Some levity

On a lighter note, I decided to post this joke today. I have been told that my musings are much too serious and that a wee bit of the Craic would make this blog a little more enjoyable.

A mate of mine forwarded this to me yesterday. Enjoy.

Slainte'
Blighter

The Pope took a couple of days off to visit the mountains of Alaska for some sight-seeing. He was cruising along the campground in the Pope-mobile when there was a frantic commotion just at the edge of the woods.
A helpless Democrat, wearing sandals, shorts, a "Save the Whales" hat, and a "To Hell with Bush" T-shirt, was screaming while struggling frantically, thrashing around trying to free himself from the grasp of a 10 foot grizzly bear.
As the Pope watched horrified, a group of Republican loggers came racing up. One quickly fired a .44 magnum into the bear's chest. The other two reached up and pulled the bleeding, semiconscious Democrat from the bear's grasp. Then using long clubs, the three loggers finished off the bear and two of them threw it onto the bed of their truck while the third tenderly placed the injured Democrat in the back seat.
As they prepared to leave, the Pope summoned them to come over. "I give you my blessing for your brave actions!" he told them. "I heard there was a bitter hatred between Republican loggers and Democratic Environmental Activists but now I've seen with my own eyes that this is not true."
As the Pope drove off, one of the loggers asked his buddies "Who was that guy?"
”It was the Pope," another replied. "He's in direct contact with heaven and has access to all wisdom."
"Well," the logger said, "he may have access to all wisdom but he sure don't know anything about bear hunting! Is the bait holding up, or do we need to go back to Massachusetts ?

Can we try to be Honest?

I listen to talk Radio every Morning and evening to and from my workplace. I switch between WLOB with Ray and Ted, to WGAN with Ken and Mike in the am. Evenings I get to hear Howie Carr, Sean Hannity, and occaisionally Bill O'Reilly if I happen to be stuck in traffic or am working late. These hosts keep me entertained and thinking about various topics of interest. Mostly though, I turn to these pundits for their particular views as concerns political issues. What I like about these shows is that they ask some pretty hard questions about some serious subjects.

For Example, Sean Hannity has been asking Supporters of Hillary Clinton this simple question:

" Name one thing Hillary has done or accomplished in her 8 years as a New York Senator?"

The answer is of course nothing, but the supporters continually reply with platitudes and rhetoric, never actually attempting to answer. I find it amusing and informative in the fact that so many people choose to support a Candidate without actually looking at what that candidate has done.

That being said, I must also state that I do not wholly agree with everything these shows promote or say. If I did I would simply be another Kool Aid drinker, as Mr. Hannity so dubs the fools who call his show without any facts or figures to back up their arguments. Which brings me to my topic.

Recently, many of the Hosts have been touting Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson as their candidates of choice. This in itself is not anything to be bothered by, but I found that one of their arguments faulty. It is one of the arguments used most frequently to discourage voters from casting their lot with John McCain. Yes you guessed it, I'm talking about McCain Feingold, or officially known as The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. This act is used like a dagger whenever one hears about John McCain and is used as a finish move of sorts in arguments. " What about McCain Feingold? " is bandied about so often I decided to look it up for myself to see why this law is so anathema to my Republican brothers. What I found surprised me a little.

As noted in McConnell v. FEC, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;

The proliferation of issue ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.

This act given the name McCain Feingold for it's two main sponsors, is something that is subject to great debate all over the country even now, 5 years after it was passed into law by President Bush. Some say it is Unconstitutional, others say it's faulty, and still others feel it too liberal. There are good points on both sides and I feel personally that the law is faulty, but what I found is that Senator John McCain was not alone in his support of the Bill. Many other Republicans also gave their blessing to the BCRA.

Senator Fred Thompson

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.
Vote on passage of H.R. 2356; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Shays-Meehan bill, House equivalent of McCain-Feingoldf bill). Vote to ban “soft money” contributions to national political parties but permit up to $10,000 in soft money contributions to state and local parties to help with voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. The bill would stop issue ads from targeting specific candidates within 30 days of the primary or 60 days of the general election. Additionally, the bill would raise the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates, both of which would be indexed for inflation.
Reference: Bill HR.2356 ; vote number 2002-54 on Mar 20, 2002

Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.
Vote to ban soft money donations to political parties and forbid corporate general funds and union general funds from being spent on issue ads. The bill would increase the individual contribution limit to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000.
Reference: Bill S.27 ; vote number 2001-64 on Apr 2, 2001

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.
Support of the campaign finance bill proposed by Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Feingold (D-WI). Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)53; N)47
Reference: Campaign Finance Reform Bill; Bill S. 25 ; vote number 1997-267 on Oct 7, 1997

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani

Giuliani is an ardent supporter of campaign finance reform as well. As he was contemplating a run for the Senate in 2000, Giuliani told Wolf Blitzer that he was a "very, very strong supporter of Campaign Finance Reform," adding that he'd been "a very strong supporter of McCain-Feingold for a long, long time now."
Source: Tom Bevan, "Deconstructing Giuliani", RealClearPolitics.com Aug 10, 2006


Debates on campaign finance reform miss the point on honesty
Debates on campaign finance reform miss the point. I favor it, but in the final analysis money will not make an honest man dishonest or a dishonest man honest.
In politics, there is an outcry whenever an officeholder who has received campaign contributions from a particular industry supports a position perceived as favorable to that industry. The implication is that, say, the tobacco industry's contribution "bought" the official's support or at least bought access. I would be the last to say it never happens, but much more common is a company choosing to support those it views as sympathetic to its interests. At any given moment in my administration, someone who supported me was angry because I didn't do what they hoped I would do. If they withdraw their support, you don't want them around anyway. There's no one thing you can do to establish the principle. All you can do is keep making decisions based on what you believe, and by your example, you will demonstrate your independence.

Govenor Mitt Romney

Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that Romney publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs).

During remarks before the Burlington (Mass.) Business Roundtable in 1994, Romney spoke like the committed reformers who later enacted sweeping national reforms in Congress.

“I understand Ted Kennedy will spend about $10 million to be reelected — he’s been in 32 years, $10 million. I think that’s wrong because — and that’s not his own money, that’s all from other people,” Romney said during the 1994 presentation, which was aired by C-SPAN. “And to get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up as an incumbent to all the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members. And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote.”Romney lost his race against Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). When he ran for governor eight years later, Romney again proposed dramatic changes to campaign-finance rules.

“Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements,” the Telegram & Gazette reported. “But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately.”

Kevin Madden, Romney’s campaign spokesman, declined to comment about campaign finance proposals his boss made in 1994 and 2002.

All of the Republican Primary candidates supported this bill Publicly at some point in their political careers. ( I could not find anything on Mike Huckabee's position on this subject). All of them stand by that support today except Mitt Romney, who like Hillary, takes a cameleon like approach to the issues, changing stances as the audience dictates.

Recently Gonenor Romney had this to say about Campaign Finance reform:

Referring to the bill, [Romney] called it ‘one of the worst things in my lifetime,’”

A South Carolina-based publication, The State, recently reported that Romney highlighted McCain’s support of campaign regulations in order to draw a contrast with his rival.
“That’s a terrible piece of legislation,” Romney said, according to the report. “It hasn’t taken the money out of politics … [But] it has hurt my party.”

My point is that if you are going to Villify one for support of a piece of legislation then you need to hold all the rest to the same standard. If the pundits, bloggers, and talk show hosts use the BCRA as a sticking point for Republican party voters when speaking of McCain, I daresay they need to look a little closer to those they support. If Senator McCain is not a conservative because he worked on BCRA then I contend that Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani are no longer entitled to be call such either. Let's try to be honest ok? It is embarrassing to be subjected to such blatant bias from ones own team.

Slainte'

Blighter

Media Bias Strikes again

Yesterday 1/8/2008 I spent a better part of my day, looking forward to the evening news. I couldn't wait to see the New Hampshire Primary coverage and how things were panning out for my chosen candidate John McCain. I have been pulling for the Senator from Arizona for 8 months now and yesterdays Primary was important to his campaign. So to the tele I turned for the 6 o'clock news and boy didn't the news agencies give me a dose of reality.

WCSH channel 6 covered 15 minutes of primary news and results, the problem is with how they covered it. By the time I walked away I was sickened to death, and thinking about Joseph Geobbles. Of that 15 mins, WCSH only mentioned the Republican forerunner twice in two separate clips. In one they showed Senator McCain looking harried in a crowd of people, with the reporters comment " McCain is currently in the lead for the Republicans." In another, they inverviewed two pundits from MSNBC who, after explaining how exciting it was to be seeing such great Democratic candidates for 3 mins, stated " McCain has to win here in New Hampshire or he's finished." The only other Republican clip available for our hungry eyes to consume was of Govenor Romney reaching out to shake the hand of a woman voter, who was obviously startled quite a bit as the Govenor Lunged forward to take her hand. She actually jumped back.

Obviously, WCSH News Editing staff has a particular agenda to put forward. For I am sure that there were other clips taken that day that showed Sen. McCain in a much better light, yet they chose not to air those. I am quite certain Govenor Romney shook thousands of hands without frightening a soul, yet again WCSH decided on a negative clip instead. Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?

Recently some studies were done that came to the conclusion that 78% of voters do not research the candidates and that they get most of their information from the news. If that news, is biased in favor of one party and puts forth its stories like I saw the other night, then that 78% is getting short changed. For they are not getting the whole truth or the facts. Their descisions then will be based upon mis information. This bias, is not only going to be a huge factor in the upcoming elections, but it is also going to hurt us all negatively by spinning out Media's " VERSION" of events and not the actual events as they occur. It smacks of Propaganda in it's worst forms.

If I was of that 78% I would have thought that, " It looks like Hillary is running against Barack for president." After hearing about the wonderful coffee Hillary gave to supporters at the polls and then watching Mitt Lunge at voters I think I could easily be swayed into leaning to the Dems for leadership. That is if I didn't take the time to look elsewhere for information. Which three quarters of our populace seems to find difficult.

Slainte'
Blighter

Resolutions

New Years,


A day of new beginnings and hope. The day upon which many feel they can start anew and state their intentions by declaring them for all to hear. Yes, I'm talking about the ever pervasive " New year's Resolutions". It seems so many feel the need to embark upon some personal goal either for self betterment , or the benefit of mankind as a whole, and that this day is the day upon which to start. We have heard them all a thousand times over, " I'm going to lose weight", " Quit Smoking", "Invent the Internet", ( thanks Al Gore ), and my personal favorite, " to be a better person". I was asked what my resolution was and it occurred to me that I had not made one in ages. So to make up for time I thought I'd list mine here for all of you who I have aggravated with my bitter dark musings.

1. To be nicer to those with whom I don't agree.



2. To care for my fellow man through compassion and understanding.



3. I will stop hating Hippies in all their various forms and guises



4. I will come to understand that Midgets are Human beings

These four things would be extremely difficult for me to accomplish in but one years time, but it's going to be alright. You see, I have yet to meet a single individual who has actually stuck to their resolutions past January 30th. No one really takes them seriously. We make these foolish promises to ourselves and to others so we can feel good that we are at least, thinking about being better human beings. Oh some may join a gym, or go to a Quit smoking seminar, they may even better all mankind by explaining Global warming to us plebeians. For the most part though, come February, all the minor efforts become a pain in the backside and we all slip back into our old selves once again. I cannot possibly stop hating Hippies, any more than a 300 lb welfare case can slow their "Ho Ho" snack cake intake. ( I do believe I have broken each of my resolutions at least once today ) As resolutions are promises, I guess I'm not much of a trustworthy sort now am I?

Perhaps, the lofty goals we set for ourselves should be toned down a wee bit? Maybe the 300 lb Michelin man look alike could change his goal to something like; " I will learn what soap is and how to wash between the rolls". This isn't too difficult to manage, though any trip through a local Wal-Mart proves otherwise. By toning things down a bit they can not only accomplish the resolution but also may be inspired to go further on to the road of Self Betterment. This way our subject could then continue on his/her merry way of Food Stamp Gluttony but, benefit us all by washing off some of the layers. There by benefiting society as a whole.

So, I should change my resolutions then too eh? that way I can do my part in making the world a better place. As There is no way that I can be "Nicer" to those whom I disagree I'll toss that off the list as it is a bit misleading. I am way to nice during a disagreement and no further courtesy is needed on my part. Which leads us to # 2. I already care deeply for my fellow man, perhaps that is why I tend to get a little annoyed when I interact with with other members of the human species. I believe they could be so much more, yet time and time again reason fails them and I must resort to being tough to make them come to their senses. But it is only through my kind caring spirit, and benevolent nature, that I take such harsh stands. Sadly the general populace is made up of Sheep bleating the day long. Look at any John Edwards or Hillary supporter and you will know what I mean. So off with #2 as well for really I have enough compassion and understanding already.

Midgets? forget about it..... not touching that. There is no way I can ever see these little creatures as human therefore the lofty goal I set cannot be reached.

So that only leaves, yup, Hippies. This goal to stop hating Hippies is rather ambitious. Maybe if I toned it down to: " I will stop throwing rocks at Hippies and protesters". or " I will try to stop running them off the road." Maybe I could accomplish those this year. It will be difficult, as the temptation is so great every time I see a herd of Tye died sheep, or Liberals bleating away this urge to " Knock some sense" into them overcomes me. This will go against my compassionate nature, for by not throwing the stones and letting them clog up the roads, I am ignoring their silent cries for help.

I will try though, I will really, really try..................

Slainte'

Blighter