I understand people may vote a few times on one of the polls, but try not to abuse our loose poll policies. On the smoking ban, one person voted over twenty times against it (I’m guessing the person opposes the smoking ban in Ohio). There have also been abuses on the other polls. It isn’t like these polls will actually affect something you are passionate about. We just have them up to see what our readers think. It really isn’t worth taking the time to make your position look like the most popular on a political blog for the Aberdeen American News.

Enjoy the polls.

Adam Feser

The smoking ban insanity lives on, and I was wondering what everyone thought. In Lincoln we’ve had a ban for since before I could go to the bars, so it seems normal to me. I support the ban, but I know not everyone does. (Register your opinion using the poll on the right.)

Do people consider it a partisan thing? I know South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker consider it a liberal thing to ban smoking in bars, but I’m not sure I agree. I was wondering what Dr and the readers think. Is banning smoking in bars a liberal thing, a smart thing, or both? Is the smoking ban a good thing, or is it an infringement on our freedoms?

I know in 1949 it would have been unheard of, especially when considering the clout the AMA holds.

All kidding aside, I am interested to hear your thoughts.

Enjoy the Music from the North Country by the Jayhawks.

Adam Feser

You were not alone. To help you better understand some of the things she stumbled through, Shatner gets beat poet all over Palin’s speech.

Enjoy the trade deadline.

Adam Feser

Find out.

Update: Salon has a report that CNN told Dobbs to drop the story, but his show only served to fuel conspiracy theorists. Yikes.

Jon had a segment about the group claiming Obama isn’t American. At about 3:45 there is a laundry list of proof that Obama was born in America. When you hear all the evidence, it makes the conspiracy theorists seem even crazier.

What’s messed up is that Dobbs, Representative Bill Posey, and Liz Cheney continue to legitimate these claims. They don’t believe them, but by appeasing the birth conspiracy movement, they continue to give them hope. As Jon says, the theory was put down like a rabid dog on Lou Dobb’s own show. Just because he wasn’t there doesn’t mean he should be unaware of what happened on his own show.

Liz Cheney, on TV, debated the movement with James Carville. She refuses to say anything that would offend the birth certificate people.

She says they are right to question Obama’s dedication to America. Then later on she wrote that he has the right to be the president. The conspiracy enthusiasts are appeased by her TV appearance, and she proved she wasn’t crazy by later writing that he’s a citizen. She says she isn’t planning on running for office, but she may have a future in politics. If only she can get over the whole gay Republican thing. It’s okay to be a gay Republican, you just need to be closeted.

Carville has it nailed. She and others can’t flat-out say the idea that there is a conspiracy behind his birth certificate is crazy because they do not want to lost the crazy section of people. At least Mike Castle had the stones to tell the crazy lady at his forum she was dead wrong.

Enjoy this ridiculous, meaningless distraction.

Adam Feser

I got this press release from the Sens office yesterday and I thought I would share with you all on why the Senator is not voting for Sotomayor.  I now stand behind his decision. 

The following what you will read is directly from the senator:

July 20th, 2009 – Washington, D.C. – Senator John Thune today announced he would vote against Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor and released the following statement:

“Judge Sotomayor has a compelling personal story and I appreciate her meeting with me. I carefully followed last week’s Judiciary Committee hearings as members questioned Judge Sotomayor on her judicial philosophy and her record of decisions from her time on the bench. After this review I have concluded that Judge Sotomayor has consistently advanced a narrow view of the Second Amendment, providing little reasoning or explanation for her decisions, and twice has ruled that the Second Amendment is not a `fundamental right.’ This is an important distinction because the Supreme Court has made this determination a key element in deciding whether to apply parts of the Bill of Rights, such as the Second Amendment, to state and local governments.

“Judge Sotomayor has also had seven of her 10 decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court overturned, including, most recently, Ricci v. DeStefano. In this case, a three person panel dismissed a reverse discrimination claim of 18 New Haven, CT firefighters who were denied promotion because too few minorities passed a promotion exam. The panel published an unusually short and unsigned opinion that adopted the lower court’s ruling without adding any original analysis. Judicial and legal experts have noted this disturbing trend of avoiding or casually dismissing difficult and important constitutional issues in her rulings. The Supreme Court should not be the first time a judge tackles these difficult decisions.

“I am also concerned that Judge Sotomayor has a record of bringing her personal views into her decision making philosophy rather than deciding cases based on precedent and fidelity to the law. Her statements during the confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee do not always match the philosophies she has expressed prior to this hearing, such as her application of foreign law.

“I take the Senate’s role of advise and consent very seriously. I believe that it is the Senate’s constitutional duty to thoroughly review all nominees to the federal bench, especially those who will have a lifetime appointment to the highest court.”

Judge Sotomayor’s nomination is expected to be considered by the full Senate during the first part of August.

Time for sixth Obama-meter

Authors:  I have changed a statement in this post because I do not know enough on her background to make this guess.  I did say that I didn’t think she was qualified, however, I can not give a answer on that as I am currently studying her history. 

OK…so you guys are going to start thinking that I am switching to the other side b/c I am starting to agree with Adam on something…that would be a cold day in hell.

However, I do not agree with the party’s decision on voting against her nomination.  There are bigger fish to fry than worry about her nomination.  For a number of reasons, one being its a lost cause, as the democrats have the magic 60 in the Senate.

Do I think she is qualified? I don’t know.  There maybe other people that are more qualified for the post.  I have taken enough time to research her.   

Do I think there underlying reasons that she was nominated? Probably but that is pure speculation.

Vote her through, and get on with the healthcare bill and get that defeated

Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chairman, gave a speech against health care reform. It appears much of the speech came directly from a memo by Alex Castellanos, Republican strategist. For the similarities between the memo and the speech, view the link.

I’m not terribly surprised by the use of phrases and such from the memo. If they polled well, they’ll be used. What is surprising is Steele’s response to a question about whether or not he favors requiring citizens to get health coverage. “I don’t do policy,” he replied.

So, first of all, if he doesn’t do policy, why is he speaking about a policy proposal? Why should we care what he has to say about the Democrats’ proposals? Why does he care about politics? Why is he the RNC Chairman?

When asked why the GOP didn’t act to reform healthcare when they were in charge, he claimed there was a “general lack of focus on the issue.” So instead of helping to solve a problem, he’ll just stand up there spouting the same garbage in an attempt to kill an actual attempt at reform.

He did eventually bring up some Republican ideas, but he didn’t mention their ideas were all included in the Democrats’ version. (Side note, does this mean the bill is already bipartisan?) Also, if he doesn’t do policy, why was he even discussing policy ideas?

Republicans should be upset with their representatives. Instead of trying to solve what is an obvious problem by presenting their own ideas, they are spending all their time shooting down the ideas of others. Maybe if they could come up with a better plan to insure the 45 million Americans without healthcare, we would all jump on board. But instead of demonstrating any ingenuity, they are simply proving themselves to be a party of “no.”

Republicans should demand an alternative. Dr, get some people on the horn and demand something to root for. It must get old constantly saying, “Yes, I want everyone to be insured, but I don’t like how you do it” without the ability to say, “And I think we could do it like this.”

Then maybe we could debate some of the merits of your ideas instead of the constant “Government sucks at running programs,” “No they don’t” back and forth.

Enjoy the reform push, ’cause it’s a comin’.

Adam Feser

Senator Al Franken has introduced his first bill, and it seems like a winner. The idea of the bill is to train service dogs and place them with wounded war veterans. Hopefully this will aid their physical and emotional health. Franken hopes it can even help slow the alarming rate of veteran suicides.

I have a tough time seeing how anyone will oppose this bill. It is a good cause that Franken clearly believes in, and it is a good choice for his first piece of legislation.

Enjoy the companionship of a dog. They truly are man’s best friend.

Adam Feser