Politics, Government & Public Policy: July 2007 Archives
Missouri's Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, has severely misrepresented a proposed constitutional amendment intended to ban racial and gender discrimination by focusing narrowly on the effect the ban would have on existing affirmative action programs. The text originally submitted by the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative says:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit any form of discrimination as an act of the state by declaring:"The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting?"
And the text as written by the Secretary of State for the official ballot:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:* ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and
* allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?
It's totally inaccurate for the MoSecState to describe the amendment as banning affirmative action "designed to eliminate discrimination..." because in fact all affirmative action would be banned. The inclusion of this phrase is intended to bias the reader against the amendment, despite the fact that the vast majority of voters would be in favor of a racial- and gender-neutral government. Since when does the secretary of state play politics in the execution of her official duties?
I've been thinking about Mitt Romney for the past few days and I really respect that he's been married to his wife for almost 40 years. In this day and age, that's quite an accomplishment for a successful businessman, not to mention a politician.
Senator David Vitter has also been in the news recently because of his patronage of the DC Madam's prostitution ring. Vitter's wife, Wendy, recently made a strong statement supporting her husband and reconfirming that their family is reconciled and has already dealt with his infidelity.
"David is my best friend," Vitter said at a press conference last week. "Some people said to me they wouldn't want to be in my shoes. I stand before you to say I am proud to be Wendy Vitter."She went on to say that privately she has forgiven her husband and that she has every intention of recommitting to their marriage.
"To forgive is not only always the easy choice, but it was the right choice for me," Wendy said.
And then there are the various top-tier Republican presidential candidates: Rudy Giuliani tries to hide his first two marriages, Fred Thomson is on his second wife and is a self-described womanizer, and John McCain ditched his first wife after she worked tirelessly to get him back from Vietnam. Not exactly models of fidelity.
So my question to you: other things being equal, would you prefer as a candidate a serial marrier like Giuliani, Thomson, and McCain, or a reconciled cheater like Vitter?
Even though Rudy Giuliani is largely pro-choice, if he's the Republican nominee I won't hesitate to vote for him considering that Barack Obama and John Edwards want publicly-sponsored abortions for everyone.
Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband's health-care plan would provide insurance coverage of abortion.Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health-care proposal as "a true universal health-care plan" that would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination," referring to abortion. ...
Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover "reproductive-health services." Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.
Clinton has not yet released her health-care proposal.
Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton's universal health-care plan won't pay for murdering babies? If it weren't for terrorism, killing babies would be just about all the Democrats could agree on.
