FYI - The Liberal Desire to Destroy Marriage

I really need to pay better attention. Because I do things like write blogs, I get myself added to news and information lists with the expectation that some of the more common issue goups will send me something interesting. Well, the Family Resource Council never fails to dissappoint.

Did you know all liberals are "out to destroy marriage?" Gee, I didn't. But according to the FRC, they are. How do they know? Because "pundits" say so. Which "pundits?" They don't say. They also want "to destroy every other traditional moral value you and I hold dear." According to the FRC, "If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couple, every one of America's founding freedoms--especially religious freedom--will be sacrificed on the altars of "tolerance" and "political correctness." By passing hate crime legislation that specifies crimes against gays, liberals purportedly will "criminalize the expression of biblical values on sexual morality." And the same people who claim there is a "war on Christmas" are the same people who claim that arguing for "equal rights" for gays and lesbians is nothing more than a war on familes and marriage itself.

Wow, this must be serious stuff! So where are these pundits who say liberals are out to destroy marriage and all of America's founding freedoms? I've been looking around and the only ones I can find are conservatives. Names like:

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Neal Bortz
Laura Ingram
John Gibson

and the other usual suspects. Now, looking for any liberal groups that have "destroying marriage" in their message, I find no liberal group making that claim.

Not the ACLU
Not the Democratic Party
Not the Human Rights Campaign
Not the United Nations
Not the National Organization for Women

So where does the FRC get this idea that "all liberals" want to "destroy marriage?" From themselves. From their supporters. From the like-minded.

Democrats need to address this stuff head-on and make sure that community churches know Democrats are not out to "destroy marriage" or any "founding American freedom." Sometimes equal rights as stated in the Constition really does mean equal rights.

John Shadegg - Late to the energy conservation party

Our dear, dear friends in the Republican Party are trumpeting that John Shadegg introduced a bill to eliminate the tax on ethanol. News releases from the R's talk about how the Wall Street Journal says it's a responsible idea. Granted it's not a bad start, but I just can't help but think back at Shadegg's other energy conservation-related votes. It would appear Shadegg may be undergoing a campaign year conversion on energy issues.

Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

So, dear John has voted against requiring cars and trucks get better mileage, against alternative fuels (of which ethanol is one), for increased tax credits for oil companies, against clean air standards requiring more fuel efficient and less polluting vehicles, and for drilling one of the few remaining wildernesses in the U.S.

Let's have John's record speak for itself.

Republican Response to a Democratic Response

Don't cha just love it when one party responds to another party's response to the former party's positions? You know it's going to be nit-picky. But when the Republicans do it, it's just more fun because they all tend to miss one thing: the point.

Back on May 8th, the chairman of the Arizona Latino Republican Association responded to Democrat Steve Gallardo's "My Turn" article by pointing out that his opinion is void of facts (don't you just L-O-V-E it? What ELSE would they say?). Mr. Esparza then points out several examples of where Gallardo got it wrong.

His first point is that "Republican Party is leading the charge" in immigration reform in the Congress. Sure, they're leading the charge because Republicans won't send up a bill written by Democrat. The same thing happens here in Arizona.

He second point is "the president is urging Congress to adopt immigration reform." Sure, and he's urging Americans to use less fuel, too. We all know what the result of the encouragement has been!

His third point is both of Arizona's Senators have submitted bills to deal with the immigration problem. Deals with them "in a comprehensive manner" he says. What he doesn't say is Kyl's bill would force all illegal immigrants to go home first. I'm sure that's what a lot of Latinos want: ship them home first.

His fourth point regards "No Child Left Behind" and school choice. Isn't it convenient that the group that published the poll results cited by Mr. Esparza happens to be one promoting school choice? Now, if he had used some other organization's research, say the US Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Mr. Esparza would see that "Despite a new federal educational testing law championed by the Bush administration, scores among fourth and eighth graders failed to show any improvements in reading, and showed only slow gains in math nationally during the past two years." Or how about something local, like ASU's Report "High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act." (PDF) which "finds that pressure created by high-stakes testing has had almost no important influence on student academic performance."

His last point addresses the number of Latinos in the Bush Administration versus previous administrations. This type of stuff is always subjective, but it seems to me that Clinton named more than the five names Esparza mentions:

An Administration That Looks like One America. The President appointed the most diverse Cabinet and Administration in history. Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson and Small Business Administrator Aida Alvarez are members of the President's Cabinet. Federico Pena and Henry Cisneros previously served in the President's Cabinet.

Judicial Appointments. Seven percent of all judicial appointments are Hispanics including the Honorable Jose Cabranes, Judge, Second Circuit U.S. Circuit Court and the Honorable Hilda Tagle, Judge, Southern District of Texas, U.S. District Court.

Senior Level Administration Appointments. President Clinton has appointed more Hispanics to senior level positions than any President in American history. Eight percent of Presidential appointments, including boards and commissions, are held by Latinos. These Presidential appointees include Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) President George Munoz; Norma Cantu, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education; Saul Ramirez, Jr., Department of Housing and Urban Development Deputy Secretary; Eduardo Gonzalez, Director of the United States Marshals Service; Eluid Levi Martinez, Commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation at the Department of Interior; Ida L. Castro, Director of the Women's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor and Chair- designee for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Patricia T. Montoya, Commissioner- designee for Children, Youth & Families at the Department of Health and Human Services; and John U. Sepulveda, Deputy Director-designee at the Office of Personnel Management. White House appointees include: Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff Maria Echaveste; Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Mickey Ibarra; and Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director for Legislative Affairs Janet Murguia.

So who wins? I'm not sure. But it seems to me that what is more important is the policies these Latinos want to implement than the fact they are Latinos.

So, is Gallardo's rhetoric "senseless?" Are his points without facts? They're only unreasonable when you leave out the information from Republican-leaning think tanks with a clear mission to support the Republican and conservative agenda. But Mr. Gallardo does no such thing. He's pretty much spot on the mark.

Kyl's "Understand" of our Pain at the Pump

I read Jon Kyl’s May 8 “Weekly Column” where he talks about “Pain at the Pump” and how he feels it necessary to warn us normal folk about politicians who claim they have simple answers to complex problems. “Understanding why gas prices are so high” will show us the right way to go, says Mr. Kyl. That sounds good, but one would be hard-pressed to find a better example of the problem Kyl raises than his own commentary.

Kyl says “(i)nternational events” are the main culprit. That happens to be true, but nowhere in his column does he mention the one “international event” that is the most significant source of higher fuel prices: Iraq. Oil traders have stated there is a $15-20 “security surcharge” on every barrel of crude oil caused directly by the Iraq war. Want to know the price of gasoline at $50 per barrel? According to USA Today, it was $1.92. Maybe the good Senator can explain why Iraq isn’t at the top of his “International events” list.

Kyl argues that increased drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico would reduce gas prices because it would be U.S. and not imported oil. Talk about a red herring. So Jon, let me get this straight. Oil companies that sell their product at world prices, whom you defend making $20B annual profits and receive federal tax credits you voted for and gave you campaign donations are going to somehow become so patriotic they will lower the price of domestically-produced crude to the level where it is far below world market price and lower prices at the pump? Never mind that we have 3% of the reserves and 50% of the demand. They’ll still lower the price to below market levels so we get cheap gas?

Sure they will.

Kyl talks about eliminating the ethanol requirement while at the same time asking to eliminate the ethanol tariff. If you eliminate the requirement, then why eliminate the tariff because then you won’t need the ethanol in the first place. This doesn’t reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it increases it, using Kyl’s own data, by at least four billion gallons per year.

So, Mr. Kyl’s understanding of our “Pain at the Pump” centers on ignoring the one international event at the source of increase in gas prices, pitching increases in domestic reserves and reducing the need for ethanol while at the same time increasing our demand for foreign oil. That’s some understanding, Mr. Kyl.