Here is a report of some recent legistlation and how he voted. So far, Kenny is continuing a track record of very poor performance on issues important to Progressive Liberals in his North Texas neighborhood. He continues to vote against the issues that really matter to us. We will continue to update you so that next time he's up for election, you'll be better informed of his MISrepresentation in Congress. (Devon)
Veto Override, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations - Vote Failed (222-203, 1 Present, 7 Not Voting)
The House fell over 60 votes short of overturning President Bush's veto of a $124 billion spending bill that would have set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Rep. Kenny Marchant voted NO......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 - Vote Passed (237-180, 16 Not Voting)
The House passed this bill that expands the definition of a "hate crime" to include sexual orientation.
Rep. Kenny Marchant voted NO......
Showing posts with label Liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Who's gona win in 2008?
Hot off the press... MSNBC... reporting on a recent poll... "Obama beats the leading Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat: besting Giuliani 50 to 43 percent, among registered voters; beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, and defeating Romney 58 percent to 29 percent"
You'll enjoy this moment, Matt. We're talking in the break room at work, me and a "conservative". The news about Obama getting Secret Service protection sparked a conversation about his candidancy versus Clinton. Another Liberal and I agree that it's refreshing to have these two for consideration. The "conservative" chimes in that he would support Obama over Clinton... an "anybody but Clinton" sort of mentality but interesting nonetheless. He also said that the Repubs haven't got a chance in this next election so it's going to be important what Democrat gets the nomination.
Now I know you support Edwards and I'd be gald to hear your points again... this time for the public, please. I am still making up my mind. I lean towards both Clinton and Obama at the monent, and in that order.
I'd like to see a woman President. It's about time. For over 30 years I've been supporting the idea of more female represenation in Congress. After all, 51 percent of the population is Female (making them hardly a minority statistically) but they are represented by only three or four (can't recall the specifics) women in the Senate. So less than 5 percent of the highest deliberative, legislative body represents 51 percent of the population? That's nonsense! Women need to get out and support their candidates. If they do, then Clinton is a total "slam dunk" (I almost hesitate to use that word in light of recent Tenet testimony).
Obama, on the other hand, brings to the election, the Presidential "attitude" that Bush displayed in the 2000 election... that confident, full speed ahead, attitude that makes Americans wanna salute the flag. That's probably what gets the support of the "conservatives" like my office friend. They like the BigDaddy, "I'm gonna protect you and kick the butt of anyone who means to harm you" sort. Obama pushes right up to the edge of that without going into the Bush-bravado, swagger, flightsuit thing W did on Mission Accomplished Day.
So, it's interesting to note two things. One, A Democrat will win the election and it will probably be either a woman or a black if it's between Clinton and Obama. I predict a Clinton-Obama ticket and, therefore, BOTH will win. The question now is which order, Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton?
(Note: I use the term "conservative" to describe those who claim to be conservative because nowadays, they are not really conservative in the politically, historical sense of the word. Matt, you have a great way of defining this and I'll leave it to you to make your point. anyway, today's "conservatives" are not really conservative in the Goldwater sense of the word. Back then, they truely wanted less federal government and more local and state control. They wanted decisions made at a local level based on the "majority rule". The problem is, that doesn't work any more. Our problems today are global and international. Trying to solve them one state at a time isn't going to work anymore. More about this later... Today's conservative movement is really a mixture of fiscal tightwads, sometime libertarians, social/sexual repressives, ignorant, poorly educated or informed, well meaning social protectionists, lead by power and money hungry self promoters. There's little that really conservative in the movement that was there in 1980. The only thing conservative about the movement today is their use of the label "conservative". Matt you have some really excellent thoughts on this. Please share them!)
You'll enjoy this moment, Matt. We're talking in the break room at work, me and a "conservative". The news about Obama getting Secret Service protection sparked a conversation about his candidancy versus Clinton. Another Liberal and I agree that it's refreshing to have these two for consideration. The "conservative" chimes in that he would support Obama over Clinton... an "anybody but Clinton" sort of mentality but interesting nonetheless. He also said that the Repubs haven't got a chance in this next election so it's going to be important what Democrat gets the nomination.
Now I know you support Edwards and I'd be gald to hear your points again... this time for the public, please. I am still making up my mind. I lean towards both Clinton and Obama at the monent, and in that order.
I'd like to see a woman President. It's about time. For over 30 years I've been supporting the idea of more female represenation in Congress. After all, 51 percent of the population is Female (making them hardly a minority statistically) but they are represented by only three or four (can't recall the specifics) women in the Senate. So less than 5 percent of the highest deliberative, legislative body represents 51 percent of the population? That's nonsense! Women need to get out and support their candidates. If they do, then Clinton is a total "slam dunk" (I almost hesitate to use that word in light of recent Tenet testimony).
Obama, on the other hand, brings to the election, the Presidential "attitude" that Bush displayed in the 2000 election... that confident, full speed ahead, attitude that makes Americans wanna salute the flag. That's probably what gets the support of the "conservatives" like my office friend. They like the BigDaddy, "I'm gonna protect you and kick the butt of anyone who means to harm you" sort. Obama pushes right up to the edge of that without going into the Bush-bravado, swagger, flightsuit thing W did on Mission Accomplished Day.
So, it's interesting to note two things. One, A Democrat will win the election and it will probably be either a woman or a black if it's between Clinton and Obama. I predict a Clinton-Obama ticket and, therefore, BOTH will win. The question now is which order, Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton?
(Note: I use the term "conservative" to describe those who claim to be conservative because nowadays, they are not really conservative in the politically, historical sense of the word. Matt, you have a great way of defining this and I'll leave it to you to make your point. anyway, today's "conservatives" are not really conservative in the Goldwater sense of the word. Back then, they truely wanted less federal government and more local and state control. They wanted decisions made at a local level based on the "majority rule". The problem is, that doesn't work any more. Our problems today are global and international. Trying to solve them one state at a time isn't going to work anymore. More about this later... Today's conservative movement is really a mixture of fiscal tightwads, sometime libertarians, social/sexual repressives, ignorant, poorly educated or informed, well meaning social protectionists, lead by power and money hungry self promoters. There's little that really conservative in the movement that was there in 1980. The only thing conservative about the movement today is their use of the label "conservative". Matt you have some really excellent thoughts on this. Please share them!)
Friday, May 4, 2007
In the beginning...
So here's how it started... me and my bud, Matt were emailling back and forth about the travails of being a Liberal in a Conservative State. You see, we're pretty bright fellows and tend to think too much which is a trait we share with many of our fellow Liberals and in contrary to those who claim to be "conservative". In fact, here's a posting from our more recent rants about the lack of logic in the conservative arguments about most everything...
"I love being in the South in general but there's something in the drinking water here, I believe, that makes some people really illogical. They claim to be "conservatives" which would imply a gov't "hands off" orientation but then they expect the gov't to create and enforce laws restricting private, consentual behavior between adults, to sponsor bigorty and prejudice against minorities, to invoke long prison sentences for the most minor offenses, to subsidize their private, religious schools, to suspend habeus corpus as needed, to disallow tort case awards to hapless victims of big business' greed and incompetence and , and then they expect the gov't to not spend any money doing this! But, then, if they are the victims of circumstance, they want that same gov't to protect them. If there's a tornado or flood or hurricane or crop failure, they immediate dial, 1-800-big-govt and want money and help sent without hesitation! If someone wants them to secure their guns from children and "accidents", they fall over themselves to get the courts to protect their "rights". If their wife or daughter is raped, they suddenly think the "morning-after-pill" is okay and abortion is a vaiable option. If their child is molested, it's suddenly okay for the gov't to establish and pay for programs to monitor predators. In sum, most "conservatives" are situational. As long as they think they are in the majority and nothing happens to them to shake their foundation, they can remain that way. But as as soon as the bottom drops out on them, they find a clear path to the "other side". Just like "fox holes" cure atheism, calamity cures Conservatism!"
So we decided to start this blog and to make our thoughts public. Now I realize that's a freedom we enjoy in the USA but, trust me, there's a Conservative out there who would gladly take this right away in they could... another contradiction in logic. It's all just a part of living in Texas, being a part of a very exciting state with some very peculiar political "concepts". I hope you enjoy the thread...
"I love being in the South in general but there's something in the drinking water here, I believe, that makes some people really illogical. They claim to be "conservatives" which would imply a gov't "hands off" orientation but then they expect the gov't to create and enforce laws restricting private, consentual behavior between adults, to sponsor bigorty and prejudice against minorities, to invoke long prison sentences for the most minor offenses, to subsidize their private, religious schools, to suspend habeus corpus as needed, to disallow tort case awards to hapless victims of big business' greed and incompetence and , and then they expect the gov't to not spend any money doing this! But, then, if they are the victims of circumstance, they want that same gov't to protect them. If there's a tornado or flood or hurricane or crop failure, they immediate dial, 1-800-big-govt and want money and help sent without hesitation! If someone wants them to secure their guns from children and "accidents", they fall over themselves to get the courts to protect their "rights". If their wife or daughter is raped, they suddenly think the "morning-after-pill" is okay and abortion is a vaiable option. If their child is molested, it's suddenly okay for the gov't to establish and pay for programs to monitor predators. In sum, most "conservatives" are situational. As long as they think they are in the majority and nothing happens to them to shake their foundation, they can remain that way. But as as soon as the bottom drops out on them, they find a clear path to the "other side". Just like "fox holes" cure atheism, calamity cures Conservatism!"
So we decided to start this blog and to make our thoughts public. Now I realize that's a freedom we enjoy in the USA but, trust me, there's a Conservative out there who would gladly take this right away in they could... another contradiction in logic. It's all just a part of living in Texas, being a part of a very exciting state with some very peculiar political "concepts". I hope you enjoy the thread...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)