Friday, February 03, 2006

See the Light

Happy Friday.

Some of my favorite people are those who vote republican because they claim to be "fiscally conservative" although "socially liberal." It's a great excuse for what can only amount to one of two things: greed or bigotry (maybe both, in same cases).

The election of the new House Majority Leader, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), by the GOP caucus eviscerates such thinking. Rep. Boehner consistently has voted in favor of a socially conservative agenda imposing, for example, his personal religion on the nation (see below). There goes that argument.

How about fiscal conservatism, the hallmark of which is controlled spending and budget surpluses? Spending has increased 30% over the five years of Dubbya's tyrannical reign. The current national debt totals $8,202,381,905,119.75 , or $27,485.59 for every man, woman, and child. For those who could stomach the State of the Union, the L.A. Times presents the actual facts underlying Tuesday night's spin (lies?) that the economy is "robust." There goes that argument.

The GOP agenda is not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It is fiscally classist and socially draconian. These are the facts. It's time to see the light.
____________________________________________________________
  • For School Prayer and Amending the Constitution: Rep. Boehner supported a school prayer amendment to the United States Constitution in 1997 (H.J.Res. 78), 1999 (H.J.Res 66), and 2001 (H.J.Res. 52); voted to permit school prayer "during this time of struggle against the forces of international terrorism" (House Roll Call Vote 445, Nov. 15, 2001); and voted to only allow federal aid to schools that allow prayer (House Roll Call Vote 85, March 23, 1994).
  • For Forced Religion in Anti-Poverty Programs: Rep. Boehner voted to permit taxpayer-funded anti-poverty programs to require aid recipients to join in religious activities. (House Roll Call Votes 16 and 17, Feb. 4, 2004)
  • 100% Against a Woman's Right to Choose: Rep. Boehner received a "0%" pro-choice score from NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2005.
  • For Religious Employment Discrimination: Rep. Boehner voted to permit taxpayer-funded anti-poverty programs to engage in federally-funded employment discrimination. (House Roll Call Votes 15 and 17, Feb. 4, 2004)
  • Against the Rule of Law in Ten Commandments Case: Rep. Boehner voted to prevent the Justice Department from enforcing a court order to remove a 5,000 pound Ten Commandments monument from Alabama's state supreme court. (House Roll Call Vote 419, July 23, 2003)
  • Against Common-Sense Environmental Safeguards: Rep. Boehner voted for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (House Roll Call Vote 122, April 20, 2005); voted to gut the Endangered Species Act (House Roll Call Vote 506, September 29, 2005); and voted to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act (House Roll Call Vote 242, June 15, 2004).
  • For More Religious Employment Discrimination: Rep. Boehner voted to permit taxpayer-funded job training programs to engage in religious discrimination when hiring and firing employees with federal funds. (House Roll Call Vote 46, March 2, 2005)
  • Against Confronting Proselytizing at the Air Force Academy: Rep. Boehner voted against an amendment to squarely address religious coercion and proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado. The amendment criticized "coercive and abusive religious proselytizing" of cadets at the Academy while observing that "_expression of personal religious faith is welcome" throughout the military. (House Roll Call Vote 283, June 20, 2005)
  • Led the Effort to Inject Religious Employment Discrimination into Head Start: Rep. Boehner added a controversial amendment in September to a previously bipartisan School Readiness Act which would "allow federally funded early-child-care providers to discriminate on religious grounds."
  • Pushed Ohio Schools to Embrace "Intelligent Design:" People For the American Way reports that Rep. Boehner and fellow Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Chabot wrote to the Ohio school board claiming that legislative language required that references to "Intelligent Design" be included in Ohio's science standards. In fact, such language was removed from the relevant education bill before it became final.

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that's more like it.

Preach on, Bro!

8:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah... I can't argue with that. Of course that's what happens when government is used to promote idiosyncratic ends rather than being responsive to the issues that face (and plague) the nation. That's the true evil in partisanship - shouting "hooray for our side" rather than observing "wow... the country is getting really f***ed up... maybe we should do something about that". Question of the hour - will the Democrats, upon returning to "power" (which will happen eventually - either this year or soon after) prove themselves the wiser by heeding the warnings of the present, incoherent policies, or will they take the opportunity to exact revenge in kind? Are we entering a period of Enlightenment or plunging deeper into the Dark Ages. Fingers crossed.
Lucid observations, Happy Friday. Nice rebound.

9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MMonte-

Your question's an interesting one, for a few reasons. The only reason I've even considered "supporting" the Dems in '06 is to get the numbers to impeach & convict President Pinocchio. For the same reason, I'd support and vote for a Republican, Independent, Communist or Nazi who ran on an "Impeach His Ass" platform (ok, I wouldn't vote Nazi, but pretty much everyone else is on the table).

The part that fascinates me, however, is whether such opposition gains would cross the line from impeachment/necessary policy change, to the outright "revenge" you brought up. In the interests of peace & unity here at the Happy Friday Ranch, as well as sticking to a one-day-at-a-time plan, I'll leave that one alone for now. But you can probably guess what I think'll happen.

Another thorny issue rises from the realities of American politics. Pretty much the only way to boot out an entrenched party is to link arms as march forward as one. But then, as you suggest, you end up with another entrenched party. That's what happened with the Dems in the 60s and 70s. They got fat, arrogant & lazy (and I'm not talking about Tip O'Neill specifically), leading straight to the to dreadful events of November, 1980. Looking back through the lens of history, the 1980 election seems anything but surprising.

Finally, you ask whether the Dems, or any party, could "prove themselves the wiser," and change course based on past mistakes. But I don't think any group, any club, can gain "wisdom," per se, the way that an individual can. The Big Tent nature of a party, the need to compromise vision in order to raise moeny and win election precludes sagacity. It's about winning, about gaining power. Nothing else has much to do with it.

But the current "power" is so heinous, so outrageous, that it's worth it to support the lesser of two evils. I'll hold my nose and pull the lever for anyone that'll vote "yea" to impeach or convict that lying sack of shit in the White House. Send him back to Crawford. He's lucky we don't send him to Gitmo.

10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike - You're very eloquently outlining the pragmatist view on this matter. Surprisingly, as I have gotten older, I have become more idealistic and have a problem accepting the notion that reality makes things the way they are. I hold fast to the notion that we can change the status quo without compromising our values. I quote (more like paraphrase) from "A Man For All Seasons") -

- So you would cut through the law to chase down the Devil?
- Yes I would.
- And when every law in the land was cut down and the Devil turned on you, where then would you take refuge. No... I would give the Devil benefit of the law... for my own safety's sake.

The surprising evolution of my idealism is rooted in a growing power to shape my surroundings - that comes with accomplishment and experience. The "bad guys" of this world (and I believe W and his friends fit the description) can be outwitted - with intelligence and an appeal to the "better angels of people's natures". But you have to choke off the chain of misdeeds and corruption. Simply using those tactics to replace and unseat one set of bad guys will guarantee that the next group will be just as bad. Now is precisely the time to insist that things be done according to the law and morality. Corruption in the service of virtue is no virtue at all.

10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well spoken, and a neat summary of my philosophy . . . 99% of the time.

But -- in opposition to what I thought & said in '04 when I voted Third Party, as I always do -- we're living in the 1% right now.

Or maybe I'm just a total screw up who lacks the "growing power to shape my surroundings" because I've failed utterly at bringing "accomplishment and experience" into my life. ;-)

I'm joking.

Sort of.

11:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, they say that admitting you have a problem is the first step. ;)

If there were absolutely no examples of enlightened leadership in this country's history, I'd be foolish not to suscribe to raw pragmatism. But things change, and have changed for the nation's entire run. I think a good example is Nixon. In '60, Nixon ran a squeaky clean race, only to be beaten (and questionably at that) by the sort of corruption we're talking about. If he had any sort of character, his subsequent campaigns and administration would have benefitted from a refusal to sinkl to that level. Instead, he affirmatively chose the politics of cynicism and paid (along with the whole country) an unacceptable price for it. What we need are leaders who come to that crossroad and make the right choice - to rise above the mud and use their intelligence to win office and change the landscape. The dividing line, I suppose, is whether we believe those leaders are out there. I suppose I'd be living somewhere else if I believed they are not out there. What you've described, albeit grounded in undeniable reality, is simply too grim and hopeless to accept. After all, it's our country as much as it is theirs... why should we just let the Philistines have it? It's the system that's wrong... simply changing the actors won't do anything. Smart people like ourselves and our host need to focus on changing people's attitudes about what is truly acceptable and what they can do to change it. I agree with you about the "third party" approach. Our host once suggested getting inside the system and changing by force of will and character (and not being co-opted). Sounds good to me.

11:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well this sucks:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak

12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As if we needed further illustration. Oy!

3:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home