine including uncorroborated hearsay from a single source in a story, claiming it as fact. I have several problems with this.
First, didn't Newsweek learn anything from the CBS News / Bush ANG document fiasco? The public deserves better, and our troops on the ground certainly deserve better fact-checking before they have to contain riots for no good reason.
Second, why was Newsweek so eager to run this part of the story? I believe it's the same reason that CBS News ran with the Bush ANG story - they wanted terribly for it to be true. For all their accusations, it's the left in this country that doesn't seem to realize that the “War on Terror” is not a “War on Islam”. They want us to disrespect Islam, so then they can say they were right.
Third, this bad decision has placed our military in harm's way. Iraq is not the only place we've got a military presence, training locals to take over their own security. Afghanistan is farther along than Iraq, but we're still there. With claims like this, even if they are true, publicizing them as some scandalous new revelation gives aid and comfort to our enemies. All they need is one story like this to fire them up for days - and now, not only have they given the opposition the morale boost, 15 people are dead because of it. There's no way that either the reporter or the editors will be tried for either treason or murder - but I believe a case could be made for either of those charges.
Finally, what does it matter if they did do it? I'm not a student of Islam, but as a Christian, I believe the Bible is the holy, inspired Word of God. Any feeble attempt by man to eliminate it is simple futility - others have attempted to destroy God's Word, and have had little success. Flushing paper and ink down a toilet does not come anywhere close to destroying it - only that copy. I would think that Muslims would feel the same way about their holy book - but, I may be wrong. I don't see what it would hurt, though - these terrorists already call us the Great Satan!
If you have the opportunity, pick up Ann's book at the store or library, and read through it. It's a great analysis of conflicting foreign policy over the last 50 years - and, it's fun to read to boot!
Saturday, February 12, 2005
10:30 am
Daniel J. Summers
Sunday's win by the New England Patriots over the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX, their 3rd win in the past 4 years, has solidified this team as this millennium's first NFL dynasty. Coach Bill Belichik and quarterback Tom Brady (both off to the NFL's best postseason records) are but two of many outstanding teammates on this well-rounded team. While the first half was a defensive battle, punctuated by very untimely turnovers by both sides, the second half saw the Patriots open up a lead that proved to be insurmountable.
“I don't know what happened,” said Donovan McNabb, quarterback for the Eagles. “We were having a pretty good game. New England is the type of team that likes to open things up early, and when the first half ended 7-7, I thought we had a pretty good shot.” Head Coach Andy Reid spoke up next. “Coming down the stretch, though, we really had it rough. (Patriot Kicker Adam) Vinateri and his “Field Goal for Truth” put us down by 10 points, and that late in the game, it was just something we couldn't overcome.”
While they openly congratulated the Patriots on their win, there are strong feelings among many of the Eagles that the Patriots don't really have a mandate to traipse about the country proclaiming themselves “NFL champions.” “You know, we scored more points against the Patriots than any other team had since February 1st. And, of all the points scored in the game, we scored almost 47% of them,” an unnamed teammate said. Another chimed in, “Really - can they really go around saying ‘We won’ when they only won by 6%? These folks are just arrogant.”
And, while the Eagles are grousing about the closeness of the game, other sections of the country are complaining about being disenfranchised. “You know, this was really a regional game - Boston and Philadelphia are just 300 miles apart! Hopefully we can avoid this disenfranchisement next year. Heck, with us going 2-14 last year, we're trying to make sure the NFL doesn't disenfranchise us,” said Mike Nolan, recently named head coach of the San Francisco 49'ers.
Warren Sapp of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers was more direct. “For New England to say they are ‘World Champions’ is ludicrous. Did they play anyone from Canada? Mexico? Europe? I don't think so. These commentators talking ‘dynasty this’ and ‘dynasty that’ are really [torquing] me off.” His tone changed a little when asked about his XXXVII (2003) Super Bowl ring. “Well, you know, we really had a tough season that season. To come in with a new coach, and overcome losses and fines, that meant something. I don't think those goody-two-shoe Patriots have had a dollar of fines in the whole lot of them.”
Is this true? Of course not. The Patriots won fair and square, after a hard-fought contest, and by a slim but adequate margin. No one would dispute their claim to the 2004 NFL Championship. Sadly, similar claims by those in the political arena are true. Think about this the next time you hear a DNC talking head prattling on about “no mandate” for our President. (And, for those of you who think the above just isn't really all that funny - don't worry, I'm not quitting my day job.)
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
9:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Ran across this quote today in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web Today (January 26th, 4th item down), written by an editor of a leftward-leaning magazine…
“And if a new Supreme Court overturns affirmative-action laws, Democrats will need to pursue equality in ways that avoid treating whites and blacks differently.”
Ya think? (Maybe that's what they should have pursued to begin with…)
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
11:10 pm
Daniel J. Summers
There is word today from the fight for Fallujah that we have now uncovered a kidnapper's area where they housed, and eventually butchered, innocent civilians. (Story linked here) This is the place we couldn't find back when they were taking what seemed like a hostage a day, in a mostly futile attempt to get nations to pull their troops or businesses out of Iraq.
This makes my blood boil, and I'm tired of skirting the issue. Our pre-election policy on Iraq was driven by what appeared, to the President, to be an unwillingness on some parts of our nation to continue a large push - plus, had he started the Fallujah offensive before the election, he would have been accused of wagging the dog. Thanks to this delay, several people who were not combatants (oil truck drivers, reporters, construction workers) have been kidnapped, their families tortured beyond belief by seeing their loved one on Al-Jazeera, and eventually killed. There has also be a toll we've paid in servicemembers' lives, due to ambushes that have been set up by holdouts in Fallujah.
Those who oppose our troops when they are on the ground are traitors. Debates over what plan to use are valid, but this “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” rhetoric wasn't intended to spark policy debate - it was intended to pander to anti-war and anti-American people here and abroad, while still trying to pander to those who feel that a strong defense is essential to our national security. Now, we find that if we'd just pressed into Fallujah the way we did in Baghdad, no matter what “sacred” landmarks may be there, we would have denied these kidnappers their capability to carry out these dastardly acts.
Whether you're for or against the war - whether you like or don't like President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld - it is vitally important that, now that we're there, we don't tie our military's hands, especially with partisan political concerns. The only way out of Iraq that will keep us safe is to go through it - anything less will be seen by the terrorists as “the point” up to which we can be pushed, at which point we'll back down. I'm all for “bringing the troops home” - but not in a way where we'd have to send more over in a few years. Fight on!
By the way - they just came on the news and said that Yassir Arafat has died. That's the best news for peace in Israel we've gotten this century. The man was an avowed terrorist who did nothing but foment hate among his people against the rightful occupants of that land. Let's hope that their next leader will put an end to violent groups such as Hezbollah, and denounce rogue terrorists.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
9:25 pm
Daniel J. Summers
John Kerry and John Edwards (“Kedwards” hereafter) are making some significant claims about their plan for this country, and using some pretty strong but rather hackneyed rhetoric to get their point across. The term “demagoguery” is defined as “impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace.” Democrats are renowned for this, from the “New Deal” to Clinton's famous “I feel your pain,” Democrats base a lot of their policies on what they can spin to appeal to emotions, rather than facts. Let's take some of these areas, specifically some of those having to do with economics, and see why, I believe, Kedwards is wrong for America.
Tax Cuts for the Rich
This has been a favorite claim of Democrats for ages, and it shows a basic lack of understanding regarding basic economic principles. The biggest thing that Democrats have wrong is their belief that taxes are the governments, to be “given back” to the people. Taxes are the people's money, given to the government to fund needed programs, such as national defense, highways, etc. Tax cuts are not “giving back,” they are letting people keep more of their money.
Another problem with their rhetoric is that speaking of taxes in dollar amounts is inherently going to sound skewed to someone who isn't paying attention (which, sadly, represents a lot more of our current electorate than we'd like). Imagine that there are two people - one makes $10,000 a year, and the other makes $200,000 a year. In this imaginary world, everyone pays 10% taxes. This means that person A pays $1,000 in taxes a year, and person B pays $20,000. Now, here come the media reports about a budget surplus, and Congress and the President decide to cut taxes by 1%. Person A saves $100, and person B saves $2,000 - in both cases, a 10% reduction in the total amount of taxes they have to pay. If you use Democrat thinking, person B got 95% of the tax cut.
Tax cuts benefit everyone. Those who make more, by virtue of simple mathematics, will receive a larger amount reduction whenever tax rates are lowered. However, these are also people who will use this money to reinvest in our economy, either through business expansion (which leads to more jobs), investments in stocks and bonds (which helps fund the economy), or through charitable donations (which improves the quality of life in local communities).
Another point on tax cuts - sometimes a reduction in the tax rate can actually increase tax income. If done correctly, tax cuts don't have to be “paid for,” they pay for themselves. If a gas station lowers its price for unleaded gasoline by $.02 a gallon, they will more than make up for their $.02 loss with their increase in volume. Taxes work the same way - when the rates are reduced, the economy grows; so, while we all pay less rate-wise, we pay more in real dollars. Everyone wins.
Minimum Wage Increase
Yet another favorite topic, and another place that Democrats don't understand economics. A wage is a negotiated contract between employee and employer. Most often, all negotiating is done on the part of the employee, as an employer would say “Here's a job, and here's the pay - want it?” Very few people are raising families on minimum wage, and in their “average annual minimum-wage salary” statistics, the Democrats are including teens, college students, and spouses who work as secondary wage earners in their household. When the government interferes in business by forcing them to pay their entry-level workers more, what do the businesses do? There are either fewer entry-level jobs, or the products and/or services the company produces begin costing more.
There is one segment of the population who benefits from minimum-wage increases - union members. Many union contracts stipulate their wage in relation to the minimum wage - when it increases, their wages increase as well.
Corporate Tax Loopholes
Again, more cries of how these evil corporations are trying to get out of paying their taxes. And, yet again, this is a place that the Democrats don't just get it. They miss it because, economically, there is no such thing as a “corporate tax”. There is a finite amount of money in this country, and corporations only have money if they extract it from the general public. The most common method is by providing a good or service for which people will give their money. With this money, they have to cover their operating expenses, the cost of the good or service itself, the cost of paying their employees, and what is left is called “profit.” Under the current structure, they also have to pay taxes with that money, which eats into profits. The company sets their price based on a few factors, two of which are desired profit, and the market value of their good or service.
With that, what happens when the government takes more money from the corporation? Who pays that tax? The general public, that's who. Corporate taxes make everything cost more, while giving no benefit to the economy whatsoever. All they do is penalize success.
(Things have been pretty crazy here lately - lots of work and family events, with little free time. I hope to have time to attack some other lines from Kedwards in the next few days.)
Saturday, September 11, 2004
6:20 pm
Daniel J. Summers
(This one's long, but I hope you take the time to read it and think…)
Three years ago, our country was attacked. It was not the first terrorist attack on our interests, or even the first attack on our own soil. But three years ago was, by far, the most successful (from the terrorists' point of view) attack on us yet. Over 2,500 innocent Americans lost their lives over the span of a few hours. Looking back, the fact that this number is so much lower than it could be (around 100,000 people were employed in the two WTC towers) is due to the grace of God, and the heroic efforts of firemen and policemen who helped thousands of folks flee to safety after the towers and the Pentagon were hit. Still, the fact remains that we were attacked on our own soil, and that attack resulted in a large loss of life.
Sit back from the computer for a minute or two and think back to where you were, and the thoughts that went through your mind that Tuesday morning. I remember very vividly where I was. A co-worker said “someone flew a plane into the World Trade Center!” It clicked for me right away, although it took some time to accept it - with all the talk about it being an accident, I didn't buy that. Moments later, as we all watched on our IPTV windows, we saw the second plane hit. All the talk of an accident evaporated in an instant - we were under attack. More bad news - another one hit the Pentagon - was there an explosion outside the State Department? - a plane went down in Pennsylvania - FAA grounds all flights - international flights are turned back. We went to FPCON Delta, the post-attack posture under which every vehicle coming on and off base is searched, and, for a time, no traffic is allowed on or off base.
I also remember clearly that all these things weren't what was foremost in my mind. My oldest child was going to school only during the mornings on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, so they weren't gone when it happened. I live on base, so I knew that I wouldn't have to leave the base, and neither would my family. I was still concerned for them, though - what if our base is on the target list? At this point, we didn't know nearly as much about al-Qaeda as we do now. I came home and just held my wife, then my kids. My second child was barely over 1, so he was pretty much oblivious; but my 2 1/2-year-old (who even then was very bright) couldn't understand why they would fly those planes into those buildings. He also didn't understand why mom and dad were crying, or near tears, the whole time.
I'm going to link that amazing site that's linked at the bottom of the page - never forget what happened that day. Since that day, we've engaged in two major theater wars - one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. Despite warnings of quagmires the likes of which we haven't seen since Vietnam, we have been successful in both these operations, installing democracy and freedom into two areas of the world that desperately need it. During that time, we've lost 1,000 combined in those two theaters. In Vietnam, that number was over 58,000. (source: DoD) It's a tribute to our men and women in uniform who have shown ceaseless dedication to their country, and to the development and use of the best tools of war on the planet. Although some may classify me in that category, as stateside support, the only thing I've sacrificed for this war is a few longer hours. I am deeply grateful to my comrades in arms who are out there in the desert, on the lines, loading bombs, driving patrols, doing everything they can to keep us free and return home to their families.
This is the reason it is so important to have a leader in this country who is not afraid to stand up to terrorists. When the WTC was attacked the first time in 1993, we did nothing. When the Kenyan embassies were bombed, we did nothing. When the USS Cole was bombed, we did nothing. Could we not see this coming? When I was in school, I was told that studying history was important, because “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.” I believe that. We've seen what inaction brings, and we cannot afford inaction any more, not even if it's cloaked in the term “diplomacy.” Since 9/11/01, al-Qaeda has struck in Bali, Madrid, and most recently, in Russia, as well as cooperating with Hezbollah in bringing terrorism to Israel.
Americans are, collectively, the most kind-hearted people in the world. We recognize the true threat that lies before us, and we are choosing to take the fight to them. I have a really hard time not questioning the intelligence of someone who thinks we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who used instant execution, limb removal, and rape as methods of governmental punishment. He used WMD on his own people in the north, and was completely uncooperative with United Nations inspectors who were verifying that he had stopped production. And the “there were no WMDs” crowd doesn't seem to consider enough Sarin gas to kill 60,000, or a large stash of low-enriched unranium, to be weapons of mass destruction. I say to those folks, how would like for what we've found to be detonated or released in your neighborhood? Would it become a WMD then?
So, we've got a dictator, who rapes, mutilates, and kills his own people, who has taken a hit out on a sitting United States President, and who is sympathetic to terrorists. Even the most obtuse among us should be able to see that we do not need that man in possession of WMDs, or even parts that can be made into such. Russia is our ally, and even they have some suitcase nukes they can't find. How much more easily would it be for nuclear or chemical weapons to find their way into terrorists' hands if the leadership of the country just hands it to them?
During the Republican National Convention, just after President Bush's speech, I listed to the talking heads dissect it. (I think the channel was on CBS.) The folks there said that the parts of the speech that dealt with domestic issues got applause, but with nowhere near the passion of the applause in the national defense portion. I think that's because the vast majority of Republicans (and a lot of Democrats, which is why I predict Bush will roll in November) know that without a secure national defense, domestic programs are meaningless. You may have seen this, but I'm posting it here in case you haven't. Stephen Ambrose said “It is the soldier, not the poet, who gives us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the reporter, who gives us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom to protest. It is the soldier who serves beneath the flag, who salutes the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives the demonstrator the right to burn the flag.”
So, on this Patriot Day 2004, remember the lives of those whose crime was only that they got to work early that morning. Remember the 1,000+ defenders of freedom who have lost their lives while ensuring that anything like 9/11 never happens again. Remember the sons and daughters who will be celebrating Thanksgiving and Christmas this year, for the first time, without their mom or dad. Remember the spouses, who have lost a life partner and best friend. Thank the Lord that you live in a country that does not let these acts of aggression stand, and thank the Lord that George W. Bush made the tough decision to defend our nation. May God bless this great nation.
Wednesday, September 1, 2004
9:45 pm
Daniel J. Summers
The Republican Party is missing an opportunity this week in New York. I don't think it'll be a fatal mistake, by any stretch. Britney Spears, former virginal Mouseketeer who has become a bit more sensual as of late, is a Republican. There had been some folks considering inviting her to the Republican National Convention to entertain the delegates. However, some groups within the RNC claimed that her presence would send the wrong message to the nation.
Britney has, in the past, done much to make the nation blush. From her appearance on Nickelodeon's Kids Choice Awards wearing a white tank top and no bra, to her kiss with Madonna last year during MTV's Video Music Awards opening act, from her initial video that some said played on the “naughty schoolgirl” image, to her more recent videos that are quite sensual (the award-winning “Toxic” being bounced from daytime play on MTV after the Super Bowl incident), she has given folks plenty of room to develop these concerns. For many of these folks, the straw that broke the camel's back was her 55-hour marriage last year.
However, Britney seems to have turned a corner. She's been dressing a bit more conservatively (and, no matter what she wears, she's still going to be smokin'), and she seemed to be willing in initial overtures to her to perform at the RNC. The inclusiveness already demonstrated at the convention is great, and I think that a Spears appearance would have gotten the GOP some votes among younger voters. And, with class acts such as Martina McBride and Faith Hill there for her to hang out with and learn from, who's to say that an invitation might just have been the acceptance that she needed to continue her transition to becoming a real woman.
Acceptance is a powerful motivator, especially to someone who is trying to make a change. Jessica Simpson originally wanted to be a Christian singer; but, due to her well-endowedness, no Christian label would sign her. How different would her life and music be if she had received encouragement from the Christian community, and spent her teen years among Christians, instead of out in the pop world?
The true irony in all this is that Kid Rock was invited to play an after-party at the convention. If Kid Rock can lend his support, why not Ms. Spears?
Thursday, August 26, 2004
9:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
And so little time to say it!
John Kerry - I can't believe that we have an anti-war activist running for President who is actually being taken seriously. I also can't believe that the self-same anti-war activist is running for President on his war record. I guess now that the military is back in vogue, the Democrats like it.
Gov. Jim McGreevey - At least he has more respect for the state of New Jersey that Bill Clinton had for the nation. Although it's now coming out (no pun intended) that the cause is corruption more than his penchant for those of like gender, his stepping down is the right decision. (He is muddying the issue with his “I am a gay American” schtick - that link has a very interesting take on that part of the situation.) I think he should step down immediately, though, rather than his political ploy of not stepping down until after the election.
The Olympics - Go Team USA! And congratulations to all the folks who, through their individual and team accomplishments, have made our country proud. Check out the medal count on NBCOlympics.com.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - Keep on keepin' on. McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional, and will be ruled as such by the time the next election rolls around. It's amazing that no one was upset when these 527 groups accused President Bush of poisoning pregnant women (a charge that is repeated on the Democrats' own web site [scroll to the bottom]), but let them use facts to challenge something a Senator says, and now they need to shut up. (Still no call for moveon.org to stop their ads…)
President Bush vs. Catwoman - Sharon Stone recently said that because of President Bush, there wasn't a lesbian kiss between she and Halle Berry in the movie Catwoman. I'm not quite sure I buy that - why would arch-enemies be kissing in the first place? And, if our President could control Hollywood, wouldn't he be using that control to silence the hateful drivel from Michael Moore and his ilk? Sharon Stone has had plenty of opportunities to play oversexed bisexual characters (in fact, wasn't that her first big role, in Basic Instinct?).
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.