Monthly Archives: September 2008

Politics and Religion

Many people cringe when either of these words are brought up in a conversation. “It’s personal.” “It’s my business, not yours,” people say or think as they change the subject. If we talk about both politics and religion at the same time, it’s like mixing oil and water. Maybe that’s the reason so many people break the ice with comments like, “Nice weather we’re having, huh?”

When people ask me for my political or religious views, I normally give them. I don’t feel threatened if someone has an opposing view or supports a candidate I don’t. I feel secure in my religious beliefs just like I do in my political beliefs. If they are willing to chat about it, I am willing to chat back. I like to debate the issues. I don’t normally debate about which religion is best, as I believe each person should have a relationship with God they are comfortable with. Besides, in the end, each of us will find out if we were right or wrong, correct?

When I learn that a candidate is running for public office, I will often check the candidate’s religious views before most of his/her other views including to which party they belong. Do they attend church regularly? Which one? What does their church believe? Basically, I want to know if they believe the same as I do on moral and religious issues.

Faith must be important to other people too, as most bios about a candidate lists his/her faith. When I learned about Barack Obama’s faith, I checked on it. Same with John McCain.

Other people may feel the same about a candidate’s environmental views or their views on guns or other issues.

This brings me to an article that was recently published in the Washington Post called, “33 Pastors Flout Tax Law With Political Sermons.”

These pastors have decided to test the law, passed in 1954, that prohibits them from endorsing political candidates from their churches. It deals with non-profits and taxes and that “deep” stuff. I don’t believe there have been many prosecutions since this law was enacted – maybe just a handful.

So, on Sunday, these pastors talked about the candidates for President. Good for them.

Personally I think it is fine for a pastor to give his/her opinion about a candidate from the pulpit. They are the leaders of the church, and I’m sure some folks would welcome it. As with any church congregation, there are others who probably dislike it.

I would gladly welcome my pastor’s view on the candidates from the pulpit. I’d like to hear where my pastor feels candidate “A” differs from candidate “B” in regards to the teachings of the Bible, and what my church believes compared to what the candidate believes.

On the other hand, I don’t think passing the bucket to collect money for a candidate would be prudent, nor do I think the church giving campaign funds to a candidate or running an ad in the local newspaper would be the right thing to do.

Most people attend a certain church because they like the church’s doctrine, the pastor or pastors, the music, the services the church offers, the activities happening at the church, the location, the size of the church congregation, the community outreach from the church, etc.

We’ve all seen churches change much in the past 30 years. Some people are not happy with the direction of churches today. People want things fast today, like a fast food drive-in or stopping at a convenience store – in and out in a flash and more churches are accommodating the fast-food crowd these days. Some churches are changing with the times. Now, just maybe, the times demand we talk about the candidates and politics in church.

Here’s a clue – many in the congregation are already talking about the candidates.

Of course if the pastor decides to speak about a candidate, they are giving their viewpoint and their opinion on what they believe. Although some of my friends may disagree, isn’t that what they are doing when they preach any way?

We’ll see how far this issue gets. It won’t be decided any time soon, but these pastors made a good first step in bringing it to the forefront.

There’s also another side to this issue, so click HERE to read about it.

Do we get a kiss with this bailout?

UPDATE: The bailout failed in the U.S. House of Representatives – Yea: 205 Nay: 228. 95 Democrats voted Nay, 133 Republicans voted Nay. Rehberg votes Nay.

Here it is, the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.” Members of Congress worked on this all weekend.

The democrats have the votes to pass this, because they control the majority in Congress. It appears they lack the leadership qualities to want to go it a lone although they seem to believe in this bailout with all their hearts. If it is so right, who cares if it does not get many votes from the GOP?

I do not support this plan. First, I don’t like the amount ($700 billion), which will add to our already deep national debt. Supporters say it will be paid back. Sure it will. Second, I’m afraid it will create a slippery slope and every time there’s a chance of a failure, the leaders of the organization will go back to Congress for another bailout. Third, it goes against the principle of capitalism and the free market.

It may be time to buy some fruit jars and bury our money in the backyard.

Just vote “Nay.”

Whoa

The 3-0 Denver Broncos visited the 0-3 Kansas City Chiefs today. Arrowhead Stadium! 78,000 fans. Barbecue! Tailgating! Some of the best fans in the NFL! It was the 143rd consecutive sellout.

I was not there. Sadness fills my heart, but it was on TV in Montana! There’s nothing better than a Chiefs home game. Fans show up early and stay late.

Everyone picked the Broncos to win this one – and win it very easy. I picked em. The Chiefs had lost 12 in a row. They had not had the lead in a game this year.

Chiefs 33, Broncos 19.

There’s life in the Chiefs – at least for one week. Rebuilding is tough, but the Chiefs have some young fellows who in a year or two will make the team better.

Larry Johnson had 198 yards and he was the key player in the game. Tony Gonzalez (the best tight end in football) had a TD (his 68th of his career) and is just a few yards short of Shannon Sharpe’s yardage record for tight ends. Gonzalez has caught at least one pass in 119 straight games.

For at least a week the Chiefs are winners. It’s been a long time. Too bad there’s not a bye week for the Chiefs next week. Victories have been hard to come by and this one needs some savoring.

The Bronco fans have something to look forward to – Kansas City travels to your house in December.

The Debate Round 1

In the Foreign Policy debate between John McCain and Barack Obama tonight, it was an easy victory for McCain. McCain’s knowledge of world affairs and the military were far far above Obama’s. I’ll bet Joe Biden was proud of his friend, John McCain.

Experience matters in this dangerous world and Obama does not have it. By not having a teleprompter to read from, Obama had a hard time talking. He stuttered and stammered his words in almost every answer. Obama “almost” made Montana Senator Max Baucus look like a toastmaster champion.

McCain was on the offensive most of the night and Obama said, “I agree with John” at least 10-15 times.

One thing I wanted McCain to say, but he is more of a gentleman than I, was when the question was asked, “What’s the likelihood of another 9/11?” I would have answered, “It’s more likely if Senator Obama is elected President.” Which I believe it is.

All in all it was good debate and there were not any big mistakes by either candidate. Of course, each side will claim victory as they always do. But the great thing about debates is that you and I get to pick the winner. I pick John McCain. He is ready to be President on day one.

Drying up

According to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, the research dollars given to Montana State University (MSU) dropped “6 percent” this year and this “was the university’s largest setback in two decades.”

Wow. Two decades.

In 2006, MSU ranked in the top 20 universities nationwide for receiving federal money.

In 2007 the Democrats took over the majority in Congress. It’s been downhill since then and probably a lot of it has to do with the loss of a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee who happened to be from Montana.

Meanwhile, the research money continues to flow…but now it’s starting to go to other states.

Nothing Accomplished

If it wasn’t so sad, it just might be funny. U.S. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was able to chair a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing yesterday. He’s been a member of this committee for most of the time he’s been in Washington. Yesterday, the regular committee chair, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calf.), gave the gavel to Baucus to run a committee hearing about the asbestos problem in Libby, Montana.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has the oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency.

So Baucus and the committee invited a couple of EPA officials to testify. The EPA sent two different people and his committee staff kicked them out.

According to the Associated Press:

Baucus, a Montana Democrat, arrived after the exchange. He said at the hearing that he had hoped two officials who worked at length in Libby – Paul Peronard, former on-scene coordinator, and Christopher Weis, an EPA toxicologist – would testify.

Normally a powerful chairman does not have to “hope” people will testify – the chairman just tells them he wants them there and they show up – especially when the chairman’s committee has jurisdiction over the agency these invited people represent.

This happens a lot when showmanship gets ahead of actually helping people. Baucus, once again, received tons of media coverage leading up to and after the hearing. Realistically nothing was accomplished, except for Baucus manipulating the media into covering his hearing – a hearing in which he was unable to get two key members of the EPA to show up.

Meanwhile, the good folks in Libby are no closer to having their problems solved because of it. That’s the sad part of the whole story.

Getting Out of Town

It looks like during the second session of the 110th Congress there will only be three completed appropriations bills. There are 12. Members of Congress will pass a “Continuing Resolution” (CR) to fund the government until March 2009. All in all, the leadership of the Democrats during the past two years has been at best poor.

The three winners are Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction-VA. They also passed some disaster aid with the bill and gave our military personnel a 3.9% pay raise. They wrapped all this up in a nice package with a total cost around $600 billion.

No need to wait around and waste time back there – because they have campaigning to do! All of the House members and one-third of the senate members are up for re-election in November. The other two-thirds of the senate will be traveling around the country helping their candidates.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, there are 2,321 earmarks worth about $6.2 billion.

From what I understand, the nine other appropriations bills will be set at Fiscal Year 2008 levels, so if you have read an article about a project that was slated for funding that did not fall under Defense, Homeland Security, or Military Construction/Veterans Affairs, it probably is not going to happen until at least late in 2009 – if ever.

Soon I imagine we’ll be reading a joint press release from Max Baucus and Jon Tester proclaiming how much they are “bringing back” to Montana. Sadly, their “work” pales in comparison to what North Dakota and South Dakota are getting in this bill.

It looks like North Dakota will get about $66.7 million. South Dakota appears to be getting $54 million just in military construction money. Montana appears to be getting about half that when you total the military construction and defense earmarks.

Malmstrom AFB appears to be getting one earmark, worth about $10 million, for phase one of the weapons storage area, which is needed.

There’s still a little housekeeping to do, like the final passage of the bill in the senate, and the signature of the President, but it appears to be a go.

Now all they need to do is handle the financial crisis.

Four Nights in Philly

It must be nice for Governor Brian Schweitzer to spend four nights at a Ritz-Carlton in Philadelphia. Here’s their website. Nice. Very nice.

It was $289 per night. Montanans paid for it.

On one of these four days, Schweitzer told a group of Trial Lawyers how he tampered with the 2006 Senate election to help Jon Tester get elected.

He made fun of Montanans. The lawyers attending the speech laughed at us. Schweitzer caused Montanans to lose faith in the election process.

It’s too bad that Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath would not open an investigation into the tampering. I’d like to know what other calls Schweitzer made on election night 2006. Did he call other election officials in Montana counties controlled by the Democrats? There must be some phone records. What about poll watchers? Can they recall anything out of the ordinary now that we know Schweitzer was turning some dials?

We’ll never know unless McGrath investigates. As for a Federal investigation which has not been ruled out, folks would like to know who Schweitzer contacted on the reservations, what he told and asked them to do.

The Governor stayed at a very expensive place on our dime for an official trip. Sure it was legal, but his actions there brought discredit upon the state.

So yes, pay us back Governor. We know you don’t legally have to, but next time try promoting our state, not degrading it.

Growing Weaker

A fellow blogger, Gregg at the Electric City Weblog, has written a great story about the Great Falls Tribune and their distaste for bloggers.

The Tribune is having some problems. Besides their new and supposedly improved website not working too well, they are being scooped on stories often by blogs such as the Electric City Weblog.

Gregg puts it in perspective when he writes about blogs and newspapers, “We’re growing. They’re growing…weaker.”

Hear! Hear!

Not Invited?

Yesterday I received an e-mail from Max Baucus (D-Mont.) through his campaign telling me, “Max Baucus, Montana’s longest-serving U.S. Senator, completed his 9th career marathon in less than 5 hours in Billings on Sunday.”

Of course there were photos of Baucus running and crossing the finish line. Congratulations Max. That is quite an accomplishment!

But I wonder why Baucus was not in Washington, D.C. According to his schedule, he left Washington on Friday morning and returned to Washington on Monday. He was mostly campaigning.

As the 6th most powerful Senator and the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and with one of our country’s worst financial crisis happening, why wasn’t Baucus back in Washington meeting with fellow members of Congress to come up with a solution to this problem?

Lawmakers were meeting over the weekend to work on this problem. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) said, “There has never been a moment as serious as this one.”

Yes, very serious. Even Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, did not appear to be in these crucial meetings. His schedule listed “No Public Events” for Saturday and Sunday.

One would think at least Baucus would have been there, since he proclaims himself so powerful in the Washington arena.

Baucus is heavily favored to win another six year term. Although he is proclaimed to be powerful and almighty by the media, the fact is when the rubber meets to road in Washington, D.C., Baucus is left out of critical negotiations. This weekend’s meetings show he is just as ineffective as ever.