Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown,KY
May 23, 2007

In one of the most disappointing days since Democrats were elected to a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, Democrats backed down and will send President Bush a war funding bill without an initial withdrawal date for bringing our troops home from Iraq.

Without enough votes in the Senate to override a ...   more »

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown, KY
May 22, 2007

It has become clear that Congressional Democrats will drop a timetable for the initiation of troop withdrawals from Iraq in the war funding bill they will send President Bush this week.

Why?  Because there are not enough Democrats in the Senate to override the president's veto of any bill containing a timetable for troop withdrawals.

That means ending the Iraq War, and getting our troops out of the middle of a civil war is up to you and me. 

How do we do that?  Sadly, it may take until the 2008 elections for us to have that power. 

In 2008, we must not only elect a Democrat as president--preferably one who has always been against the war like Barak Obama--we must also elect more Democrats to the Senate.

Any reversal will only strengthen the hand of those who prefer an unended military presence in Iraq.  At a time when some are suggesting that Bush is quietly implementing a second "secret" troop surge, putting Democrats in charge of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives has never been more important.

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown, KY
May 20, 2007

One thing is clear:  President Bush isn't looking for compromise from Congressional Democrats on the funding bill for Iraq--he's demanding surrender.

The latest funding bill sent by Congressional Democrats Friday was rejected by Bush, even though it offered the president the flexibility to waive a deadline for an initial withdrawal of  U.S. troops from Iraq.

The ...   more »

Elizabethtown, KY---March 18, 2007

The Republican Party portrays itself as the party of "family values".

Perhaps the party needs to change its slogan to "families values."

It is not being judgmental to state facts.  In fact, it seems that since Rudy Giuliani is currently the leading prospect for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, very few Republicans find the facts disturbing.

The fact is that Giuliani has been married three times, and is estranged from his children.  In the Republican wings-- and still pondering a presidential run-- is the self-enamored Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich has also been married three times.  He told one of his wives he was divorcing her while she laid in a hospital bed diagnosed with cancer. 

And now Gingrich confesses that at the very time he was blasting Bill Clinton as a man "[who] has . . . done more to debase the presidency . . . particularly the moral and biblical principles upon which it is based. . . ",  that he--Gingrich himself--was having an extra-marital affair.

Gingrich "confessed" to the Reverend James Dobson, who thanked him for confessing to what many had been whispering behind Gingrich's back.

Evidently Dobson co-ordinated this confession with Gingrich so that Gingrich could put this transgression--like his first two wives--behind him now;  in order to diminish its impact should he decide to run later.

It seems then--for Giuliani and Gingrich at least--to really practice their brand of family values, it is necessary to divorce and remarry several times;  in order to have several families upon which to practice those values.

The situation would be laughable if it was not so dangerous.  

Republicans claim they are the party of the religious, and normally have the backing of the religious right. 

But when one examines the practices of many leading Republicans--from Tom DeLay, to Randy Cunningham, to Representative Mark Foley, to Ralph Reed, to Scooter Libby, and to the party's leading presidential nominee prospect--it would take someone purposefully looking the other way not to see how mistaken that claim is.

President George W. Bush, still wildly popular within his own party, is the worst of all.  After all, he knowingly lied to every American citizen and the world in order to invade a country without justification or true reasons of national security.  This has only led to unnecessary death and destruction of an epic scale.

And whom did we see defending Bush for his actions on national television this morning?  Why, DeLay of course, a man who had to resign from Congress for ethics breaches.

What is dangerous about this?

It is dangerous for any party's constituency to wear blinders when considering where to place its allegiance.

It is dangerous to place allegiance in persons who are so plainly devoid of loyalty to their own family. This lack of loyalty and commitment to others--with its accompanying devotion to self over and despite others--can not speak well to devotion to other things:  like principles, laws, truth, the Constitution, and the nation itself.

For voters to ignore the flaws of disloyalty, dishonesty and self-love in order to support a party's nominees in spite of them, speaks of an intellectual and moral blindness on the part of those voters.

No party or individual is perfect.

But the people we entrust with the leadership of our country should be held to a standard higher than party membership or fame.

Is every person who has ever had a divorce unqualified for public office?  Of course not.

But someone who has made and broken an oath of "until death do us part" several times is not a loyal or trustworthy person, and does not deserve to lead us.

Elizabethtown, KY--March 07, 2007

Am I the only one who is stupefied by the tongue-tied answers Democratic senators are offering in response to the Republicans challenge to: "I double-dog dare you" to cut funds for the troops?

That is the Republican answer to every Democratic proposal that makes it to the Senate that would change George Bush's course in Iraq.

In essence, the Republicans are saying they are not going to agree to anything the Democrats are proposing to change course in Iraq.  Instead, they keep saying that if the Democrats don't believe in the war, then the Democrats should vote to cut the funds for our troops.

Well, how ridiculous and illogical is that?  If the board of directors was opposed to the way a manager was running a business, they wouldn't cease paying all the employees. They would instead either fire the manager and hire a new one, or make the manager change the way he was running the business.

Since George W. Bush can't be fired (unfortunately) for the way he has and is conducting the war in Iraq, the only thing left to do is to require him to change his strategy.

Now, how simple was that?  That's all there is to it, and the disingenuous manner in which Republican senators are trying to change the subject is laughable.

What Democrats should be saying is: 

"Look.  Stop asking us to fire the troops. We are not going to do that. We love the troops as much as you do and we aren't going to do anything to hurt them.

Since we can't fire the president for doing such a lousy job, for having such a terrible strategy, and for being unwilling to correct his course of action, we're just asking you Republicans to help us give the president a change order.

If you want to continue to support a failing course of action, then by all means, that's your right.  But stop trying to paint us into a corner, and admit you don't have any solution for the present quagmire."

Even more to the point, I would love to hear a Democratic senator say  the following to his Republican counterpart the next time this comes up on a news interview show: 

"Ah, cut the crap.  I know you think its clever to keep asking us to cut funds for the troops, but we're not about to do that.  If you want to cut the funding for troops serving in Iraq, go right ahead. It seems to be on your minds a lot.  But Democrats are not going to that. 

We are offering solutions to being bogged down in a civil war in a country that did not have anything to do with 9/11.  If you want to railroad any chance of getting our troops out of this quicksand, then let it be on your conscience."

Its time for Democrats to quit pussy-footing around and call the Republicans' hand on this weak and dishonest dare. 

Who has the moxie to do it?  I nominate Joe Biden.  Its right up his alley. 

It is shocking and appalling that the Republican Party, the party of Ron Lewis,  has employed the terrorist and murderer Osama bin Laden in Republican campaign commercials. Who would have believed that the Republican Party would use the terrorist that murdered 3,000 Americans as the star of their campaign ads?

On the other hand, what would you expect from ...   more »

Poor Laura Bush.  She is married to one of the all-time failures in U.S. presidential history. So with the people soundly rejecting his actions, she is forced to argue his case.

But to listen to her, George W. Bush has done no wrong.  Its all the media's fault.

Yes, here we go again.  Whenever the media reports the facts, and the facts reveal poor policy ...   more »