1.30.2009
Catholic Vote Pro-Life Ad
Refreshing ad coming from the good people at Catholic Vote. The NFL and NBC didn't think so. NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving ‘political advocacy or issues.’ I find this unfortunate and should be a telling sign of our popular culture. Not that I have a problem with other commercials of sparsely clothed women promoting American consumerism but ads of significance such as this one should be also be aired.
New Mexico GOP meet Chairman Michael Steele!
Michael Steele has been elected by the Republican National Committee to serve as Chairman of the GOP. Steele, former Lt. Governor of Maryland, won on the fifth vote with a majority of 91 votes. Steele defeated four other candidates including former chairman Robert Duncan. Steele and Duncan were gridlocked in the first four votes until Duncan dropped out shortly following the fourth vote.
Chairman Steele will serve as the first African American chair of the Republican party. New Mexico national committeeman Pat Rogers reports "I had the honor of being selected as chairman Steele's representative for the vote counts. Michael Steele will be great for NM and the entire country." I am still awaiting national committeewoman Rosie Tripp's thoughts on the election of Chairman Steele.
I have been a supporter of Chairman Steele since he was Lt. Governor of Maryland. I remember watching an interview of Steele back in 2004 when I was a young conservative not yet 18. Steele impressed me and I have been following him since then. I applaud the RNC for making the right decision and hope that Chairman Steele initiates innovative programs to bring the GOP into the 21st Century.
Look for more on the New Mexico GOP's reaction to Steele's election.
1.14.2009
Progressives and Right Wingers: What's the Difference?
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others," - Barry Goldwater
1.13.2009
GOP Minority Outreach: A Broken Record
Read this article from the Washington Independent. Former Maryland Lt. Governor and RNC Chairman candidate Michael Steele shares his perspective on the GOP's outreach to Blacks. I agree with many of his points especially about all the talk GOP leaders offer on outreach efforts. Leadership here in New Mexico talk about Hispanic outreach but they're beginning to sound like a broken record. If they truly wanted to do it then they should do it. Save the rhetoric for the Lincoln-Reagan dinners and make it happen.
Fascism for New Mexico
From Jim Scarantino at New Mexico Liberty:
What I'm talking about. Read, if you have nothing better to do, Democracy for New Mexico's call to censor me. I wrote a piece for the Albuquerque Journal this past Thursday discussing the fascist alter-ego of progressives, and how it is taking shape in this state. Besides being seriously (blissfully) ignorant of the historical accuracy of this observation, the blogfrau at DFNM merely proves the substance of my argument.
I argued that progressives have a tendency to roll over the rights of individuals once they are in power. In their push to transform society to fit their vision of a more just society they are willing to stomp on individuals and trample individual rights.
I focused on two social initiatives of progressives: extending domestic partnership rights to same-sex couples and overturning the "freedom of conscience" rule promulgated in the waning days of the Bush administration (doesn't it feel good to read that? "waning days of the Bush Administration"--at last)
On domestic partnerships, I pointed out that Rep. Mimi Stewart's bill to create same-sex domestic partnerships explicitly refrains from interfering with or regulating the practices of "religious bodies" but does nothing to recognize the religious beliefs and practices of individuals that may conflict with the goals of her legislation. To ensure that those individual rights are not trampled as a price for extending rights to others in society (same-sex partners), there is no reason why Stewart's legislation could not create a safe haven for individual religious beliefs the same way it carves out a safe place for corporate religious entities. The omission, and resistance to a simple corrective amendment to shield individuals from the law's force, is a revelation that has grown clearer to me since I wrote the column.
We have already seen a case where a photographer objected on religious grounds to facilitating a lesbian union and was fined $6,000 as punishment for not surrendering her religious liberty. That occurred at a time when neither same-sex partnerships nor marriages were recognized in this state. If same-sex couples want to partner up, fine and dandy. But, please, don't force someone to have to surrender either their religious integrity or their livelihood as the price for that development.
How would that happen under Stewart's bill? The fine against the photographer was imposed by a commission. It has been appealed to a court. The photographer has argued that she was in the business of providing services to marriages, which under New Mexico law are ceremonies uniting one man and one woman. The same-sex ceremony which she declined to photograph is not a marriage ceremony, and, at the time of the case and under present law, there is no such legally recognized thing as a same-sex parterning ceremony. Stewart's law (1) creates same-sex domestic partnerships and (2) makes them equal to marriages. Therefore, the photographer would now be required, in conjunction with the enforcement of the NM Human Rights Act, to serve heterosexual marriages and same-sex partnership ceremonies without distinction. Florists, bakers, wedding planners, wedding hall lessors, even wedding singers, I suppose--everyone who provides services and products for wedding ceremonies and celebrations--could no longer legally decline to assist same-sex union ceremonies on the ground they only assist heterosexual weddings consistent with their religious beliefs.
There's tolerance--extending rights to people who don't have them. And then there's state coerced attitude adjustment--using the coercive powers of the state, it's ability to take property and freedom, to force acceptance of and participation in rituals many people and every major religion continue to view as sinful or even, the strongest term out there, "an abomination." That's not my term, but it reflects how strongly some people take their religion. And, in this nation (unlike other less freedom respecting locales) they are allowed to take their religion as seriously as they want. So live and let live. What's wrong with that unless one's agenda is domination and control of all aspects of society and individual conscience? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question).
Again, all it would take is for Rep. Stewart to insert the words "or individuals" after "religious bodies" in the text of her bill. She accuses me of misreading--or not reading--her bill. (But I obviously read it carefully enough to note the absence of protections for individuals). Legislation like this breaks lots of new ground. No one can predict how it will be applied, or how the legislature's decision to protect the religious rights of "religious bodies" but not individuals will be interpreted in the context of the entire body of law. Did the legislature, by that omission, indicate it intended for the rights of individuals, but not religious bodies, to be curtailed by this law? Such will be the questions raised in future litigation. So, if there is no intention (or unstated hope) to in any way interfere with or regulate the religious beliefs and practices of individuals why not simply say so and have it done with? But Rep. Stewart resists. Why? What's the problem? (More rhetorical questions).
Instead of addressing this argument, the author of Democracy for New Mexico calls for her readers to collectively act to censor and silence me. The comments pile on. The concept of "freedom of expression" does not inform the original post or the comments clamoring for me to be deprived of every outlet for exercise of my First Amendment liberty.
I find it ironic--and highly illuminating--that I am being excoriated as a right-wing wack job for ringing alarms bells about infringement of fundamental individual rights and warning about creeping fascism in our fair land.
For the past eight years, legitimate concerns have been raised about the fascist wing of the GOP. Is there a fascist wing to the Democratic Party? Judge for yourself. (That's not a rhetorical question. It's up to you to determine the answer).
What I'm talking about. Read, if you have nothing better to do, Democracy for New Mexico's call to censor me. I wrote a piece for the Albuquerque Journal this past Thursday discussing the fascist alter-ego of progressives, and how it is taking shape in this state. Besides being seriously (blissfully) ignorant of the historical accuracy of this observation, the blogfrau at DFNM merely proves the substance of my argument.
I argued that progressives have a tendency to roll over the rights of individuals once they are in power. In their push to transform society to fit their vision of a more just society they are willing to stomp on individuals and trample individual rights.
I focused on two social initiatives of progressives: extending domestic partnership rights to same-sex couples and overturning the "freedom of conscience" rule promulgated in the waning days of the Bush administration (doesn't it feel good to read that? "waning days of the Bush Administration"--at last)
On domestic partnerships, I pointed out that Rep. Mimi Stewart's bill to create same-sex domestic partnerships explicitly refrains from interfering with or regulating the practices of "religious bodies" but does nothing to recognize the religious beliefs and practices of individuals that may conflict with the goals of her legislation. To ensure that those individual rights are not trampled as a price for extending rights to others in society (same-sex partners), there is no reason why Stewart's legislation could not create a safe haven for individual religious beliefs the same way it carves out a safe place for corporate religious entities. The omission, and resistance to a simple corrective amendment to shield individuals from the law's force, is a revelation that has grown clearer to me since I wrote the column.
We have already seen a case where a photographer objected on religious grounds to facilitating a lesbian union and was fined $6,000 as punishment for not surrendering her religious liberty. That occurred at a time when neither same-sex partnerships nor marriages were recognized in this state. If same-sex couples want to partner up, fine and dandy. But, please, don't force someone to have to surrender either their religious integrity or their livelihood as the price for that development.
How would that happen under Stewart's bill? The fine against the photographer was imposed by a commission. It has been appealed to a court. The photographer has argued that she was in the business of providing services to marriages, which under New Mexico law are ceremonies uniting one man and one woman. The same-sex ceremony which she declined to photograph is not a marriage ceremony, and, at the time of the case and under present law, there is no such legally recognized thing as a same-sex parterning ceremony. Stewart's law (1) creates same-sex domestic partnerships and (2) makes them equal to marriages. Therefore, the photographer would now be required, in conjunction with the enforcement of the NM Human Rights Act, to serve heterosexual marriages and same-sex partnership ceremonies without distinction. Florists, bakers, wedding planners, wedding hall lessors, even wedding singers, I suppose--everyone who provides services and products for wedding ceremonies and celebrations--could no longer legally decline to assist same-sex union ceremonies on the ground they only assist heterosexual weddings consistent with their religious beliefs.
There's tolerance--extending rights to people who don't have them. And then there's state coerced attitude adjustment--using the coercive powers of the state, it's ability to take property and freedom, to force acceptance of and participation in rituals many people and every major religion continue to view as sinful or even, the strongest term out there, "an abomination." That's not my term, but it reflects how strongly some people take their religion. And, in this nation (unlike other less freedom respecting locales) they are allowed to take their religion as seriously as they want. So live and let live. What's wrong with that unless one's agenda is domination and control of all aspects of society and individual conscience? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question).
Again, all it would take is for Rep. Stewart to insert the words "or individuals" after "religious bodies" in the text of her bill. She accuses me of misreading--or not reading--her bill. (But I obviously read it carefully enough to note the absence of protections for individuals). Legislation like this breaks lots of new ground. No one can predict how it will be applied, or how the legislature's decision to protect the religious rights of "religious bodies" but not individuals will be interpreted in the context of the entire body of law. Did the legislature, by that omission, indicate it intended for the rights of individuals, but not religious bodies, to be curtailed by this law? Such will be the questions raised in future litigation. So, if there is no intention (or unstated hope) to in any way interfere with or regulate the religious beliefs and practices of individuals why not simply say so and have it done with? But Rep. Stewart resists. Why? What's the problem? (More rhetorical questions).
Instead of addressing this argument, the author of Democracy for New Mexico calls for her readers to collectively act to censor and silence me. The comments pile on. The concept of "freedom of expression" does not inform the original post or the comments clamoring for me to be deprived of every outlet for exercise of my First Amendment liberty.
I find it ironic--and highly illuminating--that I am being excoriated as a right-wing wack job for ringing alarms bells about infringement of fundamental individual rights and warning about creeping fascism in our fair land.
For the past eight years, legitimate concerns have been raised about the fascist wing of the GOP. Is there a fascist wing to the Democratic Party? Judge for yourself. (That's not a rhetorical question. It's up to you to determine the answer).
1.12.2009
New Year, New Leadership, New GOP?
Chairman: Harvey Yates (ABQ)
1st Vice Chair: Nina Martinez (Santa Fe)
2nd Vice Chair: Rod Montoya (Farmington)
CD-1 Vice Chair: John Rockwell (ABQ)
CD-2 Vice Chair: Mike Kakuska (Chavez)
CD-3 Vice Chair: Andrew Bailey (Farmington)
Secretary: Robert Perea (ABQ)
Treasurer: Bill Redmond (Farmington)
This is the new GOP leadership in New Mexico. Change obviously did not resonate with the state central committee. It appears that leadership may stick with their business as usual mentality and recommit their pledge to serve as a limited minority power in the state of New Mexico. New leaders, faces, and ideas were desperately needed to rebuild the demolished Republican label. Instead it seems that party insiders see no wrong and do no wrong.
I'm not surprised.
The new leadership is challenged with rebuilding a party that has grown to be insignificant in New Mexico politics. They must also work to mend the increasing divisions found within the party and increase membership in a state that has become overwhelmingly blue.
A fellow politico provided the NMP with this observation of the Republican meeting on Saturday.
A younger GOP will attract more members and the participation of those members. I have observed that those most involved in GOP politics here in NM are either extremely neo-conservative, evangelical, or transplants looking to teach us ignorant New Mexicans how to do politics the right way. This is one of the key reasons young people and Hispanics do not flock to the GOP.
Mr. Harvey Yates and company need to go beyond their promised internal house cleaning, a return to Reagan, and other ceremonial bull. They need to offer improved policy, candidates that mirror the people of New Mexico, and a serious Hispanic outreach program.
It is time for New Mexico Republicans to take a stand for something and not against everything. They must cease to act like the reactionary minority that they are and spearhead a practical agenda for New Mexico. They must lead by example and be champions of reform.
It is time for a new generation of leaders to emerge from the shadows of the 20Th century GOP and evolve into a superior party of depth, pragmatism, and the 21st century. We are living in a new era where new solutions and alternatives are needed. I am not convinced that the NM GOP understands this. GOP leadership represents a party of old and past glories.
Reagan's morning in America has turned into Bush's sunset. Obama's morning is upon us but his sun shall set too. Will the GOP be ready to be effective leaders and offer significant solutions for New Mexico and America? I hope Mr. Yates and company realize that the future is now. Let's get to work......
1st Vice Chair: Nina Martinez (Santa Fe)
2nd Vice Chair: Rod Montoya (Farmington)
CD-1 Vice Chair: John Rockwell (ABQ)
CD-2 Vice Chair: Mike Kakuska (Chavez)
CD-3 Vice Chair: Andrew Bailey (Farmington)
Secretary: Robert Perea (ABQ)
Treasurer: Bill Redmond (Farmington)
This is the new GOP leadership in New Mexico. Change obviously did not resonate with the state central committee. It appears that leadership may stick with their business as usual mentality and recommit their pledge to serve as a limited minority power in the state of New Mexico. New leaders, faces, and ideas were desperately needed to rebuild the demolished Republican label. Instead it seems that party insiders see no wrong and do no wrong.
I'm not surprised.
The new leadership is challenged with rebuilding a party that has grown to be insignificant in New Mexico politics. They must also work to mend the increasing divisions found within the party and increase membership in a state that has become overwhelmingly blue.
A fellow politico provided the NMP with this observation of the Republican meeting on Saturday.
While there is a minority of Hispanics on the state central committee, only a handful of members were under the age of 50.This is a huge problem the GOP needs to attempt to correct.
A younger GOP will attract more members and the participation of those members. I have observed that those most involved in GOP politics here in NM are either extremely neo-conservative, evangelical, or transplants looking to teach us ignorant New Mexicans how to do politics the right way. This is one of the key reasons young people and Hispanics do not flock to the GOP.
Mr. Harvey Yates and company need to go beyond their promised internal house cleaning, a return to Reagan, and other ceremonial bull. They need to offer improved policy, candidates that mirror the people of New Mexico, and a serious Hispanic outreach program.
It is time for New Mexico Republicans to take a stand for something and not against everything. They must cease to act like the reactionary minority that they are and spearhead a practical agenda for New Mexico. They must lead by example and be champions of reform.
It is time for a new generation of leaders to emerge from the shadows of the 20Th century GOP and evolve into a superior party of depth, pragmatism, and the 21st century. We are living in a new era where new solutions and alternatives are needed. I am not convinced that the NM GOP understands this. GOP leadership represents a party of old and past glories.
Reagan's morning in America has turned into Bush's sunset. Obama's morning is upon us but his sun shall set too. Will the GOP be ready to be effective leaders and offer significant solutions for New Mexico and America? I hope Mr. Yates and company realize that the future is now. Let's get to work......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe to the New Mexico Politico!
Posts
All Comments