Archive for July, 2007

I have been doing a series of posts on Pragmatic_Revolt about the Budget Process here in Dillon and I wanted to ask the question here…

Regardless of your party affilliation, do you know how your money is being spent by your local government?

This is a serious question and it is one that really deserves some thought. We talk a lot about the Federal Budget here but, in truth, it is the budget of your local and county government that effects you on a day to day basis. You are paying for it every time you get a dog licence, pay your water bill or request a permit to pave your driveway. If you are a homeowner, you pay for your local government everytime you pay your property taxes. If you are a renter, you are paying for your local government when you pay your rent.

It is vitally important that you understand just how much your local government can effect your day to day lives - and just how much corruption, mismanagement and waste can be done with the local budget.

I truly do recommend that you at least take some time to look over the way your money is spent and if you have questions, you should ask them. You might be surprised….

Moorcat

Ever hear of the Ring of Steel?  Perhaps you don’t know the name, but somewhere you have probably heard about London’s successful surveillance program.  Put into effect in response to IRA bombings of the early 1990s, the program has been credited with successfully deterring crime in the city.

A similar system is headed to New York City.  And while it is the just the kind of thing to get Libertarian heads spinning, the majority of Americans would appear to support such a system, according to an ABC poll.

Given the chief arguments, pro and con — a way to help solve crimes vs. too much of a government intrusion on privacy — it isn’t close: 71 percent of Americans favor the increased use of surveillance cameras, while 25 percent oppose it.

It is useful to point out that we are not talking about anything too covert or underhanded here; New York City’s plan calls for the installation of 100 extra cameras by the end of the year.  But with a further vision of getting that number to a staggering 3,000 cameras by 2010 (and with other cities adopting similar plans), this does present a situation that we should discuss, at the very least.

So I am interested in your opinions.  Is this a simple and effective deterrent to crime, and are the concerns minimal?  Or is this a step in the kind of direction we don’t want to go?

The floor is now open.

While I agree that some of the questions were silly, I also think that the format elicited some very real moments from the candidates. Colby shared a a few of his favorites here, and I shared one of mine in the comments.

There are a couple of things about this format that appealed to me. When a question of gay marriage is invoked by real people who deal with the issue daily, it means a little more than when a stern faced anchor reads it. The candidate is forced to consider the question not just as a political position based on how it plays with the voters but as a real thing that effect human beings. If they leave their standard message and open up, you learn something new about the candidate that you almost never would under another forum. If they fail to step out of their stump speech to answer the question from the heart, it is almost just as telling about the candidate.

For instance, on the question of gay marriage, Dodd gave the same answer as he had in previous debates almost word for word. What does this say to me? Volumes. Edwards, on the other hand, addressed gay marriage and religion in a manner that I have never heard a politician use: he was open and honest about his conflicts.

I was not surprised when I read that the Republican’s seem to be skipping the debate.

The Republicans’ sudden aversion has political observers wondering whether abandoning an opportunity to participate in the fledging format shows a potentially costly reluctance to engage with voters or is simply an exercise in prudent message management.

For the life of me, I can not imagine why the Republican candidate’s would consider skipping this debate. It is a wonderful format and produced excellent results. The only ones who have confirmed are John McCain and Ron Paul, with rumors that the former will withdraw. Personally, I think that is the best way to boost the Republican parties image right now, just let Ron Paul talk and tell the others to be silent.

There are some formations of sentence fragments that you could never guess you would see strung together. I found one of them in today’s Helena IR. Here goes:

Man accused of killing baby now guilty of street racing

Am I the only one that strikes as an extremely odd sentence? One problem with it is that it isn’t factual: Christopher Lee McAllister isn’t a Man accused of killing baby, he has been convicted. That makes him a Man guilty of killing baby. Now, since we have rewritten the headline as:

Man guilty of killing baby now guilty of street racing

the article in general begs the question: Why is a man that is awaiting sentencing on “negligent homicide for the death of a baby” buying a 1998 mustang instead of sitting in jail? Now, read this:

Judge Myron Pitch fined McAllister $555 with $250 suspended and gave him a six-month suspended jail sentence for the street racing misdemeanor charge and the same for another charge of operating a vehicle in violation of a restricted license.

Suspended sentence? Really? Aren’t suspended sentences a tool of the judges discretion to allow a little leeway when it is deserved? Say the defendant had a good record, was an upstanding citizen and had just made a mistake. Sure, suspend his sentence. Society is better off if that person isn’t in jail, but is contributing to society. They’ll go back into the world a bit wiser for the whole affair.

Is this one of those cases? Really? What about this baby killer made the judge reach into his toolbox and pull out such leniency?

   I have noted that there has been a recent disagreement between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton over whether to have direct talks with “enemy or rogue” states such as Iran or Syria. Obama says he’ll talk to everyone within the first year he is President while Clinton suggests this would be unwise or unworkable. I note that Bush wouldn’t talk to these people if you dragged him in front of them. I don’t see the wisdom in this position. While talking might solve nothing, it couldn’t cause any great harm. I can understand Bush not wishing to speak with someone like Chavez whom demonizes him (literally), but if you don’t talk, how can anything really ever get resolved?  We really need to do just the opposite. We need to understand each other better. Meeting someone face to face could lead to progress and a discovery that the other guy really isn’t “El Diablo”.  There is too much blind hatred in our world today. If some of the terrorists of Al Quaida could see the real people of America instead of only knowing the indoctrinated view they are taught, would they be so ready to blow us all up? I’m with Obama on this one.

Well, I am sure that some of you have seen that the Federal Minimum Wage went up today to $5.85, pursuant to the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which was voted in by some of our congressmen back on May 24, 2007, and was signed into law the next day by Bush. It raises the Federal Minimum Wage from yesterday’s $5.15 per hour, to $5.85 per hour today. Next July 24, 2008 it will raise to $6.55 per hour, and the following July 24, 2009, it will raise to $7.25 per hour.

Some of you might be thinking at the back of your head, “What about the wage increase that we voted in last November, how will this interact with Montana’s minimum wage laws?” (Remember Initiative 151? How about Raise Montana?).

So presently, Montana’s minimum is $6.15 per hour, even today we are above the Federal minimum. But as some of you will recall, our initiative amended the MCA § 39-3-409, and no later than September 30 this year, Montana has to calculate a new minimum wage, which will go into effect on January 1, 2008.

Now, these are not the hard numbers, I am just making an educated guesstimate*.
 

Federal Minimum $5.85 per hour
Montana’s Minimum
$6.15 x the consumer price index .027* = .166
.166 + $6.15 = $6.32
$6.32 rounded to the neatest 5 cents =

$6.30 new minimum wage for January 1, 2008.

*please note, I am using the June to June CPI for 2007, and the law says to use August to August, hence the guesstimate*

Alright, everybody with me? On July 24, 2008, the Federal Minimum will raise to $6.55 and Montana’s Minimum will raise to the Federal minimum of $6.55 from $6.30 (MT’s).

Assuming the same June 2006 to June 2007 CPI of 2.7%, for the upcoming years:

Year  Federal Montana
2008  $6.55  $6.30
2009  $7.25  $6.45
2010  $7.25  $6.60
2011  $7.25  $6.80
2012  $7.25  $7.00
2013  $7.25  $7.20
2014  $7.25  $7.40

I bolded how the power between the two would shift.  Montanan’s will always earn the most amount that the law will allow, as I read the law. (thanks William)

So basically, minimum wage will be about $6.15 (MT) until January 2008 when it will raise to $6.30 (MT), then again in July 2008 to $6.55 (Fed). In July 2007, the Federal Minimum of $7.25 will reign until January 1, 2014 when MT’s formula will overtake the Federal, to become $7.40.

So although it is great that the Feds finally came through on the whole minimum wage thing, you will also note that the change to the law, that Montanan’s overwhelmingly voted for, is quietly chugging along in the background, making sure that Montanan’s wages are keeping up with cost of living increases. 

Nicely done Montana.

While I didn’t get the opportunity to watch the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate, I have been reading through the transcripts. And while it is interesting to find out what was discussed, it isn’t the most exciting document to wade through, so I thought I would touch on a few of my favorite moments:

To a question about using religion to justify an opposition to gay marriage, John Edwards replied:

EDWARDS: It’s not. I mean, I’ve been asked a personal question which is, I think, what Reverend Longcrier is raising, and that personal question is, do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage?

The honest answer to that is I don’t. But I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I will not do that when I’m president of the United States.

This is definitely a sentiment that I look for in prospective candidates; a capability to recognize when your personal beliefs should not color your policies. It seems to be a lesson this president has forgotten, or never learned. Edwards won major bonus points from me with this response.

When Senator Clinton was asked whether or not Democrats have played politics with the war (a phrase we all know I despise), and she dodged the question, Kucinich responded:

KUCINICH: If you’re not going to answer the question, I’m going to answer the mother that troop — question.

The answer to your question, ma’am, is: Yes, it is politics. The Democrats have failed the American people. When we took over in January, the American people didn’t expect us to give them a Democratic version of the war. They expected us to act quickly to end the war.

And here’s how we can do it. It doesn’t take legislation. That’s a phony excuse to say that you don’t have the votes. We appropriated $97 billion a month ago. We should tell President Bush, no more funds for the war, use that money to bring the troops home, use it to bring the troops home.

Kucinich is in the position to be so blunt; unfortunately it isn’t the kind of comment we would see from the other candidates no matter how much they might believe it. So, the satisfaction that comes from reading a comment like that is accompanied by the knowledge that those comments never win office.

Mike Gravel was the only candidate who spoke earnestly when asked if American soldiers are dying in vain. As the other candidates responded that no American soldier acts in vain, Gravel said this:

GRAVEL: What did all these people die for? What are they dying for right now in Iraq every single day? Let me tell you: There’s only one thing worse than a soldier dying in vain; it’s more soldiers dying in vain.

Again, just like the Kucinich situation, Gravel takes the liberty to tell it like it is. I truly have respect for people who find the importance in telling the truth, regardless of how their statement might be used against them. Sometimes you have to lay it out there.

In one of my favorite statements of the night, Barrack Obama reitereated his willingness to meet with leaders of countries that have been derogatorily labeled by the Bush administration:

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

I have continued to find it immature that our President labels countries and their leaders so often. I would definitely want to see his successor have the willingness to sit down with some of the countries we don’t get along with. Because, like it or not, they are in this world with us, and often they wield power that we cannot.

When asked to say something nice about the person standing to his or her left, Bill Richardson had the line of the night when he said:

RICHARDSON: You know, let me just say, I love all of the candidates here.

RICHARDSON: In fact, I think they would all do great in the White House as my vice president.

You have to love the man’s bravado.

Seriously, I have been over this before, but this kind of stuff really gets to me. Look at these four headlines:

Poll: Congress Gets Dismal Marks On Iraq

Poll: Americans trust Congress over Bush on Iraq

Poll: U.S. Support for Iraq Invasion Inches Up

Most Americans want Congress to make withdrawal decision, according to poll

So, why are the polls all telling different stories. Well, they aren’t. All these headlines refer to the same poll! Why should the liberties that Editors take with headlines bother me? Because for the majority of American’s, headlines are their primary news source. No wonder we are so damned confused.

The best one of all though?

The Washington Post is on Crack

Recently I pondered the question of why lefties and righties approach blogging differently. After the uproar that post caused, I wanted to address some of the issues that were introduced as a result. I wanted to start with a few disclaimers:

• I personally don’t think Montana Netroots has ‘failed’, in fact I believe it to be quite successful. However, it has not succeeded to be the site it was originally meant to be, in my eyes. Since the bipartisanship never took hold, the site evolved into a strongly left-leaning arena.
• I do not think Conservatives are greedy or selfish. Perhaps my use of the terms ego-centric and ego-driven came off the wrong way, and for that I apologize. Even Shane said I painted with a broad brush. Allow me the opportunity to rectify this misunderstanding.
• I don’t think Liberals are ‘better’ people than Conservatives. It is only natural, though, that I have a stronger understanding of the Liberal mind than I do the Conservative. Despite my attempts to compare the two sides on a level, it is difficult to ‘put myself in their shoes’.

My motivation in that post was to attempt to explain how some of the tendencies we see in Liberals and Conservatives affect the way they approach blogging as a whole. I think it is fair to identify tendencies, as long as you remember they are not universal.

It is true that your average Liberal supports the group dynamic, believes in helping the weak in a relatively unconditional fashion, is willing to sacrifice personally to support the whole, and is concerned with the abuse of authority. If isn’t true that all Libs follow each of these bullet points, but there is a tendency. That tendency explains why we also tend to support universal health care, checks and balances, higher tax rates, and minority protections. The same tendencies also explain why we are bigger proponents of collaborative blogs and why you see us stick up for each other all the time; we feel like we are members of a team instead of individual writers. Again, these things aren’t always true; there are plenty of Liberal bloggers who want nothing to do with collaborative websites.

In comparison, it is also true that your average Conservative believes in helping people who want to help themselves (or who cannot do so), doesn’t believe in disproportionately taking from the rich to help the poor, and supports people in positions of authority. These general beliefs lead them to support pay-as-you-go spending, privatization of social services such as social security and education, and respect for Presidential decisions. Again, these tendencies explain the normal blogging behavior of Conservatives, who don’t form coalitions nearly as much, don’t tend to vocally stand up for one another, and are less likely to respond to every little comment. This isn’t to say these traits are negatives; they often take pride in their own blogging and believe that ideas should stand and fall on their own, without being propped up.

That is why I think we don’t see much in the way of Conservatives posts on this site; for me, Conservatives operate from a position that doesn’t naturally lead to community blogs as Liberals do. I think this is as much a good thing as it is a bad thing. As for Montana Netroots, while I believe we won’t attain the goal of bipartisanship through posting, I think this site has had an awesome contribution to Montana Politics from both sides of the aisle (even if just through thoughtful Conservative comments) and I am definitely proud to be a part of that.

I hope you understand that I wasn’t trying to demonize Conservatives; I was attempted to explain how our respective belief system affected our blogging styles.  I look forward to any specific points people want to debate about my theory.

Swede, I have been meaning to address this for some time, so here it it. You have oft been want to mention in the comments that congress’s low approval rating was the result dissatisfaction with the democratic leadership in congress. On the surface and with much hope one could construe the polls this way:

Here’s the updare-the slumber party was a huge success. The new gallup poll shows congress at a all time low of 14%, one point lower than the number of people who still think Elvis lives.

Let’s be clear, I do not lightly dismiss Swede, in fact I have yet to be able to dismiss him at all. His analysis and input is not only funny, but very astute and too often dead on. I have had a feeling he was off on this one, and even quickly deleted a response to that comment saying so.

Here is my take on congressional approval ratings. Not only do you have Republican’s hating them because they are picking on President Bush, but you also have liberal Democrats hating them because they are not taking President Bush to task enough. On top of that you have the fact that people just hate congress in general. The main thing that has made me doubt Swede’s take is the fact that when asked about a specific member of congress, they tend to poll around the 50% mark. This left me to wonder about what would happen if the polling questions were more specific. Hat tip to Jay, I finally got those answers here.

In general, is your opinion of the Republican party favorable or not favorable?
-
Favorable: 38%
Unfavorable: 56%
-
In general, is your opinion of the Democratic party favorable or not favorable?
-
Favorable: 52%
Unfavorable: 41%

According to this New York Times/CBS poll [PDF] (July 9-17), it appears that folks are a lot happier with the Democratic Party than the Republican party. Dig a little deeper into the poll results, and you will see that there is quiet a bit of merit to what Swede is saying. When asked if they were pleased or disappointed with Democrats in congress, 58% of the people are disappointed. The question above though shows that this is not because they favor the Republican’s. I am sure that both Swede and I would mark ourselves in that ‘displeased’ category, but for different reasons. This is shown even more clearly when the question is asked about the job that Republicans in Congress are doing and 68% of the respondents claim disappointment. That is 10% higher than the same questions for Democrats.

Look at those questions and answers again:

Are you mostly pleased or mostly disappointed with what the Democrats in Congress are doing?

Pleased: 28%
Disappointed: 58%

Are you mostly pleased or mostly disappointed with what the Republicans in Congress are doing?

Pleased: 21%
Disappointed: 68%

I am not trying to call Swede out from my bully pullpit. To be sure, this should show that I take his arguments very seriously. Hell, why don’t you be an author here?

What? Uhm yeah. Apparently since Colby pointed out the lack of conservative posters here at Montana Netroots, I have taken it on myself to become one. Not really, but I did read an interesting opinion piece in the IR today called Rehberg praised for medical pot.

For the most part, the piece focuses on the benefits of medical marijuana:

Marijuana’s medicinal value to Montana patients mirrors the modern scientific research findings that have steadily been documenting how miraculous marijuana really is. There are literally hundreds of scientific, peer-reviewed research papers that explain why Dr. Lester Grinspoon, of the Harvard Medical School, has written that “marijuana is safer than most medicines prescribed every day. If marijuana were a new discovery rather than a well-known substance carrying cultural and political baggage, it would be hailed as a wonder drug.”

But does contain this snippet:

Marijuana is truly a wonder drug, as Dr. Grinspoon has reported, and all the members of Patients & Families United are grateful to Montana voters for allowing us the right to follow our doctors’ advice in using it. We’re also thankful for Congressman Denny Rehberg’s favorable attitude toward an important issue commonly called the “Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment.” Denny has supported this vital amendment ever since Montana voters made their marijuana decision in 2004, and another House vote on this proposal is expected this week. It addresses the most important remaining threat that medical marijuana patients face.

Although medical marijuana is now legal under state and local law, the federal DEA continues to persecute patients and their caregivers. Very recently, the DEA confiscated a legal Montana patient’s medicine, causing unnecessary, unfair suffering. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment would stop the DEA from interfering in medical marijuana issues in states with policies like Montana’s. It’s a basic state’s rights issue, combined with compassion and a simple recognition of the science behind marijuana as medicine.

You see, I was unaware of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, but if it does what this author claims, then I can give it my full support. You see, I have long viewed this as a state’s rights issue. If the voters of a state approve a law and that law does not conflict with the United States Constitution, then the federal government ought not be allowed to arrest people or interfere with the law abiding people of that state. It angers me that they have been allowed to do so thus far.

Regardless of how you feel about medical marijuana, the people of this state voted overwhelmingly in support of it. It is now legal in this state and since that does not violate the constitution, the federal government ought to respect that. If Rehberg shares these same views and supports this amendment, then good, we agree on something.

One of the things that Shane was most focused on (and the early contributors agreed with) when this site was founded was the desire to have Montana Netroots serve as a dialog between all aspects of the political spectrum.  A key element of this noble goal was the diversification of the contributors themselves, as well as the posted content; various conservative-leaning writers were asked to join, and an open invitation was issued for members of any political persuasion to come aboard.

Perhaps it was because the site was founded by well-known Liberal bloggers, or perhaps because the early roster was noticeably left-leaning, but I think it is fair to say that goal has failed thus far.  Montana Netroots tends to be viewed as a Liberal repository, despite our intent (as well as fine contributions from bloggers like TMM).  This isn’t for lack of trying; Craig, Budge, TMM, Rocky Smith were all, at one point, listed as authors, and the open call for conservative contributions would have welcomed the likes of Andy, Swede, etc as authors as well.  The fact that this goal failed (in spite of such a concerted effort to ensure otherwise) got me thinking about the nature of how our political leanings impact the way we practice our craft; what are the fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals that would affect the manner, as opposed to the topic, of their blogging?

While the classification of political groups is always circumspect, there are relatively safe assumptions to make about people who identify with certain political ideologies.  About Liberals, it is safe to say that we appreciate the group dynamic.  We support programs aimed at pursuing the common good, we believe sayings like “it takes a village…”, and we tend to subscribe to an utilitarian standpoint (the greatest good for the greatest number).  These beliefs manifest themselves in pursuits like universal health care.  They also manifest themselves in how we blog.

It is no secret that the number of collaborative/community/diary based websites are of a leftist slant.  When you think about the things that define Liberals, this is no surprise.  A collaborative community project is a natural extension of our beliefs.  While I don’t doubt they exists, I am unfamiliar with any such projects coming from the right end of things.  Certainly, if such efforts do exist, they do not exist to the degree or number that they do in Liberal circles. Montana Netroots, while not intended this way, is an example of this practice.  It is almost as though the Montana Liberal bloggers are a group whose members take turns at the mic stand.  When Shane posts, I feel that he is representing me in a fashion.  I feel similarly about the other Liberal bloggers from the state; we are all working together to advance/explain/substantiate a platform, and we support each other when we do so.  We cheer each other on, as it were.

Personally, I don’t see this in Conservative circles, and I suppose that makes sense too.  Conservatives tend to view the world with a by-the-sweat-of-your-brow mentality, which is admirable.  They support responsibility, self-determination, and resolve, which liberals often translate into stubbornness.  They are suspect of government because they feel legislation often undermines the ability of the individual.   They tend not to support efforts to take care of other people (at least when they feel it unwarranted); feeling that such a thing is unjust for the most successful amongst us.  As opposed to utilitarianism, they tend to view the world through the lens of self-determination, where you get what you earn; as opposed to what is ‘handed to you’.

It follows then, that their blogging tends to be more (and I don’t mean this to be derogatory) ego-centric.  Since they believe that individuals succeed or fail on their own, they are more interested in advancing their own ideas than in representing each other.  It is their responsibility to take care of their own site and ideas; not someone else’s.  Their resolve translates into more concrete posts and their tendency to have a black-and-white perspective generally means they are less open to debate against their posts.  I want to be clear here, that I am not trying to pigeonhole Conservative bloggers, but I feel that the examples we have in our state generally support these ideas.  You don’t see Conservatives comment on each other’s posts nearly as much as you see Liberals do so; a habit we are often chided for.

Not that either approach is bad, but they both seem to be natural and logical extensions of the belief system for both sides.  Which begs the question about Montana Netroots.  Can the stated goal of having a fairly balanced representative (especially in the posts themselves) ever succeed?   Is it a reasonable goal to have Conservatives post on the site as frequently as Liberals do?  Is the phenomenon here at Montana Netroots a single failure, or is there really a fundamental, and ideological, distinction between the people who subscribe to the two political viewpoints that precludes such a notion?

I leave that to you.

So, the question has been raised recently on whether the Democrats have accomplished anything in their first six months. I think that I can answer ‘yes’ from my perspective, but there might be a bigger issue that we need to look at here concerning the obstructionist culture of the current Republican party both in congress and the administration. Mainly, I want to focus on the administration.

Why would I do that when it has been clearly pointed out to me that George Bush is not running for president. I want to be sure and remind people about what Democrats in congress are working for and what a Republican administration is obstructing. Additionally, even though his approval ratings are below 30%, lockstep support is much higher from Republicans in congress. Many of those same folks are coming up for reelection.

In his first six years, George Bush only vetoed one bill: the expansion of federal funding for stem cell research. This is despite the fact that American’s support increased federal funding of stem cell research at a rate of over 6 to 1. This support rate has increased from 3 to 1 since the original veto. While democrats and independents support it by a huge majority, even Republicans support expanded funding at a rate of 60% to 18%. It is likely the reason that Clair McCaskill is now called Senator McCaskill and will assuredly sink more GOP congressional bids in 2008. While one can admire those that stand behind their beliefs despite public opinion, it just goes to show how out of step the Republican party is with the American people.

Now Bush is talking about Veto’s all over the place. Recently, the Democratic congress passed a bill to expand funding for CHIPS, which offers expanded funding for State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Now, let’s be clear, this is a wildly popular program no matter how you might feel about is personally. Most people think that Kids ought to get proper healthcare no matter what their parents can afford. It looks like George has his veto pen all warmed up for this one though:

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said: “The president’s senior advisers will certainly recommend a veto of this proposal. And there is no question that the president would veto it.”

My question about this comment is why will he veto it? It is hard to tell, but from the wording Mr Frato uses, it looks like that there is no question that George Bush will do what his advisers tell him to do…

Anyway, it has been pointed out here that President Bush has 16 other bills on his desk that he is threatening to Veto. From the “>Speaker of the House we see that many of these bills all represent positive progressive pieces of legislation that are popular in general:

Homeland Security Appropriations - H.R. 2638
State-Foreign Operations Appropriations - H.R. 2764
Interior-Environment Appropriations - H.R. 2643
The Energy Price Gouging Act – H.R. 1252
The No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act - H.R. 2264
FY 2008 Defense Authorization Bill - H.R. 1585
FY 2008 Homeland Security Authorization - H.R. 1684
Hate Crimes Prevention Act – H.R. 1592
D.C. Voting Rights Act – H.R. 1905
Rail and Mass Transit Security Act - H.R. 1401
Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 - H.R. 1255
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - H.R. 985
Reauthorizing Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund - H.R. 720
Employee Free Choice Act - H.R. 800
Requiring Medicare to Negotiate Lower Prescription Drug Prices - H.R. 4

There, if you want a list of what the Democratic congress has been up to, there is your list. It is also a list of legislation that the current Republican president has threatened to veto. Many of these bills cross the ‘progressive’ agenda and have support of voters of both parties.

No, George Bush’s name will not be on any ballot come November 2008, but his legacy will be.

Your Mom called last night, around 8 pm, she told me that she had been having the beginnings of contractions all day.  Then she said that she was going to go swimming, (floating like a hippo she called it) before heading home for the evening, she planned to sleep all night, to have energy to bring you into the world today.  I was so excited, I was so looking forward to meeting you.  And today?  I got to.  You were born this barely afternoon, and we already have great stories circulating about your birth.  Here I sit, writing this, less than 12 hours after you came into this world.

 
You see, my lil bro and your Mom, invited your Grandma and I over to see you at 6:30, about 6 hours after you were born.  I got there first, and as I hesitantly entered your home, I heard your Mom say, “Your Auntie is here to meet you, Your Aunt Jaime.”  I took off my shoes, set down my camera and keys, and walked into your parent’s bedroom. 

 
There you were, all bundled in a yellow receiving blanket, close to both of your parents, one on each side of you.  You are perfect.  Ten little fingers, ten little toes, a rosebud mouth, blonde with a slight red tinge to your hair.  You were so new, so precious, I was slightly afraid to touch you, so much perfection, I didn’t want to spoil it.  Then one of your feet escaped its blanket, and I reached out to you, and touched your foot.  I was in awe.

 
Then Grandma the Firecracker came, oh B-love, she was so moved to meet you.  I made room for her to get to you, and she reached out for your hand as tears of joy sprang into her eyes.  She looked into your face, and laughed with joy.  She gently pulled away your blanket, and started making sure that you had all the right bits, she just wanted to hold you close to her heart, so that you might hear how much she loved you.  Every ounce of Grandma’s being was focused on you.  She was talking to you, telling you how loved you were, remarking on your beauty, and weeping tears of bliss.  You tried to open your eyes to see her, but there was sunlight pouring in, I lifted a hand to shade your eyes, and you looked into your Grandma’s eyes.  Wow, she is fascinating, you just couldn’t stop looking at her, well, except when you were yawning. 

 
You opened your perfect little rosebud mouth, and yawned at us.  Grandma and I both leaned down to look into your mouth, lol, instinct I guess.  A perfect little tongue arched out, and completed the signs of tiredness.  A beautiful gullet if I ever saw one.

 
Your Dad and I went out into the living room, he was trying to set up your crib, and I thought I might be able to help.  We got it mostly figured out, then realized we had forgotten some sort of liner, that went under the mattress, held it up for your Mom to explain, and went back to work.  I helped my brother make the bed you are lying in tonight, and I love that. 

 
Your Mom had to excuse herself, leaving you and Grandma in the bedroom alone.  My brother and I brought in the sidecar bed, and Grandma told us that we were in the way.  So Grandma picked you up, while my brother and I set up your bed.  She moved out into the living room while we got the straps adjusted and tight, holding you in her arms.  When we all moved out into the living room, Grandma wouldn’t give you up, she insisted I help her stand while she still held you. 

 
Do you know how much you are loved?  I bet you can feel it. 

 
Then your Dad took you into his lap, he was relaxed and easy with you, wanting to be close to you, and to hold you, to see you.  There have been few times in my life when I have seen my brother so focused on one person, he loves you so much.  It was wonderful to see.

 
Mom leaned over and told me that Dad wanted to know if I would run to the RB drive in to get him some fries and 2 special sauces.  I told her of course I would, and asked if we needed anything else.  Grandma left, wanting to respect your need to be together as a fledgling family, but not without reluctance B-love.  I decided to run my errands at the same time, turns out I ran for Iodine first, and to RB’s second. 

 
When I got back to your house, it was just me, your Mom, your Dad and you.  Your Mom handed you over to me, and I was scared, because despite my years of caring for children, I had never met anyone so new to the world as you were.  When I held you, you were 7 ½ hours old.  Oh how my heart filled. 

 
I held you for a long while, before I began my inspection.  I talked to you, watched your face, and felt the weight of you.  You have no eyelashes, at least that I can see.  Your fingernails and toenails are the size of a tiny nail head.  You make mewing sounds, and Mom says you have a set of lungs on you, announcing yourself while you were still coming into the world.  You have a sweet little rosebud mouth, and the cutest chin to set it off.  You are crowned with a head of thick enough, but not overbearing blonde/slightly red hair.  You have a little whirl in your hair on the back of your head, and a little whirl just on your forehead.  I think I might have seen the start of a freckle on your chest, just where I have one.

 
Oh, and I know this story will haunt you, but it brought so much joy to me not to share.  You had your first, ummm . . .organic movement in my arms, when I was holding you.  You might think “disgusting”, but I thought how wonderful, she is so healthy, so alive!  Mom and I went to go change your very first diaper, and we must have used about 15 wipes to clean you up, working as a team; and oh how glad I was to be there, doing that for you.  I warned you that I might not be as excited about future organic movements, but thanked you for being there for the first one. 

 
In your first 12 hours, we have learned so much.  You just need us there, and when we are, all is good in the world.  Laundry will become a prevalent chore, which is cool, we can handle that.  You have a burning curiosity about what is going on around you, and we will do the best we can to expand your horizons.

 
There are thunderclouds rolling overhead, lighting, and gentle rain tonight.  My favorite weather. 

 
Welcome to the light B-love, and know you are so precious to this family.  I am so happy to have you in my life, we are going to be buddies, and I am looking forward to the adventure.

 
You are now 12 hours and 45 minutes new.

There is certainly no shortage in the number of times I have been called an Idealist; most of those times I have taken the term as a compliment, whether or not it was meant as such. And while I do not agree, there is certainly a perception that Liberalism relies more on visions of what-may-be, whereas Conservativism is perceived as the view of the realist. Just recently, I got quite a lecture about Liberals and the clouds their heads are in. Some excerpts:

• “I didn’t think you’d get the idea because you’re a moonstruck romantic.”
• “You need to be rationale and ruthless, not filled with faith and visions of a perfect world to come.”
• ‘The youthful idealist, infused with romantic notions of what might be, finds it impossible to accept the world in its present form.”

Claims the likes of which are nothing new for me; like I said, it is a common misconception. My point here is that it is quite regular to see Conservatives accuse Liberals of being idealists, while maintaining that they themselves are realists. Which brings me to Fred Thompson. This man has not announced a formal candidacy, hasn’t stated a platform, and has not campaigned on any issue. Despite all of this, he is running virtually neck and neck with the other Republican front runners:

Giuliani’s popularity continues to drop. His support is down to 21 percent, off six points from June and 14 points since March. The former New York mayor is running virtually even with Thompson, who — at a steady 19 percent — has become a threat without even officially entering the race. McCain is off a bit at 15 percent, and Romney remains at eleven.

Personally, I think Thompson continues to poll so well precisely because he has no identifying features. Sure, he has a voting history that we can look to, although it is just old enough, to vaguely reference without having to deal with specifics. He has positioned himself as the blank canvas upon which the core constituency of the right wing can paint their wildest dreams. This is especially true since an unusually high number of social conservatives have refused to support any of the current candidates; they are unhappy with the choices offered them.

So what is a socially conservative voter to do? Well, a realist would educate themselves about the possible choices and make the best of the candidate pool. But that isn’t what we see in any political poll; all of which show Thompson near the front of the pack. No, a vast number of social conservatives are choosing to ‘wish upon a star’ and pull for the non-candidate they know little about. By looking to Thompson and his lack of a platform, they can visualize their uber-candidate, fulfilling every specific litmus test they can muster. Quite the idealists view, don’t you think?  Although, it is sure working well for Thompson, who gets to ride this wave of ideology as his opponents toil away.

Which begs the question: how long can Thompson continue to ‘unofficially’ run?  Will he be able to operate in such an above-the-fray manner long enough for other high-profile Republican candidates to step down?  And will his lack of specific views, while seeming beneficial from a primary-centric viewpoint, drive off crucial  moderate/independent votes?

Of course, I am a Liberal.  I guess I am not supposed to concern myself with such practical questions after all.