The Skeptic Eclectic

Russert Flames Pelosi

2006-05-08T08:15:00.000-07:00

I have to admit that I loved it. Tim Russert absolutely torched Nancy Pelosi on Sunday. Now, that doesn't mean I have changed my opinion of him...but I am somewhat heartened.

"Speaker Pelosi" as Stephanopolos referred to her on his show, failed to meet the bell when Russert asked her about taxes, investigations leading to impeachment, and Iraq.

Russert also came after her on energy. She did not do well; however, Russert should have asked her about nuclear energy in addition to questions about gasoline taxes.

Overall, he was back to his old form...but she was so easy.

The Left, The Court, and The Same Sex Marriage Amendment

2006-04-09T20:15:00.000-07:00

The Constitutional Amendment concerning same sex marriage, which should be defeated, is a response to liberals using the courts to produce the social policy outcomes they desire. It is a response to liberal courts acting as legislatures.

Specifically, the passage of constitutional bans on same sex marriage in a number of states is a response to the decision of the ultraliberal Massachusetts Supreme court. Is a bitter irony which the left truly deserves.

Unfortunately, the damage those amendments do to constitutions is not something the rest of us deserve.

Let's take one more look at the dabate on the same sex marriage constitutional amendment. The point that Mark Gundrum, author of the amendment, makes is intellectually serious. He argues that liberal courts have now shown a propensity to find a constitutional right to same sex marriages. He further argues that the only way to short circuit court's abilities to do so is to put into the constitution a specific definition of marriage. His argument is logical.

Again, to recap, the argument that I believe trumps his agrument is that constitutions do several things, most important among those things is protect people against their government. Constitutions do that by limiting the powers of government. The first amendment to the federal constitution is a perfect example. That amendment grants rights to people. It does so by limiting the power of government. Specifically, congress is forbidden from making any laws restricting speech, the press, and the practice of religion, the ability to assemble peacefully and the ability to petition one's government.

The same sex amendment is very different from that and crosses a very broad line. It changes the constitution from a document that protects people from their government by limiting government, to a document that limits people. It changes the constitution in such a dramatic manner that it changes the character of it. That amendment opens up the possibility that other disfavored groups may face the same or similar limits.

Does anyone question that the left would seize a constitutional opportunity to limit the free exercize of religion. Look at what they are doing to the boy scouts through the ACLU. Gays are today's disfavored group. But tomorrow may come all too soon.

Now, let's return to the original point of this blog. This whole debate is a microcosm of the debate on how the constitution should be intepreted. The conservative position is that the constitution is a document that creates and limits government. The questions of social policy are issues to be discussed by legislative bodies and resolved there. Some of those questions were to be debated in the federal legislature and some in state legislatures. The constitution defines which issues belong where. It is legislative bodies that are to respond to the changing social attitudes and beliefs. The constitution provides the process through which those responses should take place.

The liberal position is that the constitution, as a document, evolves to adapt to changing social beliefs and attitudes. It is the Supreme Court that determines how and when the document evolves.

The judicial evolution of the constitution in Massachusetts is what has produced the response in many states. Had the Massachusetts legislature passed a law no one in Wisconsin would be looking at a constitutional change. Had the Massachusetts court said this was not a constitutional question no changes would have been proposed. I reiterate, it is a bitter irony that the activism of a liberal court has brought about a dangerous change in state constitutions.

Perhaps it is asking too much for liberals to acknowledge their complicity in the proliferaltion of these amendments. But if they did there would be a greater willingness on the part of some to help defeat an ill-conceived amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution.

Russert Strikes Again

2006-04-09T08:05:00.000-07:00

JD Hayworth appeared in Meet the Press today. He is clearly a spinning blow hard. But beyond that he has committed the fatal sin of being a Republican. Tim Russert made him pay the price today.

Hayworth was on the show to defend the idoit position on immigration, which he did. After the conversation on immigration Russert confronted him on the issue of Jack Abramhoff contributions coming through indian tribes. Hayworth reminded Russert that 25% of his constituency was American Indian. Russert was undetered. He raised the issue of perceived ethical problems.

The issue of "perceived ethical problems" is the biggest liberal hoax in the world. There is either an ethical problem or there is not. When there is not the press has an obligation to explain that in some instances what looks ethically challenged is not. It also their obligation to spotlight when there is a real conflict or ethical problem. Governing requires making tough decisions. It means making choices. It seems that anytime a republican makes a choice that benefits interests that have contributed to him it is an ethical problem or a "perceived ethical problem."

In Russert's world, and the rest of the media, there is clearly only one set of ethical choices, raise taxes, spend more, create programs, redistribute wealth. Any choice other than that is unethical and any elected official who takes money from interests that oppose that equation has an ethical problem because he is doing something that is clearly wrong or he is doing something that he knows is wrong but doing it anyway. Therefore contributions from people who support those things pose either a real ethical problem (for those who know better but do it anyway) or a perceived ethical problem (for those who are so dumb they believe it is right to do those things.)

When is the last time anyone heard Russert ask Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton or any liberal about the perceived ethical problems that exist because that liberal took money from government employee unions? Surely, that constituency has a vested interest in higher taxes and greater government spending...because most of it goes into their pockets. And certainly the public as a whole is opposed to higher taxes. Isn't there an ethical problem if the democrats and the liberals are taking large chunks of their money from people whose self interest is diametrically opposed to the interest of the public as a whole?

Russert still gets a pass because of past good behavior. He was once fair. That is changing very rapidly. Just watch.

Apology to Scott Walker

2006-03-28T04:40:00.000-08:00

Subtitle...How to make a virue of being wrong.

Did you ever notice that the MSM never, well almost never, admit to being wrong.

I was wrong. And let this be my apology to Scott Walker. He has proven that his campaign was not only about himself, as I asserted in a previous blog. He has done the right thing by dropping from the race for governor.

It has been clear for some time that a successful Republican primary for Walker would be expensive and negative. He had two choices: He could trash Green, destroy him and hope for the best or he could honorably drop out of the race. He took the honorable choice.

Furthermore, he was refreshingly honest about it. He stated that for him to win he needed to spend a lot of money going negative on Green. He decided he did not want to do that.

Scott Walker, GOOD FOR YOU!!

May you live to fight again. You have won many supporters.

I Mourn The Loss of Tim Russert

2006-03-19T07:33:00.000-08:00

My favorite Sunday morning interviewer has always been Tim Russert. He was pointed, tough, fair and balanced. I believe he is no longer fair and balanced.

I saw Russert interview Rep. John Murtha(D) today. Murtha is the veteran who spoke out against the war in Iraq and was attacked on the floor of the House by a freshman Republican who later recanted.

Russert's typical interview style is confrontational. He reads quotes from his quests, points out what the opposition would say about that quote and then asks the guest to defend his position. After an initial response Russert continues to question his guest from the perspective of the political opposition. At his best he did this to members of both political parties.

He is no longer at his best.

The Murtha interview today was a total softball game. Even the mildly tough questions were asked with an apology in his voice.

A few weeks ago Bill Frist was on. Russert destroyed him. Acutally, I have no problem with that. I am not a Frist fan. I think he did not come clean on the sale of his HCA stock. (Russert flayed him on that point.) Neverthless, it was one of the most aggresive interviews I have ever seen Russert conduct.

Frist is mainstream Republican. Remember that point.

I have also seen Russert interview Howard Dean. Dean did not fair well. Russert pointed out his untenable positions, and the excess of this rhetoric. Dean is of the wacky wing of the Democrat Party. Remember that point.

I have seen Russert interview Hilary Clinton. It was not a typical Russert hardball interview. (Just a note, it is Russert, not Mathews, who plays hardball. Mathews is just a spin meister.) Now perhaps because Hilary rarely does these show Russert wanted to encourage her to come back by making her experience reasonably satisfying for her. Nevertheless, she got a pass. Hilary is a middle of the road Democrat. Remember that point.

Of late, it seems to me that Russert had been very kind to middle of the road democrats. He has not been kind to republicans of any stripe.

There is talk of democrats retaking the House of Representatives this fall. By making mainstream democrats seem more reasonable and making mainstream republicans seem less reasonable, ethically challenged, and extreme ( a term applied to anyone right of Dwight Eisenhower), Russert becomes a part of the partisan media. He no longer deserves the credibility he had fairly won. He only trades on that credibility now.

As many of you probably know Russert was a staffer for Sen Moynihan of NY. A senator for whom George Will had the highest respect. Moynihan was an economically rational and culturally conservative democrat. He is the kind of person for whom Russert seems to have respect.

It seems that Russert is willilng to promote the democrats in the hope that democrats of the moderate stripe will again control congress. Or perhaps he just believes that Bush and the republicans are wrong on the war and that there needs to be change in Washington. It doesn't matter. His Sunday morning show has become an unsafe environment for republicans. They are treated differently than democrats.

It is too bad that Russert has fallen from icon to MSM.

Jensen Leaves With The Same Class He Has Always Displayed

2006-03-13T10:25:00.000-08:00

Scott Jensen has written to Speaker John Gard indicating that he will resign from the legislature. His letter compliments all with whom he has worked, acknowledges the honor of public service and compliments his constituents.

He served the state first, his party second and his personal agenda last. As Speaker he recognized the duty he had to help Tommy Thompson move his agenda. He did so, though he did have some differences with Tommy over spending. He fought Chvala honorably and effectively.

His first question was always, "Is this good public policy?"

Today he announced he would leave the legistature. He is leaving in the same way he served, with class and dignity.

Best wishes to you Scott and thank you for your service.

The Same Sex Marriage Amendment Should Be Defeated

2006-03-12T17:43:00.000-08:00

It is a source of some encouragement to see folks like Charlie Sykes express concerns about the ill conceived effort to make a constitutional issue of same sex marriage.

I will grant that the Mass. court brought the issue into play. I will also grant that the proponents make an honest point when they argue courts may well find a constitutional right to same sex marriage if the constitution is not amended. Nevertheless, this amendment should not pass. Here is why.

Constitutions are documents that provide the structure, the process and the protections AGAINST government. They are not documents that establish specific policy choices. They are the road map to policy choices; they do not include policy choices.

Geroge Will wrote of a proposed European constitution awhile back. He ridiculed it because it was a collection of social, economic and environmental policy choices. They were the preferences of the day. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will072803.asp The adoption of that constitution would make future governance of a European Union impossible.

Constitutions create structure, an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. They guarantee people process. A person can not be thrown into jail and left there without being told why, and given a chance to defend himself in front of a jury. And they protect individuals against their government. Freedom of speech is in fact a prohibition on government as are all the other freedoms we enjoy as people. The same sex marriage amendment is none of those. In fact it is a prohibition on private citizens. It is not a protection against government. By including this amendment in the constitution we are fundamentallly changing the nature of the constitution. We have made it a document that disenfranchises individuals, not a document that protects them from government. We have made it a document that establishes the policy preferences of today as immutable and unchangeable.

Once we have made the constitution a document that picks policy preferences it would be fair to ask what preferences we would like to include next. It would be fair to ask what other disfavored groups will next be targeted for constitutional disenfranchisement?

Let me close with this thought. One of the important reasons that constitutions were written was to guarantee that minority groups, whether religious, ideological, or yes, even gay could not be targeted by angry or irrational majorities.

Putting this amendment in the constitution crosses a broad line. It changes the character of the Wisconsin Constitution. It changes it in a way that makes having a disenting view a dangerous thing.

The Grotesque Injustice

2006-03-12T17:33:00.000-08:00

Scott Jensen has been found guilty.

The DA sought, and the Judge agreed, to deny him any defense.

Jensen NEVER sold policy for campaign contributions.

He was the victim of a Dane County DA who was afraid to charge democrats with selling policy unless he could also deliver a Republican.

My understanding is that Blanchard even went to the Dem caucus and sought help for his DA race. IT IS THE HEIGHT OF HYPOCRACY TO CHARGE SOMEONE WITH THE CRIME YOU HAVE COMMITTED.

Jensen was denied the opportunity to even inform the jury of the others who engaged in this activity.

We have all heard the term Kafkaesque applied to a situation. This injustice is the real life realization of that term.

2006-03-06T15:34:00.000-08:00

Green is the Man

You always know who is losing a political race. That is the candidate who goes negative. We can assume, then, that Green is ahead of Walker and ahead to the point where Walker and his team are worried.

The problem is this. We need a healthy candidate to take on Doyle.

Walker has gone negative. Therefore we can assume that he is more concerned with winning the primary than he is with winning the race. How do we discern this? Easy...if his attacks work Green has no choice. He will/must go negative too. The problem is that we then send damaged goods into the general against a campaign that will be very well funded and willing to say anything.

Surely we must remember the campaign that sent Senator Russ to Washington. Nasty primary. Russ comes through unscathed. He knocks off Kasten.Walker seems willing to risk that outcome. Is he that much more important than getting rid of Doyle?

Wait...deep in the background...I hear the voice of him who crieth in the wilderness.

What is he saying?

I can hear it now...

IS'NT IT GREAT TO BE A REPUBLICAN!!

Skeptic Eclectic is born

2006-03-04T08:53:00.000-08:00

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Hello world. A new blog has just been born.

I AM THE SKEPTIC ECLECTIC!!

I have not been aborted. I will not be euthanized. I am here to challenge them all. Read my words; embrace my views; spread my message.

First thought

John Gard will and should win the race for congress in the eighth Congressional District. Sure he is a farm boy from northern Wisconsin. Sure he is a real conservative. Sure he actually believes in the constritutional amendment to ban same sex marriages. But if you know the guy I'm told it is hard not to respect him. He has backbone, ethics, and a philosophy. At least you know where the guy is and you can expect him to stay there. Predictability is a good thing in politics.

The school choice battle with The Gov is a good example. The early spin was that Gov D ate his lunch. Well, a man would starve to death eating lunches like that.

Facts are
50% increase in students going into choice schools
No more money for the Milwaukee school system
The rest is just dressing!!

Doyle got more money for SAGE. Unfortunate but unavoidable. COME ON!! He had to get something. Gard knew what he had to get and he got it. Furthermore, he held on until he got it. We call that backbone.

And now, a digression.

Why you may ask is SAGE such a big deal to the BORG (otherwise known as the teacher's union and the education establishment)?
My Friends...it is demographic.

It will be a good 10 years before student populations begin to rise again. Check out the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance look at the future. If student populations remain static what happens to teacher numbers? They, too, remain static. Who is most hurt by a static teacher population. WEAC of course. They derive their income from teacher dues. It is in the interest of the union to keep increasing their membership through reductions in class size EVEN IF THOSE REDUCTIONS CANNOT BE PROVEN TO IMPROVE EDUCATION OUTCOMES except in very small increments in very select populations. Talk about screwing the public for the sake of a special interest group!!!

But, back to the point.

John Gard is the man. He may not move you to rapture with his rhetoric. He may not tie you in knots with his powerful logic. But he will not embarrass you through ethical lapses. (Have you seen his name in connection to illegal activities?) His personal behavior will not reflect badly on anyone. Get this, I am told the guy loves and respects his parents. He will tell you what he believes and act according to those beliefs. In this day can you ask for more?

As Captain America said or maybe it was The Thing or some Marvel comic book character

N'uff said.