Back in the swing of things today....
The Houston Tea Partiers tea partied and straw polled, or something along those lines. (With Perry coming out as the winner, showing just how married the social-conservative arm of the Republican Party is to the Gov.)
Money, Money, Money, Money. All politics used to be local, now all politics is financial. (Specifically, for one side of the political spectrum, 'financial' is often skewed to mean: "How much 'free' money (read: money borrowed from our children's generation) can we get from the federal government?")
Political convention: If only you CD-22 voters had elected Nick Lampson NASA wouldn't be in the position it is today. Funny thing about non-truth's, they're often harder to disprove than truth's. (Something about disproving a negative and for the love of the party politics and all of that)
The old saying was: If it's in the Old Grey Lady (re: The New York Times) then you'll see it on the television news. In Houston, if you see it on TV News, it might eventually show up in regions largest political blog. Maybe, that is, if resources can be torn from the fashion, sex and Lisa Falkenberg's ego beat.
Advocacy journalism is alive and well, especially in the health-care debate, where ideas such as "portable personal plans" and non-buffet style HC plans are not even discussed as a possible alternative. (The now-preferred 'solution' being an un-wieldy government program that will probably make things worse than better.) MORE suck is still suck after all.
That 38% is the conservative wing of the Texas Republican Party. As for the rest of us.....
It's, sort of, like Hot and Africa Hot this smart of which Slampo speaks.
Editorial endorsements don't matter. Most people go to other sources for their voting advice now. (In all probability, they're just straight-ticketing the ballot anyway.) Or, during primaries, following the advice of some intra-party club.
I've a feeling long drawn-out endorsements that don't clearly delineate the preferred candidate move the needle even less. (The idea that, by chastising, you can cajole people into voting your way is laughable.)
And finally....
Some Clear Thinking on civil unions. One thing worse than no civil union rights for the GLBT community is the idea of the Government moving in and forcing churches to perform GLBT marriages against their will.
2 comments:
"One thing worse than no civil union rights for the GLBT community is the idea of the Government moving in and forcing churches to perform GLBT marriages against their will."
Maybe - OTOH, that isn't any worse than what we have today, where the churches don't have a real choice when it comes to performing a legal same-sex marriage (they can't - though they can call it a "commitment ceremony".) My guess is that, if and when same-sex marriage is "legalized", the laws will be crafted such that churches aren't forced to perform them (much as they aren't forced to perform ANY sort of marriage today.)
~EdT.
I was invited to the Tea Party straw poll, and maybe I should have attended. However, while I am certainly aligned with them in some areas (i.e. fiscally, up to a point), I am very much opposed to them in others (e.g. the whole "social conservative" thing.) And, from what I have seen, it appears to be an "all or nothing" thing with them - which makes me think that maybe the TP movement (much better than "teabaggers" IMHO) will be another flash in the pan - sort of like John Anderson, Ross Perot, and other alternative candidates recently.
Of course, they are having another "straw poll" via the Web, maybe I should check it out...
~EdT.
Post a Comment