Enough already! We all get it, Bush hates babies.

I am sure that everyone already knows that President Bush has threatened to vetoed a bill that would provide 60 billion in medical care for poor children over the next 5 years. His motives are clear, he hates babies and loves war. So lets stop juxtaposing his unsurprising unwillingness to expand government's involvement in health care (which is something he and the Republican party have been against for as long as I can remember) to his eagerness to fund the reconstruction effort for the aftermath of the war he led us (and I mean all of us) into. Lets move on already and talk about something interesting, such as the politics behind the timing of the "bipartisan" bill's proposal to save the babies.

Hillary and the Democrats have known that Bush would be asking for more money for Iraq since they put their benchmarks in place months ago. So when Hillary went on her talk show circuit last weekend pushing her health care plan and when the Democrats fabricated their bill in such a way that they knew Bush would veto it what were their motives? Were they trying to save babies, or did they just want to be able to say that Bush only wants to fund the killing of babies abroad and not the saving of babies at home? Possibly both, but probably much more the latter. Not that there is anything wrong with being strategic, but lets see it for what it is. If the Democrats really wanted to help, they would have worked with the White House to produce a bill that was truly bipartisan. But they didn’t. Instead they got a handful of Republics, not nearly enough to over rule a veto, to sign on to a bill they know won’t pass and call it bipartisan. Then, when threatened with a veto, they exploit 12 year old Graeme Frost (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/washington/29health.html?ref=policy) by having him give the Democratic response to President Bush’s radio address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070929.html). This isn’t about the war or health care, it’s about campaigning. So stop talking about the war and health care!

Florida Democrats Defy National Party

Florida's Democratic Party announced today that they will be holding their Presidential Primary on January 29. Undeterred by threats from the National Party to withhold 210 of Florida's nominating convention delegates, Florida's Democratic Party feels that the attention their state will now get from potential candidates out weighs the resulting sanctions.

Responding to the ever increasing appeal for states to front load, the National Party had attempt to prevent most states from holding primaries prior to February 5th with threats of sanctions. 4 states were granted permission from the National Party to hold their primaries before February 5th. Those states and their corresponding primary dates are: Iowa on January 14, Nevada on January 19th, New Hampshire on January 22nd, and South Carolina on January 29th. Why the National Party is set on granting these 4 states earlier primary dates and subsequently more influence on and attention from hopeful Democratic candidates is beyond me. It certainly isn’t because these 4 states represent a balanced cross section of Americans. Which is why it is not surprising that larger and more diverse states, such as Florida, are willing to break ranks with national leadership and put their constituents in a position to be heard. I also don’t understand why all primaries, Democrats, Republicans, and third party alike, aren’t held at the same time. If the rational behind granting these specific states an earlier primary date is an attempt to balance the influence of large states and small states, then I find that reasoning unacceptable. Each citizen of the U.S., regardless of what state they reside in, should have equally proportioned influence and representation in our federal government.

Cheney's Words of Wisdom

Vice President Cheney speaking at the Gerald R Ford Museum was quoted as saying "I'm told researchers like to come and dig through my files, to see if anything interesting turns up. I want to wish them luck --but the files are pretty thing. I learned early on that if you don't want your memos to get you in trouble some day, just don't write any." (Washington Post On-line)

Great advise for fledgling politicians on both sides but I can't believe he would say it on the record. After all, saying such in a public forum is allot like writing a memo about not writing memos. If I were a reporter digging through Cheney's files and came upon a memo instructing his staff to avoid writing memos so as to minimize his office's transparency and accountability to the public I would be infuriated, and I hope you and the rest of the public would be as well. The fact that the VP had the audacity to make such a public statement should make it crystal clear to the public just how embedded and accepted these principles of anti-transparency and anti-accountability have become in our political system. Conservatives and liberals alike need to rise up and crush this growing trend and demand transparency and accountability from our politicians. After all, a democracy with out these principles is just wasting its time and money holding elections. And wasting money is something nobody wants.

Quote can be found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601560.html?hpid=sec-politics

A Question for Tommy D.

While reading Tom DeLay's Farewell Address I paused when I came to the shameless plug for his feel-good tear-jerking agenda of saving the orphans. Don't get me wrong, the thought of more effectively and efficiently placing foster children in loving, competent, and permanent homes both makes me feel good and jerks a tear from my eye. However, given the list of ailments of the current system, I am finding it difficult to imagine the conservative remedy that DeLay would have us administer. How will a policy pay for "the meaningful child monitoring services" or "background checks for prospective foster parents" which DeLay calls for, while at the same time cutting taxes and shrinking the size of the government which DeLay and his conservative party calls for? I don't know. Will allocating less money to those over burdened courts who are charged with overseeing of our nation's foster children actually result in better case management of the orphans by these courts. Probably not. And another thing, DeLay acts like there are good loving, god fearing, tax paying families ready to take on the enormous challenge and commitment of adopting a child around ever corner. This would be nice, and then perhaps removing some of the governmental "red tape" would be in order so that the process could be streamlined. But unfortunately, it's hard to find good foster parents which makes it expensive. This is why it takes a liberal to find the funding for it.