I am thinking of moving bRight & Early to my own web space. I've been working on the layout for a few hours (ok, many hours) now. Please take a look and leave your comments here or at the new site. You can go to
http://brightandearly.1southernyankee.com to take a look.
6/11/2005
6/10/2005
Loose End Wrap Up
Just a few short comments and a few loose ends to wrap up.
First, I wanted to let you all know that the second part of Stan Guthrie's interview with David Limbaugh is posted. In it Limbaugh lays out his thoughts on different components that make up conservatives.
Ankle Biting Pundits has several great posts (as always), including ones on the Boston Longshoremans Union story, the Senate GOP and Social Security, and the always popular Judge Elihu Smails "Buffoon Of the Week" Award.
Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters (another daily read) helps shine the light on a little discussed portion of the Amnesty International press release accompanying their annual report. No, not the ridiculous "gulag" comment, but what is in my opinion an even more outrageous statement. Read "Did Amnesty International Call For Kidnapping Of American Leaders?"
Michelle Malkin consistently finds links to the best stories on the net. Read the stories linked in "A Chance Reunion" and "The Eternal Vigilance Society" as well as any of the others on her site. Great stuff there always.
The three "uncontested" judges (Owens, Brown, and Pryor) from the "Memorandum of (Mis)Understanding" have been confirmed along with Griffin and McKeague. Confirm Them has links to the vote tallies for all five.
Finally, I received my first negative comment on my "Voices from the left" post. I found two things about the comment a bit ironic. First, she started out with the word "Typically". Now, if she is referring to this blog, that's a little hard to understand as I only started blogging here two weeks ago. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was talking about us "racist, bigot, homophobes" in the general sense ;) . What I found really laughable is her statement that "you don't say that quotes are wrong, just that they're shrill." What? You can read my response by clicking on the comments link on that post. What do you think? Have a great weekend. I'll see you Monday if not before.
First, I wanted to let you all know that the second part of Stan Guthrie's interview with David Limbaugh is posted. In it Limbaugh lays out his thoughts on different components that make up conservatives.
Ankle Biting Pundits has several great posts (as always), including ones on the Boston Longshoremans Union story, the Senate GOP and Social Security, and the always popular Judge Elihu Smails "Buffoon Of the Week" Award.
Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters (another daily read) helps shine the light on a little discussed portion of the Amnesty International press release accompanying their annual report. No, not the ridiculous "gulag" comment, but what is in my opinion an even more outrageous statement. Read "Did Amnesty International Call For Kidnapping Of American Leaders?"
Michelle Malkin consistently finds links to the best stories on the net. Read the stories linked in "A Chance Reunion" and "The Eternal Vigilance Society" as well as any of the others on her site. Great stuff there always.
The three "uncontested" judges (Owens, Brown, and Pryor) from the "Memorandum of (Mis)Understanding" have been confirmed along with Griffin and McKeague. Confirm Them has links to the vote tallies for all five.
Finally, I received my first negative comment on my "Voices from the left" post. I found two things about the comment a bit ironic. First, she started out with the word "Typically". Now, if she is referring to this blog, that's a little hard to understand as I only started blogging here two weeks ago. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was talking about us "racist, bigot, homophobes" in the general sense ;) . What I found really laughable is her statement that "you don't say that quotes are wrong, just that they're shrill." What? You can read my response by clicking on the comments link on that post. What do you think? Have a great weekend. I'll see you Monday if not before.
6/09/2005
Congressional Comparatives
Do you remember learning about comparatives in grade school? "An adjective or adverb expressing the comparative degree." You know. Big, bigger, biggest. Happy, happier, happiest. You can also use more and most as in talented, more talented, most talented. I recall learning that an adjective or adverb could apply to a large group of objects (The kids have big dogs). The comparative limits the size of the group (Dick, Bill, and Condi have bigger dogs). And here is my point, the superlative can only refer to one object (George has the biggest dog).
"That's your point?" you may ask. It is. Think of it as a public service reminder to the Senators debating judicial nominees. Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor, Jr. have all been called President Bush's "most extreme" nominees. Now I understand that grammatically you can group objects together and apply the superlative to them (Dick, Bill, and Condi have three of the biggest dogs). However, as the grouping becomes larger the specifics of the point you are trying to make diminishes. If you add Myers, Saad, Kavanaugh, McKeague, and the other Presidential nominees to the group that are "Most Extreme" the effect of the superlative shrinks even further. I urge the Senators to remember that when they invoke (and you know they will) the "Most Extreme Circumstances" clause of the Memoradum of (mis)Understanding.
Judges Owens and Brown have been confirmed. Debate has been closed on William Pryor with a vote to follow soon. My optimistic side thinks that the rest should be easy, right? The cynic in me expects to hear the phrase "most extreme" from the Senate floor both soon and often. See you tomorrow.
"That's your point?" you may ask. It is. Think of it as a public service reminder to the Senators debating judicial nominees. Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor, Jr. have all been called President Bush's "most extreme" nominees. Now I understand that grammatically you can group objects together and apply the superlative to them (Dick, Bill, and Condi have three of the biggest dogs). However, as the grouping becomes larger the specifics of the point you are trying to make diminishes. If you add Myers, Saad, Kavanaugh, McKeague, and the other Presidential nominees to the group that are "Most Extreme" the effect of the superlative shrinks even further. I urge the Senators to remember that when they invoke (and you know they will) the "Most Extreme Circumstances" clause of the Memoradum of (mis)Understanding.
Judges Owens and Brown have been confirmed. Debate has been closed on William Pryor with a vote to follow soon. My optimistic side thinks that the rest should be easy, right? The cynic in me expects to hear the phrase "most extreme" from the Senate floor both soon and often. See you tomorrow.
6/08/2005
Voices from the left
Reading some of the quotes that are coming from leaders on the left leaves me with raised eyebrows and a mouth agape. That they say them is dumbfounding, but that they believe these things is downright scary.
Here are a few examples:
"I hope the president recognizes that he has an obligation (to provide the document requested by the Senate minority)" - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
"They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party" - DNC Chairman Howard Dean
"There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda," - NY Senator Hillary Clinton
"Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." - Dean
(Republicans are trying to) "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality" - Reid
"I think this guy (President Bush) is a loser." - Reid
"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." - Dean
(Tom DeLay) "ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence." - Dean
"I can tell you this: It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don't care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth." - Clinton
Sadly, these are but a few recent quotes. Like a lot of you, I'm torn between being outraged by the shrill rants and encouraged by the obvious implosion of the left. They remind me of school yard taunts. No matter, the real truth is that people of ideas will trump those who can only jeer and tear down. Let's get on with ideas. See you tomorrow.
Here are a few examples:
"I hope the president recognizes that he has an obligation (to provide the document requested by the Senate minority)" - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
"They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party" - DNC Chairman Howard Dean
"There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda," - NY Senator Hillary Clinton
"Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." - Dean
(Republicans are trying to) "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality" - Reid
"I think this guy (President Bush) is a loser." - Reid
"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." - Dean
(Tom DeLay) "ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence." - Dean
"I can tell you this: It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don't care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth." - Clinton
Sadly, these are but a few recent quotes. Like a lot of you, I'm torn between being outraged by the shrill rants and encouraged by the obvious implosion of the left. They remind me of school yard taunts. No matter, the real truth is that people of ideas will trump those who can only jeer and tear down. Let's get on with ideas. See you tomorrow.
6/07/2005
The Vote on Janice Rogers Brown
The senate is scheduled to vote today on the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown, who has been waiting in limbo since November of 2003, is the second "controversial" nomination to come up for a vote. Priscilla Owens was confirmed several weeks ago and sworn in Monday. Detractors portray her as a judicial activist with a record of supporting limits on abortion rights, limits on corporate liability, and opposing affirmative action. In my opinion, all good reasons for moving her on to the DC Bench. In reality, however, her record is one of judicial restraint and the belief that judges should interpret the law, not create it.
Here is the thing that astounds me. In most, if not all, of the rhetoric surrounding the President's nominees the left appears to argue that if the judges decline to rule in a proactive way that supports their agenda then they are activists. What? If you can read between the rhetorical lines you see that what the left tries to disguise as an argument against judicial activism is in fact just an argument against anti-liberal bias. It has become a merry-go-round mind-set that sees anything contrary to the support of liberal doctrine as right-wing activism and any mention of judicial activism from the right as interference with an independent judiciary, "radical" dogma, and creating an atmosphere of violence against judges. The inconvenient fact that none of that is true does little to stop the incessant calliope music that accompanies this ride to nowhere.
Their arguments against Judge Brown are based mainly on speeches she has given rather than decisions she has rendered. One argument that is repeatedly presented is her dissent in San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco. Peter Kirsanow examines this, along with other issues surrounding Brown, in this NRO Article.
Finally, Brown is among the "protected" group of nominees on the "Memorandum of (one-sided) Understanding". It will be interesting and perhaps informative to listen to the left as they reluctantly, but benevolently, "allow" this nominee to receive the vote she deserves. I think that the quote from Harry Reid is particularly telling. "We've spent weeks and weeks debating radical judges," he said. "But we haven't spent a single day debating a health care plan, or a jobs plan, or an education plan that will help hardworking Americans. Radical judges don't deserve our attention."
I can't get the Calliope music out of my head. :-)
Here is the thing that astounds me. In most, if not all, of the rhetoric surrounding the President's nominees the left appears to argue that if the judges decline to rule in a proactive way that supports their agenda then they are activists. What? If you can read between the rhetorical lines you see that what the left tries to disguise as an argument against judicial activism is in fact just an argument against anti-liberal bias. It has become a merry-go-round mind-set that sees anything contrary to the support of liberal doctrine as right-wing activism and any mention of judicial activism from the right as interference with an independent judiciary, "radical" dogma, and creating an atmosphere of violence against judges. The inconvenient fact that none of that is true does little to stop the incessant calliope music that accompanies this ride to nowhere.
Their arguments against Judge Brown are based mainly on speeches she has given rather than decisions she has rendered. One argument that is repeatedly presented is her dissent in San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco. Peter Kirsanow examines this, along with other issues surrounding Brown, in this NRO Article.
"Taylor suggests that Brown's dissent from the majority opinion upholding the law indicates she "would invalidate laws redistributing wealth from one group to another." Obviously, such invalidation could affect much New Deal and Great Society legislation, including Social Security and Medicare.
But Brown's dissent is not nearly so expansive. Rather, it's wholly consistent with mainstream (although, admittedly, libertarian-leaning) jurisprudence that holds that broad societal burdens may not encumber the property rights of a discrete or insular class of individuals. Moreover, Brown was referring only to laws pertaining to real property rights, not legislation that may otherwise have the effect of redistributing wealth (Social Security, etc.)."
Finally, Brown is among the "protected" group of nominees on the "Memorandum of (one-sided) Understanding". It will be interesting and perhaps informative to listen to the left as they reluctantly, but benevolently, "allow" this nominee to receive the vote she deserves. I think that the quote from Harry Reid is particularly telling. "We've spent weeks and weeks debating radical judges," he said. "But we haven't spent a single day debating a health care plan, or a jobs plan, or an education plan that will help hardworking Americans. Radical judges don't deserve our attention."
I can't get the Calliope music out of my head. :-)
6/06/2005
Ronald Reagan
It's been a year since we lost one of the greatest voices for America in the person of President Ronald Reagan. The connection I feel toward him has two additional threads; He an my mother shared February 6th as their birthday and he gave the commencement speach at my high school (Glassboro High School-Glassboro, NJ) on June 19, 1986, even if that was a dozen years after my own graduation. I'd like to take a moment to look at a few things he said in that speach. The entire text can be found at: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/61986e.htm
His conclusion conveyed what I believe is one of his most outstanding attributes, his unbridled optimism.
We thank God for gift we had in Ronald Reagan. He is missed but in no way forgotten. Ours is "a story of goodness as well as greatness." He was both.
"You know every generation is critical of the generation that preceded it and feels it must discard many of the mores and customs of those who had gone before. Our generation felt that way, and so will yours. But in casting aside the old, don't throw out those values that have been tested by time just because they're old. They're old because their value has been proven by many generations over the years and, yes, the centuries."He made a very accurate distinction between our customs and our values. This is a valuable lesson for all generations. At times we can be overwhealmed by the changes that occur around us. From advances in technology to changes in styles, these things only represent customs. Values are unchanging. We can not let our outward changes allow us to stray from the unchangeable values.
"Certainly the American story represents one of the great epics of human history. Yet ours is a story of goodness as well as of greatness."Another subtle distinction. Ours is a great nation, but it is also a good one. We have strength, but we also have compassion. We have military might, but we also have a nation of compasionate, giving people. Our history is repleate with examples of us reaching to those we have defeated and helping them back to their feet. Reagen, in his address, quoted former Prime Minister of Australia John Gorton: "I wonder if anybody has thought what the situation of comparatively small nations would be if there were not in existence the United States, if there were not this great, giant country prepared to make those sacrifices.''
His conclusion conveyed what I believe is one of his most outstanding attributes, his unbridled optimism.
"There are moments, indeed, when those of my generation fear that your youth and health and good fortune will prove too much for us -- too much for us who must tell you that good fortune is not all that life can present, that this good fortune has come to you because others have suffered and sacrificed, that to preserve it there will come times when you, too, must sacrifice. Then our fears are dispelled. It happens when we turn from our own thoughts to look at you. We see such strength and hope, such buoyancy, such good will, such straightforward and uncomplicated happiness. And if we listen, before long we hear joyful laughter. And we know then that God has already blessed you and that America has already imprinted the love of peace and freedom on your hearts. We look at you, and no matter how full our own lives have been, we say with Thomas Jefferson, "I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.''"
We thank God for gift we had in Ronald Reagan. He is missed but in no way forgotten. Ours is "a story of goodness as well as greatness." He was both.
6/03/2005
An open letter to Howard Dean
Dear Dr. Dean,
Your remarks at the Campaign for
You said, “We need a new president and a new Congress who will fix the private pension plans.” And, “Pension plans ought not to be controlled by companies.” Are you kidding? The last thing I would want, and I think the worst thing for working Americans, would be for government to have any say in my company pension. That’s not to say that there haven’t been abuses by some companies. Still, I like my odds a lot better with most companies than with the government. So please, keep your hands, and your regulations, off of my money. Nothing good can come from letting government, especially a democratic party controlled government, anywhere near my retirement money.
On voting you made some very confusing comments, like “I think every single American ought to be able to vote!” Dr. Dean, I’m pretty sure that they can. All they need to do is follow the election laws, show up at the right place, and be able to push the right button, check the right box, or pull the right lever. Can there be difficulties? Sure. Are there systemic issues that can be better? Of course. Still, none of these things takes away a persons right or ability to vote. I have been voting since the 1976 Presidential election. I’ve voted absentee. I’ve voted on paper ballots that were hand counted. I’ve lived in precincts where I’ve been in and out in minutes and in ones where I’ve waited for hours. No matter what the situation was, I was able to vote. It almost seems as if you are saying that if the Democrats don’t win there must have been a problem with the election process.
But most disturbing of all was your comment that, “Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.” You’re kidding, right? I guess the question is what do you consider an honest living? I realize that you only said, “a lot of them,” so I’m sure you weren’t talking about people like me who work at an hourly job (and still make time to vote). Maybe you were talking about those who are rich and work for a large salary, but that can’t be it since I’m pretty sure that it’s not dishonest to have a high paying job. Could it have been people who have inherited their wealth and live on that income? Wait, that’s legal too. So, I guess you were just talking out of your hat. Do you have any idea who makes up the right?
Finally, I have to admit you did say something I agreed with. “The greatest blow to
6/02/2005
My Philosophy of life
Nothing in the news struck my interest this morning, so let me share what I call my philosophy of life:
Always be content. Never be satisfied.
You were expecting Plato? It sounds contradictory, doesn’t it? Perhaps I should explain what I mean. My work will serve as an illustration. I am content in my job. I like the people I work for and with. I enjoy what I do. When I drive in each morning I look forward to going there. All of that is a choice. A choice I’ve made. I could have made the choice to focus on negatives, but I don’t, so I am content with my job. That’s not the same as being satisfied. I want more. More challenges, more responsibility, more recognition, more money. Here is where this all comes together. It is my belief that many, if not most, people get it reversed. They’re satisfied with their job, but they’re not content. I see this a lot with co-workers of all ages. The attitude of, “This job is awful, but I can’t find anything better” is heard repeatedly.
Your personal life can be treated the same way. I am content with my life; the things I have, the relationships I enjoy, the activities I participate in. Still, I never want to become satisfied. Relationships need to be growing. I could be more active in things I want to pursue. And things, if acquired with the proper attitude, priority, and perspective, can make life more enjoyable. To go through life only being satisfied, but never being content must be miserable. It’s the philosophy of settling for.
How about in the political arena? What? You thought I was going to ignore politics all together this morning?
One group (I’ll let you figure out which is which. I know you can do it) believes that
How about the other group? What do they believe about
Because I face life (and politics) with my philosophy everything is alright. I believe that those who share my view will always come out ahead. Well, that’s what I think this morning. Have a great day.
6/01/2005
Being a Christian
Stan Guthrie has a great interview with David Limbaugh. He sums up my feelings very well saying,
Are Christians perfect? No. Are all who call themselves Christians really believers? No. Do true Christians always behave correctly? No. Of course not. Yet, all of these are brought up as reasons to keep Christians out of the public discourse. What the left doesn’t seem to grasp is that Christianity is something that becomes, not a part of you but, a reshaping of who you are. We are being asked to check our Christianity at the door. But it can’t be done. It’s not a coat or hat that we wear on special occasions, but it is as much a part of our being as the color of our eyes or the size of our feet.
I encourage you to read the whole interview. David presents a great case for tolerant-intolerance becoming real intolerance becoming persecution. We can not allow it to happen and survive as a nation.
“As Christians, I think we owe it to Christ to speak the truth and not to cower from it for fear of disapproval by the popular culture. I don’t want to wear it on my sleeve or turn people off by getting in their faces, but I do believe I should boldly proclaim my faith and discuss it in my columns when it is relevant to the topic I’m discussing.”This is exactly right and it is still a right that hasn’t been taken away, despite what you may have read in the MSM. We have gone from a culture that accepted the Christian Church and it’s ideals to one that tolerates publicly any religion but Christianity. The liberal rant that Christians are trying to turn America into a theocracy are as relentless as they are baseless. Evangelical Christians, in general, don’t want to turn America into a Christian State, but would rather lead individuals to Christ. No written laws can control behavior; they can only prescribe consequences for their violation. A truly changed heart needs no additional laws. Behavior is determined by belief, not fear of consequences.
Are Christians perfect? No. Are all who call themselves Christians really believers? No. Do true Christians always behave correctly? No. Of course not. Yet, all of these are brought up as reasons to keep Christians out of the public discourse. What the left doesn’t seem to grasp is that Christianity is something that becomes, not a part of you but, a reshaping of who you are. We are being asked to check our Christianity at the door. But it can’t be done. It’s not a coat or hat that we wear on special occasions, but it is as much a part of our being as the color of our eyes or the size of our feet.
I encourage you to read the whole interview. David presents a great case for tolerant-intolerance becoming real intolerance becoming persecution. We can not allow it to happen and survive as a nation.
5/31/2005
The Dog Ate My Homework
Personally, I think most of the to do over the lax reporting of travel paid for by special interest groups is amusing. This isn’t to say such reporting should be ignored or lapses investigated. Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), former chairman of the House ethics committee, said in an AP story that, "There is no particular sanction (for tardiness) if you come back and file. They get lax. They don't think about it. People will be more aware now. The ethics committee will be more aware that it's a problem."
What amuses me are the excuses being offered by the men and women in office.
A spokeswoman for House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the office searched the files after the travel issue was raised initially by "Republicans doing opposition research to deflect from their own ethical issues." [The “He hit me first” defense.]
Some other goodies:
I didn’t know I had to file [Try a variation on this one if you’re pulled over for a traffic violation.]
We sent them in, didn’t you get them? [This one always works with the IRS.]
It’s in a pile on my desk. [I use this one at work. It has the added advantage of giving you an excuse for your messy desk.]
But my favorite has to be from Maxine Waters (D-CA). "Sometimes they run late because the people who are responsible for inviting you have to get you all the receipts and they are so slow."
Perspective is a wonderful thing.
What amuses me are the excuses being offered by the men and women in office.
A spokeswoman for House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the office searched the files after the travel issue was raised initially by "Republicans doing opposition research to deflect from their own ethical issues." [The “He hit me first” defense.]
Some other goodies:
I didn’t know I had to file [Try a variation on this one if you’re pulled over for a traffic violation.]
We sent them in, didn’t you get them? [This one always works with the IRS.]
It’s in a pile on my desk. [I use this one at work. It has the added advantage of giving you an excuse for your messy desk.]
But my favorite has to be from Maxine Waters (D-CA). "Sometimes they run late because the people who are responsible for inviting you have to get you all the receipts and they are so slow."
Perspective is a wonderful thing.
5/30/2005
Memorial Day
. . .Americans pay tribute to those who have given their lives in the service of our nation. As we honor the members of our Armed Forces who have died for our freedom, we also honor those who are defending our liberties today. Our citizens live in freedom because patriots are willing to serve and sacrifice for our liberty. . .Today a new generation of Americans is making its own sacrifice on behalf of peace and freedom, and some have given their lives.In their hometowns, these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are more than names on a roll of honor. They were friends and neighbors, teachers and coaches, classmates and colleagues. Each was the most important person in someone's life; each had hopes for the future, and each left a place that can never be filled.
We mourn their loss, and we honor their sacrifice. We pray for their families. And we take heart in knowing that these men and women believed deeply in what they were fighting for.
- President George W. Bush (radio address 05.28.05)
My father was too young for Korea and too old for Vietnam. One of my uncles served in Vietnam, came home whole, and served until his retirement. Why am I telling you this? Just to say that I realize that many people have a much more personal reason for their feelings and emotional investment today. Still, all Americans have cause to remember these patriots, these heros. It is for all of us that they sacrifice so greatly. Our safety, security, liberty, and freedoms are all paid for with their many great sacrifices. They have sacrificed their time, their families, their bodies and their lives. There is nothing we can do that will even begin to repay them for all they've given, but today we try.
Today many of us will take a day off from work, cook out, and spend time with our families and friends. Those who we remember would surely have no problem with that. It is things like these for which they have worked and fought and died so we can enjoy. But while we are enjoying the fruits of our freedom let's remember those who allow us to be free. I don't believe that anyone has ever said it better than Thomas Paine in his first "Crisis" paper:
The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. (I encourage you to read the entire essay here)
Thank you. May God bless you for all you do and for all you have done. I pledge, and ask others to join me, to never forget your great gift, nor it's price.
5/27/2005
Blocking Bolton
By a vote of 56-42 the Senate failed to move forward on the confirmation of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. The claim of wanting still more information appears to be the left's "new" delaying tactic. Senator Joseph Biden(D-DE) said Democrats do not want to postpone an up-or-down vote indefinitely but conditions their willingness to vote on the administration providing the classified information regarding government intelligence on Syria, and instances in which Bolton asked for names of fellow U.S. officials whose communications were secretly picked up by a spy agency.
It sounds very reasonable, but let's call it what it really is: another way for the minority to thwart the will of the President, the Majority, and the people who elected both. You will see the truth in that statement unless you believe that additional documents, testimony, hearings, questions, or debate will change even one vote. Let alone six. Like a magician, the minority left tries to use misdirection to keep us from seeing what they are really doing. Sadly a significant portion of the population is going, "ooohh, aaaah". I can almost here the left saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Well, we need to expose the fraud for what it is, and point out every instance where the left tries to behave as if they are still in control.
It sounds very reasonable, but let's call it what it really is: another way for the minority to thwart the will of the President, the Majority, and the people who elected both. You will see the truth in that statement unless you believe that additional documents, testimony, hearings, questions, or debate will change even one vote. Let alone six. Like a magician, the minority left tries to use misdirection to keep us from seeing what they are really doing. Sadly a significant portion of the population is going, "ooohh, aaaah". I can almost here the left saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Well, we need to expose the fraud for what it is, and point out every instance where the left tries to behave as if they are still in control.
5/26/2005
Social Insecurity
How can anyone with a 401k, or even a savings account of their own, continue to have trouble with President Bush's suggestion of private accounts for inclusion in any Social Security fix. The options without private accounts are like trying to fix a flat tire with bubble gum.
From the White House website:
To keep the promise of Social Security alive for our children and grandchildren, we need to fix Social Security now once and for all. We can not pretend the problem doesn'’t exist. The fact is Social Security will go broke when our young workers get ready to retire. Every year we wait the problem becomes worse for our children.
I can only wish that they had put a plan like this in place earlier. I'll be turning 50 this year; very close to the cut off that's been suggested. The alternatives are not much to look forward to. Higher taxation, reduced benefits, and all without the ability to pass on what I don't outlive. What kind of answer is that? This kind according to Michelle Malkin:
In other words, Republicans would give Democrats almost everything they want and get virtually nothing in return. Sounds like the kind of plan John McCain and other Senate "mavericks" will enthusiastically support.Senator McCain, et. al. : Don't you get it? We're the majority. Let's act like it for a change.
5/25/2005
One down
Priscilla Owen was confirmed 56-43 which included yes votes from Dems Robert Byrd(D-WV) and Mary Landrieu(D-LA) and a no vote from Chafee(R-RI). It appears as if the nomination of Robert Bolten will be up next. Fox news is reporting that,
"The Senate began debate on Bolton's nomination immediately after confirming one of President Bush's most controversial nominees for a federal judgeship. A Senate vote on Bolton's nomination would end weeks of wrangling over whether Bolton, an outspoken State Department official, mistreated co-workers or took liberties with government intelligence."
I believe it is not a matter of if, but of when the ridiculous Memoradum will be tossed out. Will it be on Bolton, Rogers-Brown, or one of the other nominees?
5/24/2005
The Thoughts behind the Memo
I was able to find a special copy of the memo that has been imprinted with the actual thoughts of the signers. Here is that historical document:
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid.
[We had to say that, even though Frist is a right-wing religious radical who thinks that wining means something.][We had to say that because we want them to like us, really like us]
This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.
[Hehehe, they’re actually buying it!]
[Why are they smiling?]
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
[Throw ‘em a bone, it’ll make it look like we’re being “reasonable”]
[See, they’re being reasonable]
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
[That is if you don’t count our commitment to vote against anything or anyone the President supports][We’re sure they’re going to be reasonable]
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith.
[Yeah, right][Of course]
Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
[extraordinary circumstances=submitted by a Republican President][extraordinary circumstances= ]
B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
[Yeah Baby! They’d probably gives us the Majority Leadership if we could get a bigger shovel for this pile][We’re being reasonable. It’s only fair that we give up something, seeing how willing they’ve been to compromise]
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations.
[So, just ask us. We’ll tell you which “centrist” (hehehehehe) is acceptable][They are being SO reasonable]
We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
[You’re the President? So what? We’re Democrats and it is our (higher power, deity, greater self) given right to be in charge][I hope they don’t think we’re being to hard on them]
Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
[Because you don’t let us have the power even though we are in the minority][We can’t have rancor. That would mean they don’t like us]
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
[Thank goodness it’s not the Constitution we have to seek to uphold][SO Reasonable]
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid.
[We had to say that, even though Frist is a right-wing religious radical who thinks that wining means something.][We had to say that because we want them to like us, really like us]
This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.
[Hehehe, they’re actually buying it!]
[Why are they smiling?]
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
[Throw ‘em a bone, it’ll make it look like we’re being “reasonable”]
[See, they’re being reasonable]
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
[That is if you don’t count our commitment to vote against anything or anyone the President supports][We’re sure they’re going to be reasonable]
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith.
[Yeah, right][Of course]
Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
[extraordinary circumstances=submitted by a Republican President][extraordinary circumstances= ]
B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
[Yeah Baby! They’d probably gives us the Majority Leadership if we could get a bigger shovel for this pile][We’re being reasonable. It’s only fair that we give up something, seeing how willing they’ve been to compromise]
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations.
[So, just ask us. We’ll tell you which “centrist” (hehehehehe) is acceptable][They are being SO reasonable]
We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
[You’re the President? So what? We’re Democrats and it is our (higher power, deity, greater self) given right to be in charge][I hope they don’t think we’re being to hard on them]
Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
[Because you don’t let us have the power even though we are in the minority][We can’t have rancor. That would mean they don’t like us]
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
[Thank goodness it’s not the Constitution we have to seek to uphold][SO Reasonable]
Making book on filibuster detente
A compromise has been made. Fourteen "moderate" Senators, seven from each party, have added their signatures to a deal that would allow the voting to go forward on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Others would still be subject to the obstructionist threat of filibuster. In other words, they will be obstructed and the will of the majority will not be heard. When I'm speaking of the majority in this instance, I am not talking about the majority in the Senate, I am referring to the REAL majority, the American people that elected these Senators to office. I can understand, and support, filibusters on legislation. But it is my opinion that not granting a vote on these and future nominees is a gross abuse of the constitutional role of "advise and consent". How you can parse that to "block and thwart" is beyond my understanding.
Let me make just a few points about this situation. Those in favor say that it keeps checks and balances in place. Excuse me? Checks and balances have nothing to do with the Senate. Checks and balances are in place to curb the power of the branches of government, not to give the minority party a majority status. Note to the milquetoast middle: Republicans-You won, now do what the people elected you to do. Democrats-The Republicans won, have your say with your vote and move on.
"It's been this way for 214 years. You can't just change the rules in the middle of the game." That sounds good, to bad it's just not true. The Senate rules regarding unlimited debate have been changed more than half a dozen times, including the fairly recent change of requiring only 60 votes to close debate.
Still, my biggest issue with this compromise is that the right did all the compromising. Why stop there? Should we even up sides? "We'll give you four Senators now and moderate to be named later if you'll just be nice to us and say nice things about us in the press." Makes me want to choke, but then I'd spit coffee out of my nose. I just don't see the minority party restraining themselves when it comes to future nominees. One of the seven is going to say, "Sorry but that candidate is too extreme, so all bets are off." The fair-minded Republicans will stick to their word and not vote to end this ridiculous charade and highly qualified judges will be blocked by the side that lost seats in the last election, is in the minority in the Senate, and who's track record on fairness (politically speaking) is totally in doubt. In fact is there anyone who will give me even money that the left will show restraint when it comes to future debate on judges? Anyone? I could probably give 2:1 against (or higher) and still come out a winner.
From Confirm them here is a list of the signers:
Republicans: John McCain (AR), John Warner (VA), Mike DeWine (OH), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lincoln Chafee (RI).
Democrats: Ken Salazar (CO), Ben Nelson (NE), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joseph Lieberman (CT), Mark Pryor (AR), Robert Byrd (WV) and Daniel Inouye (HI).
Please, let these mis-guided souls know that they are wrong, that the memo they signed is wrong and that supporting them in the future will be wrong and won't be happening. So, if your not going to take my bet on future filibuster detente will you at least better the odds for the future with your checkbook and your ballot.
Let me make just a few points about this situation. Those in favor say that it keeps checks and balances in place. Excuse me? Checks and balances have nothing to do with the Senate. Checks and balances are in place to curb the power of the branches of government, not to give the minority party a majority status. Note to the milquetoast middle: Republicans-You won, now do what the people elected you to do. Democrats-The Republicans won, have your say with your vote and move on.
"It's been this way for 214 years. You can't just change the rules in the middle of the game." That sounds good, to bad it's just not true. The Senate rules regarding unlimited debate have been changed more than half a dozen times, including the fairly recent change of requiring only 60 votes to close debate.
Still, my biggest issue with this compromise is that the right did all the compromising. Why stop there? Should we even up sides? "We'll give you four Senators now and moderate to be named later if you'll just be nice to us and say nice things about us in the press." Makes me want to choke, but then I'd spit coffee out of my nose. I just don't see the minority party restraining themselves when it comes to future nominees. One of the seven is going to say, "Sorry but that candidate is too extreme, so all bets are off." The fair-minded Republicans will stick to their word and not vote to end this ridiculous charade and highly qualified judges will be blocked by the side that lost seats in the last election, is in the minority in the Senate, and who's track record on fairness (politically speaking) is totally in doubt. In fact is there anyone who will give me even money that the left will show restraint when it comes to future debate on judges? Anyone? I could probably give 2:1 against (or higher) and still come out a winner.
From Confirm them here is a list of the signers:
Republicans: John McCain (AR), John Warner (VA), Mike DeWine (OH), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lincoln Chafee (RI).
Democrats: Ken Salazar (CO), Ben Nelson (NE), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joseph Lieberman (CT), Mark Pryor (AR), Robert Byrd (WV) and Daniel Inouye (HI).
Please, let these mis-guided souls know that they are wrong, that the memo they signed is wrong and that supporting them in the future will be wrong and won't be happening. So, if your not going to take my bet on future filibuster detente will you at least better the odds for the future with your checkbook and your ballot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)