A Delicate Constitutional Balance

Jun 29 2006 Published by under Congress, Government, Legislation, News Media, Politics, Republicans

RepublicansThe New York TimesCongressBy now everyone probably has heard of the terrorist financing surveillance that was disrupted by the New York Times. Despite strenuous objections by members of both parties, the NY Times ran an article that detailed how the US monitors banking transactions overseas to identify and track terrorists.

That was stupid and dangerous. Given that they exist at the epicenter of the 9-11 attacks, the NY Times, of all papers, should be sensitive to the perils we face when terrorists operate below the radar. The Times has made our country less safe.

However, the GOP controlled Congress seems to have forgotten a little thing we call the Constitution and a tiny subsection that reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Passing a non-binding resolution, while not a law, still sets a dangerous example for future generations to follow. The power of Congress to make laws is not something that should be taken lightly – especially by those who got elected claiming to resent the abuse of power by the federal government. Making laws that come dangerously close to treading on the Constitution is a horrible precedent to set

Conservatives should be alarmed that Republicans in Congress have grown so used to their power that they will wield it so carelessly.

The New York Times should be punished for their subversion, but that should not take the form of legislation. It should take the form of every Republican, at every level of government, refusing to grant them quotes, access, or even a seat at a press conference. Let them try to report the news if they are frozen out of the process.

No responses yet

More On Political Moderation

May 03 2006 Published by under Candidates, Congress, Democrats, Elections, Government, Politics, Republicans

PoliticsGovernmentThe NY Times has a good read on the continuing assault on moderates. It reinforces a post I made a couple of weeks ago about the problem with politics. The gist of the NYT article is the Democrats are specifically targeting moderate Republicans in states that traditionally vote blue, and attempting to portray otherwise independent members as radical conservatives.

In the battle for control of the House of Representatives, Democrats are concentrating their efforts on defeating a particularly resilient set of opponents, Northeast Republicans who have held their seats despite the region’s tendency to vote Democratic.

Independent analysts say there are at least a dozen competitive races in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Connecticut, many involving districts where voters have supported Democrats for president in recent elections while electing Republicans to Congress.

Now, with many polls showing President Bush’s support at its lowest level yet, Democrats in those districts are running heavily against the president, hoping to tie Republican incumbents to his agenda.

It really is unfortunate that we have come to this point with our political system. The partisan divide and the quest for power have both become so great that we will sacrifice any voice of reason and moderation in pursuit of control. If our founding fathers could see us, I am sure they would be appalled. If the FTC could investigate both parties for anti-competitive or predatory tactics, I am sure they would be handing out fistfuls of indictments.

What is truly appalling is the attitude of partisan hacks like Rahm Emanuel.

“The big question,” Mr. Emanuel said, “is whether the Congressional map in ’06 will align itself with presidential performance” in these districts.

That assumes that people make the presidential selection and their congressional selection based on the same criteria. I guess if you are a straight ticket voter who believes that the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat, that may be true. Most people, however, vote for President based on the person that can best lead our nation. They vote for their member of Congress based on who can best represent their local interests.

I vote Republican on the Presidential ballot because I believe (despite the current Administration) that Republicans believe in a smaller federal government, fiscal responsibility and limiting the intrusion of the fed into our private lives (like I said, the current administration notwithstanding).

For congress, I vote for the person that I feel will best serve my community. In the case of NM-01, where I still vote, that was Steve Schiff for the first 10 years of my voting experience and Heather Wilson since. Steve was, and Heather is, a moderate voice in Congress. They did not strictly adhere to party lines. That never bothered me, regardless of whether the guy in the White House was with us or against us.

People judge these offices by different criteria. We are damaged as a nation when people like Emanuel try to equate them. When that happens, you get the problem before us – the harassment of independent voices by those trying to enforce groupthink on the population. They say, “You’re a Democrat, you must vote Democrat all the time because Republicans are evil.” But that thinking leads only to extremism and ultimately totalitarianism.

In the work I do, I spend every day listening to Congress tell me that we need competition. They say competition in the delivery of video services will save the world. They say companies competing for customers benefits everyone.

That logic, however, is quickly abandoned when it comes to redistricting and political power. When it comes to politics, monopolies on power are good and to be chased at any cost. It’s a mentality I have come to hold in great contempt.

Rather than spend time contributing to the extremism of America. Both parties should spend more time trying to make every seat truly competitive. If competition is good for the market, the economy and the world, shouldn’t it be good for our nation, our political institutions, our laws, and our civic debates?

No responses yet

Everything You Think You Know About Net Neutrality Is Wrong

May 02 2006 Published by under Congress, Government, Legislation, Net Neutrality, The Internet

Net NeutralityGovernmentLegislationOk, I understand I’m off on a rant here. This whole net neutrality argument is really pissing me off because it has been so misrepresented by proponents and everyone seems to be buying their argument with no effort to dissect it.

Now, it appears that the NY Times has bought into the arguments made by net neutrality proponents. It really is unfortunate that the wrong side of this issue has come up with the best messaging. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. This is not a debate between the little guy and the big guy. This is a debate between content providers and access providers over who has to charge the little guy more for service. Period.

The NY Times piece is appalling for the fact that they’ve got it 180 degrees backward. Net neutrality language is all about the big guy sites and little else. If this was about allowing little guys to compete, why is it being pushed by Microsoft? When you’re taking the side of Microsoft, and think you’re doing the little guy a favor, you really need to rethink your position.
Continue Reading »

4 responses so far

« Newer posts