|
The ongoing investigation of the so-called leak of a one-time undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity incredibly could soon be the basis of a federal conspiracy indictment against key Bush and Texas political master Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, Chief of Staff Lewis Libby and former Bush Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer.
This would only be the latest blow to the GOP and conservatives in Washington. TCR believes when things go bad, they really go bad.
If this comes to pass, it is also similar to the DeLay indictments in Texas, much ado about not much. But like the Texas charges, they will be used by the hostile media to beat up the Bush Administration, the GOP, and conservatives.
TCR previously discussed Ms. Plame and her husband Ambassador Wilson and the fact her identity had been disclosed by her own husband. So there really could not have been a crime committed, but conservatives are still asking these questions: Why did anyone of importance care about that windbag liberal Wilson and his wife? Were they critics of the administration that could cause any problems? TCR's answers are why bother and no way.
Harriet Miers For The Supreme Court:
Was She The Right Pick For Conservatives?
Maybe. Harriet Miers is a fine attorney who has had a distinguished career and who has ably served President Bush for years. She is certainly qualified.
TCR has been asked by D.C. conservatives what kind of justice would she make? The simple answer is unknown. As anyone who knows, good lawyers represent their client's interests and publicly reflect those interests. As far as what Harriett personally believes we have no real direct evidence that is definitive.
So, at the end of the day, she could be the next Scalia, O'Connor, or Souter, it is all possible!
Were there other well-qualified conservatives with a strong track record? Yes, and they are state or federal Judges, Senators, female, Hispanic, Anglo, and African-American.
What about confirmability, is no track record preferred? Not really, look at Clinton's liberal appointees Breyer and Ginsburg. Both with liberal judicial records and they were still confirmed. If the Democrats want to vote down or filibuster a well-qualified conservative, let them. It just creates political issues that favor us in 2006 and 2008 and activates the base.
TCR is not sure what will happen but given the intensity of conservative opposition and major uncertainties as to her judicial beliefs confirmation is going to be difficult at best.
2005 Voters Guide
On The Constitutional Amendments
|
Proposition |
Summary |
TCR Recommends |
Why |
|
PROP 1 |
Creates a fund in the State Treasury for Texas railroad relocation and improvement |
NO |
Corporate welfare |
|
PROP 2 |
Defines marriage as a union only between one man and one woman |
YES |
TCR goes with God |
|
PROP 3 |
Clarifies that certain economic development programs do not constitute a debt |
NO |
Corporate welfare |
|
PROP 4 |
Adds a provision to consider previous violations of release when a defendant in a felony case is up for bail at a later hearing |
NO |
Micromanagement of our judges |
|
PROP 5 |
Allows the Texas Legislature to create exemptions to interest rate ceilings, specifically for the commercial loan industry |
YES |
Let the free market work |
|
PROP 6 |
Increase the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) from 11 to 13 members and eliminates current restrictions on geographic location of public members |
YES |
Diversifies the Board |
|
PROP 7 |
Authorizes senior homeowners to take line-of-credit advances under a reverse mortgage |
Cautious YES |
Free market but be careful of potential abuse |
|
PROP 8 |
Releases the state's right to claim ownership of 4,600 acres of land in Upshur County and 950 acres of land in Smith County |
YES |
Can you believe this is a constitutional amendment? |
|
PROP 9 |
Changes terms for Regional Mobility Authority (RMA) board members from two-year terms to staggered, six-year terms |
YES |
Continuity but new voices allowed |
The Death Of An American Institution
By Gina Parker, Contributing Editor
The institution of marriage is the bedrock of the American dream. From the beginning, we have been a nation of families, a nation of growth, and a nation built on Biblical principles. But now our courts the same courts that James Madison envisioned as the weakest of the three branches of government are threatening our American foundation as well as our nation's future.
Courts across the country have become a playing ground for the gay rights movement. Homosexuals are spending millions of dollars in an attempt to destroy what we have all taken for granted, and they are doing it under the guise of "civil rights."
These gay rights groups have already won a strong foothold in the war against marriage, and they are continuing to gain ground as liberal, activist judges throughout the nation rule in their favor more often.
But this is neither a civil rights issue nor an equality issue. Homosexual marriage is nothing more than an erosion of American values. As Guy Adams recently said in an article he wrote for Renew America, "Outlawing gay marriage is no more discriminatory than it is to forbid children to vote. It is not a 'civil rights' issue; it is simply not a good idea."
Gay marriage is a bad idea because it erodes America's prosperity and future growth. Study after study has concluded that men, women, and children truly suffer without the foundation of a strong marriage and strong families.
Jennifer Marshall of the Heritage Foundation stated it best: "A free society requires a critical mass of individuals in stable households who are not dependent on the state. The most stable and secure household, the available research shows, is the intact family. Therefore, the state has an interest in protecting the intact family."
States across the country are taking this advice to heart, and 44 have already passed legislation defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Texas voters will soon be voting on such language in a Constitutional Amendment in November, which not only defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but also specifically orders, "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Many are still asking, however, are such laws really necessary? Must we have a U.S. Constitutional Amendment? The answer is yes, because the only reason we have come to juncture in American political and cultural life is that our judiciary is clearly out of control.
Even though marriage is a foundational American institution, and even though society thrives under marriage between a man and a woman, our courts have taken it upon themselves to challenge the values of the majority of America. As one of my law professors always said, "The Justices on the Supreme Court are little dictators in black robes." But how did we get here?
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) blames it on the "Me Culture," the culture that has forgotten about the common good, and instead selfishly focuses upon the "our" or ourselves under the guise of privacy. He recently clearly identified the origins of the attacks upon marriage, the family, and the foundations of our American society: "The notion of a right to privacy is not about the common good, but about 'me.' Starting during the sexual revolution with contraception, it quickly evolved to abortion, and now it has found its way into today's marriage debate. The reason marriage is important is that it affirms what our Founding Fathers understood - that the purpose for this country is to use our freedoms for the promotion of the common good."
So what are we left with to do? How can we make an impact and preserve the institution of marriage and the future of America? We must amend our state and federal constitutions to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
You can make a difference as an active supporter of the Marriage Alliance, a growing state and national movement to protect marriage. The Alliance is working hard to pass a constitutional amendment on November 8, 2005 that would clearly and unequivocally state that marriage in Texas is a privilege reserved to one man and one woman. Any other form of marriage or union in Texas would be prohibited.
Our judiciary has left us with few options, and the clock is ticking. Traditional marriage must be nurtured and upheld as a model, and citizens of Texas are the only ones left that can make this happen. Please join our effort so that the Texas Constitution clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Gina Parker is the CEO of Dental Creations, a dental manufacturing company, and is also a successful attorney. Ms. Parker serves as a Bush and Perry appointee to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. She serves on the American Family Radio Advisory Board. Ms. Parker has served in a number of Republican Party state leadership positions in Texas and speaks on issues of national importance to conservatives.
COMING - Sunday, October 30 at 5 p.m. to Channel 8 PBS in Houston, Texas - the connection - Red, White & Blue featuring TCR Editor Gary Polland and liberal commentator David Jones. The guest is religious conservative leader Rev. Rick Scarborough. And coming soon Comptroller Carole Strayhorn, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee and Representative Rick Noriega and many more.
About Your Editor
Gary Polland is a long-time conservative and Republican spokesman, fund-raiser, and leader who recently completed three terms as the Harris County Republican Chairman. During his three terms, Gary was described as the most successful county Chairman in America by Human Events - The National Conservative Weekly. He is in his ninth year of editing a newsletter dealing with key conservative and Republican issues. The last four years he has edited Texas Conservative Review. Gary is a practicing attorney and strategic consultant and can be reached at (713) 621-6335.
Tune in Thursday
Nights - Houston Warner Cable channel 17 at 6:30 PM for Texas Politics-The Real Deal
with co-hosts David Jones and Gary Polland, awarded Cable T.V. personalities of the year by the Houston Press.
|
