Separation of Church and State

Searching for answers?

This last week I heard 2 separate reports on National Public Radio, that while were not part of a series are certainly related.

The first report was an interview with a catholic priest regarding abortion rights and something he said really struck me as extremely significant. Basically his point was that he did not have any issue with abortion being legal, but that he believed that it was the responsibility of the church to teach moral values to their parishioners with respect to abortion as well as other moral issues. I know that this priest's viewpoint is not shared by all of his fellow clergy, but I think that maybe they should listen to him and stop trying to influence legislation to enforce moral behavior.

The second report concerned the republican governor's meeting that was held in Florida this past week. A number of the rising stars of the party were being interviewed about what the party needed to change in light of the disastrous defeat of the past election. What was said was that the GOP needed to return to the platform and values of the party of the late 70's and early 80's when Ronald Reagan was elected. Sounds like the rising stars didn't really learn anything new in all of the meetings they held.

They should have listened to the first report from the priest and taken a clue from his approach. Separate church and state. Quit trying to legislate moral behavior, ie. making abortion illegal, leave that to the church to influence their own flocks. For those that do not go to church, or do go, but believe differently, let them make their own decisions about what's moral or immoral behavior.

The GOP should focus on the what a majority of this country's citizens want their politicians to work on - turning around the economy, global warming, a more peaceful world, fixing the health care system, etc. Shake off the christian right demagoguery of the so called moral majority - obviously the majority wasn't large enough to win the last election!

Campaign Financing

Okay, just so you know, my blog isn't going to be just about politics and taxes, I promise! But, you know how something catches your eye and you start reading - well that happened to me this morning.

Usually I'm not this interested in politics because frankly it was my ex-wife's near fanatical support of the democratic party. Any time I said anything that was in disagreement with her views it led to a huge fight. Since I couldn't talk to her about politics I just barely read enough to be able to vote intelligently. Now, it's different - Mrs. B. has her viewpoint and I have mine. And we can talk about politics, not that we do very often, but at least it doesn't lead to an argument.

I'm registered as an independent because I don't agree with the platforms of either party. There millions out there just like me that like concepts that both parties espouse, but find others abhorrent. My ideal candidate would be:

• fiscally conservative and reduce the deficit
• ethical, moral
  
• free market economic viewpoint
  
• supporter of an individual's right to choose (not only on abortion, but on numerous individual rights)
• support handgun restrictions (yes, I do believe that there should be some restrictions on an individual's rights, but that is another blog post all on it's own.)
  
• fix the mess our social programs are in, including social security, but keeping in mind the first point above
  
• find a way to create a reasonable national health insurance program

There are many other points, but this post is getting long enough as it is so I'll stop and return to the list at some point in a future blog. And I know that the only person that would match this description is probably a cartoon character, but anyhow, I can wish can't I?

Well, anyway, I have paid more attention to the presidential election this year because I really do not know who to vote for. I really do not like any of the candidates, and as Mrs. B. knows, I would rather have an independent, third party candidate to vote for like Michael Bloomberg. I know he is not perfect either. So I have been reading a lot of different articles about McCain, Obama and Clinton since it still doesn't appear that Bloomberg is really going to run.

This morning I saw a caption about an article that quoted McCain saying that Obama should take public financing for the general election campaign. And that he shouldn't back out on his promise to do so. Then there's the Obama camp's response:

"Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Thursday called public financing "an option that we wanted on the table," but said "there is no pledge" to take the money and the spending limitations that come with it."

and

Obama told reporters on Friday that it would be "presumptuous of me to say now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it."

and this from McCain

"If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we'd have to rethink our position," McCain said. "Our whole agreement was that we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I'm told, that made that commitment."


More political lies as usual, I wondered? So, I decided to check the truth behind the statements in the article to see what was and wasn't really true. I searched and found a number of articles from the NY Times that seemed to support McCain's assertion that Obama had in fact pledged to accept public campaign funds. I read at least half a dozen different articles that indicated that this wasn't a lie on McCain's part:


NY Times, March 2, 2007: McCain and Obama in Deal on Public Financing

. . .“Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same,” Mr. Nelson said. . .

and

. . .Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement” with whoever was his opponent. . .

Ok, so Obama issues the challenge for the republican challenger to accept public campaign financing and will "... aggressively pursue an agreement..." Sounds like he is promising to use public financing to me.

He even went as far as to ask for an opinion from the Federal Election commission on whether he could raise funds for the general election and then give them back. And he did get a response to his inquiry.

Seems that the Federal Election Commission granted Obama the right to solicit funds for the general election and then return them to the original donors if he only followed a few rules that Obama originally proposed in his original request which are not very onerous at all:

"The Commission approved the process described by the campaign’s request in which:

• Contributions designated for the general election will be kept in a separate account;
• Only the campaign treasurer and chief operating officer will have access to this account; and
• The funds in this account will not be used for any purpose."

And the approval goes on to state that any other presidential candidate can either follow these procedures or seek a ruling on their own set of procedures.

Well, maybe Obama didn't come out and say he would only accept public campaign financing, but he did challenge the other party's candidate to promise to use only public campaign financing and that he would pledge to do so as well.

Where's your pledge Obama?

Don't get the wrong idea about this blog, I haven't decided to support McCain, I was simply interested in checking out the comments in the original article. What do you think?


In case you would like additional information on public campaign finance laws you can click on this link and it will take you to the Federal Election Commission's web page that contains the rules to qualify for public campaign financing. Which will be the content for yet another blog.

Superdelegates

There has been a lot of press lately about the so called "Superdelegates" and I thought that it was a very worthy topic to blog about.

Superdelegates are democratic officals, both in elected office and appointed that have the right to vote at the democratic convention. There are currently 796 of these individuals. The superdelegates are made up from the democratic members of congress, democratic governors, party leaders and former heads of the Democratic National Committee, former democratic presidents (Gee, I wonder who Bill is going to vote for?), former democratic leaders from the house and senate. There are some other democrats appointed to these positions that hold posts in other democratic organizations like Young Democrats of America.

So what this could mean at the nominating convention is that if the vote lead Clinton or Obama have over the other is less than this number then it is possible that the candidate with the fewer delegates based on the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses could become the democratic candidate for president.

Nice huh!

The current system was established in 1984 to prevent a candidate or populist ideal from swaying the party too far one way or the other. If this looked likely to happen the superdelegates were there to prevent this from happening.

What happened to: "Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people..."? I don't see anything in there that says "by a few people." I think that this is wrong to be able to undermine a candidate that has achieved a victory through the primaries and caucuses.

And to give the republicans equal time - that have "unpledged delegates" that currently stand at around 123. Much less of an impact on their convention, but it is there nonetheless.

I believe that much of what is wrong in this country today has been fostered by the two party system that is currently in place. The election laws need to be modified to allow a viable third party to join the fray or at least make it easier for a non-aligned candidate to run for president. The way it is right now no one, short of a very wealthy person, can afford to try to run for office against the two entrenched parties. I think that this is wrong and should be changed.

Mother first?

Give me a break! Hillary claiming to be a mother first and then a candidate? Right! Calling for the correspondent to be given a harsher punishment rather than just a suspension is really too much. Given the harsh tone of her message we will probably see some tears within the next 2 days to counterbalance her image.

Brings back memories of how the media was used and abused during the Clinton presidency. Deja vu anyone?

Pimp

Pimp
2 entries found.

pimp[1,noun] pimp[2,verb]

Main Entry:

¹pimp

Pronunciation:

\ˈpimp\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

probably akin to British dialect pimp small bundle of sticks, Middle English pymple papule, German Pimpf young boy, kid, literally, little fart, Pumpf, Pumps fart

Date:

1600

: a man who solicits clients for a prostitute

Main Entry:

²pimp

Function:

verb

Date:

1636

intransitive verb

: to work as a pimp transitive verb : to make use of often dishonorably for one's own gain or benefit

Source: Merriam Websters online dictionary

Okay, okay, why am I posting a definition for pimp? Well, because as I was reading the paper this morning I happened to see this article about a correspondent being suspended for a remark he made. Don't know why the article caught my eye, but it did.

So it seems that the MSNBC correspondent made the following comment:

"Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

Now, what he was asking about is how Chelsea is being used to try reach out to superdelegates, calling and asking them to vote for her mother. I happen to believe that she is also being used to lure younger voters that Hillary doesn't seem to be able to attract. Well, I for one, can't understand why anyone would be attracted to Hillary's campaign platform, but that's beside the point. Here's a link to one article about her changing role in her mother's campaign.

Seems that Howard Wolfson, Hillary's communications director for the campaign, didn't like the comment and was quoted as saying:

"disgusting," "beneath contempt" and "the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network."

And now the campaign is rethinking their participation in an upcoming debate with Barack on MSNBC. Please, don't participate - there is already enough verbal pollution swirling around all of the campaigns.

Hmm, I don't know why it shouldn't have been said. For all appearances it does seem that Chelsea is being exploited for Hillary's benefit and I would say that meets the definition of being pimped. The use may not be dishonorable, but that doesn't mean the word doesn't fit or that it shouldn't have been used. Do you think this might be another ploy? Will we see another, staged, teary-eyed television news spot decrying the awful things this disgusting person said in an effort to show Hillary's softer side?

Pah! Hillary is about as soft as my tile floor. On second thought, maybe my tile floor is softer!

Give the guy a break and leave him alone. He only posed a question that is fairly obvious if anyone even remotely follows what's gone on during the earlier parts of these political campaigns. Each candidate is looking to exploit every advantage they have. They are all pimping, every blessed last one of them.

Just my 2 cents.