I’ve started doing a new little thing some of you may or may not have noticed … when I run across a quote or interesting comment from another source, I’m going to pop it up there in my little header box.  It may or may not get changed everyday, so I’ll try to remember to direct you toward it when it updates.  Enjoy!

And here’s the article today’s quote comes from … it’s just too good not to include for your complete consideration:

Dancing in the Legislative Dark?
Rich Tucker
Friday, May 23, 2008

the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, Sen.
Dick Durbin of Illinois asked him, “You’re a Bruce Springsteen fan?” An
odd question, to which Alito replied tepidly, “I am to some degree,

Durbin had a point to make: “I guess most people in New Jersey
would be.” If not, he opined, “they should be.” That’s far from clear,
but let’s take the senator at his word.

When Durbin announced he’d vote against confirming Alito, he
returned to his earlier theme. “Judge Alito, a New Jersey native,
wouldn’t even say whether he was a Bruce Springsteen fan,” the senator
chided. “Now, he may be one of the few people from New Jersey who has
such cautious fealty to The Boss.”

Or, maybe not.

“Personally, for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step
away from partisan politics,” Springsteen wrote in The New York Times
in 2004. That’s a good policy for an entertainer. But that year,
apparently, was special. The Boss leapt into politics with both feet,
campaigning hard for John Kerry.

It’s understandable that Alito, a lifelong conservative, would
oppose Springsteen’s liberal ardor. He was simply too polite to make a
big deal out of that during hearings meant to focus on his
qualifications to sit on the nation’s highest court.

The joke here is on Durbin, in more ways than one. It’s not
merely funny that he claimed to oppose Alito because of the judge’s
taste in music. It’s funny that he even thought he had to explain his
opposition to Alito.

After all, Durbin is a liberal leader of his party’s Senate
contingent. It was clear from the get-go he would vote against Alito, a
conservative nominated by a president from the opposing party. And
that’s the real problem with politics today. It’s predictable and, in
many ways, pointless. The goal isn’t to get things done; it’s to attack
members of the other party.

As another example, consider the embarrassing story on the
front page of the May 17 Washington Post. During a trip to Saudi
Arabia, Bush pleaded with the Saudis to pump more crude. And they said
no. “Not only did the Saudis resist efforts to boost production even
more — as many congressional leaders are demanding — they also
pointedly said that the extra output was a week-old response to
commercial customers, not to the president,” the paper wrote.

Well, that certainly puts us in our place. We’re begging the Saudis to take MORE of our dollars, and they’re refusing.

Of course, any political failure gives the other party a chance
to pounce, and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., was ready as always. “The
president seems to value his friendship with the Saudis more than his
obligation to help the American people with gas prices,” he declared.
Nice soundbite, but it would be difficult to find an attack more
disconnected from reality.

What, after all, does Schumer think Bush should have done?

The president asked, politely, for more production and was
turned down. Now, some might advocate invading Saudi Arabia, annexing
the oil fields and taking all the crude we want. But that’s certainly
not what Schumer’s calling for.

As an alternative, our country could increase domestic
production by drilling in Alaska and off the coast. Yet it’s Schumer’s
party that defeats drilling every time the idea comes up. So what’s
their plan?

“We’ve been pushing for a long time for energy efficiency,”
Schumer told reporters in April. “We believe in a price-gouging bill so
that the big oil companies can’t collude. We believe that there’s too
much speculation in the markets, and we believe that ought to be reined
in.” Again, nice soundbites, but nothing there to “help the American
people with gas prices.”

The same thing happens from the other side. Republican House
leader John Boehner recently wrote in the Washington Times that,
“Americans are paying nearly $1.50 more per gallon at the pump than
when Mrs. Pelosi became speaker.”

But it’s not Democratic control of Congress that’s the
problem; it’s that Congress refuses to, say, eliminate ethanol
mandates, drill for oil off our coasts or make it easier for companies
to build refineries. These steps might, indeed, lower prices.

Barack Obama seems to understand that people are fed up with
empty attacks, which is why he champions “change.” But his record as a
liberal legislator certainly hints he’d be as divisive from the left as
President Bush has supposedly been from the right these last seven
years. The non-partisan National Journal ranked Obama “the most liberal
senator in 2007” based on his congressional votes.

We’ve had enough attacks. It’s time for plans. Let’s hope this
year some politicians surprise us by designing approaches to fix Social
Security, education and energy. If they think they were “born to run”
— for office, anyway — they ought to at least try.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

2 thoughts on “Quote to Ponder

  1. I would correct Schumer’s comment by saying the president seems to think he can get more action out of the Saudi’s than he can out of a do nothing, sit on their hands Congress (Republicans included) who would rather roll over and pee on themselves than have a “meaningful discussion” with Schumer and his environmentalist cohorts. How pathetic! Whenever I think about it, it just makes me angry.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s