Over the weekend on Fox News Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) discussed the Senate's June agenda items: outlawing gay marriage and joining Iran, China, and Cuba in being the fourth country to outlaw flag burning.
There were 12 flag burnings reported last year so clearly we can see why this issue is more pressing than health care, education, Iraq, terrorism, the environment, you fill in the rest. So sit tight while they pander to their right-wing base - I'm sure they will get back to the priorities Citizen Hunters care about at some point.
touche'
what do they do?
seriously, what has been accomplished this year?
Posted by: evolo at June 1, 2006 05:12 PMUnbelievable! I wish they would settle the immigration issue.
Posted by: Lisa at June 1, 2006 07:56 PMI think its just sad how we can predict their every move. I think the public has finally caught on to their act. How pathetic.
Posted by: BW at June 1, 2006 10:07 PMFlavia Flavia Flavia...
You know as well as anyone that if you don't win, you can't govern. For sure we all want health care, the economy, even that new scary word, immigration to be dealt with. But for hardlining, white, male voters, flag burning is an easy problem. Like our legislator's year old slip, the pay raise, flag burning is easy to understand and get behind. 1 Flame + 1 Flag = A boatload of money from conservatives to pols running against "hippy flag burning"
The pandering is bi-partisan. The lack of progress on real issues is also bi-partisan. We need a third or maybe even a fourth party.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008453
Posted by: Rhino at June 2, 2006 09:37 AMNo. No. No. It's not a new party that's needed.
It's LEADERSHIP.
No. No. No. It's not a new party that's needed.
It's LEADERSHIP.
I have two questions for Flavia and her leftist poster buddies: 1)is it considered pandering only when the Right advances its own agenda? 2)what term does the Left use to describe this action when it appeals to its base?
Posted by: George Tomezsko at June 2, 2006 01:40 PMLeadership is what's needed, not another party. Congress should be responsible to us, and for the last few years they have been fiscally irresponsible, corrupt, and have wasted our time with bridges to nowhere, literally and figuratively.
Literally speaking, the Republicans "in charge" have allowed pork barrel spending to go unchecked, like that bridge to nowhere in Alaska, while GWB has yet to meet a spending bill he didn't like. The Democrats have failed to stand up to the spending, and stand for, everyday Middle Class citizens.
Figuratively speaking, the "bridge to nowhere" stands for the bills such as the gay marriage bans and other things that do not have a prayer of passing, but the Republicans in congress put up every couple of years in time for election...like you mentioned Flavia, just like clockwork.
Reminds me of the student council elections when I was a boy. Every year around election time the same promises came out, more vending machines and a longer senior lunch.(watch Napoleon Dynamite --get the picture?) Pandering starts early for everyone.
But the Republicans are "in charge" and have a chance to control the agenda. Instead they are focusing on bills that have no chance of passing -- all for show. And for that, they should lose their positions.
So in answer to a question posed, it's all pandering, but look who controls the agenda. Should they be in power? Have they earned it?
Posted by: BJG at June 2, 2006 02:08 PMGeorge,
come on man, you know very well that pandering applies to both parties.
I have a question. When there is a new issue, do you think people who are into politics form their own opinion? Do you think they look at their associated political party to guide them? I know it is a generality, but I seriously wonder how you think people form opinions and ideas on current events.
How do you form an opinion?
I wonder how much "original" thinking comes from people who are "bought and sold" with their party line.
Posted by: evolo at June 2, 2006 02:46 PMFrom Brian Bond
Imagine for a moment that you're Republican Bill Frist, the Senate's Majority Leader, and you have the power and awesome responsibility to control what issues the Senate considers and when it considers them. Knowing everything you do about the crises facing our nation and the things that most concern Americans, would your top priority be to:
A) Force the administration to change its failed strategy in Iraq
B) Help consumers walloped by $3.00 a gallon gas and take steps to reduce our oil addiction
C) Pass the first minimum wage increase in 10 years and develop plans to create good jobs in America
D) Expand educational opportunities for college by providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition
E) Ensure access to health care for every American
F) Amend the Constitution to deprive gay people of equal rights under the law
As someone who cares deeply about this nation, its problems and its future, you probably said A, B, C, D, or E. But Republican Majority Leader Frist chose F.
Why? Because it's an election year, and Republicans are in deep trouble. So they've decided that instead of addressing the things Americans really care about, they're trying to change the subject and using wedge issues in hopes of distracting from their failures and dividing Americans to win elections.
This time, LGBT families are the pawns in their political game. And this time, the American Constitution is their political playing field.
Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to bring up the "Federal Marriage Amendment" as the first order of business when Senators return on Monday. And to drive the message home, President Bush will host a Rose Garden event that same day, to reiterate his support for this divisive, unnecessary and diversionary attack on LGBT Americans and on our Constitution--even though his own Vice President opposes the amendment and his own wife says it's wrong to use this issue as a campaign tool.
This is a sad moment in American history. Over two hundred years ago, our nation's founders and framers thought guaranteeing rights and protections was so important that the first ten Constitutional amendments they proposed, which the states soon ratified, were an explicit Bill of Rights for individuals and for states.
Now, in an unprecedented move, Bill Frist and George Bush hope to convert this bedrock document that confers liberties and freedom into one that erases them. They want to deny equal rights under the law because of individuals' sexual orientation--and they want to deny to states avenues that would allow them to recognize and extend equal rights and protections to the LGBT community and their families.
This is shameful and wrong. It hurts LGBT Americans and their families, and it is inconsistent with the constitutional values that set us apart as a nation-and with how we do things in America.
Democrats are committed to equal rights for every American; we oppose discrimination in all their forms. We think it's wrong for the federal government to bar states from extending rights and protections to all their residents. We believe no church, synagogue or mosque should be told by the government whom they may or may not marry. And when it comes to government services and benefits, every citizen and taxpayer should receive equal treatment.
You can show Bill Frist just how wrong he is by signing this petition to stop this divisive amendment and tell him to put the Senate to work on the things that really matter to America and to Americans. Sign on here, and your message will be delivered the day the Senate begins debating the issue:
http://www.democrats.org/lgbtdiscrimination
Posted by: BW at June 2, 2006 03:21 PMIs the above an example of pandering? Misplaced priorities by the majority party? What do you think?
Posted by: BW at June 2, 2006 03:37 PMEvolo: You know and I know it, that pandering applies to both parties. My point was that, judging by the examples The Daily News has given in the past, is is easy to get the impression they think only the GOP does it.
Posted by: George Tomezsko at June 2, 2006 03:37 PMFirst, to BW: I think your message was not pandering and I agree with the premise of the top issue being for Sen Frist, being pretty unimportant in light of the real issues we need to confront.
However, one could argue that you framed many of the issues you mentioned in a way that one could presume we might see on the DNC website.
George: I live in VA and so I am not too familiar with the "Daily News." Perhaps you are correct. What seems interesting to me when I read the exchanges in this arena, most folks submit arguments based on the party line. I guess maybe I feel like that is taking away from an open dialogue. It takes away from an open exchange. Seems most folks have their minds made up and don't really want to solve much, just blame each other.
And here we stall
Posted by: evolo at June 2, 2006 05:13 PMEvolo, very good observation. It is from a DNC source.
Now here is a quote from the RNC source: Is this pandering?
President Bush has proposed a new temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs. The program would be open to new foreign workers, and to the undocumented men and women currently employed in the U.S. This new program would allow workers who currently hold jobs to come out of hiding and participate legally in America's economy while not encouraging further illegal behavior.
President Bush also asked Congress to work with him to achieve significant immigration reform that:
Protects the homeland by controlling the borders.
Serves America's economy by matching a willing worker with a willing employer.
Promotes compassion for unprotected workers.
Provides incentives for temporary workers to return to their home countries and families.
Protects the rights of legal immigrants while not unfairly rewarding those who came here unlawfully or hope to do so.
This legislation must also meet the Nation’s economic needs and live up to the promise and values of America.
Any thoughts?
--RNC Website
June 2, 2006
Hmmm,
well I guess it sounds like a fluffy unrealistc attempt to put a finger in the dike.
in my personal opinion, it is a policy idea that is too subjective and open to many different variables and will eventually accomplish nothing.
status quo these days..
how about you?
"Subjective".
I agree with you. But I will leave that up to the experts. (I guess I could do the Citizen Hunterish thing and research it myself!) Both dnc and rnc and any other 'nc shamelessly self promote for votes and money. What is "the best" for our children and families? Open to debate. I like open, honest debate. I like people who have real convictions. We need them in office. How 'bout it Flavia?
BW, I couldn't agree more.
we need to have individual thinkers who have poise and dignity.
Flavia is a good choice.
Posted by: evolo at June 3, 2006 10:38 PMWell, to add fuel to the fire on pandering, take a look at this little report.
103 million dollars could go a long way for the folks who lost their homes in Katrina.
Guess it comes down to priorities.
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2203
Posted by: evolo at June 4, 2006 08:14 AMWait a minute, they're working in June, who knew?
Posted by: Thumbelina at June 4, 2006 12:07 PMI find it very strange that the one thing most people agree on is that they want less government in their lives. Yet, noone seems to be able to do anything for themselves Democrats and Republicans both. So what should we do?
1) Press the auto makers to do more reference alternative energy vehicles.
2) Press the oil companies to provide more alternative energy sources at their stations (ie.. electric, biodiesel, and gasahol)
3) Make the illegal aliens build the wall between the Mexican Border and the USA.
4) Provide more potent punishments to those that are here illegally
5) Begin a slow withdrawel from Iraq. Making the Iraqis (police and Army) more responsibilities now.
We must force these companies we cannot allow the Republicans or Democrats to bide their time until it's too late.
Posted by: Don Burleson at June 5, 2006 01:53 PMSaw point #3 on Carlos Mencia the other day.
There are a myriad of solutions and I hope that our leaders use the creativity to do what's best for her citizens.
We should never stop trying to improve this land.
i think that we definately should outlaw gays burning flags and waving flags in gay parades. flags and fags dont mix.
Posted by: edgar at June 6, 2006 08:09 PMIts simply ridiculous that flag burning is the major issue when clearly there are MANY other issues that need to be addressed. Utterly absurd.
Posted by: D.J. at June 7, 2006 12:21 PMWe must save the word by naming it something other than a marriage!" Here is my thoughts, please write back and let me know what you think about it.
Why A Gay Union or as they call it “Marriage
Amendment Will Always Fail!
This amendment that this government is seeking on gay legal bindings will and must always fail when it comes to the federal government. These citizen’s rights issues was and will never be able to be decided by the federal government. In the eyes of the federal government “ALL” citizen’s rights must be seen equal. I believe as most citizens believe that a “marriage” is between a man and a woman and not between a man and a man or woman and a woman. But this federal government chooses to waste money to discuss and try to make an amendment to The United States Constitution. I say a waste of money, since this issue does not require an amendment. As I sought in case number 04-CV-001 in Buffalo, NY; this federal government only needs to only come forward to call this legal binding as something other than a “marriage”. I have and will continue to say that they need to come forward and call this legal binding a “Union”.
We do not need an amendment but to get this nations government to call it a “Union” and save the money that we are spending to have these officials to discuss and vote on any amendment to this issue. It is up to this nation’s citizens to tell this government to stop spending this money for this and to put the money where it is needed: Education, the war in Iraq, and such. This issue is not worth an amendment and such have never been brought up to this level. Once, the federal government comes forward to call this legal binding as a “union” we save what we believe a marriage is and all states which votes to recognize this legal binding will have to call it as well. This is the easiest way to solve this issue and to keep this from being with us for years as the abortion issue is and will always be with us.
I say always will be with us, because the federal government was never empowered to decide citizen’s rights issues. When they start this we start to go to a socialist government and these issues will not be able to be settled because there will always be citizens that believe what the government is doing or has done is wrong, also.