thedrifter
07-31-03, 06:05 AM
What Value do you Put on Politicians?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by Jon Connolly
Jul 30, 2003
Let‘s start this with a quote from James Madison: "It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object."
It is truly amazing to me just how venal our politicians can be. . . ‘if it’s not good for my party, it’s not good for my citizens.’ Personally, I think that’s nothing more than a corrupt attitude and it makes me wonder just how mature our congressmen and senators really are. . . yes, they’re old. . . old enough to be adults but are they really mature enough to be adults?
California Rep. Pete Stark used the homophobic, “You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake, I said you are a fruitcake," against Rep. Scott McInnis. But Stark’s a Democrat, right? He can't be a bigot, can he?
Fox News reported: "Stark has a long history of making outrageous remarks. He once called Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson 'a *****,' and said former Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan is 'a disgrace to his race.'"
But, since Stark’s a Democrat so I suppose we know where the outrage is. The apologists are out in force … "I think Congressman Stark's use of the word, he probably regrets having used it. I think he meant nothing by it, but I think in the 2003 context, it's probably a poor choice of words. But it's also important to note that Congressman Stark is one of the gay community's staunchest allies," claimed Winnie Stachelberg, political director of Human Rights Campaign. And those that aren’t apologizing, are ignoring the comments.
If a Republican had said something like that the world would have fallen on him for intolerance.
In the same vein, the argument that came up against John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism, run for the presidency has reared its head again.
The Washington Times headline reads, Pryor's religion triggers debate.
The debate four decades ago centered on ‘whether or not the Pope would be running the U.S.’ It’s hard to believe that the argument still rages … JFK won for goodness sake.
Still Charles Hurt writes in the Washington Times, “A judicial confirmation hearing yesterday turned into a rancorous debate between Democrats and Republicans over whether it's possible for a devout Catholic to be confirmed to the federal bench.”
It’s becoming difficult trying to decide whether the democrats are just plain dumb or blatantly obstructionist.
In addition, it’s difficult to judge which came first the chicken or the egg … whether Charlie Rangel’s (D-NY) comments came from the heart or from George Gedda’s column. Rangel noted "We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody," on the Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes show.
That’s true to a certain extent … there is a law declaring assassination is illegal signed into law by (I think) President Ford. However, I don’t really see how that is applicable when Usay and Quday Hussein were fighting back and, in fact, wounded three or four U.S. soldiers.
Making it harder to figure are Associated Press writer George Gedda’s comments: “In theory, pursuing with intent to kill violates a long-standing policy banning political assassination. It was the misfortune of Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, that the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition.”
What prohibition? Personally, since Islam is often perceived as a religion of the middle ages, I think we should look to the middle ages for real retribution … people in the pre-civilized world knew about retribution. The brothers and heirs to Saddam’s throne should have been drawn and quartered and their heads placed on pikes at the gates of Baghdad. That would have gotten the people’s attention.
And the current leader of the Democratic pack, Howard Dean, isn’t especially keen on the fact that our military got rid of the terrible twosome either.
"It's a victory for the Iraqi people," he said, "but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war." Does he really think the U.S. citizens (still can’t use Americans - it just isn’t PC) really believe this drivel? It sounds like he’s got as much respect for the U.S. military as the Clinton’s had and that sure wasn’t much judging by everything I’ve read. Would you really consider voting for a former governor from a small northern state? Look what we got with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and they’re southerners, at least Carter was.
Thought for the day: "War hath no fury like a noncombatant." Charles Edward Montague.
Sempers,
Roger
:marine:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by Jon Connolly
Jul 30, 2003
Let‘s start this with a quote from James Madison: "It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object."
It is truly amazing to me just how venal our politicians can be. . . ‘if it’s not good for my party, it’s not good for my citizens.’ Personally, I think that’s nothing more than a corrupt attitude and it makes me wonder just how mature our congressmen and senators really are. . . yes, they’re old. . . old enough to be adults but are they really mature enough to be adults?
California Rep. Pete Stark used the homophobic, “You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake, I said you are a fruitcake," against Rep. Scott McInnis. But Stark’s a Democrat, right? He can't be a bigot, can he?
Fox News reported: "Stark has a long history of making outrageous remarks. He once called Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson 'a *****,' and said former Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan is 'a disgrace to his race.'"
But, since Stark’s a Democrat so I suppose we know where the outrage is. The apologists are out in force … "I think Congressman Stark's use of the word, he probably regrets having used it. I think he meant nothing by it, but I think in the 2003 context, it's probably a poor choice of words. But it's also important to note that Congressman Stark is one of the gay community's staunchest allies," claimed Winnie Stachelberg, political director of Human Rights Campaign. And those that aren’t apologizing, are ignoring the comments.
If a Republican had said something like that the world would have fallen on him for intolerance.
In the same vein, the argument that came up against John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism, run for the presidency has reared its head again.
The Washington Times headline reads, Pryor's religion triggers debate.
The debate four decades ago centered on ‘whether or not the Pope would be running the U.S.’ It’s hard to believe that the argument still rages … JFK won for goodness sake.
Still Charles Hurt writes in the Washington Times, “A judicial confirmation hearing yesterday turned into a rancorous debate between Democrats and Republicans over whether it's possible for a devout Catholic to be confirmed to the federal bench.”
It’s becoming difficult trying to decide whether the democrats are just plain dumb or blatantly obstructionist.
In addition, it’s difficult to judge which came first the chicken or the egg … whether Charlie Rangel’s (D-NY) comments came from the heart or from George Gedda’s column. Rangel noted "We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody," on the Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes show.
That’s true to a certain extent … there is a law declaring assassination is illegal signed into law by (I think) President Ford. However, I don’t really see how that is applicable when Usay and Quday Hussein were fighting back and, in fact, wounded three or four U.S. soldiers.
Making it harder to figure are Associated Press writer George Gedda’s comments: “In theory, pursuing with intent to kill violates a long-standing policy banning political assassination. It was the misfortune of Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, that the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition.”
What prohibition? Personally, since Islam is often perceived as a religion of the middle ages, I think we should look to the middle ages for real retribution … people in the pre-civilized world knew about retribution. The brothers and heirs to Saddam’s throne should have been drawn and quartered and their heads placed on pikes at the gates of Baghdad. That would have gotten the people’s attention.
And the current leader of the Democratic pack, Howard Dean, isn’t especially keen on the fact that our military got rid of the terrible twosome either.
"It's a victory for the Iraqi people," he said, "but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war." Does he really think the U.S. citizens (still can’t use Americans - it just isn’t PC) really believe this drivel? It sounds like he’s got as much respect for the U.S. military as the Clinton’s had and that sure wasn’t much judging by everything I’ve read. Would you really consider voting for a former governor from a small northern state? Look what we got with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and they’re southerners, at least Carter was.
Thought for the day: "War hath no fury like a noncombatant." Charles Edward Montague.
Sempers,
Roger
:marine: