The morning reading of the thermometer shows that our last few days of precursor fall weather were just a tease as usual. The morning’s low is in the mid seventies again and the afternoon highs haven’t been pleasant even when the lows were ten degrees less…I guess my best shot at cool weather is going to be next months trip to the Blue Ridge…

++++++++++

I was reading David Brooks this morning and he almost convinced me that I was a “temperamental conservative”. If that’s the case though, why is it I’ve never voted Republican. If his description of temperamental conservatism is correct, why do I feel so at home in the Democratic Party?

ReadingThe Republican Collapse – New York Times

But temperamental conservatives are suspicious of the idea of settling issues on the basis of abstract truth. These kinds of conservatives hold that moral laws emerge through deliberation and practice and that if legislation is going to be passed that slows medical progress, it shouldn’t be on the basis of abstract theological orthodoxy.

I realize he is using the definition to put some space between himself and the leaders of his own party, but isn’t this a stretch? How can labeling all of the Democrats out in the country conservatives help? I mean, get real David, you pundits have spent decades making “liberal” a four letter word…intentionally. Now that the powers that be in the Republican Party have managed to do the same thing to the label “Conservative” you don’t get to pass that one over to us poor Democrats…we refuse to accept. Sorry, but you guys dirtied your own label now you’re stuck with it…

Over the past few decades, the Republican Party has championed a series of reforms designed to devolve power to the individual, through tax cuts, private pensions and medical accounts. The temperamental conservative does not see a nation composed of individuals who should be given maximum liberty to make choices. Instead, the individual is a part of a social organism and thrives only within the attachments to family, community and nation that precede choice.

See what I mean…sounds like a Democrat to me. Or is he taking a dig at all of us Democratic do-gooders out here with his use of the term “temperamental”?

++++++++++

At last someone is calling the President on his untruths about his past. And they are doing it on the S-CHIP veto…

Misleading Spin on Children’s Health – New York Times

Trying to justify his ideologically driven veto of a bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, President Bush and his staff have fired a barrage of misinformation about this valuable program. Before the House votes on whether to override the veto, all members — especially those from Mr. Bush’s party who say they are concerned about millions of uninsured children — must look behind the rhetoric.Mr. Bush stretched the truth considerably when he told an audience in Lancaster, Pa., that he has long been a strong supporter of the S-chip program. “I supported it as governor, and I support it as president of the United States,” he said. As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush fought — unsuccessfully — to restrict the state’s program to children with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level, well below the 200 percent allowed by federal law. As president, he is again trying to shrink the program for the entire country. His proposed five-year budget does not provide enough to continue enrollments at current levels, let alone cover millions of the uninsured.

Whenever I see someone born with the proverbial silver spoon trying to shorten the safety nets this society has put in place to protect those who cannot protect themselves I have to wonder…Which Bible was this man raised on? For a born again Christian to continually put Caesar’s coin above the work of caring for those less fortunate leaves a rather large question in my mind.

Needless to say, it’s good to see that George W Bush hasn’t yet been able to rewrite history completely, and somewhere in the nether world of the internet you can still stumble upon the straight facts and not the fiction thathas been coming from the White House for the last six years…

And yes George Bush was for the Health Care Bill of Rights after he was against it also.

For another take on the issue go check Eugene Robinson…

Eugene Robinson – Bush’s Veto Lies – washingtonpost.com

To say that George W. Bush spends money like a drunken sailor is to insult every gin-soaked patron of every dockside dive in every dubious port of call. If Bush gets his way, the cost of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon reach a mind-blowing $600 billion. Despite turning a budget surplus into a huge deficit, the man still hasn’t met a tax cut he doesn’t like. And when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, Bush might as well have signed their pork-stuffed spending bills with a one-word rubber stamp: “Whatever.”So for Bush to get religion on fiscal responsibility at this late date is, well, a joke. And for him to make his stand on a measure that would have provided health insurance to needy children is a punch line that hasn’t left many Republicans laughing.

Mr. Robinson calls it like it is…

++++++++++

It’s time for the morning run to town…catch you on the other side of night…