Anti-Catholic Bigotry
I, for one, though not Catholic, think it is a good thing to have the Holy See treated as a soveriegn nation. It, to a limited extent, guarantees that at least one country will exercise some Christian morals in making decisions internationally.
Typically, some liberal professors want to scrap that.
That the Holy See is treated as a state within the international system is to many surprising. But it is also deeply troubling, for several reasons. For one thing, the Church isn’t truly a sovereign nation; and to allow it to play one on the international stage mocks the definition of statehood. More importantly, the Church’s role as a state gives it even more political influence than it would otherwise wield–granting outsized political power to a single religion. And that is particularly worrisome now that a conservative Pope has been succeeded by an even more conservative one.
Jim Crow Ends in Georgia
At the turn of the last century and into the 1960’s, the South, controlled by Democrats with a historic anger against Republican reconstruction efforts after the Civil War, began enacting Jim Crow Laws to effectively disenfranchise black citizens and take away rights that were gained through the Civil War and enactment of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.
By the 1960’s, the Supreme Court and Congress began a tag team effort to wipe out the remaining Jim Crow laws and usher in a new era of civil rights. Despite great efforts, many of the Jim Crow laws, though not enforced, remain on the books in many southern states.
In Georgia, by a unanimous vote of both houses of the General Assembly and yesterday’s signature by Governor Sonny Perdue, the Jim Crow era is officially over.
The governor signed four bills that repeal segregation-era laws. The laws have not been enforced in years, but they remained in the code. Perdue said that removing the laws is not only a symbolic gesture, but also a substantive one. “Today I think is another important step in the ongoing process of putting real meat to the process of racial reconciliation in Georgia,” Perdue said in his office before signing the bills. The laws were aimed at circumventing the desegregation of public schools following the 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education: - House Bill 25 repeals a law that granted the governor the authority to close any college if there is a threat of violence. - House Bill 26 repeals a law that allowed the state’s chief executive to suspend compulsory K-12 attendance laws if there is a threat of violence. - House Bill 27 repeals a law that gave the General Assembly the power to provide taxpayer-financed grants to students for K-12 education outside of public schools. -House Bill 372 repeals a law that allowed local public school systems and governments to lease public facilities to private schools.
The efforts to repeal these laws were co-sponsored by Democrats and Republicans. In some ways it had a lot more meaning for the Republicans. Frequently painted by Democrats in Georgia as racists who will turn back the era on civil rights, these laws were repealed by the first majority Republican House, Senate, and Governor since reconstruction. Despite that, the new Senate Minority Leader, Robert Brown of Macon, was his typical less than gracious self.
“It is ironic and significant that the governor signed the infamous HB 244, the most discriminatory voting law in the 21st Century, before he repealed the unenforceable Jim Crow laws,” Brown said in statement issued Thursday.
Brown is of course referring to an elections reform bill that will require voters to show photographic identification at polls instead of bank statements, utility bills, and other government documents.
Prez Conference
The President will be speaking momentarily to the nation at a press conference from the White House — only the 4th of his administration. We’ll be liveblogging at RedState.
George Allen Is In The Game
George Allen (R-VA) is rumored to want a change of residence from Capitol Hill to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If so, he’s got a ways to go. But, signs point to Allen beginning to stretch his legs for the long march to 2008.
In 2000, Allen set up “Good Government for America PAC,” his leadership PAC, which interestingly once was the name of the PAC belonging to the popular conservative senator from Georgia, Paul Coverdell. In the 2000 election cycle Allen spent $203,466.00 with a candidate contribution total of $99,554. In the 2002 election cycle, the expenditure amount rose to $377,373.00 with a candidate contribution total of $209,500.00. In the 2004 election cycle, Allen’s PAC spent $647,244.00, but only gave candidate contributions in the amount of $162,500.00, a decrease of $47,000.00. During that time, Allen also served as the head of the Republican Senators’ campaign engine, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (”NRSC”) and was able to fund Republicans across the nation with that tool.
Perhaps most telling, in 2000 and 2002, Allen’s Leadership PAC ended the campaign cycle with less than $100,000.00 on hand. At the end of 2004, Allen still had on hand $210,542.00 and is rumored to be back out raising money for the PAC aggressively. With both his own election in 2006, and the need to build loyalty among potential future supporters, Allen will need to hoard his dollars and give strategically. It will be interesting to see how much of his money begins to flow to places like South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa over the next two years.
Allen does have one lagging gap. Contributions to his Leadership PAC come mostly from Virginia. That should be expected because it is his base. However, Virginia does not win national elections alone. Allen needs to start expanding the reach of his PAC on the contributor side and targeting strategically on the expenditure side.
So far Allen is giving every indication that he’ll be a 2008 Presidential candidate. Right now though, he smartly shows all the signs of a man running hard for re-election in Virginia.
Robbing the Cradle
First Tom Cruise got divorced from Nicole Kidman. Now he is apparently robbing the cradle. Can you say midlife crisis.
Nicole Kidman vs. Katie Holmes is no contest. Dude, get to a therapist.
Hit Piece on Mfume
WaPo has decided to go after Kweisi Mfume who has decided to run for the Senate in Maryland. This should be fun.
Allegations detailed in a confidential NAACP report claim that Kweisi Mfume gave raises and promotions to women with whom he had close personal relationships while he was president of the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.The 22-page memorandum, prepared last summer by an outside lawyer, did not accept as true the claims lodged against Mfume by a female employee but determined that they could be “very difficult to defend persuasively” if she filed a lawsuit.
The Democrat Messiah
This blog has mentioned Jim Wallis several times. Wallis is an icon of the religious left who is encouraging Democrats to talk in religious and moral terms.
Ramesh Ponnuru, my favorite writer at NRO, has a feature on Wallis in this week’s magazine. You can get the opening paragraphs at NRO.
It will be well worth reading and it’s a reminder to me to renew my subscription.
Filibuster Change Opposed: Yeah Right
I am not a polling expert, but I certainly question the new Washington Post/ABC poll that allegedly shows the public does not support ending the filibuster. The actual poll is found here. The poll is reported here.
WaPo’s headline is “Filibuster Rule Change Opposed.” The article begins
As the Senate moves toward a major confrontation over judicial appointments, a strong majority of Americans oppose changing the rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to win confirmation of President Bush’s court nominees, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. GOP leaders are threatening a rule change to prohibit the use of filibusters to block judicial nominees and have stepped up their criticism of the Democrats for using the tactic on some of Bush’s nominees to the federal appellate courts. They say they are prepared to invoke what has become known as the “nuclear option” to ensure that Bush’s nominees receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
Here’s what I question. The poll question was not, “Do you believe Senate Democrats are right to deny votes on the President’s judicial nominees?” There is no poll question that asks, “The Constitution requires a majority vote for approval of a President’s judicial nominees, but the Democrats, through use of the filibuster, are requiring a two-thirds vote. Do you agree with the Democrats?” Instead, the poll question asks, “Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees?” This follows a question pointing out that “the Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush, with Senate Democrats have blocked 10 others.” WaPo fails to say that the President has the lowest appointment rate for circuit court judges of any recent President thanks to Democratic obstruction.
Here’s what troubles me more than any of that. Democrats have, through the media, assailed the President’s court nominees for putting religious views ahead of legal views. The Democrats have assailed the nominees for their position on abortion, the ability to separate faith from law, and a host of other moral/religious concerns. What does that have to do with the WaPo poll? It’s simple.
The question on changing Senate rules is question thirty-six. Questions 22-26 ask about politicians using their religious beliefs to help make decisions. Question 25 asks voters which party they think is “more tolerant of different kinds of people and different points of view.” Question 27 asks if “religious conservatives have too much influence . . . over the Republican party.” Questions 29 through 31 ask about Tom DeLay and his ethics. Only after helping the person being polled make the connection between the Republican Party and religion, the President and his use of his religion to help him make decisions, and Tom DeLay’s ethics does the WaPo poll even get to judges, starting out with “do you think judges in this country are (too liberal), (too conservative) or about right?”
Again, I’m not a pollster, but it looks to me like these questions were placed and asked in such a way to lead the person being polled to the conclusion WaPo wanted: Democrats are right, Republicans are nominating religious nuts to be judges and they must be stopped. Lastly, the poll demographics show that 35% were Democrat, 28% Republican, and 32% Independent. 20% were liberal, 47% were moderate, and 30% were conservative. Let’s also remember that a lot of liberals like to think of themselves as moderate (see e.g., Dan Rather) so we can take some of that 47% and move it to the 20% liberal column.
The WaPo poll seems fishy, not because I disagree with the results, but because of how the results were obtained. The poll asks about gas prices, Iraq, and social security: along with judges those are just about the three biggest news items of the day. But, prior to getting to judges, the poll wades through questions about the tolerance of the GOP, control of the GOP by religious types, and Tom DeLay’s ethics. That’s just shady.
The Democrats’ Contradiction
Here’s what I don’t understand. When women were coming out of the closet saying Bill Clinton sexually harassed them or worse, the Democrats said it was old news. When women start coming out of the closet yelling that 20 years ago John Bolton yelled at them, all of a sudden we must treat 20 year old accusations seriously. Why?
The Bibb County SPLOST
As a Republican, I generally oppose tax increases. It is in my nature to cut taxes. But, I do think that Republicans need to come up with a more solid ideology on the nature of taxes and tax cuts. There might just be occasions when a tax increase is legitimate. Let me add a caveat to that, however: a tax increase is never necessary or appropriate when the legislature has not first cut spending aggressively, gotten rid of all the frivolous waste, and still can’t make ends meet.
That leads me to the Bibb County SPLOST. The County intends to have a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) on the ballot. For those not familiar with the SPLOST, it is a penny sales tax that the local legislature can adopt. The SPLOST is for a limited duration, a limited and defined purpose, and must be approved by the voters in a duly called election. That’s why I’m not de facto opposed to a SPLOST. After all, the voters must approve it.
Last year, Bibb County called for a SPLOST. The SPLOST would have paid down debt, increased recreational spending, expanded the county jail, added to the courthouse, etc., etc., etc. At the time, the Mayor of Macon, a controversial figure to say the least, killed the measure with false praise. He was helped by the perception that the then County Commission Chairman was out of touch and out to get South Bibb County through a series of zoning restrictions. I was not a fan of the SPLOST back then, but frankly didn’t even vote for it or against it.
This year is a bit different. The County is under the responsible leadership of Charlie Bishop. He wants the SPLOST primarily to pay down debt. Right now the County has several outstanding bonds and other debt financing that is slowly bleeding the County dry. The idea of the SPLOST is to generate sales tax revenue to pay off the debts sooner rather than later and help cover the costs of a needed jail expansion. The added costs of recreation will not be covered by the SPLOST.
Naturally, the Mayor is opposed to this SPLOST, which should give it a big boost in the unincorporated areas of the county. The idea actually makes good sense. The SPLOST would free up other money and short circuit some significant future debt payments. I do have one concern. In freeing up other money over time, I’d like to know what that freed up money will go toward. My suspicion is that property tax rates will not be coming down My further suspicion is that there will be no aggressive spending cuts. That said, given the level of spending cuts imposed over the past few years at the county, I think I’ll be okay with that.
So, to recap, this year’s SPLOST is better and more narrowly tailored than last year’s. I cannot bring myself to vote for any tax increase, but will probably forget to go vote anyway. But, you do not have to fear this SPLOST if you do go vote.