Do as I say, not as I do

Senators David Vitter and Larry Craig have decided to stand up for the sanctity of marriage. They have both co-sponsored legislation to amend the United States Constitution to ensure that marriage be between a man and a woman. You may remember Sen. Vitter holding his press conference apologizing for his extramarital activities. And of course, none of us have forgotten the saga of Larry Craig in the men’s room. It seems their own personal unions of one man and one woman were not fulfilling.

Here’s the language of their bill:

Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.

Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less…. Say What?

Newt Gingrich is back! Under the guise of being non-partisan, he is campaigning to start domestic oil drilling with his 6-word bumper sticker slogan. Drill Here? Where? Wouldn’t we have to take the time to figure out where exactly we will have to drill? Drill Now?….or in 5-10 years, who knows? Pay Less? Says who? When confronted with the statement that no oil will actually reach our gas tanks for at least 10 years, he responds that maybe it will only be 5 years. When you get into details, the campaign seems to be, Drill Somewhere in America. Drill In 5 or 10 Years. Pay Whatever Oil Companies Charge.

The real part of their proposal that nobody talks about it that it advocated releasing oil from our strategic reserve to immediately increase supply. The idea is that our own domestic drilling to allow us to refill our strategic reserve later.

I’m not necessarily opposed to drilling, but there seem to be far too many false promises floating around.

Words that (will try to) work

Frank Luntz authored the book, Words That Work. In it, he explains to his readers how he used language to help push the 1994 Contract With America.

Now it’s 2008 and battles of language are still going strong.

First, do Republicans support Deep Sea drilling or Off-shore drilling? Deep-sea drilling is believed to sound better to voters, but it hasn’t quite caught on yet.

Second, Unilateral took on a negative connotation after Pres. Bush took us into war with Iraq. Democrats were successful in making this “Bush’s Unilateral War.” The McCain campaign has taken notice. They are now accusing Obama of wanting to make “unilateral” changes to NAFTA. Can one simple word change voters’ minds about this? Maybe.

Lastly, the phrase “Yes we can” has gained popularity as a slogan for Obama. It didn’t originate with him, but it’s his now. The McCain campaign has taken notice. They now talk of McCain’s position on lowering gas prices as “Yes We Can” while Obama’s position is “No We Can’t” I guess that is much simpler than explaining how they are going to give consumer an ounce of relief at the gas pump.

Oregon is Obama country

In the Democratic primary for US Senate Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick debated who supported Obama the most and earliest. Merkley cruised to an easy victory. Now, his GOP opponent, incumbent Senator Gordon Smith is touting his work with Obama. Didn’t he work with McCain? Is he going to vote for Obama? I guess Obamacans really do exist!

In response, the Obama campaign released a statement to clearly demonstrate their support for Democrat Jeff Merkley in his effort to unseat Sen. Smith.

Messaging tips for Udall

In Colorado, the debate is currently all about gas prices. On the one hand, the Republican candidate, Bob Schaffer has previously been employed by an energy company. He supports domestic drilling. On the other hand, Democratic candidate Mark Udall supports an increased focus on developing alternative energy sources.

In this back and forth, here is the quote from the Udall campaign that caught my eye:

Udall campaign spokeswoman: “While Mark Udall is working to lower gas prices, Bob Schaffer was taking close to $400,000 a year from the oil and gas industry he worked for. Now we know why gas prices are so high,”

The messages that campaigns use have to make basic sense to voters if they have a chance of resonating. The Udall campaign is asking voters to believe that Schaffer’s former affiliation with an energy company is the reason why we have high gas prices. How many voters will belief that?

Let’s change the Udall response: “”While Mark Udall is working to lower gas prices, Bob Schaffer was taking close to $400,000 a year from the oil and gas industry he worked for. Who do you trust to fight against high gas prices?”

Or maybe end with, “Voters just can’t trust Big Oil Bob to put their interests ahead of oil companies”

Can voters be convinced that Republicans are the ones raising gas prices? Maybe. Can voters be convinced that Republican will do nothing to alleviate the pain caused by high gas prices? Absolutely.

Only a fool or a fraud…..

John McCain’s latest television ad begins with…”Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war.’ The question is, who is he talking about? Is it an attack on his campaign opponent, Barack Obama? One would think if you were going to run an ad talking about fools and frauds, you would be referring to your opponent.

Ironically, this comes at the same time as President Bush admitting that he may have talked too tough about war. So, the real question is, Is John McCain calling President Bush a fool or a fraud? It sure does seem like it.

Fighting against Equality….just doesn’t make sense.

What motivates one to fight so hard against basic equality? It’s difficult to comprehend, but sadly, it shouldn’t be. People fought against racial equality. People fought against gender equality. I guess, in a twisted sense, it should be expected that people fight against equality for LGBT people.

An interesting article by Joe Mathews appeared in the Washington Post today, which caused me to think more about this topic. He writes about the many possible outcomes of the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage. Because of California’s govern-by-ballot-measure style, groups can attempt to ban same sex marriage over and over again through ballot initiatives. What motivates these people to fight so hard against basic equalities?

I hope they would all sit down and take a few moments to ponder the lives of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin. These two lesbians, both in their 80’s, are partners who have been fighting for equal rights since the 1950s! Could someone please explain to me how this couple could possibly ruin heterosexual marriages? I cannot think of one reason.

I gather that most opposing arguments will be rooted in religion. Not being a religious man, I may not be fully equipped to engage in a religious debate about equality, but I do have some sense of things. Religion should fill your heart with love, it should teach you empathy, it should teach you to treat others with respect and it should teach you to leave your judgments behind. Following these 4 basic principles, one might think the religious arguments were pro-gay…..how foolish one would be.

Moving back to the article, Smith made me wonder about one of his points. He argues that now that gay marriage is legal, and if the ballot initiative in November fails, religious institutions could file a lawsuit to prevent themselves from having to recognize the marriages of their homosexual employees. These religious institutions include schools, health centers, etc. The argument would be that marriage equality infringed on their religious freedoms. In my mind, if religious freedom allows you to deny benefits to employees who marry someone of the same sex, could religious freedom also allow a school or a health center to deny marriage benefits to a spouse who committed adultery? If the basis for denying benefits is that the religious institution simply disagrees with your actions, it would seem that there would be many people being denied their benefits.

Other than that, the article was insightful and well worth the read.

In honor of Tim, I have a simple message to the above mentioned lesbian couple. Go get ‘em P. L. and D. M.

Republican says Democrat will raise taxes…..who saw that one coming?

Is he playing a game, or actually running for the United States Senate? I can’t tell. Jim Gilmore, Republican candidate for Senate in VA launched his general election campaign this week. How did he start things off?

Gilmore: ‘Mark Warner’s just like a hungry piranha. There’s just no end to his appetite for the people’s tax money.’

Why not focus on specifics? Why does he choose to make blanket accusations that everyone knows are, at the least, blatant exaggerations? Gilmore talked about the people’s tax money. Well, the truth is, the people overwhelmingly approved of Mark Warner’s time as Governor and are currently saying that they want him to represent them in the United States Senate.

I think Gilmore should spend more time explaining to voters why he deserves their trust…hopefully he will focus on more than just a car tax .

Senate votes…electioneering….is there a difference?

The 5 largest oil companies reported $36 billion in profits in just 3 short months. In response, Senate Democrats attempted to impose an excess profits tax on them. This attempt was killed by a Republican-led filibuster this week.

As this is election season, it is interesting to see where everyone came down on this issue. Only one Democrat opposed the tax, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a state with a large oil industry. Technically, Sen. Harry Reid also voted no, but this was after he knew the vote would fail, leaving him the ability to raise the issue later.

On the Republican side, Norm Coleman of MN, Susan Collins of ME and Gordon Smith of OR all voted with the Democrats. Coincidentally, they are all up for re-election…hmmmmm.

They were also joined by Republicans Chuck Grassley of IA and John Warner of VA, who are not running for re-election.

Now the race is on….which Republican raised the most money for Big Oil?

Senate Watch: North Carolina

In my initial list, I somehow forgot about the North Carolina race. Incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole is being challenged by former state senator Kay Hagan. Hagan looks like she will pose a strong challenge to Dole, especially with the help of red and purple state Senators like Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill. I first heard word of this race during the Democratic primary when I heard that a gay man was running for US Senate in North Carolina. My skepticism of a gay man winning state-wide office was reinforced by his crushing defeat at the hands of Kagan in the primary….but that’s beside the point…or a point for another day. For now, we can settle for a NC Senate race that features two women.