[ Posted Thursday, December 13th, 2007 – 16:35 UTC ]
President Bush, in his seventh-ever veto, has just rejected the second incarnation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill, otherwise known as SCHIP. That's a pretty bold move to make in December, you've got to admit, since the inevitable comparisons to the Grinch will abound (House Democrat Louise Slaughter even has her own YouTube video up on this theme). While there are enough votes in the Senate to override Bush's veto, there are not enough in the House to do so.
I've written about SCHIP many times before. It's a brilliant political piece of legislation, because it works so well as a wedge issue in the Republican party -- it's got a veto-proof majority in the Senate, and a near-veto-proof majority in the House because more and more Republicans are getting on board, fearing the issue will be used effectively against them in next year's elections.
This is all well and good, and is how politics is supposed to be played, in the midst of getting something good done. Unfortunately, the Democrats are now about to throw out the baby's health insurance with the election-season bathwater. From the New York Times article on the veto:
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 – 15:43 UTC ]
Leno, Letterman, O'Brien and the rest of the late-night comics and hosts have all gone "dark" ever since the writers' strike began, leaving us with nothing but endless reruns to watch during the wee hours. If this goes on for the next two months, what effect will this have on politics during the crucial presidential primary season?
I have to admit, I didn't come up with this idea myself. I heard it as an offhand comment on one of the news shows (PBS' News Hour, I think) -- that if the strike went on, the candidates will all get a "free pass" on any amusing foibles during the campaign because the late night shows were on hiatus. The person who said this wasn't serious, or at best only half-serious, but it got me to thinking. What if this does have a major effect on politics? What effect would it have, and would it be a good thing or a bad thing?
What if (insert crescendo music here for effect -- dom Dom DOM!!) it already has had an effect?
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Tuesday, December 11th, 2007 – 17:44 UTC ]
[ Posted Monday, December 10th, 2007 – 18:10 UTC ]
It always amuses me when Americans are told that the political climate today is "poisonously partisan" or "divided" and that this is "the worst partisanship Washington has ever seen." While pundits in the mainstream media love to whip this non-story into a frenzy every election year, it only goes to prove their utter ignorance of American history.
Take just one example: the church and state debate. Much ink was spilled over Mitt Romney's speech last week about his Mormon faith. Very little attention was paid to America's dark history of anti-Mormonism. Americans, as a whole, are not taught these things in their basic history classes in school, because we naturally shy away from the uglier episodes in our country's past.
But the history remains, for anyone willing to take a look. Mormons have the unusual distinction of being the only religious group in United States history to be singled out in one state for extermination. Well, OK, it was in the midst of the "Mormon War" and the Mormons were not entirely blameless themselves in the run-up to the incident, but still... extermination?
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Saturday, December 8th, 2007 – 17:33 UTC ]
[ Posted Friday, December 7th, 2007 – 18:55 UTC ]
It's been a week of circular logic from the political world.
To begin with, Mitt Romney gave a speech on religion. This speech was brilliantly summed up in a comment to Chris Kelly's recent Huffington Post column:
1. We should all be tolerant of religions, even ones we don't agree with.
2. Secularism/atheism is a religion.
3. Let's all hate on those traitorous, treasonous, blasphemous secularists/atheists!
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Thursday, December 6th, 2007 – 17:17 UTC ]
[While I generally abhor writing about the subject-du-jour, I decided to challenge myself today and write about Mitt Romney's speech on religion while not making any references to John F. Kennedy's speech on religion while doing so. This alone, I believe, will set this post out from the pack, since I'd be willing to bet nobody else has managed to do so.]
While many have commented on various different quotes from Mitt Romney's speech on religion today, there was one passage that stood out for me:
Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Wednesday, December 5th, 2007 – 22:23 UTC ]
[ Posted Wednesday, December 5th, 2007 – 13:51 UTC ]
President Bush has been proven wrong in some big and spectacular ways this week. But while he continues to channel his foreign policy advice from Pluto, Bush is right about one thing, even though he's just playing it up for political gain. The Democrats should be ashamed that they haven't gotten their act together on the budget.
Now, I've been called a partisan Democrat before, but I reject the accusation. Being a partisan means being blind to mistakes made by your side, and trotting out spin and excuses for such mistakes. While I admit to a lefty bias and have to agree that it's more fun to write about Republican follies than Democratic blunders, I pride myself on holding the spotlight of criticism up to either side when it fully deserves it. Which, in this case, the Democrats do.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Tuesday, December 4th, 2007 – 16:21 UTC ]
Back in the old Soviet Union, official groups both large and small always had at least one "political officer" in them, to guarantee that whatever the group did was in step with current Party ideology. The Bush White House, taking its cue from this Soviet-era practice, decided that this was a good idea, earlier this year (after the Democratic takeover of Congress in last year's elections).
Continue Reading »