Sorry, I Cannot Support Michael Steele

Dear Mr. Steele:

At another time, I would be able to support your candidacy. You have demonstrated that your intelligence and grasp for issues suggests you would be a good senator. However, after seeing your performance on Meet the Press today, I cannot support you as Maryland’s next senator for the following reasons:

1. Although I am personally against abortion, I am pro-choice. I want those who choose abortion for whatever reason to be able to do so legally and safely. Having grown up in New York and reading the stories of “back alley” abortions, I am afraid that the pro-life position will cause this to happen again if abortions were made illegal. I will continue to campaign for other options. But for those who do not agree with me, I want it as a choice.


2. I am pro-embryonic stem cell research. Shutting off any research, regardless of the stage, is irresponsible to those who are hoping for cures and those who want to deliver those cures. The compromise bill that would use embryos that would be eventually discarded from fertility clinics is something that could be supported until other alternatives can be developed. And your answers regarding the current destruction of embryos seem disingenuous.


3. Also, I have never heard you come out against the death penalty. It is hypocritical to support right-to-life-related legislation while continuing to support the death penalty. Consistency says that murder is murder regardless of the situation.


4. You cannot reform Washington if the problem is the leadership of the party in power not being willing to perform its oversight functions. While I am not in favor of impeachment proceedings, the Republican-lead congress has abrogated its oversight responsibilities in the name of party loyalty. This is wrong and it needs to be changed.

Since you are a Republican, I would have had more respect for you looked to distance yourself from that leadership if you would have said to Tim Russert that you would refrain from voting on leadership if you would be elected as a protest against their actions over the last few years. Russert gave you a chance on this and you reacted like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights of a great interviewer. Yes, it would be a symbolic gesture, but it would have been a great start to what could have been a great career.

As someone who is registered as NOT AFFILIATED and prides himself on making reasonable decisions, I am reasonably sure that having a Republican represent Maryland at this point of time is not the direction that is in the best interest of this state or this nation. I hope you keep that fire to do something for Maryland because it would be nice to see you come back in four years to run against Barbara Mikulski.

Rush Limbaugh Still Is a Big Fat Idiot

Following his alleged commentary accusing Michael J. Fox of acting or off his drugs in his television commercials in support of several Democratic candidates, he responds showing how ideologically he is in the wrong spectrum of basic humanity. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is human values, which Rush demonstrates his lacking.

HYPOCRITICAL STATEMENT #1: In his statement, Limbaugh says “Now, the idea that certain people because of their victim status are allowed to enter the fray with impunity is something I am not going to subscribe to.” But Rush, your comment was not about the issue but the person delivering the message. Rush said that Fox was “exaggerating the effects of the disease” and “is allowing his illness to be exploited.”

Reasonable people can disagree reasonably. But rather than attack the issue, Rush stoops into the muck to attack the messenger and his intent. For Michael J. Fox, stem-cell research is a personal issue. If he wants to work on behalf of candidates who support his ideas, he should be able to do so without personal attacks from someone who has proven record hypocritical actions.

HYPOCRITICAL STATEMENT #2: “I am not going to be fooled or lulled into standing aside. I'm not going to be intimidated under the pretext that some people have a protected, insured right to say whatever they want simply because they are unfortunate, they are victims or what have you.” So what you are saying is that it is all right to attack the messenger if you do not like the message? It is not a matter of political correctness, it is a matter of respect. It is respect for another point of view whether you agree or not. It is respect for a someone who is inflicted with a horrible disease he did not want. It is respect for basic human life.

HYPOCRITICAL STATEMENT #3: “I could have said far worse than I said about this. It is cruel to mislead people to believe that there is a cure on the horizon, when there isn't, if only Republican candidates are defeated. I'm sorry. I'm not going to sit around and let this go by uncommented upon. I don't care who says it.” There is nothing hypocritical about this statement. In fact, in Rush's latest screed, this is about the only sane statement he made. However, when he followed up with “There's no question the illness is being exploited,” is attacking the messenger and not the message.

Rush keeps saying he dose not care who is delivering the message but then accuses Fox of exploiting his illness for his own agenda. At least Fox is trying to do something to benefit those similarly afflicted. I do not see Limbaugh doing anything except running is foolish mouth.

Limbaugh, your 15-minutes were up years ago. Now it is time for you to sit down and SHUT THE #$%* UP!

Habeous Corpus, Rest In Peace

The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it.

James Madison said this long before George Bush was born. Long before there was an Islamic terrorist movement. Long before anyone thought of the ramifications of a president whose pied-piper attitude has lead congress and this country down the road to hell, or imperialism.

If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution.

Justice Louis Brandies almost prophetically predicted the result of Richard Nixon whose autocratic attempt at grabbing power almost brought down a nation. This president, a C student, has not learned.

The Republican Party, the party of small government, less government intrusion, and live and let live has just created the biggest imperial power since the death of the Soviet Empire. By killing habeus corpus, the administration can put anyone in jail for any reason and deny them due process for an indefinite amount of time. This is the Military Commissions Act of 2007. It is the death of habeus corpus.

Don't take my word for it... see what respected international law expert Jonathan Turley has to say: