Someone like Rudy might be good for the country, contingent on his views on judicial appointments. He's pro-choice. That is what would garner him many non-gop electoral votes. If he came out for W-like judicial appointments (one of a couple W stances/accomplishments about which there should be unabashed conservative pride), he could reconcile the two and show the real problem with rulings like Roe v. Wade (this is provided social conservatives are not as overbearing on legal conservatives as they are with regard to economic conservatives, which is my primary interest in conservatism).
He could say "I believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution. Does that mean I am no longer generally pro-choice? No. It means that I understand and have respect for the Constitution, particularly the 10th amendment. I believe, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the time, that such issues (gay marriage) should be decided at the state level."
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Are We There Yet?
I was thinking the other night...
It seems a little disappointing to me that, in three races, the better candidate is likely to lose. I'm thinking DeWine (not as likely as...), Santorum and Mark Kennedy. All three appear to me, based in part on the debates I've seen, to be the better of the candidates in their respective races. Santorum appears much more passionate than Casey, and more solid. Klobuchar seems a bit jittery next to Kennedy's calm demeanor. And I just can't believe that Ohioans would vote to put someone like Brown, and all he stands for and with the votes to prove it, over someone like DeWine.
Those three baffle me. I can only chalk it up to climate, particularly in DeWine's case. Burns, Talent and Corker, however, are just facing good, solid and sometimes smooth candidates. The only one of those that I can see has done anything notable to hurt himself is Burns.
I have also seen recently why third party candidates, for the most part, remain on the fringe and are not taken seriously. There was a debate this weekend amongst the many candidates for Henry Cuellar's seat here in the San Antonio are (he, incidentally, was absent). An Independent candidate looked uncomfortable, as if he was up there because he lost a bet or something. The candidate from the Constitution party had no clue about the minimum wage and the Clean Air act. He came out and said he didn't really have an opinion on the former while he claimed to not know much about the latter. He was certainly a contrast to that party's candidate for President a couple years ago. And then there was the fire-breathing Libertarian candidate for the Montana Senate seat. "Impeach Bush" this and "Impeach Bush" that!
This is kinda why I'm looking forward to November 8th.
It seems a little disappointing to me that, in three races, the better candidate is likely to lose. I'm thinking DeWine (not as likely as...), Santorum and Mark Kennedy. All three appear to me, based in part on the debates I've seen, to be the better of the candidates in their respective races. Santorum appears much more passionate than Casey, and more solid. Klobuchar seems a bit jittery next to Kennedy's calm demeanor. And I just can't believe that Ohioans would vote to put someone like Brown, and all he stands for and with the votes to prove it, over someone like DeWine.
Those three baffle me. I can only chalk it up to climate, particularly in DeWine's case. Burns, Talent and Corker, however, are just facing good, solid and sometimes smooth candidates. The only one of those that I can see has done anything notable to hurt himself is Burns.
I have also seen recently why third party candidates, for the most part, remain on the fringe and are not taken seriously. There was a debate this weekend amongst the many candidates for Henry Cuellar's seat here in the San Antonio are (he, incidentally, was absent). An Independent candidate looked uncomfortable, as if he was up there because he lost a bet or something. The candidate from the Constitution party had no clue about the minimum wage and the Clean Air act. He came out and said he didn't really have an opinion on the former while he claimed to not know much about the latter. He was certainly a contrast to that party's candidate for President a couple years ago. And then there was the fire-breathing Libertarian candidate for the Montana Senate seat. "Impeach Bush" this and "Impeach Bush" that!
This is kinda why I'm looking forward to November 8th.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Trickery
Greer is getting too smart for me. Last night, after about an hour of getting on to the girls about going to bed, I went to bed. When I was brushing my teeth I heard Greer right outside my door calling me. I told her that if she was out of her bed I was going to swat her bottom. When I opened my door she was standing there and coyly looked at me and said, "I love you." Downstairs Chris started laughing, then Greer smiled (knowing she got me), and Reese started laughing. Needless to say, I didn't spank her, but told her I loved her, too, and that she needed to go to bed. Her and Reese ran off giggling into their room.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
My Enlightened Wife
It's funny what can inspire one to a revelation.
We were headed to eat at Johnny Carino's when we saw a bumper sticker that read "Marriage = (figure of a man) + (figure of a woman)". I don't remember what we were talking about at the time, but Jenny pondered aloud "You know those polls that always say a solid majority says the country is going in the wrong direction? What are the chances that when people answer 'yes', they have such things in mind?"
I was floored. I had never thought about it like that. I felt fooled by the media again because those poll results are usually always published right before or after the president's approval rating; the current president. Even though I know for a fact that the economy is strong, for those who choose to be involved, I always thought for sure that was a major component of peoples' answers to that question. I honestly never thought further than that; what more could it mean.
It all-of-a-sudden is completely believable to me that such a high percentage (63% in the latest realclearpolitics.com average) does indeed believe that. Only now, I think many of them are thinking about, for one, the assault on marriage as it is traditionally viewed. I personally do not have a problem if homosexual partner, if recognized under the law as such, has the same rights as a heterosexual spouse. But I stop short of declaring them as 'married'. I can't really put my finger on it, but, to me, just like the bumper sticker read, marriage is between a man and a woman. That's just what I believe, and I don't think I have to justify that to anyone.
Or how about the disrespect/callous disregard/cold-blooded attitude toward innocent, unborn life? True, one of W's best accomplishments is how he has populated the federal bench, but for the moment, let's leave aside the constitutional aspect (this clearly should be an individual state issue, if the liberal wing of the Supreme Court had any respect for the Constitution). Is abortion not the absolute worst example of shirking one's (or two's) responsibility?? 5,000+ women have actually signed a petition in Ms. magazine declaring they've had one. Is this something to be proud of?? My attitude toward this is summed up by another bumper sticker we saw a while back: "Having an abortion doesn't make you unpregnant; It makes you the mother of a dead baby". How can those who have had, or compelled one to have an abortion (which some unbelievably deduce to a "surgical procedure") , look at a baby and not become ill??
I could go on and on about frivolous lawsuits filed on behalf of those who refuse to bear any personal responsibility, children born out of wedlock (or worse, to single mothers), not being able to say "God" in the public square (the Constitution only said "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion"), the demand for pornography, etc. Alas, there are only so many minutes in the day. Say what you will, but if people are thinking about these things when answering that poll question, and I believe they are, I don't think such disatisfaction can be linked with the current group in power in D.C.
We were headed to eat at Johnny Carino's when we saw a bumper sticker that read "Marriage = (figure of a man) + (figure of a woman)". I don't remember what we were talking about at the time, but Jenny pondered aloud "You know those polls that always say a solid majority says the country is going in the wrong direction? What are the chances that when people answer 'yes', they have such things in mind?"
I was floored. I had never thought about it like that. I felt fooled by the media again because those poll results are usually always published right before or after the president's approval rating; the current president. Even though I know for a fact that the economy is strong, for those who choose to be involved, I always thought for sure that was a major component of peoples' answers to that question. I honestly never thought further than that; what more could it mean.
It all-of-a-sudden is completely believable to me that such a high percentage (63% in the latest realclearpolitics.com average) does indeed believe that. Only now, I think many of them are thinking about, for one, the assault on marriage as it is traditionally viewed. I personally do not have a problem if homosexual partner, if recognized under the law as such, has the same rights as a heterosexual spouse. But I stop short of declaring them as 'married'. I can't really put my finger on it, but, to me, just like the bumper sticker read, marriage is between a man and a woman. That's just what I believe, and I don't think I have to justify that to anyone.
Or how about the disrespect/callous disregard/cold-blooded attitude toward innocent, unborn life? True, one of W's best accomplishments is how he has populated the federal bench, but for the moment, let's leave aside the constitutional aspect (this clearly should be an individual state issue, if the liberal wing of the Supreme Court had any respect for the Constitution). Is abortion not the absolute worst example of shirking one's (or two's) responsibility?? 5,000+ women have actually signed a petition in Ms. magazine declaring they've had one. Is this something to be proud of?? My attitude toward this is summed up by another bumper sticker we saw a while back: "Having an abortion doesn't make you unpregnant; It makes you the mother of a dead baby". How can those who have had, or compelled one to have an abortion (which some unbelievably deduce to a "surgical procedure") , look at a baby and not become ill??
I could go on and on about frivolous lawsuits filed on behalf of those who refuse to bear any personal responsibility, children born out of wedlock (or worse, to single mothers), not being able to say "God" in the public square (the Constitution only said "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion"), the demand for pornography, etc. Alas, there are only so many minutes in the day. Say what you will, but if people are thinking about these things when answering that poll question, and I believe they are, I don't think such disatisfaction can be linked with the current group in power in D.C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)