Fred's Saying What Needs to be Said

I've heard the complaints and read the articles complaining that Fred
Thompson is saying a lot with out saying much. What some people don't
understand is that he is saying very important things - things that need to
be said. Instead of talking about abortion, gay marriage or some other
polarizing, hot-button issue, he has chosen to focus much of his time and
energy a much more important issue, specifically, restoring the roles and
responsibilities of the President, Congress and Supreme Court to those
defined by the Constitution.

Fred is big on Federalism. I, for one, am glad to finally hear a candidate
talk about this. I firmly believe it is the lack of respect towards and
adherence to the basic design of our government that is really at the heart
of many of our problems. To begin with, the President is not a king. Now,
many people would answer me by saying that they know this. If that's the
case, then why do they continue treat him like one? Why is every President
and candidate besieged by questions about issues over which the office of
the President has absolutely no authority?

Let's think about this. The <http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm>
Constitution is very specific about the roles and responsibilities of the
three branches of our government. A President's word is by no means
absolute and is usually subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate.
He/she alone does not have to power to raise or lower taxes, create or
overturn laws, declare war, peace or alliances or find people guilty of
crimes. A President may and, according to the Constitution, is expected to
make suggestions to Congress regarding budgets, taxes, laws and treaties.
Often, this happens on an almost daily basis, but at the very least, it is
Constitutionally required at the yearly State of the Union Address.

For things such as declaring war and appointing most federal officers
(cabinet members, judges, etc), he must basically ask permission. With
respect to military action, a President may take limited, immediate action
to defend America, its citizens or interests, or in retaliation for some
attack but a prolonged military engagement or war itself requires the
Senate's approval. So, what this boils down to is a job 90% of which
consists of suggesting, advising and asking permission. Only 10% of the
President's job is autocratic, such as the aforementioned limited military
action, granting reprieves and pardons, dismissing federal officers or
employees, or making temporary recess appointments to fill vacancies. For
the really big stuff, it's "mother, may I?"

So, why is the President held publicly accountable for poverty, inflation
and taxes when it's the House of Representatives that controls the money?
Why is he to blame for a war or lack of protracted action when the Senate
must approve of it? Why is the continued existence of a bad law or failure
to pass a new one assumed to be part of the President's job when it really
belongs in the hands of the Congress to create them or, in limited cases,
the Supreme Court to overturn them? Three groups are to blame: the public,
the press and the candidates.

Regardless of what these groups may actually know of the President's
responsibilities, by and large, they ignore it. Instead, they revert to the
sheep and shepherd mentality of one person in charge of all. Maybe it's
human nature to always want to follow a single leader. It sure makes it
easier to blame someone when things go wrong. But in the President's job
description, the words "official scapegoat" or the like don't appear
anywhere. Nevertheless, people whine and gripe, the press publishes and
editorializes, and candidates pander. As a result, we usually elect our
Presidents on promises they are completely impotent to uphold once in
office.

The most important thing a citizen or candidate can do is to read the job
description of the office for which they are voting or running. If the
candidate is talking about things that don't relate or making promises they
can't guarantee, the voters should look for another candidate and the
candidate should look for another job. Fred Thompson has read the
President's job description. Now it's the voters' turns. Read the
Constitution and listen to the candidates. You'll be surprised how few
really know what is expected or allowed by the job for which they are
competing.

But, Fred does!

A Somber Anniversary

Yesterday morning my company, like most American's companies, had a moment
of silence to remember the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks,
and the soldiers now fighting overseas. Ours was at 8:46 AM, the time the
first plane struck. It's hard to believe it's been six years. Honestly, it
feels like it's been longer...much longer. It seems like history -
something you learn about in class that happened long ago to other people.
Sometimes, I equate it to learning about the attack on Pearl Harbor. I know
better, but I can't shake the feeling of remoteness. Ironically, just
like six years ago, I was sitting in a training class at 8:46 AM. You'd
think the added sense of deja-vu would have made me feel more connected to
the day, but it didn't. After some serious thought I realized why I feel so
far removed from that day...one word...complacency.

I suppose it's natural to feel somewhat complacent about something that
happened six years ago. I mean, it wasn't yesterday. But to feel so
completely distant from it, like I remember hearing about it rather than
remembering it, makes it very surreal. It wasn't surreal for my friend who
got off his morning train at the WTC station at 8:46 AM to confusion and
fear, only to emerge on the street into a war zone. Or for my other friend
who, while coincidentally looking out of his office window at 7 Liberty
Plaza at 8:46 AM actually watched the first plane hit. It was very real for
my cousins, also, both NYC firefighters who showed up later that afternoon
for their regular shifts to continue fighting the blaze and, for weeks
afterward, assist in the rescue and recovery efforts. All four of them,
gratefully, for me and more importantly, their families, survived.

All the while, here I was, safely tucked in Connecticut, a long distance
spectator. Now, six years later, that distance seems so much greater.

The signs of that day are all around us. From security lines at the airport
to terror alerts to metal detectors to Al Qaeda videos to the war itself.
No where was it more obvious than in Washington, D.C. This spring, my
family took a vacation there. It was very sad to see a city specifically
designed for openness and accessibility hiding within itself behind jersey
barriers. Gone are the days when you could just walk into the Capitol or
the National Archives, or wait in line for a same day tour of the White
House. I don't know if we'll ever get that innocence back again.

Maybe that's really what I'm feeling - a loss of innocence - and with it
went all the expectations of safety and security I grew up feeling were mine
just because I was an American. That could be why I feel so detached from
the events of September 11...it's complacency born of a forced realization
that we are targets. Maybe I feel this way because I've so convinced myself
that we can never and have never truly been safe that I think what happened
was just natural or inevitable. Hey, it's going to rain again some day, why
get all excited when it happens and melancholy looking back? It's part of
life. But things like 9-11 aren't, or at least shouldn't be. Not for us, or
anyone.

People say we have lost our liberties over the past six years, but I think
what we've really lost is our sense of freedom. We're scared, so we hide
and stop doing things the way we used to. We guard ourselves more, close
ourselves off more. We mistrust and grumble. We immerse ourselves in
pop-culture because the reality of the world is too scary, and we think that
maybe, just maybe, if we hide from it and divert our attention, it won't
catch up with us. Imagine that...a nation of 300 million suspicious,
possibly paranoid, reality-TV watching shut-ins. No wonder we're at each
other's throats...we have cabin fever. We keep fighting and looking for
someone or something to blame for how we feel, but we're aiming at the wrong
targets.

The President isn't our enemy, neither is Congress, nor the Supreme Court,
nor the Patriot Act, nor the soldiers, nor Republicans nor Democrats nor
minorities nor whatever. Complacency...that's the enemy. These other
things are parts of our culture, something too many of us have been
avoiding for too long. Oh, we talk, or rather, argue politics, for example,
but are we really involved in it? Do we really understand it? How long has
it been? Twenty years? Thirty? One hundred? We talk about fighting the
war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what about the war here. The war for our
freedom starts here.

We need to start fighting ourselves - not each other like we have been - but
our individual selves. It's time we fought the complacency within each of
us that keeps us shut off and became involved again in our lives and our
country. Instead of watching our neighbors, how about watching out for
them? Rather than protesting something going wrong, how about celebrating
or working to further something that is going right? Why spend money on the
latest fad: save it or invest it or donate some to charity. Become involved
in your community and/or church. Don't snipe at the political opposition,
engage them in a thoughtful debate, taking the time to listen and consider
their point of view.

In the end, we'll probably find more freedom and security by doing these
things than we have known for a while. And maybe we'll put an end to that
awful complacency that tells us that what happened six years ago in New
York, Washington and Pennsylvania was just inevitable and that we had it
coming. If we gain anything from 9-11, it should be to always remember that
such things were, and forever ought to be, the exceptions, not the norm.

A Different Perspective

Sean Hannity used to (and may still) interview people on the street every
Thursday afternoon on his radio show. The segment was called "Man in the
Street" and had as its main purpose demonstrating how ill-informed many
Americans (especially liberal and younger ones) are about their country,
leaders and history. At the same time, it showed how well versed so many
are in pop-culture, sports and gossip. These well done segments were both
entertaining and enlightening, and quite scary. It's sobering to hear
person after person not recognizing photos of George Bush, Dick Chaney or
Condoleezza Rice but having no problem recognizing Michael Jackson or
Brittany Spears. Truly frightening!

Sean would frequently express worry that these people were cancelling out
the votes of Republicans - a sentiment I shared - until yesterday. You see,
my mind inverts things...thoughts...constantly rolling them over and over
and providing different ways of looking at them. Yesterday, while I was
driving home, this thought must have gotten the Tony Robbins
positive-thinking treatment because I suddenly realized that I am actually
cancelling out THEIR votes. WOW! What a difference? In one flash, I went
from victim to crusader - Defender of the Right (pun intended) and all that!
I was pumped.

So, now armed with this new perspective, I have gone from worried to
hopeful. After all, there can't possibly REALLY be more Americans believing
the liberal-wing nuts instead of ascribing to conservative principles. With
that, my new mission is clear - get our numbers talking. To any
conservatives out` there who feel that you have no say, start writing
letters, speaking to friends, and making your voices heard. The Republican
Party needs you to be silent no more!

Fred Gains Ground!

Well, it was only a matter of time. Fred Thompson is now (statistically)
tied with Rudy Giuliani for the lead among the GOP candidates. While I
don't place much stock in polls as final determiners, this one does show
several things: first the general dissatisfaction Republicans have with the
other candidates, and second, the potential Fred Thompson has to win this
race. Let's face it, he was second without actually running, now after only
a week, he is tied with the leader. With this kind of momentum, the
possibilities are looking pretty good.

Now, to keep things moving, Senator Thompson needs to push for his 1-on-1
debates - and lots of them. He should start with Huckabee since he was the
first to accept, then keep working through the crowd. Hey, while he's at
it, debate some Democrat contenders also. There's nothing in the rules that
says he can't. I know other polls show Hilliary and Obama leading over
Fred, but the people just need to see the man in action.

Why Don't People Think Anymore?

I was on my way home from work and came to a "T" intersection with a stop
sign for me - the side road. I needed to turn left, so I stopped at the
line, then pulled up to see around the corner in both directions. Just then,
a driver that wants to turn right pulls up on my right a bit ahead of me and
blocks my view so I can no longer see right, but he can see left. So I pull
a little further ahead, restoring my view and blocking his. And this
numbskull has the nerve to shoot me a dirty look.

DUH!

If I'm turning left, I need to be able to see both directions. And if it's
safe for me to turn, then it is, by default, safe for the dumb-dumb next to
me to turn also. But just because it's safe for him to turn right, doesn't
mean that there isn't a car coming from that direction preventing me from
turning left.

Why don't people think??? Is it that hard to work out the logic, and maybe,
also apply a little consideration in the process?

The Huckabee - Thompson Debate...Let's See It!

Senator Fred Thompson said in an interview after formally announcing his candidacy that he would prefer a Lincoln-Douglass style of debate rather than the current multi-player, sound-byte oriented style. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has said he accepts the challenge. So let's see it! This would be a welcome change from the current debate style and if it occurred often enough with the players shifting, it would give voters a great opportunity to really see the lesser candidates and hear real discussion on the issues.

Again, one-on-one, single topic, hour long. Real discussions - real answers - I'm all for it.

So...when's it gonna be, Fred?

Senator Craig, Stay Resigned

I maintain my position on Senator Craig's restroom incident - that the
police officer was over-zealous, the transcript was ludicrous and one sided,
and that he shouldn't have plead guilty and shouldn't have resigned.

Having said all that, now that he HAS resigned, he should not do an
about-face. I say this for the same reasons I say he shouldn't have plead
guilty and shouldn't have resigned in the first place...it made him appear
weak-spined. Now, waffling on whether or not to stay in office only makes
him appear more so.

This isn't an indictment of Senator Craig's career, service or general
character - no doubt the recent events have sent his life and mind spinning.
However, he needs to stick by his decision to resign - there can be no
turning back.

Senator Craig, go ahead and fight your legal battle over the guilty plea -
and best of luck there! But as for your Senate seat, go gracefully. Doing
so will allow you a final measure of self and public respect.

Put Your Standards Where Your Mouths Are!

Once again, important issues are being pushed off the front page in favor of
selections from the seedier side of life. The main-stream press and high
blogsphere are having field-days with Senators Craig and Vitter. While
Senator Craig's guilt looks in-question to me, Senator Vitter's has been
confessed. Still, do these things need to be discussed to the extent to
which they are? Day after day, the same stale sound bites followed by the
same tired analyses. Why? To sell papers or ads and keep us interested.
Hey, sex sells, and no one knows that better than a journalist. When it
comes to influencing public opinion, the press puts Madison Avenue to shame.

It isn't just sex, however, that sells. Financial misdealings, money in the
freezer, war records (or lack thereof), birthday party wishes, drugs,
partying children, plagiarism. The list goes on. I'm not condoning
immoral, unethical or illegal behavior, but all the coverage does make
innocence rather irrelevant. People are tried and convicted in the press
and the not-guilty never seem to get separated from the guilty. Certainly,
the press never attacks vindicating and apologizing with the same zeal they
attack accusing. Why? Again, guilt sells, innocence bores. To some caught
in the crossfire, it doesn't seem fair, but that's the way life goes, I
guess. Especially in politics.

While it's true that we want our elected officials to be people of high
merit, we can't expect them to be any less human and fallible than
ourselves. People make mistakes and within reason, we need to try to
forgive, or at the very least, be somewhat understanding. Lets not forget
that elected officials are also fellow citizens. Just because they chose to
serve doesn't mean they should forfeit all rights to privacy. And let's
face it, illegalities and ethics issues aside, many of the things discussed
are private matters - best left out of print and off the record. Some of
the issues brought to light are just ridiculous. It's one thing to try to
defend against something worthy of a fight, but how do you defend against
the absurd? It makes me realize the truth in the saying "Anyone truly
qualified for a political office doesn't want it." Can you blame them? If
we want people to continue step forward and serve, they need to have some
assurances that they will not be convicted solely on accusation - especially
stupid ones, and if they do make some mistakes, that they'll be given the
chance to apologize and/or make amends.

But if people who are supposed to serve the public trust are to be held to a
higher standard, where does that leave journalists? Aren't they, too,
supposed to serve the public trust? Don't they, too, have a responsibility
for fairness, restraint, honesty and integrity? If they are going to
question other's ethics and morals, shouldn't theirs be subject to similar
scrutiny? So to the people of the press, before you ask your next
accusatory question or write your next career ending article, ask yourself
"is it worth it?" "Who else will be hurt by what I say or write and do they
deserve it?" "Is it journalism, or sensationalism?" "Am I serving the
public trust or just trying to sell papers and maybe win a Pulitzer?" More
importantly, ask yourself if you are truly qualified to stand in judgment of
others. Ask yourself if you could pass a similar personal test. Do you
truly have the moral high ground? It's time you apply the same standards to
yourselves that you apply to others. Subject yourselves to that through
which you put others. I, for one, don't believe you have the stomachs, or
empty closets for it.

Don't Go To The Bathroom In Airports!!!

The word is out! Don't go to the bathroom in airports or you may be arrested for lewd conduct.

Senator Larry Craig resigned from his senate seat because an over-zealous police officer held his interpretation of events over the Senator's and decided to played judge, jury and executioner all at the same time. He called the senator a liar. How did he lie? I listened to the tape of the questioning between Senator Craig and the officer...it was ludicrous! "You touched the bottom of the stall between us." "Your foot touched mine." "Your palm was up." "I see this type of stuff in here every day." Whoa...sounds incriminating to me! Let's lock the sicko up and throw away the key!!!

I'm talking about the cop, actually...not Senator Craig.

If the Senator did anything wrong based on what I heard on that tape, it was giving up too damn quick. Explain something to me. How can the police officer say he was NOT trying to entrap people, but then say he sees this type of stuff every day? Sounds like a prolonged sting peration to me. Either that, or the officer has some explaining to do about his OWN intentions in the restroom. How great would it have been if the conversation went as follows?

Officer: Your foot touched mine

Craig: No it didn't, yours touched mine.

Officer: And your hand reached down. And I saw your ring.

Craig: Why the hell were you looking under my stall?

Officer: I saw you looking into the stalls while you were waiting.

Craig: Were you checking me out even before I sat down? You really need a new hobby.

Officer: I'm disappointed in you, Senator.

Craig: I'll bet. It seems you had hoped for a livelier afternoon. But you're really not my type. I like women - my wife, in particular.

Officer: Never mind, wise ass, just go catch your flight (sound of ripping ticket)

Craig: Thanks, officer. By the way, you should know it's probably illegal to solicit sex in a public restroom. They probably have bars for this type of thing...

Obviously, I don't know the officer's intentions, and have no real basis for making any accusation, but this invented dialogue shows how absurd this incident is, and how easily one side can dominate a discussion, putting the other on the defensive and making them sound guilty.

Welcome, Fred!

Well, now we're going to see a campaign. Fred Thompson will be announcing
his candidacy this Thursday, and I can't wait! I'm not deluding myself into
thinking that just because he is entering the race that he has it locked
up...far from it. But, he has a good chance and I hope he gets it. Even if
he doesn't get the nomination, he is definitely going to shake things up and
get Republicans focused on more important issues. Given the problems we've
been having lately, we need that focus badly.

So, welcome, Fred. Make it count!