We can't all get along
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News
mikerosen@850koa.com
Originally published 12:05 a.m., August 15, 2008
Updated 01:43 a.m., August 15, 2008
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/15/rosen-we-the-people/
'We the people of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution."
When those words, the Preamble to the Constitution, were crafted, the context was to introduce a document prescribing the foundation, organization and general rules of a new system of government based on a bottom-up model of governance.
Power would derive from the people, not from the "divine right" of a king or from the condescending benevolence or superior wisdom of some ruling elite. Fortifying that document was the Bill of Rights, reinforcing the clear understanding that fundamental rights belonged naturally to individuals and were beyond the whims of government.
Respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives
The phrase "We the people," it should be understood, does not imply that the United States is a commune, a homogeneous collective of like-minded people who all agree on issues of public policy. When Democrats talk of their party as "the party of the people," they tend to apply that in just such a collective - or socialist - sense. As a Republican, I prefer to regard my party as "the party of the person" - the party that better respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives.
That doesn't mean I'm an anarchist or selfish or have no sense of community. I like to think I'm a good neighbor and a good citizen. But I also believe that voluntary, cooperative associations are more desirable and productive than mandatory ones. There have been times when Americans have forged a consensus on vital matters. But even during the American Revolution and World War II there were dissenters, to say nothing of the Civil War. Our motto, E pluribus unum - "Out of many, one" - is an ideal, not an absolute. I have no illusion that people in this or any other nation are of one mind.
"We the people" – a meaningless cliche.
That wonderful, inspirational expression "We the people" has become, all too often, a meaningless cliche. It's repeatedly used by writers of letters to the editor or populist talk-show hosts - both liberal and conservative - who sanctimoniously utter platitudes like: "We must demand that those in our government follow the will of the people, since they work for us."
But which people? The people who listen to left-wing Air America or agree with liberal editorials in The New York Times are not the same people who support the conservative opinions of Rush Limbaugh or agree with free market editorials in The Wall Street Journal.
And politicians don't represent some abstract, unanimous "us."
In the real world of politics, they tend to favor the agendas of the majority of voters and interest groups that put them in office. It's understandable that the minority of voters who supported a losing candidate feel poorly represented, but that's the way elections work. Boulder's "ins" are the "outs" in Colorado Springs.
It's not that "We the people" can't agree on anything, but it's certainly true that we won't agree on everything. Along with some areas of common ground, there are also irreconcilable differences between hawks and doves, seniors and juniors, protectionists and free traders, pro-life and pro-choice, unions and businesses, big government and small, public and private, gays and straights, men and women, blacks and whites, urban and rural, nannyists and rugged individualists, rednecks and hippies, etc.
On most issues, grand and petty, and on the very definition of the "common good," there is no monolithic "we." There's you and me and them. Always has been, always will be.
James Madison spoke of an offsetting multiplicity of factions as preferable to the inordinate influence of a few dominant interests. Minor political parties can be single-minded, purist and uncompromising. That's why they're minor parties with small followings.
Major parties are the clearinghouses of multiple factions, harboring their own internal disagreements while coming together to form a generally like-minded coalition. As Clinton Rossiter observed, "No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, no politics without parties." And, I'd add, no freedom without parties that disagree.
And that, Rodney King, is why we can't all get along.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com
Friday, August 15, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Walking Eagle
Senator BARACK OBAMA was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upstate New York.
HE spoke for almost an hour on HIS future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living, should HE one day become the President. HE referred to his career as a Senator, how he had signed 'YES' for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval. Although the Senator was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic about his future ideas for helping his 'red sisters and brothers'.
At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud Senator then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds.
A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name given to the Senator. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of shit it can no longer fly.
HE spoke for almost an hour on HIS future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living, should HE one day become the President. HE referred to his career as a Senator, how he had signed 'YES' for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval. Although the Senator was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic about his future ideas for helping his 'red sisters and brothers'.
At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud Senator then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds.
A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name given to the Senator. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of shit it can no longer fly.
Reality Check from Scotland
Reality Check from Scotland
U S Election-2008
An email from Scotland to all of their brethren in the States... a point to ponder despite your political affiliation:
'We, in Scotland, can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.
On one side, you have a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run.
Now... On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate Mc terminology, married to a good looking, blond younger woman who owns a beer distributorship.
What in Lords name are you lads thinking over there in the colonies?
The "election" is a gimme, right?'
..
U S Election-2008
An email from Scotland to all of their brethren in the States... a point to ponder despite your political affiliation:
'We, in Scotland, can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.
On one side, you have a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run.
Now... On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate Mc terminology, married to a good looking, blond younger woman who owns a beer distributorship.
What in Lords name are you lads thinking over there in the colonies?
The "election" is a gimme, right?'
..
I Changed My Mind!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don't have to hide from us over there, when they come over here I don't want to have any guns in the house to fight them off with.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 8% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
Makes ya wonder why anyone would EVER vote Republican, now doesn't it?
I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don't have to hide from us over there, when they come over here I don't want to have any guns in the house to fight them off with.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 8% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
Makes ya wonder why anyone would EVER vote Republican, now doesn't it?
Becoming Illegal!
FORMS ARE GOING FAST- SIGN UP TODAY!
Becoming Illegal (Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his senator)
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald RuppertBurlington, IA
Get your Forms (NOW)!! Call your Internal Revenue Service 1-800-289-1040.
Please pass this on to your friends so they can save on this great offer!
FORMS ARE GOING FAST- SIGN UP TODAY!
Becoming Illegal (Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his senator)
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald RuppertBurlington, IA
Get your Forms (NOW)!! Call your Internal Revenue Service 1-800-289-1040.
Please pass this on to your friends so they can save on this great offer!
Udall too far to the left for Colorado
Publish Date: 3/21/2008
GOP chairman: Udall too far to the left for Colorado
By John Fryar Longmont Times-Call
LONGMONT —
Mark Udall is a “Boulder liberal” whose congressional voting record doesn’t represent most Coloradans’ viewpoints, according to Colorado Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams.
Eldorado Springs Democrat Udall, who’s running for U.S. Senate rather than seeking re-election to his 2nd Congressional District seat, “has been a great congressman for Boulder,” Wadhams told 20 people attending a Longmont Republican Women’s luncheon Thursday at the Terroir restaurant.
“Need I say more?” he asked.
Wadhams said he has Boulder friends, but “Boulder’s out of the mainstream of Colorado.”
Wadhams — who also is the campaign manager for former 4th District Congressman Bob Schaffer, the GOP candidate in this year’s U.S. Senate contest — said: “We can beat Boulder liberal Mark Udall.”
Wadhams said Fort Collins Republican Schaffer is “probably one of the most articulate, eloquent speakers we’ve ever put up” for public office.
Wadhams said a Schaffer victory can be won by getting Colorado voters to compare Udall’s 10 years of congressional votes and bill sponsorships with the record Schaffer compiled during his six years in Congress.
Wadhams said an example of how Udall’s liberalism is “to the left of Colorado” was Udall’s onetime co-sponsorship of a bill that would create a U.S. Department of Peace and would fund that department by diverting billions of dollars in annual federal budget appropriations from the Defense Department.
Udall campaign spokeswoman Taylor West said in a Thursday interview that Udall initially supported that bill “because there was a severe lack on the part of the Bush administration of using the tools of diplomacy ... as part of our overall foreign policy.”
West said Udall later withdrew his co-sponsorship of the measure because he ultimately couldn’t support creation of a new cabinet-level Peace Department and its projected expense.
However, Wadhams charged that Udall dropped his support for the bill only when he began considering a Democratic bid for the U.S. Senate seat up for election in 2004.
Democrat Ken Salazar won that seat and Democrat Bill Ritter won the governor’s office in 2006 by running as moderates, Wadhams suggested.
But Wadhams said that, unlike Udall and Schaffer, neither Salazar nor Ritter had state- or federal-level legislative voting records that Coloradans could scrutinize during those campaigns.
Wadhams suggested that he and Schaffer will repeat many of the successful political tactics used by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, the Larimer County Republican whose 1996 election and 2002 re-election campaigns Wadhams managed.
Wadhams said Allard “was not afraid to draw clear and distinct contrasts” between his positions and those of Democratic candidate Tom Strickland in both contests.
Later on Thursday, though, Udall spokeswoman West said: “Bob Schaffer is not Wayne Allard. Bob Schaffer spent six years in Congress and got next to nothing done for Colorado.”
Wadhams said this year’s race offers clear contrasts between Udall and Schaffer, who was the Longmont Republican Women’s guest speaker last month.
Wadhams said Allard made it a point of campaigning in every Colorado county, running on what Wadhams said were such mainstream Republican principles as balancing the federal budget and returning power to state and local governments.
For more than a year, Wadhams and other Republicans have brandished the “Boulder liberal” label when talking about Udall, but the Democrat’s campaign staff has dismissed the tag as narrow and misleading.
But West said Wadhams and Schaffer “know that Bob Schaffer’s record is far out of the mainstream for Colorado. The only way they can deal with that is by calling names and making up labels.”
Udall’s record and reputation, West said, are that of “a guy who reaches across the aisle to get things done for Colorado.”
West said Udall was unavailable for comment Thursday because he was on the road and taking advantage of Congress’ Easter recess to spend time vacationing with his family “before the campaign really kicks in gear.”
John Fryar can be reached at 303-684-5211 or jfryar@times-call.com.
GOP chairman: Udall too far to the left for Colorado
By John Fryar Longmont Times-Call
LONGMONT —
Mark Udall is a “Boulder liberal” whose congressional voting record doesn’t represent most Coloradans’ viewpoints, according to Colorado Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams.
Eldorado Springs Democrat Udall, who’s running for U.S. Senate rather than seeking re-election to his 2nd Congressional District seat, “has been a great congressman for Boulder,” Wadhams told 20 people attending a Longmont Republican Women’s luncheon Thursday at the Terroir restaurant.
“Need I say more?” he asked.
Wadhams said he has Boulder friends, but “Boulder’s out of the mainstream of Colorado.”
Wadhams — who also is the campaign manager for former 4th District Congressman Bob Schaffer, the GOP candidate in this year’s U.S. Senate contest — said: “We can beat Boulder liberal Mark Udall.”
Wadhams said Fort Collins Republican Schaffer is “probably one of the most articulate, eloquent speakers we’ve ever put up” for public office.
Wadhams said a Schaffer victory can be won by getting Colorado voters to compare Udall’s 10 years of congressional votes and bill sponsorships with the record Schaffer compiled during his six years in Congress.
Wadhams said an example of how Udall’s liberalism is “to the left of Colorado” was Udall’s onetime co-sponsorship of a bill that would create a U.S. Department of Peace and would fund that department by diverting billions of dollars in annual federal budget appropriations from the Defense Department.
Udall campaign spokeswoman Taylor West said in a Thursday interview that Udall initially supported that bill “because there was a severe lack on the part of the Bush administration of using the tools of diplomacy ... as part of our overall foreign policy.”
West said Udall later withdrew his co-sponsorship of the measure because he ultimately couldn’t support creation of a new cabinet-level Peace Department and its projected expense.
However, Wadhams charged that Udall dropped his support for the bill only when he began considering a Democratic bid for the U.S. Senate seat up for election in 2004.
Democrat Ken Salazar won that seat and Democrat Bill Ritter won the governor’s office in 2006 by running as moderates, Wadhams suggested.
But Wadhams said that, unlike Udall and Schaffer, neither Salazar nor Ritter had state- or federal-level legislative voting records that Coloradans could scrutinize during those campaigns.
Wadhams suggested that he and Schaffer will repeat many of the successful political tactics used by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, the Larimer County Republican whose 1996 election and 2002 re-election campaigns Wadhams managed.
Wadhams said Allard “was not afraid to draw clear and distinct contrasts” between his positions and those of Democratic candidate Tom Strickland in both contests.
Later on Thursday, though, Udall spokeswoman West said: “Bob Schaffer is not Wayne Allard. Bob Schaffer spent six years in Congress and got next to nothing done for Colorado.”
Wadhams said this year’s race offers clear contrasts between Udall and Schaffer, who was the Longmont Republican Women’s guest speaker last month.
Wadhams said Allard made it a point of campaigning in every Colorado county, running on what Wadhams said were such mainstream Republican principles as balancing the federal budget and returning power to state and local governments.
For more than a year, Wadhams and other Republicans have brandished the “Boulder liberal” label when talking about Udall, but the Democrat’s campaign staff has dismissed the tag as narrow and misleading.
But West said Wadhams and Schaffer “know that Bob Schaffer’s record is far out of the mainstream for Colorado. The only way they can deal with that is by calling names and making up labels.”
Udall’s record and reputation, West said, are that of “a guy who reaches across the aisle to get things done for Colorado.”
West said Udall was unavailable for comment Thursday because he was on the road and taking advantage of Congress’ Easter recess to spend time vacationing with his family “before the campaign really kicks in gear.”
John Fryar can be reached at 303-684-5211 or jfryar@times-call.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)