Vision Circle

You, Sir, Have Gone Too Far

When Clinton was in office, I believed that the Republicans and conservatives who were crowing about the low moral of the war fighters, "because of Bill Clinton", was taking things too far. In the case of Clinton, it was another case of the "opposition" going too far.

Now, we have this statement by Rep. John Murtha:

Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) told a civic group.

I thought in the past, and I think now, that the enemies of the U.S. read and view our news media. Statements like that quoted, does nothing but give strength to our enemies as well has hurt the moral of our war fighters.

Murtha should know better.

"Forget the Party Labels"

This one has been swirling around in my mind for a bit. It's not formulated completely, but I just want to put it out there.

Michael Steele is getting support from the national Republican party because he is a Black Republican. He's getting help from Karl Rove, the president, and national conservative talk shows.

Michael Steele is the man.

Michael Steele is running his U.S. Senate for Maryland race, not as a Republican, but as an individual. His campaign is saying, forget the party labels and look at the man and the issues.

Now, he could be said that he is doing that so that Blacks "forget" he is a Republican and vote for him. But that is not the case.

Indeed, his campaign is looking at the Maryland demographics, 2:1 registered Democrats to Republicans, and see that in a state wide race, there is no other way to run.

His campaign, which has started, has already putting out that he should be considered independent of his party and the president.

Disloyal Opposition

Now it appears that Bush is "fighting back" against the people who say the Bush administration lied about the reason the U.S. went to war against Iraq.

President Bush on Friday shot back at critics claiming his administration misconstrued or lied about pre-war intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, saying "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

Frankly, I think it is the Bush administration that is deeply irresponsible.

The Bush administration said the reason for the action against Iraq was because of WMDs. They then said it was because of violations of U.N. sanctions. They then said it was because of Saadam's treatment of Iraq citizens. Then it was said the seed of Democracy in the country would be good for the Middle East.

At one point, the president was saying that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11/2001 attacks, but the vice-president was saying that Iraq was involved.

Did the Bush administration communicate a clear and consistent story for the action against Iraq?

No.

In fact, the most consistent and supportive reasons for action against Iraq came not from the Bush administration, but from commentators and pundits who backed the administration.

Men and women of our country were sent to fight in a foreign country, yet the President of the United States, seemingly, can't give a straight answer on why we are there.

In short, the Bush administration can't communicate worth jack!

So, when the opposition takes advantage of this lack of communication, the supporters of the president say the opposition is working against the interests of the U.S.

I have a question about working against the interests of the U.S.

Tom Delay Is On Crack

Tom Delay is hittin' the pipe or maybe he's doing meth. Either way, he's on something GOOD to say this:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.
Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible.
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.
Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

Government Largesse

The way President Bush detailed the programs to be used to help out the Katrina Hurricane victims were all the way Republicans have tried to address certain issues.

So, in one way I don't see why conservatives are not happy. Bush wants to use government to address ills in the way Republicans want to use government, not the way Democrats want to use the government.

Oh...

Wait....

The costs associated with the programs?

Who cares about the costs?

After all, look at the amount of pork in the current highway spending.

Splitting The White Vote

There is a new person getting into the primary Democratic race for the chance to run for in teh general election for the U.S. Senate.

The person is white. I heard him on a radio talk show today. When explaining why he should be the person to get the Democratic nomination, he mentioned the other white candidate, Ben Cardin, by name. But he NEVER mentioned Mfume, as if Mfume is a non-factor.

This is what some white Democratic pundits in Maryland feared. The reason being is that whites will split their vote and Mfume will get to run in the general election. But this is the situation that Republicans like because they believe that the Republican candidate, Michael Steele, will wipe up the floor with Mfume.

Stay tuned...

I Keep Saying

So, I'm home a little early from work, stretched out on the bed, with my headphones on, listening to sometimes talk radio. (The kid is asleep at the head of the bed, I'm at the foot of the bed).

I wake up from a catnap to hear Black people talking about the Republican vs. Democratic party thing.

One person gets his facts twisted and states "Republicans" when it should be "Democrats". The Republicans in the discussion jump on him.

Should I mention this was an all Black panel?

Anyway...

What got me is one person said that parties don't matter, it's the policies that matter.

That's where I'm at in this stage of my life.

To hell with the party labels, I'm going to support the PERSON who is saying things that most align with my views.

Alan Keyes and Michael Steele and Olympia Snowe are all in the same party. (Shouldn't Keyes be pissed about the GOP pushing Steele as a star?)

Mfume, Ford, Teddy Kennedy and Zell Miller are all in the same party.

Screw the labels, I'm staying independent and will support the person not the party.

Footnote: I find it a damn shame that some people can't handle a person being critical of a party but that not meaning that a person supports the opposition party. How many people realize that the U.S. political system is not a 2 party system, but a multi-party system with the 2 primary parties rigging the game against all other parties?

This Is Foul

OK, this is just foul.

From the Drudge Report:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX

NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN

**Exclusive**

The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.

Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.

Both children were adopted from Latin America.

A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper's "standard background check."

That. Is. Just. Wrong.

Blacks and the GOP

So we have the Republican Party chair saying this:

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman attended the NAACP convention in Milwaukee Thursday. He planned to express regrets for Republican attitudes toward blacks in the past.

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said in remarks prepared for delivery. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Now, I've been saying for some time that it isn't entirely "the fault" of Black voters that Blacks vote Dem in such high numbers, and that Repubs have to carry a lot of "the blame".

And I've said that if that was acknowledged and proceed from there, things would be different. That is the path that Michael Steele uses when he says his party was wrong to support strategies that divide and that it was wrong for Repubs to "turn away" from Blacks who used to support the party so strongly.

But coming from a non-Repub, which doesn't mean a Dem, I always catch a lot of heat for it. Even when I provided supporting information from white and Black Repubs.

Now I want to see how Republicans respond to Mehlman.

Next, is this from the same article:

Bush told the Indiana Black Expo that he believes in an America where all people, including blacks, have the chance to own homes and businesses and share in the country's prosperity.

In discussions I've had with a few Black Republicans who were trying to get me to become a Republican and/or during political conversations were they whined complained about lack of Black support, I've asked why they weren't at places "Black leaders" were. Why weren't they at "Black Expos"? I saw the local chapters of the Urban League, the NAACP, League of Negro Women, and the like, but not one "Black Republican" or "Black conservative" group.

Too Much Common Sense

OK, now THIS has been what I've been trying to get at with the "Black liberal" vs. "Black libera" madness. This is true for especially the last quote.

Joseph C. Phillips nails it!

And it is not just those on the left who are guilty. There is an old saying that when you point one finger at others, you point three fingers at yourself. Those of us on the right have engaged in our share of outrageous rhetoric. I have not cut off my Democratic friends, but I cannot claim innocence. The fact that I am now mourning the loss of a cherished friend has convinced me that we must turn down the fire. Political passions run deep but what do we accomplish by raising the temperature so high that we are unable to speak to one another, no longer able to recognize each other’s humanity?

...

What is clear is that none of us has a monopoly on morality, patriotism or good ideas. It also becomes increasingly clear that our republic and the citizens therein suffer when the exchange of ideas is sacrificed in favor of overblown political rhetoric.