I think this statement is a masterful piece of work.  The president and his speechwriters know that of the two items mentioned in that sentence, the gay marriage thing is going to resonate more strongly with the average joe six pack than the corruption.  It was the last item mentioned and it inflames peoples passions more.  Now, if the dems could learn to do the same thing!

Posted at February 1, 2006 6:56 AM in response to Corruption=gay marriage

I think what is natural is that people are generally greedy and self-interrested.  In order to contain those two characteristics and in some remote way channel them into more altruistic ends, the market system that we have is about as good as we're going to get.  The object is to tweak and cajole this system so that we get the most out of it that we can.  One thing is for sure though.  We're not going to get rid of it any time soon.

Posted at January 28, 2006 8:34 AM in response to George Allen

So, to follow on the question here, what right does any nation have to tell them that they cannot defend themselves in whatever way they see fit? We surely wouldn't like it if the rest of the world told us that we couldn't build a certain type of weapon, and if we did, they were going to go to the UN Security Council, put trade sanctions on us, or exact any type of price.

As much as I would rather Iran NOT have nuculur weapons, I don't see that we or the rest of the world has much business telling them that they can't develop them.

Posted at January 21, 2006 6:43 PM in response to The Iranian Nuclear Program

OK....let's suppose the dems take back some of the congress this fall....Now will they be obligated to give a fair hearing to a bunch of lobbyists that were hired as part of the K-street project?  Seems to me that one of the first orders of business should be to make sure that these firms know that the shoe is now on the other foot...and their actions should reflect their deference to the new majority.  That's only fair.

Posted at January 13, 2006 11:25 AM in response to The Daily Muck

we must remember who we are dealing with here (our side that is)....The democrats have made an art of squandering good opportunities over the past 10 to 12 years.....what's to make us believe that they'll change all that now?

If the democrats had any sense at all they would have immediately come out against any legislative proposals to clean up this problem until after the elections.  Only new leadership can solve this problem.....but now that opportunity has been lost.

Let's face it...our team in washington (democrat leadership - Obey, Pelosi, the whole bunch of 'em) is just plain damn stupid.  We need to get rid of them and get some new players.  Then maybe we can get somewhere.

Posted at January 10, 2006 7:01 AM in response to Please, Don't Say "Lobbying Reform"

Presidents get to pick judges.  That's it.  I don't like the ones W picks but that's just the way it works.  Yes, the Senate has a say in the matter but I don't see that the minority party really has much say in this whole matter.  And you also must remember that the republicans largely voted for clinton's supreme court nominees.  Where they really were asses was with his appelate court judges.

We have to understand that one day there will again be a democrat in the white house....and he will be appointing judges......and we will want them to get through a possibly republican senate.  We need to look ahead in these things.

Another thing to note.....if Scalito gets in there (and he will).....and if Roe falls (and it will)....then we've got an election issue that has not worked for us in years now possibly working to our favor.

Posted at January 9, 2006 1:33 PM in response to Carts, Horses, and Judges

I REALLY like these two.....especially that last one.  More congresspeople, like more doctors (competition, lower costs, etc), would make do wonders to clean up the system.  There is actually no way that a congressperson can "represent" the number of people in their districts right now.  I haven't checked yet but is this something that needs to be done by constitutional amendment??

Posted at January 6, 2006 8:06 AM in response to The Mantle of Reform

Seems to me that ANYTIME a lobbyist meets with a congressperson, it out to be noted and reported, either by the lobbyist or the congressperson, or better yet, both.  This ought to be made public along with all other contribution information.  Same goes for the executive branch....anytime a lobbyist meets with any executive branch agent, it must be reported and noted so that anyone can access the information....instantly.

Posted at January 6, 2006 8:00 AM in response to The Mantle of Reform

I just hope our team up there and out on the campaign trail will make damn sure that the media is browbeaten into submission if something like this happens.  You KNOW that the cons are going to try something like this....the only question is will we make sure that they don't get away with it.....and that means not letting the media in this country get away with glossing over any half-@$$ed proposals as real reform.

Posted at January 6, 2006 7:55 AM in response to The Mantle of Reform

Perhaps it's better to make a distinction here.....of course the congresspeople are going to get upset by all this....they are the ones being pissed on!  I think that the presidential candidates, however, have a whole different agenda....they want to be in power.  I just think it's an interesting juxtaposition to see what the dem presidential candidates-to-be will say about all this (will they actually campaign to weaken the power of the office that they seek?) versus what the congressional candidates say about it.  I don't recall JKerry really going after Bush much on this sort of thing in 04.

Posted at January 4, 2006 1:36 PM in response to Why Even Bother Passing Laws?