Sat 30 Dec 2006
California conservative Republican Bill Simon [class of 1973] has begun building a network of support in the Golden State for the prospective presidential campaign of his old boss, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Simon, son of the late Secretary of the Treasury William Simon, was Republican nominee for governor of California in 2002. He was a prosecutor working for Giuliani, then U.S. attorney in New York City, in 1986-88.
Simon has been arranging get-acquainted meetings for Giuliani with prominent California conservatives to show them he is not all that liberal and really is a Republican.
“Not all that liberal?” Hmmm. Bug or feature?
December 30th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
I have been on the Rudy bandwagon since the mid/late 90’s. It’s probably too good to be true, but at least he believes in the First Amendment unlike McCain.
December 30th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
1st amendment defender? Rudy? Wasn’t he the NYC Mayor who defunded the Brooklyn Museum when he disagreed with it’s judgement of what comprised displayable “art”?
December 30th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Yeah, Rudy cut funding for the arts. Why would’nt he… it involved all things that Republicans drool over… Religion, Cow dung, Race, and Art.
If your looking for a candidate that supports the Bill of Rights or Education, then you have to vote Dem. Heck, free speech…. the Grand Canyon cannot even display or promote its age other than a book it sells that shows how it was created during the great flood. NASA was dominated for years under Bush by a 20 something year old fundie that would not allow scientific press releases that included global warming or evolution. Spellings speaks to the congress to blather on about a friggin Cartoon. Student loans cut to hell. A position on torture. The Geneva conventions labled as a “nicety.” Wire taps. etc. etc. etc.
I find it very odd that anyone who believes in Education or the Bill of Rights can support a Republican at this time. Not to mention Gov spending, a foolish and self defeating strategic policy, corruption.
Stop the smoke and mirrors…. all the repugs have left is gay marriage, life, and tax cuts.
December 30th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
I believe in education, the Bill of Rights, (except in time and solely for purposes of war or to prime the economic pump during depression)the fiscal restraint of a balanced budget, candidate and office holder integrity, assistance to citizens who are needy but personally responsible, a strong (but non-aggressive use of the) military, domestic order and (except for limited circumstances) freedom from governmental interference - so on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November I stay home and rake leaves because I can never find a candidate of any sort, who meets and stands for my few and simple requirements.
December 30th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Frank- This year in VA we lucked out. We had Jim Webb to vote for. The Democrats still have a lot of the old “cause” liberal vangards at the healm, but if you look at the candidates they recruited throughout the country, you may find a person to vote for, depending on where you live.
It is not an accident, nor is it a simple case of voter anger toward Republicans, that Democrats won 30 house seats, 6 senate seats, and 7 Gov races, while not yielding a single loss. It is because the Democrats are recruiting great people to run all over the country. This year, the Democrats fielded some oustanding people, and will continue to do so as long as the Republicans keep going down the current path.
Turned off by this administrations self destructive and delusional fantasy that they label as a “plan”, the Reagan Democrats are coming home in droves on the issue of National security.
December 30th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
PTC: I’ll believe it when I see it. Patrick appeared to be a “new” Democrat who might possibly be acceptable. After his election one of his first actions was to declare that he planned to cause the rescission of a host of budget cuts scheduled for 2007 - in other words he is going to bring back the pork. Paying off his constituency comes before good government. One of his next moves will be to attempt to increase taxes in order to pay for this and further pork - in a manner that does not burden his constituents.
January 1st, 2007 at 4:04 pm
This is the second place in the last several hours I’ve seen the bogus claim that “the Grand Canyon cannot even display or promote its age” (the first being a rather hysterical, in every sense of the word, email). I don’t know who started this lie, but that’s what it is.
From the Department of the Interior website (http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old):
So everyone can relax. Theocons have not taken over the Grand Canyon.
January 1st, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Mike- no comment on the NASA story, or Spellings, or how about having a head of family planning that does not believe in Birth control? No, they have not taken over the world.
The article cited is limited to visitors of the grand canyon. But I would appreciate a comment on the NASA story…. Teri Schaivo??? por favor.
And no, they have not taken over, because we just crushed them in the last election.
January 1st, 2007 at 8:14 pm
These guys are the culprits of the Grand Canyon story…. it is posted on every major liberal blog.
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801
January 1st, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I’m working on a (longer) response to the earlier comments, but I wanted to respond to the anonymous claim.
One of the most interesting things on the Schaivo case was how the courts handled it. When it was heard en banc by the 11th Circuit, the judges who confined themselves to the text of the statute and refused to reinsert the feeding tube were largely republican appointees, and most of them were QUITE culturally and socially conservative in their personal opinions. The two judges who wanted to divine the mystical but unstated (in the statute) intent of Congress by inserting the feeding tube rather than just giving Schaivo’s parents a new cause of action were both liberal democrats who were appointed by Democrat presidents.
So I’m guessing you wanted that tube reinserted? That’s what would have happened with more democrat appointees.
To the extent that I’m conservative at all, I’m a process conservative, not a results conservative. I think the court acted quite well, and I shudder at the prospect of the return of divining intent and results elevated over process.
January 1st, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Anonymous:
The government has a “head of family planning”? I guess that’s the problem right there. I don’t know what this individual is supposed to do, but at the point where the federal government is given the power to have a role in family planning then it begins the process of making moral decisions which affect the nation. It so happens that the issue of “family planning” is a complex one on which many of our fellow citizens have different opinions. It appears that you do not approve of the policy positions of the current elected administration of this country. As such, in 2008 you can vote for an administration which will appoint a head of family planning with whom you agree. And then in 2012 the people in this country who liked the old approach to the issue can throw them out and bring back an administration that reflects their person moral beliefs. And we can go back and forth like this for as long as our Republic remains. Alternatively, the blunt instrument of the Federal Government can remove itself from the issue entirely and return this power back to the States or, ideally, to Society’s Little Platoons. Which is a long way of saying: I don’t care what the “head of family planning” believes; I care that we have a head of family planning.
I am not particularly familiar with the Spellings situation, other than what I just googled, but suffice it to say that I don’t support federal funding of PBS. To the extent that the federal government funds PBS, it is again making judgments about what is worth funding and what is not. If the current administration doesn’t support funding cartoons with lesbian characters aimed at children, you may or may not agree with that position. I would encourage you to vote for somebody in 2008 who will use the levers of government to produce these products. As for me, I prefer the market, rather than Hillary Clinton, make these decisions.
I am completely ignorant with regards to the “NASA story.” NASA’s website has a page about global warming which to my very untrained eye appears reasonable upon a very quick scan(acknowledging global warming is occuring, that research shows humans play a role in that, etc.). My experience lends me to be skeptical of whatever scandal the “NASA story” is supposed to be (this is what caused me earlier today to google this PEER group and discover that the Grand Canyon nonsense is just that) but feel free to educate me.
My approach is to be very humble in using government to force my beliefs down anybody else’s throat. The Left has far less humility in this regard and, therefore, we have the federal government involved in any number of arenas where controversial decisions are made. Having gone down that path, I don’t find it very credible when people who support the government having these powers whine that the elected administration is using them in a way they find problematic.
One thing I do strongly support, however, is for everybody in this country to be strongly encouraged to read and understand James Madison’s political philosophy.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:27 am
The Schiavo “Law” (For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.) was voted on in special session by a huge majority of Republicans. Bush came off of vacation to vote for it. Jebb was heavily involved. The attempt to pass it off as a liberal excersise is laughable.
The NASA case involves a Bush Administration appointee (plant) named George Deutsch, a fundamentalist christian who was in charge of all NASA press releases. He surpressed anything that mentioned global warming, or creationism. You can read about it here.
http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html
Multipile articles in the MSM were written about it, as well as coverage on all major news netowrks. Google the name if you like.
Of course NASA has a section on global warming now, this guy has been fired and the censor was exposed.
Spellings petiotioned Congress to complain about the Cartoon “BedTime for Buster” because it had a segment in it that seemed to portray lesbian parents baking cookies. Now, if you think the Secretary of Education has nothing better to talk to congress about than a friggin cartoon, hey, good on you. Feel free to google “spellings bedtime for buster” and you will get multpile hits. It was all over the MSM.
Dr. Eric Keroack is the Bush appointee for overseeing the Office of Family Planning. He is a right wing religious Republican that does not believe in birth control. You can read about him here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Keroack
or feel free to google the name. You will get multpile hits.
Mike- I hope all of this helps you in your quest for knowledge on the Religious Right (Republican Party).
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:39 am
creationism above should read “evolution”. He plugged creationism.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:05 am
PTC: Stipulating we take everything you say at face value, what exactly is your problem with the elected administration of this country appointing a DAS for population affairs with whom it sees eye-to-eye on the issues in his portfolio? I thought the reason for elections was so the people could express their policy preferences. Shocking as this may be, there are many people in this country who don’t support the federal government handing out condoms in their children’s schools. That may, in your mind, make them unenlightened religious bigots, but it’s their policy preference nonetheless.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:14 am
PTC, did you even read what I wrote? I’m talking about the JUDGES who heard the cause of action that congress granted, because as somebody who actually read the statute and has studied the law, what Congress passed had no SUBSTANTIVE effect, only a procedural one, for all the bluster and hot air about the Schaivo law. Now, if you’d like to try again and actually read and respond to what I wrote in this and the earlier post, that would be fine.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 am
PTC: you might find the following web-forum more to your liking.
Mike: I’m actually pretty shocked there’s an office of family planning, too. What happened to government small enough to drown in a bathtub? Disappointing.
In a more general sense, though everyone’s always saying this, there really seems to be a lot more vitriol in American politics these days (though, if you read carefully, things have always already been rough and tumble–before the Civil War, some free state representative was assaulted in the House by a slave state rep, if I recall correctly), and I think the problem mainly lies in people refusing to concede that there are points on which reasonable people can reasonably disagree. This is the essence of civil polity. I might disagree with Mike on the human-ness of embryos, say, or on the particulars of human interaction on global climate change, say, but these are points on which reasonable people can disagree, and together, with compromise and intelligent discussion, we can move towards positions that satisfy polity.
I suppose it doesn’t need to be noted that the constitution of this country was a network of compromises, balances, and intelligent and (eventually) dangerous concessions. We muddle through, together, and the process is often as important as the results.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:55 am
Aidan, you are indeed correct about the caning of Charles Sumner by his distant cousin Preston Brooks. Why can’t cousins in politics (e.g., Marshall/Jefferson) ever get along?
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
You all see Giuliani’s playbook? This Williams grad lose his luggage, or what?
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Loweeeeel- Yeah, I read what you wrote. You tried to deflect Schiavo blame. To blame a couple of “activist” judges. We had what, 30 opinions on the case- taken up only because Republican law makers would not let it (her) die a respectfull death? You tried an old propaganda trick called monopolization of perception to blame the Schiavo case on Democrats.
You tried, and failed, to place the rantings of Tom Delay, Bill Frisk, and others in the Republican party on Democrats.
Really dude, do you all have a dart board you use, or is it a wheel thing you spin when you try to blame all the Republican failures and lies on Democrats? I can only imagine what the board looks like… let me guess.
ACTIVIST JUDGES
CLINTON
LIBERALS
GAYS
THE PRESS
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Nothing “interesting” about any of it. Sick. Twisted. Perverted. AND-
Not. Gonna. Work.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
PTC — you used the term “activist”; I did not. This is what we like to call a straw man. Congratulations on knocking it down! Once again, you seem to be failing to read anything anybody else is writing, but I guess the light isn’t great under that bridge.
What I did was not a trick of any sort. I’m merely commenting on the irony that the textualist judicial philosophy that Republicans prefer in judicial appointees accurately and properly prevented the asinine new cause of action that the Republican-controlled Congress passed, whereas the “purposivist” judges preferred and appointed by Democrats would have reached a result that the Democrats would not have liked. It’s a fundamental distiction between PROCESS and RESULT that people generally learn in a middle school civics class.
I certainly didn’t BLAME Schaivo on the Democrats; what I did was suggest that IF the 11th circuit panel was comprised of Democrat judicial appointees, Democrats would not have liked the result. If you can’t read thoroughly enough to understand what a hypothetical is, well… it just places your previous trolling posts in context.
Furthermore, you know nothing about me or my philosophies, and you blatantly ignore what I do tell you. It also undercuts your already tenuous credibility when you refer to “Bill Frisk” (whoever that is), and somehow imply that I am blaming any such rantings (to which I did not refer even obliquely) on Democrats (which I did not).
I certainly have my fair share of philosophical and political disagreements with some of the other present and current posters — including Rory and Eisler, but if you can’t refrain from naked ad hominem, straw men, and threadjacking in your comments, I’ll be more than happy to delete them. The choice is yours.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I don’t have a dartboard or spinning wheel, but CATO does have a fantastic pocket Declaration of Independence/Constitution that fits perfectly into your back pocket.
http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=40&pid=144278-A