First you say we are a secular nation. Then you say we are a Christian nation. I don't think you can have it both ways. Whatever we are, morality is a concept that rises above religion. It is a concept of decency and fairness that most people recognize, regardless of country, race, creed, or gender.

There are some who believe that good deeds will result in religious reward, and there are some who believe that good deeds are simply righteous for their own sake. Either way, good deeds are moral actions, and they are just as relevant in government as they are in personal life, IMO, because they address how we see ourselves and how others see us.

Posted at January 14, 2008 8:22 AM in response to Morality vs. Politics and My Job as a GOP Operative

It is my understanding that Edwards did not "jump" on this, as you say. Apparently, a reporter described what happened and asked him for his opinion. IMO, Edwards paid her the extreme compliment of treating her like any other candidate. If this had happened to Obama, Richardson, McCain, Romney, whoever, he would have said the same thing. As someone who marched for the ERA and has experienced sexism up close and personal, I think John Edwards is the most enlightened candidate on women's issues I've ever seen. His positions on choice, for example, are firmly to the left of Hillary. His positions on economic fairness for women are impassioned and far-reaching. There's no sexism or "meanness" here, IMO. He just stated the truth: if you run for President you need to show that you are up to the physical and emotional strain.

Posted at January 7, 2008 6:15 PM in response to Hillary Teared--and Edwards Blinked

Brilliant insight, zkosmo, and, of course, it's right out of Rove's playbook. Works especially well when you have a voting populace that really doesn't pay attention or that receives all its information from corporate-controlled media.

Posted at January 4, 2008 3:31 PM in response to From Concord, NH: Obama's Music

Thanks, Senator.

Posted at December 17, 2007 7:29 AM in response to The FISA Debate Begins

Agree with Blue in IA. There are still decent conservatives left in this country. I don't know of any decent neo-cons. As to what the "Republicans" stand for anymore, it's anybody's guess.

Posted at October 31, 2007 8:43 AM in response to Bad Habits Continue in Philly

I would agree that racism has driven the Southern Strategy. I also believe that there is still a hard core of Southern whites who not only remain racist, but who also remain stubbornly anti-Northern. During the late 1970s, all my business calling was in the South, and I still recall some comments from the old-line southerners, such as "Mr. Lincoln's war of aggression" to refer to the Civil War. There may be some improvement in border states, or in states that have assimilated an influx of northerners, but I don't believe that those born in the South have truly changed their core beliefs. Their absolute numbers relative to the entire southern population may have declined, but, remember, the George Allen/Jim Webb race was still a very close one. There was no overwhelming repudiation of racism, as far as I could see.

The new wedge issue, IMO, is immigration, and this is far more serious because it is not an issue that is geographically limited. Nor, do I believe, as some do, that it is primarily a race-driven issue. There was never any question that black Americans were native citizens who were being denied their rights. The immigrant issue, however, has more to do with economics--and not just with jobs. The cost of providing social services to individuals who are not legally U.S. citizens is a concern that cuts across geographic and political party lines, and one in which both parties will need to develop a solution that a majority of American taxpayers can favor. Right now, with many middle class families strugggling economically, immigration could be the new "welfare queen" rallying cry for the Republicans.

Posted at October 29, 2007 11:59 AM in response to The awful truth, and the better future

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I disagree with you that we should be looking at "what it will actually produce politically." IMHO, impeachment should never be a political process. The Constitution never mentions Democrats, Republicans, Whigs or whatever, to the best of my knowledge, in considering grounds for impeachment. My primary concern in moving for impeachment before Bush and Cheney are out of office is that if Congress refuses to act, a legal precedent could be set which would actually have the effect of endorsing these activities through inaction.

I totally agree with you that impeachment cannot be seen as partisan. Dems must be forceful in reiterating that the same actions would be taken against a lawless Democratic administration. They should also try to corral the Republicans such as Bruce Fein into an Iraq-Study-Group-type of document, arguing for impeachment as the only recourse when confronted by a President and Vice President who have lost all respect for our laws. However, trying to draft new laws to prevent executive abuses is a pointless exercise when you have people like Bush and Cheney who believe that they are above the law.

Posted at July 26, 2007 3:05 PM in response to Impeachment Questions

Sorry, Mr. Kilgore, but this is just the sort of timid approach I would expect from a DLC consultant. I was of voting age when Articles of Impeachment were drawn up against Nixon, and, I can assure you, when the process started there weren't any Republicans on board either. The whole upper echelon of the group Bruce Fein helped start, Americanfreedomagenda.org, consists of Republicans, not Democrats, and Fein is going on every news show he can to push for impeachment.

Don't forget, the Democrats were all afraid to run on the issue of Iraq in 2006, having been convinced by "strategists", such as you, that the Republicans owned the National Security Champions meme. Then along came a CT businessman, by the name of Ned Lamont, who once again proved the strategists wrong. Once Lamont won the Democrat primary, every other Dem candidate spoke out against the war, and the Dems sailed into the majority after the 2006 elections. Once again, the strategists and the politicians are way behind where the American public is on this issue.

Posted at July 26, 2007 12:59 PM in response to Impeachment Questions

The only way that we will obtain a fair health system is if that system is truly universal. No exceptions. That means Congress, govt. employees, everyone receives the same package. Private insurance should remain strictly as a supplemental to public insurance. For example, eye exams would be covered by public insurance, but eyeglasses would require modest supplemental insurance (i.e., $10 per month).

I would like to see a straight increase in the Federal income tax to support the program. That way, someone who isn't earning enough to pay much in taxes will not be deprived of health care;nor will that individual be subjected to the indignity of our public aid programs and the inherent prejudice against someone who needs public assistance. We not only need to eliminate income inequality--we need to eliminate the stigma attached to public assistance programs.

I know far too many people who have lost their jobs working for medium or large corporations who are now struggling to make a living as entrepreneurs because they are over 50 and considered "too old" and too expensive for the corporations they used to work for. These are the people who can't afford to have corporations pay for insurance because they are the corporation. They are well-educated, creative, productive people who need a chance to succeed in their new careers. Part of that success will come from not being saddled with expensive private insurance programs.

Posted at April 10, 2007 5:09 PM in response to Thinking Big -- And Thinking Realistically

Linda, a superb essay. Many valuable points. I would add the following:

The kind of men you visualize, who might be willing to share the duties of children, home and work equally, don't exist. For men, much more so than for women, their identity is inextricably tied to their work role, whether or not it has anything to do with feeling that they are the "provider". Being the "provider", IMO, is an after-the-fact rationale for the real need to feel important in their work outside the home. The bottom line is that for a man, homelife is only important so long as it doesn't interfere with work life. No man I know is going to stay home with his sick child while his wife goes off to work that day. It's always the woman who is supposed to make the accomodation. The women who refuse to make that accomodation have "nannies". In other words, real working-class women will never have the ability to move ahead so long as there are children at home.

Posted at March 25, 2007 12:56 PM in response to A Tale of Two Workplaces