There must be something in the water our West: it seems that moderate Republicans are getting some backbone and challenging conservative incumbents. Roselyn O'Connell is challenging Congressman JD Hayworth in the September 7th Arizona GOP primary. From what I've found out so far, she is pro-choice and pro-environment. If you want to know more, you might want to contract her directly. You can also contribute to her campiagn. I'm going to be finding out more about Ms. O'Connell. This is good news.
Bob Faust has started a campaign blog of his own. He will be using the space to share his positions on various issues. I would definitely check it out.
Bob Faust has started a campaign blog of his own. He will be using the space to share his positions on various issues. I would definitely check it out.
If you think that most Republicans are ardently pro-life, you might want to check the latest press release from Republican Majority for Choice. It seems that a recent survey by American Viewpoint a polling firm headed by Republican pollster Linda DiVall, shows that 73% of Republicans believe the right to choose is up to a woman and not the government. Let me say that again. 73% of Republicans believe that a woman should have the right to choose, not the government.
I think that's astounding. The medial is constantly feeding us the fact that the party is overwhelmingly pro-life and yet this poll shows that the GOP is pretty conservative on this issue in that the government should keep its nose out of this decision.
So maybe pro-choice Republicans are not that endangered after all.
Okay, it's almost July, but here is the June issue. And yes, I will try to get it out much earlier.
"Being a gay-friendly Republican who supports equal rights for gays because the GOP is the party of Lincoln which believed slavery was wrong, I believe ALL people have the legal right to pursue their own form of happiness. For the gay community, if the constitution is to be amended, it should be amended to PROTECT the rights of the gay community not discriminate or treat them as second rate citizens. Rather than amending the constitution to define what a marriage is (as Marilyn Musgrave and Wayne Allard propose), I propose we amend the constitution to define equality for ALL people regardless of their sex, age, nationality, race, heritage and sexual or gender orientation.
On Sunday, people across this great country will march for equal rights and I will be one of those marchers. When I am elected, I intend to work on amending the constitution so we will have Equal rights in America will for ALL people."
If you want to talk more with Bob on this issue, please e-mail him at bob@faust4congress.com.
Below is a transcipt of Larry King interviewing Ronald Reagan Jr. If you haven't seen it already, you might want to give this a read.
KING: When did you write that eulogy?
REAGAN: The day before.
KING: In Washington?
REAGAN: Yes, sitting in Blair house. Thought about it a little before.
KING: You said, dad was also a deeply unabashedly religious man, but he
never made the mistake of wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political
advantage. Were you referring to the president?
REAGAN: You know, it's interesting.
KING: Everyone thought that.
REAGAN: I know. I wasn't watching TV much after I delivered the eulogy for
a few days. But after a couple of days I started getting calls from people
saying, boy you really stirred something up, didn't you? I thought, well,
what? Well, you know, the stuff you said about Bush. I said, I didn't say
anything about Bush, why would I mention George W. Bush in my father's eulogy?
No, no, no, no, the stuff about the religion. I thought, ha, funny, you
then everybody thought I was talking about George W. Bush. And then I heard
-- everybody thought I was talking about George -- but people connected
with George W. Bush thought I was talking about George W. Bush. And then I
began to think, maybe I was, I just didn't know it.
KING: Do you think he wears his religion on his sleeve? He certainly refers
to it more than your father ever did.
REAGAN: Well, you know, there was that answer he gave to the question
about, did you talk to your father about going into Iraq? No, I talked to a
higher father, you know, the almighty. When you hear somebody justifying a
war by citing the almighty, God, I get a little worried, frankly. The other
guys do that a lot. Osama bin Laden's always talking about Allah, what
Allah wants, that he's on his side. I think that's uncomfortable.
KING: Do you have thoughts on the war?
REAGAN: Sure, I have thoughts on the war.
KING: And what do you think?
REAGAN: And I think we lied our way into the war.
KING: You think it's a mistake?
REAGAN: Absolutely, a terrible mistake. Terrible foreign policy error. We
didn't have to do it. It was optional. And we were lied to. The American
public was lied to about WMD, the connection between Osama bin Laden and
Saddam, which is virtually nonexistent except for fleeting contacts. But
they're still trying to pull that one off now, Cheney and all are out there
flogging that.
KING: Can I gather from that, that you will not support this president?
REAGAN: No, I won't.
KING: Will you support his opponent?
REAGAN: I will vote for whoever the viable candidate is who can defeat
George W. Bush, yes.
KING: So, you might vote for Ralph Nader?
REAGAN: If he were a viable candidate I might.
KING: So the obviously you're going to vote -- what did you think your
father would say, if he were here and listening to this?
REAGAN: I don't think he would have gone into Iraq. I think he would have
been much more interested in going after Osama bin Laden, who after all
planned the 9/11 transactions.
KING: Would he be mad at you for saying, I'm not going to vote for this
Republican?
REAGAN: I can't imagine he would be. So long as I was telling the truth
he'd be okay with that. And I am. So -- no, I don't think he'd be upset.
Again, these are just my personal feelings you've asked, so I'll answer.
KING: You've answered.
REAGAN: I just think it's a terrible mistake. Terrible mistake.
KING: Ron Reagan's our guest. We'll talk, obviously, about stem cell. And
take your phone calls for the son of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, the baby.
We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARGARET THATCHER, FRM. BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Let us
give thanks today for a life that achieved so much for all of God's children.
GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FRM. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As his vice
president for 8 years, I learned more from Ronald Reagan than from anyone I
encountered in all my years of public life. I learned kindness, we all did.
I also learned courage.
GEORGE W. BUSH. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In the end, through his
belief in our country and his love for our country, he became an enduring
symbol of our country. May God bless Ronald Reagan and the country he loved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're back with Ron Reagan. Your mother came out -- I was the master
of ceremonies that night at that dinner where they honored her at the
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. Wasn't too long, maybe two months ago, less
maybe. She came out that night and strongly supported stem cell research,
embryonic stem cell research. Everyone supports adult stem cell research.
Where do you stand? What do you make of it?
REAGAN: I stand shoulder to shoulder with my mother on that. It's
astonishing to me that we are even having the conversation about this.
We're not talking about fetuses, human beings being killed, we're talking
about collections of cells in a petri dish that are never, ever going to be
a human being. This could be the biggest revolution in medicine ever, well,
ever really. Bigger than antibiotics. Bigger than anything.
And you know what strikes me, too, is that you cannot be against embryonic
stem cell research and be intellectually and therefore morally consistent,
if you're not also against in vitro fertilization. Because the same thing
results in in vitro fertilization. Thousands of blastocysts collections are
discarded. Now you'll notice that most of the politicians who are against
embryonic stem cell research don't say anything about in vitro
fertilization. You might wonder why. Well, it's because what are they going
to do, come out against people who want to get pregnant? That's a political
non-starter so they're going not going to -- they are just going to shut up
about that and go after stem cell research instead. They're playing
politics with it and it is shameful. It is shameful.
KING: Do you expect your mother to be active?
REAGAN: Yes, I do. I don't know what form that will take. I've spoken to
her about it already. This isn't a whim of hers.
KING: Oh, no. She's not a whim person.
REAGAN: No. She knows this is right. Flat out. There's no downside to this.
is the right thing to do. KING: Do you think she'll be invited to the
convention? To speak?
REAGAN: I don't know if she would be or not. But I don't -- you'd have to
ask her.
KING: They're on a thin line there if they invite her and she chooses to
speak about stem cell research, in opposition to their platform.
REAGAN: Yes, that's true. And I imagine she might take that opportunity to
do so if she were invited and chose to go. At this moment I'd guess, and
I'm just guessing, she won't go.
If you live in Colorado or know someone who does, you might want to take note:
Here is the latest on activities for the 4th.
Rocky Mountain Stampede in Greeley (July 3rd) - The Stampede parade will allow one float per party (Republican and Democrat). Candidates, as well as elected officials, are not allowed to advertise or campaign during the parade. A candidate can stand on the party float and hold a sign that has their name, but that is all. The republican party is charging $100 per candidate to stand on the float (cover the cost of building the float). I figure for $100 I can print up flyers and walk the sidewalks handing out campaign material. So I am looking for volunteers who would be willing to walk the sidewalks handing out flyers.
Loveland (July 4th) - Loveland will be having an open park on the 4th. I will be handing out material for a couple hours and will appreciate any volunteers here again.
From what research I have done, there are no other parades in the 4th Congressional District over the holiday.
I am also trying to get the Colorado Education Association support me as the Republican Candidate. They will not give us any money. Instead the money will go to Stan. However, they might be willing to give us the verbal support.
Take Care
Bob
One of the things that I believe moderate Republicans need to do is clearly state what they stand for. Too often, we have been accused of being Democrats who are n't willing to state the fact. We know that is not true. In the past, people like the late Jacob Javits was able to explain what a moderate Republican was over and against the right wing. (I would suggest going to Bookfinder.com and picking up a copy of his manifesto, "Order of Battle:A Republican's Call to Reason." ) Moderates today have not done much to explain who they are. That needs to change.
One of the things that I've been interested in is Christian Democracy, a political philospohy that is based on Catholic Social teaching. It's beginnings can be traced back to Pope Leo VIII, who wanted to find a way to address social issues in a way other than Socialism, which was gaining popularity. Christian Democratic parties sprung up around Europe and Latin America, with strong parties found today in Germany and Chile as two examples. As societies became more diverse, Christian Democracy is now being called Centrist Democrat.
So, why am I talking about this? I want you to read their manifesto and theirbasic document to see if some of what they are talking about could become part of some kind of manifesto for moderate Republicans. Let me know what you think.
If you think that Republicans have been silent in the wake of all that has gone wrong with the current President's foreign policy, think again. Two former GOP congressmen, Paul Findley of Illinois and Pete McCloskey from California critique W's foreign policy and find it wanting. Of the two, McCloskey takes a more indepth view of the President's Mideast Policy and how it is more in the hands of fundamentalist Jews and Christians than anything else. This would make sense. Every President, from both parties, have tried to be an honest broker. Yes, the did tend to side with Israel, but they tried to be fair. Bush the Senoir played hardball with the Israelis in 1991, threatening to withold aid until they stopped building settlements and forced them to the negotiation table. The current President needs the fundy Christian vote and plays to their bigotry.
I'm glad to see two Republicans who are willing to criticize what has happened to American foreign policy. I hope they are not the last.
Here's a question to all of you in blogland: Do you think there is a future for moderate Republicans in the GOP? If yes, how will that happen and if no, where will they end up politically?
These days, it's hard to find a Republican offical that I as a gay man can feel good about. Well, there is a former official that I admire. While current Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney was in Washington yesterday talking about the perils of gay marriage, the former Republican governor, William Weld was giving the homily at a same-sex wedding. Weld noted that he would have been in Washington opposing Romney had it not been for the wedding. Actually, there were two former GOP governors at the wedding, Acting Governor Jane Swift also attended.
We need to get Weld back in politics.
Concerning Same Sex Unions:
"If Marilyn Musgrave and her right-wing supporters have their way, those rights will disappear. We need more people like myself who are willing to stand up to the right-wing and tell them they are wrong. If they want to amend the constitution, they should amend it to guarantee equality regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, sexual or gender orientation. Which is exactly what I believe should happen."
The recent death of Ronald Reagan reminded us that whatever one thought of Reagan's policies, he seemed to exude a sunny optimism. He expressed a conservatism that was hopeful and not fearful. Matt Zemek talks about Reagan and Pope John Paul as sunshine prophets, who were happy prophets that people could not help but love even if they disagreed with them.
What's fascinating about this column is that Zemek believes no one today exemplifies this positive outlook on life. I tend to agree. People say that Bush is positive in the mold of Reagan, but I tend to think he is more cynical than hopeful. Yes, Reagan spoke of the "evil empire" and ratched up the defense buildup, but this was to get the Soviets to the table to make peace. Bush's war on terrorism is based more on fear than anything else. Then there is his support for the ban on gay marriage again to protect hetro marriage out of fear of "activist judges." There is very little of the sunshine conservatism in Reagan.
What about Kerry and the Dems? Nope. Listen to what Zemek says:
"...Kerry — who conveys stuffed-shirt cautiousness mixed with predictable stock criticisms of Bush — is hardly providing prophetic sunshine, either. Kerry fits the image conservatives like to attach to all major Democratic politicians these days: He can only say what he's against, not what he's for, a sour contrarian who lacks a positive vision for America."
Ouch.
The thing is, he's right. Kerry and the Left in general talks about what is wrong in America, but he is lacking in creating a grand vision of what America can be. Reagan could do this and so could Clinton (remember, "I believe in a place called Hope?").
America is in some dark times. We are in a bloody war in a far away place and we are worried when the next terrorist strike on the homeland will happen. We need someone like an FDR who can speak hope in this time of fear. What sad is that neither liberals nor conservatives have stepped up to the plate.
I wanted to direct you to a new blog run by Renee, a blogger in Ohio, I know from the days I was supporting Howard Dean. It's called The Village Gate a blog for progressive Christians. However, even if you are not necessarily a progressive Christian (I'm more a moderate, shocking isn't it?) you are welcome to the site. If it's from Renee, it's bound to be stimulating even if you disagree. Rev. Sanders approves of this site.
From the Broward County Florida Chapter of Log Cabin Republicans, repsonding to the attacks of political and religious leaders to same-sex unions:
"If political and religious activists wish to address the reasons for their attacks against people of a different sexual orientation relative to equality of rights and civil unions under the lame excuse of protecting the family, then they must also remember that the right to divorce, permissible under civil law, is Biblically indefensible and must be repealed," said Mark Ferrara of the Broward Log Cabin Club of Florida. He further noted that, "My church accepts the blessing of same-sex unions and as a Protestant I don't have to accept the dogma of other religious denominations that condemn me and my church. Under the Constitution of the United States we cherish 'Freedom of Religion' and 'Freedom From Religious Persecution.' "
For those of you who are not Canadaphiles like yours truly, Canada is in the tail end of an election campaign. Next Monday, they will go to the polls to vote for a party and in turn decide who will be Prime Minister. The interesting story of this election has been the Green Party of Canada. The current leader is a former member of what has become the Conservative Party of Canada and he has steered the party away from the socialist left (which is already well represented by the social democratic New Democratic Party) to a more pragmatic green politics. According to a Globe and Mail editorial, he is in support of lower taxes to spur investment, and he supports revenues based on "brown taxes" on gas-guzzling SUVs. A look at their website sees a view that is fiscally responsible and socially liberal. They are polling at about 6 percent nationally, which isn't a lot, but it could mean gaining a seat in Parliment.
What's refreshing is that the Green Party of Canada is seeking to influence the national debate. This is a far cry from the Green Party of the United States which seems stuck in a sixties-style socialism. The Green Party here could get more attention if it adopted a more less doctrinare approach. The Green Party of Canada had the same problem until Jim Harris, their new leader took over. What the Green Party here should do is adopt some kind of "pragmatic progressivism" that is open to a wider view. There are many people here in America that care about the environment, but are turned off by the hard left views of those that run the Green Party now. Maybe if the Canadian Greens do well, the American Greens will buy a clue.
I don't know if David Brooks is right that if the Dems took religion more seriously, Kerry would be farther ahead, but I think he reveals something that I'm surprised the media has not picked up on. If you read any newspaper, they will tell you that the Democratic Party is a very secular party where few go to church. Maybe among the elites, but not among the rank and file. My housemate and ex-boyfriend is a die-hard Democrat and a devout Lutheran. My parents are traditional New Deal/Labor Democrats and devout Baptists. I know many people who are Democrats and go to church every Sunday. Heck, I grew up in the Black Church and if you want to talk about a constituency that is very religious and liberal, there it is.
I don't know where the media and some Democratic leaders get off thinking that rank and file Democrats are not religious. They are. I know many devout Christians and Jews who believe that their faith is tied to how the poor and forgotten are treated by our society. And they do vote Democrat.
One thing that has always bothered me is how people seem to make fun of George Bush's talk about his faith. While I can and do criticize how sectarian his faith is, it seems at time that people are faulting that he has a faith. I don't mind if politicians talk about their faith because it is something that is a part of them. What bothers me is when God becomes part of a party's platform.
Kerry and Dems need to at least acknowledge faith (of all religions) because if they don't, it will seem that faith is not important to them and in essence will to seem to voters that their faith is not important to them. Brooks is correct that Bill Clinton knew how to talk about faith without becoming sectarian and exclusive like the GOP has done. Because of Clinton's adherance to his own faith and his respect for other people's faith he connected with voters.
America is still a very religous nation. The mosque, the synogogue and the church still play an important role in people's lives. Without the church, there would be no civil rights movement. The Dems need to be reminded of this and learn to speak with respect to faith in ways that are uplifting and inclusive.
Andrew Sullivan makes an interesting observation of the increasing sectarianism that is taking place in the GOP. In my own experience, I can remember recently attending a district convention that was opened up with a pledge of allegiance....and a prayer.
This use of faith for political ends is rather unsettling and I wonder if it will spell the end decline of the GOP. We Americans are by nature a very religious people, but we cringe at the heavy-handed style of religion that is coming from the fundy Protestants and very orthodox Catholics. I think when it comes down to it, people are more concerned about jobs and education than they are about two men wanting to tie the knot.
If the Democrats were smart, they could use this as an opening. They could present an agenda that would boldy address these issues and stress issues that are important to independents and moderates, like controlling the deficit and taking on the terrorists, they could have a majority that could last a long time. I don't know if they are up to challenge.
As for the Republicans? As long as the far right is in power, I don't see it going anywhere. You can't build a party on just the far right. Bush has alienated the moderates and independents that he needs to win the election with some his moves to placate the far right, aka: the Federal Marriage Amendment.
One more thing: the Democrats have to learn to find a way to portray faith in a more positive light. There are many evangelicals who are up for grabs. If they can honor their faith and make the links to policies like concern for the poor (which the Bible talks loads about) then they might vote for them. That goes for moderate Republicans as well.
From Bob Faust,
I want to thank everyone for your support. We raised $225. That may not seem like much, but that is about double what I had last week. I intend to get out and spread the word. As to being a liberal, moderate, right wing or left wing republican, I consider myself a moderate. I have been a republican for four generations. I support some republican issues and some democratic issues. My main focus has always been the issues. That is why I am running against Marilyn. I believe we need people who are concerned about the issues that benefit ALL Americans and do not discriminate against others. No system is perfect, but we need to try to ensure the views of ALL people are considered. Currently, I do not think our representatives are serving the people, so, I am willing to stand up and fight.
Thank you for your support and I will keep you updated as our struggle continues.
Sincerely,
Bob Faust
It's not too late to consider giving to this campaign. Please give what you can to help take back the GOP.
Yes, another plea to give to Bob Faust. This drive has resulted in Bob receiving some needed campaign funds so that he can give Marilyn Musgrave a run for her money. Please give and let's take back our party!
One of the things I've noticed is that people these days seem to think that to be a true liberal or conservative, one has to agree totally with the party platform. I can imagine some guys dressed in black telling people to please deposit their brains in the burlap bags they are carrying.
It seems that parties can't handle original thought these days. Let's not even talk about the lack of civility.
People seem to think that I'm not really a Republican because my views are "liberal." Because I support gay marriage or abortion rights, that makes me a follower of Ted Kennedy.
Well, things are never what the appear to be.
I never supported the war in Iraq, but not for the reasons that many on the left did not. I'm not a pacifist that would never attack. I don't sit here thinking America is the worse country on the face of the earth. However, there was no proof, zippo, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or even a connection with 9/11.
I support abortion rights because government should not have a role in this medical decision. That is a conservative argument.
As for gay marriage? Well, besides being gay, conservatives do believe that everyone is equal before the law. There should be no place, none for second class citizens.
A recent online chat with "Crossfire" co-host, Tucker Carlson, sums my view of how infantile politics have become in regards to how people in political parties should act:
It seems to me the whole point of adulthood is, you don't have to raise your hand to go to the bathroom, and you get to say what you really think. Some peoeple can't handle that freedom, so they sign up with some movement or party and read someone else's scripted talking points. It's hard to imagine, but some people prefer that. I find it boring.
I don't know how comfortable I'd be in either party acutally, but that's fine. We llive in a society where we can be who we are. If some right-wingers think I'm too liberal, well, boo-hoo. I'm who I am, deal with it. I like being a moderate Republican. I like being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I have no desire to be a Democrat for many reasons.
If you want to read a great piece on intellectual freedom in American politics, I'd suggest reading this.
There is still a day left to participate in "Faust for a Bargain" weekend to help Bob Faust challenge the sponsor of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, Marilyn Musgrave in the August 10 GOP primary in Colorado's Fourth District. Bob is trying to take back the party from the far right and he's doing it on a shoestring budget. He is working full time and trying to run a campaign. If we want to see the GOP return to pragmatic politics, then let's support Bob. Please give today!
Here's a comment from Bob Faust:
I want to thank everyone for your support. Especially Dennis. Like all of you, I have to work for a living and do not have the ability to quit my job for the next two months to raise money and campaign for office. I have never been involved in politics and run my own consulting company. I intend to do everything I can to campaign and spread the word regarding my platform and candidacy for office. If we want to get Marilyn out of office, the only chance we have is the Republican Primary, August 10th. Otherwise, we will have her rightwing politics for at least another two years. Thank for your support.
Sincerely,
Bob Faust
So far, we've already raised $200! Please continue to make those contributions!
Okay. Many of us have talked about how we are sad about how right wing the GOP has become. We've read the Texas Platform and seen how it does not even resemble what the party was founded on. We don't like how the GOP has gone after gays, supporting laws like the one in Virginia that outlaws any same -sex legal agreement, or the banning of Log Cabin from the North Carolina State Convention, or the support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Well, now you have a chance to take back the party.
As you know, I've spoken a lot about Bob Faust who is challenging Marilyn Musgrave in the Fourth District Republican primary in Colorado. Musgrave is the author of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment which will write discrimination into the Constitution.
Bob is in a tight spot. He has to work full time because he has little in the way of campaign funds. You want to know how much?
$250. Yes, I said $250.
You can't run a campaign on that little money.
I know that Musgrave has a Democratic challenger who is raising money hand and fist. Nothing against Democrats, but I want to see Faust in Congress to add to the numbers of moderates who will work for our country and not for a small band of extremists.
So, starting now and ending at 10pm CDT on Sunday June 20th, I want to see if the online community here can raise at least $500 for Bob. He's running on issues that matter: health care and equality. Wouldn't it be nice for him to knock of the author of such a hateful amendment? He's not getting any money from the local GOP so he has to rely on the kindness of strangers. He has to rely on you.
Please consider giving what you can. It can be as little as buck if you want, but put your money where your mouth is. If you want to take this party back from the extremists then do what you can. I will be asking you to give throughout the weekend and hopefully giving you talleys on how much has been raised. If you know of moderates who would want to help, let them know. The fight to bring the GOP back to the center-right begins now. Please give.
Well, the 9/11 Commission has concluded that there no connection between Al Queda and Iraq and added that Hussein had no role in September 11th.
So, what was the President's response? He's still saying that there was role.
Wha?!
Come on George, the game is over. We now have a bipartisan commission that has looked over this and found no link between bin Laden and Hussein. None. Zip. Nada.
Bush should just admit it was a mistake and get back to dealing with Al Queda and bin Laden. Remember them? The guys who caused September 11th?
Good grief.
We cannot give up on the republican party. Being a candidate for the 4th Congressional District in Colorado, I refuse to allow the religious right to take my party. There are more moderate republicans out here. The problem is, we work for a living and do not have time to defend our party. However, I have decided to defend my party and decided to run for Congress opposite Marilyn Musgrave. We must not give up. We must stick together.
Sincerely,
Bob Faust
4th Congressional District Candidate
This blog just gets funnier and funnier everytime I bother to read it.
Dennis: You aren't a republican, you obviously want to change the republican party to support your views (mainly homosexuality).
You act like the majority of Americans are supportive of homosexuality, HAVE YOU BOTHERED READING ANY POLLS? Please tell me that you're not the fucking idiot I think you are. Why, in the liberal bastion known as California, did 60% of the people vote to ban gay marriage? And you complain about Texas, but even most of the democrats disaprove of gay marriage here. Hell, I think the last poll i saw showed that 78% of Texans supported a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
So stop trying to change people's views and join the democratic party, which is where you belong (although if you wish to vote for Bush, I won't stop you)
I will just let Chuck Muth speak.
SEPARATION ANXIETY IN TEXAS
"Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man," said son Ron Reagan Jr. at his father's sunset funeral service at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley on Friday. "But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage."
Apparently those remarks were blacked out in Texas, as the Texas Republican Party decided to wear its faith on its collective sleeve and stir up a new political holy war less than 24 hours later by adopting the following religious statement into its official party platform at its state convention: "The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation...founded on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible."
Good grief. There they go again.
While this is a nation whose citizens are primarily Christian (including yours truly), this is decidedly NOT a Christian nation...any more than it is a "white" nation just because the vast majority of its citizens are white. Indeed, the fact that we are NOT a Christian nation was affirmed in official U.S. policy during our founding. You could look it up.
The Barbary Treaties were agreed to in Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and ratified by the United States Senate on June 10, 1797. They were signed by one of the Founding Fathers, John Adams, who was President of the United States at the time. Article 11 of the treaty reads, in part: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…"
The treaty was adopted unanimously. No debate. No dissension. Case closed.
We are a constitutional republic, not a theocracy. Yes, most of us are Christians. But that does not mean most Christians want to live in a Christian version of Iran. We wish to freely practice our religion, not impose it on others. This kind of crusade by the Texas GOP is not helpful and only serves to stir up a religious hornet's nest unnecessarily. It’s hard to imagine this is something Ronald Reagan, "a deeply, unabashedly religious man," would cotton to. They ought to knock it off.
Couldn't have said it better.
I was checking comments earlier this evening and saw a comment from a guy named Frank. He decided to tell me that my being a moderate Republican is a lost cause:
Mr. Sanders,
I just found your site and I wanted to make a general comment to you, so I picked any forum. I hope this is okay. I find it admirable that you're trying to take the Republican party back from the nutcase right wing theocrats. But I also think it's lost cause. Your party has left you. It's just a matter of time until you realize it.
The GOP was once a reasonable party. It this were the 1950's, I would be an Eisenhower Republican. However, this being 2004, I don't have that choice; I can either be a Pat Robertson Republican or a Democrat. I've chosen the latter. The party is in the hands of the Christian Coalition now, and they want nothing less than a theocracy.
There is a new name for moderate Republicans like you: they're called "Democrats." Come on, Bill Clinton was pro-death penalty, pro-welfare reform and pro-balenced budgets. He'd be a Republican in the pre-Reagan days. Come on over, and bring John McCain, too!
Sincerely, Frank
Well Frank, I have to admit that there are times that I wonder if the cause is worth it. I sometimes wonder about leaving and becoming and independent. However, I stay because I think the cause is just and it must be done. Let's say people like myself leave the party and the far right is left in control. Democrats think that it means that they will win since they are the pro-gay, pro-environment, pro-all good things party.
What Frank and others forget is that the voting public is fickle and those in power become lazy. All it takes is an ecomomic downturn or a scandal or poor leadership and voters will choose another party. And what party will they choose? Well, in a two party system they are going to choose the GOP that is controlled by the far right, the anti-choice, anti-gay, theocratic party.
As a friend once said, leaving the party will still leave the far-right in power and will be a victory for them since they want me gone anyway. I don't want people who view me as evil to have power in government or in a major politcal party. I want them marginalized and that will not happen if I leave the party over to them.
I also stay for another reason. Parties change. Unlike European parties, American parties are really just vehicles for various ideologies and philosohpies. Contrary to what Frank might think, the Democrats were not always pro-civil rights. It was because of people like Hubert Humphrey who decided to go toe-to-toe with the southern segrationists who controlled the party. Frank is right that the GOP is no longer the moderate party it once was, but that was because many of the southern segregationists who left the Dems went over to the GOP and remade it into their image. The GOP doesn't have to be the right wing party that it is. If moderates and principled conservatives were able to gain power again, the Republicans could be the party of moderation. I believe they can in time.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have two parties of the center than one center-left party and one far-right party that will only perputate the tone of politics we see today.
So, thanks for the invite Frank, but I'm staying. I have work to do and a party to reform.
I got this comment today about my entry on Reagan and the AIDS crisis. I don't think that I was praising Reagan to the high heavens as some conservatives have done. I was simply saying that Reagan was not a bigot. Reagan was not perfect concerning the AIDS crisis and I've said that. I'm guessing that this guy never read the entire blog, because if he did he may not have seen me as a "conservobot." Oh well.
Calling Ronald Reagan Evil is no more "beyond the pale" than calling Andrew Sullivan Evil -- a fact I'm sincerely happy to point out whenever the occasion arises.
You Conservabots can cuddle your stuffed Reagan Plushis all you want. But for those of us who were there (sadly, fewer and fewer) it's quite a different story.
It's always easy to rearrange the scene of the crime -- once you're sure that all the witnesses are dead.
By the time this hagiographic orgy is over I'm sure we'll have a National Review cover story claiming that Reagan discovered the cure for AIDS, but Larry Kramer destroyed it.
Karl Rove might want to read this story. It seems that Ken Veenstra, the assistant majority leader the assistant majority leader in the Iowa state Senate lost in a primary to Dave Mulder a college professor. While Mulder thinks he won because of his emphasis on education issues, many political pundits in Iowa thinks he won because of Veenstra's anti-gay agenda. What is fascinating to me is that the district in question is a heavily Republican district, not a swing district. This might show that even Republicans are getting tired of the far-right social agenda and want legislators to actually govern. Wow, what a novel idea!
Is this a fortaste of things to come? One can hope.
Thanks for Tony Dorsano for pointing out this story.
Just a quick note about a New York Times piece about how all the media coverage concerning a "divided nation" is more a "Beltway myth" than anything else.
EDITORS NOTE: I've asked Bob Faust, who is running challenging Marilyn Musgrave, the author of the Federal Marriage Amendment banning same sex marriage, to write a few words on this blog every now and then. This is the first of what I hope to be many messages from Bob. This first one explains why he is running and why he needs your support.
The first decision my wife and I made when I decided to run, was to be financially prudent. We do not intend to mortgage our lives and property to finance this campaign. This is not the sign of a financially responsible person. I have maintained my current employment and run my campaign whenever possible. If I can raise enough campaign funds so I can pay my wife a salary, then I will be able to put my work on hold until after the elections. So any help people can send is greatly appreciated. Especially since the local GOP will not acknowledge my campaign and Marilyn has said, “"he just adds more work and more expense to a campaign.” You can visit my website, faust4congress.com for methods to support my campaign. I am running because I believe healthcare is the number one issue facing society today and do not see our current representatives trying to fix the system. I believe I have a method to create a national healthcare system that will ensure a basic form of healthcare for all Americans. I believe education is the second issue that we need to address. Again I believe I have a solution that would help education at all levels. I believe we need to be fiscally responsible and reduce the national deficit. Finally I believe we need to address equal rights for ALL people regardless of sex, nationality, age, race, sexual or gender orientation. All people should be treated equally. If there is any amendment to the US Constitution, it should address equality not marriage. I look forward to providing additional information about my campaign on this website.
Sincerely,
Bob Faust
As he said in his note, he is working while embarking on this campaign. He needs the help of moderates out there that are willing to help him out. Please consider giving what you can to help take back the GOP from people like Musgrave.
When you contribute, please let me know via e-mail me so I can get a running tally. Thanks.
It's nearly one in the morning here after a very long day, so I will just say it looks like Kerry has offered McCain the veep spot and McCain so far has said no. I'm giving this question for you all to discuss. Should McCain take the number two spot and why? What should Kerry do to pursuade him? Here's some reading to get you started:
As someone who under the age of five when all the mess concerning Watergate broke, I've never really comprehended the anger surrounding President Nixon on the scandal until recently. On the surfaced it seemed like this was a tumult over a break-in, but the in reality this was about a President who thought that he was above the law. When you read this editorial from the Houston Chronicle, which concerns the leaked memo that places President Bush as commander in chief above not only the Geneva Convention, but also federal law, you start to see shades of Nixon going on.
The President is supposed to uphold the Constitution and yet this Andministration seems bent on not doing that for no other reason than because it feels it doesn't have to.
In the past I thought any mention of wanting to see Bush impeached was silly. This was something in the mind of leftist Bush-haters. However, the facts more and more are showing that the President has not taken the law very seriously just like President Nixon. If President Clinton can be impeached for lying about a having sex (and it was sex) with an intern, I think it's high time to consider if we should start the process for an Admnistration that thinks the law is pointless because we are engaged in a struggle against terrorism.
Sean Baker is living proof that the prisoner abuse scandal is not about a few rouge officers but about what has become a rouge administration. You can read Nick Kristof's chilling account of an officer that particapted in a simulation that went far out of control. Here is the money quote from Mr. Baker as found on Andrew Sullivan's website:
"They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and unfortunately one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down. Then he — the same individual — reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn't breathe. When I couldn't breathe, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was 'red.' ... That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me. Somehow I got enough air. I muttered out: 'I'm a U.S. soldier. I'm a U.S. soldier."
Not only were the soldiers who did this nothing more than common thugs, but it shows that the administration which claims that Iraq and the war on terror were against immoral people have become immoral themselves. Stories like this show that the United States has no moral authority at all in the world. None. If we can beat up US soliders who were participating in a simulation for God sakes, what are we doing to real prisoners? And who's to say that when there is another terrorist attack on our shores that these tactics might be used on American suspects?
In the past, I've said that moderates too often to do not stand up to the far right. Well, I guess that's not the case any more in Colorado. I've talked about Bob Faust's challenge to Marilyn Musgrave, but there is also this story about moderates in the state legislature that are saying "no more" to this brand of conservatism that really isn't conservatism at all. I hope what is starting in Colorado catches on.
Supposedly this e-mail came from Marilyn Musgrave who is facing a primary challenge from Bob Faust. Musgrave is the author of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban gay marriage. For a woman who represents eastern Colorado, she seems really concerned about Massachusetts. Just look:
Dear ,
It's gone from bad to worse.
A few days ago, Massachusetts began issuing "marriage" licenses to
homosexuals.
Men are now marrying men and women marrying women ... "legally" in
Massachusetts.
Because you have signed the on-line petition in support of traditional
marriage, I had to let you know that, already, lawyers for the
homosexual
special interests are preparing legal cases to force homosexual
"marriage"
on every single state in the nation.
Can I continue to count on you right now to help me make a difference
in
the fight for traditional marriage?
You see, I recently announced I was running for re-election as a
freshman
Member of Congress.
And within days of making my announcement public, I found out I faced
challengers in both the Republican Primary AND the general election
specifically because I am leading the fight to defend marriage between
one
man and one woman with the FMA.
While this outrageous development has occurred in Massachusetts, the
declared opponents against me in the Republican Primary and general
election, along with the Homosexual Lobby, are all boasting they'll do
all
they can to defeat me this year.Truly, I must be able to count on your
continued support.
I need to be back in Washington, D.C. fighting to pass the Federal
Marriage
Amendment -- instead of trying to raise all the money I need to fight
off
the Homosexual Lobby and these pro-homosexual agenda candidates trying
to
defeat me.
I'm counting on you again today and ask you to right away please send
your
most generous contribution of $1000, $500, $250, $100, $50 or whatever
you
can afford to "Musgrave for Congress" today.
To make it easier, I set up a secure on-line contribution page that you
can
make a credit card donation at. Just click HERE to make your secure
donation if you like.
Or simply print out the special 'PRINT-N-CLIP AND MAIL' form at the
bottom
of this email to "snail-mail" your check today.
Just last week, thanks to your continued on-line support for our
efforts to
defend marriage, the House Judiciary Committee on the Constitution
finally
held hearings on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
In my testimony before this committee, I made it clear how important
passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment is to protecting traditional
marriage between one man and one woman.
Legal and constitutional experts, like Judge Robert Bork and ACLJ
Director
Jay Sekulow, who also testified, agree the Federal Marriage Amendment
is
the only way to stop liberal unelected judges from redefining marriage.
But if you and I don't turn up the heat for passage of the Federal
Marriage
Amendment it will be just a matter of time until activist judges force
those Massachusetts "marriages" on every city in America.
All the Homosexual Lobby needs to do is defeat me for re-election this
year
so no one in Congress will stand up for traditional marriage.
You and I know the only way to take this issue out of the courts of
liberal
judges -- who are overwhelmingly for the homosexual agenda -- is by
passing
the Federal Marriage Amendment.
That's why right now I'm fighting in Washington, D.C. to propel the
Federal
Marriage Amendment forward in Congress.
And it's why the radical pro-homosexual activists desperately want to
defeat me this year.
I simply can't afford to spend all the time it takes to raise the money
for
my re-election campaign.
That's why I must ask that you come to my aid once again.
Your continued support and prayers are very important to me. They allow
me
to continue on in this fight.
You see, here in Washington many do not even care about protecting
marriage
between one man and one woman.
Political insiders are all too happy to give the homosexual lobby
whatever
they want to ensure victory on election day. And others simply want to
talk
"pro-family," but don't want to do anything to actually protect our
values.
But I didn't run for Congress to give in to the liberal special
interests
or to allow marriage to be ripped apart by radical homosexual
activists.
That's not my style.
So I've taken quite a beating for introducing the Federal Marriage
Amendment, but you and I know how crucial it is to protect marriage
between
a man and a woman.
But unless you and I act today, "traditional marriage" and "family
values"
will mean whatever radical homosexuals want it to mean.
The homosexual lobby declares they will target a host of other laws
they
view as "discriminating." Any law in America that defines marriage -
from
tax laws to child custody laws - could easily be overturned by liberal
judges.
Marriage between a man and a woman is on the verge of being destroyed
by a
radical movement who want to scrap hundreds of years of precedent and
commonsense in favor of their own radical views.
Ruth Harlow, the legal director for the homosexual advocacy group
Lambda
Legal, says so-called "discrimination in marriage laws" is their top
target.
With the U.S. Supreme Court "knocking out... the justification of
morality"
she said, it "makes it much harder to defend... discriminatory schemes"
like traditional marriage.
Justice Antonin Scalia said the U.S. Supreme Court now "leaves on
pretty
shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples."
Liberal, pro-homosexual judges in Massachusetts have clearly proved
that point.
That's why passing the Federal Marriage Amendment is so very important.
Together, we can show the radical homosexual leaders that conservative
Americans who care about morality and social stability aren't going to
just
sit back and do nothing.
If you and I don't act today, then people will believe the homosexual
lobby
has more power than they really do.
That's why the homosexual special interests are targeting me for
defeat.
And if the Homosexual Lobby can come into my district and spend their
warchest to defeat me, then every other Congressman who stands up to
defend
traditional marriage will be targeted.
As you may know, the last U.S. Congressman who introduced a federal
marriage amendment was defeated.
My opponent in the Republican primary has openly stated the main reason
he
is running against me is because I have championed the Federal Marriage
Amendment.
And my General election opponent wants to stop me from advancing our
conservative family values in Congress too.
But with your continued support, you and I can show that politics is
not
dominated by the liberal special interests, but by hard-working
Americans
like you who stand up for morality.
I am counting on you today and ask you to send a generous contribution
of
$1000, $500, $250, $100, $50 -- or whatever you can afford -- so I can
continue the fight for passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment in
Washington, D.C..
To make it easier, I set up a secure on-line contribution page that you
can
make a credit card donation at. Just click HERE to make your secure
donation if you like.
Or simply print out the special 'PRINT-N-CLIP AND MAIL' form at the
bottom
of this email to "snail-mail" your check today.
Will you please help? And please keep me and my family in your prayers.
Gratefully,
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave
Republican from Colorado
P.S. Massachusetts has begun issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals.
Pro-homosexual lawyers are now preparing cases to force homosexual
"marriage" on every state in the nation.
I need to be back in Washington, D.C. fighting to pass the Federal
Marriage
Amendment -- instead of trying to raise all the necessary money I'll
need
to fight off the Homosexual Lobby and the pro-homosexual candidates
trying
to defeat me.
I'm counting on you again today and ask you to right away please send
your
most generous contribution of $1000, $500, $250, $100, $50 or whatever
you
can afford to "Musgrave for Congress" today.
Nevermind that Musgrave is supposed to represent the interests of her state, she wants to be sent back to join the fight pass the FMA.
She is wanting money from her right wing supporters. Fine. However, if we moderates and principled conservatives really care about how daft and looney the party has become with people like Musgrave leading the way, then now is the time to stand up and be counted. Bob Faust is challenging Musgrave and does not have the blessings of the state GOP which means no financial support. He is working while he is challenging Musgrave. I think it's important for those of us that want to take back the party and make it a center-right party again to support Faust. Consider donating to his campaign. If your tired of being embarassed by the likes of Musgrave, then take a stand.
UPDATE: I just made my contribution.
NEW UPDATE (6-12-04): This letter was found by fellow blogger Eva Young who found it on The Daily Kos.
One thing I have heard over and over again this week is how Reagan transformed the Republican Party to what it is today. While watching the funeral cortage wind its way down Constitution Avenue, one commentator said that the party in 1980 was divided between moderates and conservatives and today the party is in the image of Reagan: conservative, religious and from the Southwest.
You have also seen every conservative Republican politician stake themselves as the heirs of Reagan.
I would beg to differ.
First off, I don't think the GOP we see today is one that Reagan would recognize. Reagan was a conservative in the vein of Barry Goldwater, a Southwestern conservatism that really just wanted to get the goverment off people's backs. That conservatism was not so interested in the social issues like gay rights and abortion. They thought people should be allowed to do their own thing. The Republicans we see today are more the heirs of George Wallace before he repented: social reactionaries who want to use the government to promote their prejudices. There is none of the southwestern do your own thing in this Southern bunch. Instead there is a bunch who have a rigid moral code that fears difference and sees the government as a way to promote their agenda. Reagan represented a sunny conservatism that believed in hope; the current bunch is much more dour and plays on people's fears. Reagan was principled in areas like tax cuts, but he also knew how to compromise; the new bunch is ideologically bound and sees compromise as an anathema.
In my view, Reaganism, this sunny, optimistic and flexible conservatism is barely breathing. If there is a rightful heir to Reagan it would not be our current President, but California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who seems to exude the same cheerful conservatism that Reagan had. Arnold is not a doctrinare conservative, but a pragmatist who speaks in a conservative populist rhetoric.
I think people like President Bush, as well as many in Congress are being somewhat misleading in saying that they are heirs to Reagan. He was willing to work with Democrats to get things done and he knew how to persuade people to his side. The current leadership is so sure of its rightness that they think the other side is not only wrong but some how morally deficient.
I do wonder why journalists are not seeing this.
If you want to see more about how the President fails in being an heir to Reagan, check out Kevin Drum.
Sadly like clockwork, the Left has started trashing Ronald Reagan calling him everything but a child of God. Granted he there should be a critical analysis of his legacy, but calling someone evil is just beyond the pale. One example is how many on the Left tend to think that Reagan was a homophobe as witnessed (or not) on the miniseries about the Reagan presidency where he was quoted as saying "they that live in sin shall die in sin" something he never actually said. If you want to know where Reagan really stood on the issues of gays, read today's post by Andrew Sullivan:
His biographer, Lou Cannon, wrote that Reagan was "repelled by the aggressive public crusades against homosexual life styles which became a staple of right wing politics in the late 1970s." In 1978, Reagan put his career on the line opposing the Briggs Initiative in California that would have barred gay teachers from working in the public high school system. In an op-ed at the time,
Reagan wrote:
"Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."
Those were pretty bold words for 1978. The other charge that the gay left has against Reagan is that he allowed thousands of people to die from HIV/AIDS. They way they talk it's as if he personally oversaw the whole shebang. Again to Andrew Sullivan:
I have been upbraided for not mentioning Ronald Reagan's AIDS legacy in describing him as my hero. The basic argument from the gay left is that Reagan was single-handedly responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people by negligence. This, however, borders on loopy. Reagan should indeed be faulted for not doing more to warn people of the dangers of infection early enough (Thatcher was far better). But the truth is that it was pretty obvious very early on that something dangerous was afoot as AIDS first surfaced. Just read Larry Kramer at the time. Many people most at risk were aware - mostly too late, alas - that unprotected sex had become fatal in the late 1970s and still was. You can read Randy Shilts' bracing "And The Band Played On," to see how some of the resistance to those warnings came from within the gay movement itself. In the polarized atmosphere of the beleaguered gay ghettoes of the 1980s, one also wonders what an instruction from Ronald Reagan to wear condoms would have accomplished. As for research, we didn't even know what HIV was until 1983. Nevertheless, the Reagan presidency spent some $5.7 billion on HIV in its two terms - not peanuts. The resources increased by 450 percent in 1983, 134 percent in 1984, 99 percent the next year and 148 percent the year after. Yes, the Congress was critical in this. But by 1986, Reagan had endorsed a large prevention and research effort and declared in his budget message that AIDS "remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services." In September 1985, Reagan said:
"[I]ncluding what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer."
But the sad truth is also that there was never going to be an easy answer to HIV in the Reagan years. Throwing even more money at research in those days would not have helped much. Anthony Fauci's NIH, goaded by heroes like Larry Kramer, was already pushing for focus and resources; FDA red tape was loosened considerably; and the painfully slow scientific process continued. The fact that we got revolutionary drugs in trials by the early 1990s was itself an heroic scientific achievement - arguably the most miraculous progress in a medical emergency since the polio vaccine. Should Reagan have done more? Yes. Were people like Bill Bennett and Gary Bauer responsible for delaying a real prevention response because only gays were dying? You bet. But was Reagan ultimately responsible for so many tragic, early deaths? No. HIV was. Viruses happen. It's a blemish on his record, but not as profound as some, with understandable grief, want to make it out to be.
Could Reagan have done more? Yeah. But it also seems like he did try. I agree with Sullivan that there are no easy answers to how the government handled those first years of the AIDS crisis. I also have to agree with Sullivan that I doubt that many would have listened to Reagan if he asked people to wear a condom.
Reagan is not above criticism, but he should not be put to the type of character assasination that some (not all) on the Left have put him through. If we are going to play that game then we the gay left should also be condeming Bill Clinton for selling gays out with the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
Not all conservatives are bigots. It would be nice if some on the Left actually shut up and listened instead of forming prejudcies.
Bob Faust sent a letter to the editor stating his position on health care. The last time a Republican was serious on health care reform was Richard Nixon in the early 70s. It's great to see a Republican taking on this very important issue.
Are you Part of the 15 Percent?
According to national statistics, fifteen percent of Americans do not have health coverage. Fifteen percent – approximately 700,000 of our friends and neighbors in Colorado alone! Every year the cost of healthcare rises. Today, politicians half-heartedly debate the cost of prescription drugs. If the unemployment rate were fifteen percent, legislators would be working hard on solutions. Healthcare should receive the same attention – our nation’s health, children and future depend upon it.
However, our elected representatives do not have to worry; we pay for their families to get excellent medical care. Their children are not among the tens of thousands of children in Colorado who are not getting such basic services as routine physical examinations and immunizations. While we are feeling the crunch of the rising healthcare costs, they feel no pressure to act. Yes, they throw us some crumbs every now and then, but mostly to boost their reelection prospects.
I believe it is time that we ensure ALL Americans have access to basic healthcare. Not socialized medicine, but a program that provides basic medical and dental care – saving more taxpayer dollars that would have gone to providing emergency care than a preventive program would cost, while still allowing us freedom of choice.
Bob Faust
Republican Candidate for the U.S. House, 4th Congressional District of Colorado
22700 WCR 15
Johnstown, CO
970-396-2555
www.faust4congress.com
For Immediate Release Contact: Bob Faust
(970) 396-2555
bob@faust4congress.com
BOB FAUST ANNOUNCES HE WILL BE ON PRIMARY BALLOT
- Secretary of State has certified Faust’s ballot access petition
JOHNSTOWN, Colorado, June 7– Bob Faust, Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives seat of Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, announced that the Colorado Secretary of State has certified his petition to be on the August 10th Republican Primary ballot, concluding that he met the requirement of collecting at least 1,000 valid signatures.
“This is good news for Republicans and the district as a whole,” said Bob Faust. “In collecting signatures and discussing the issues with voters across the district, I have found that the majority of people are disappointed with their representation in Washington and are seeking change. My candidacy will provide them a clear choice in August. Voters can choose to continue down the path of out of control healthcare costs and fiscal irresponsibility, or Republicans can vote for me and I will work to protect our families by ensuring that everyone has access to healthcare and high-quality education, while ending divisive politics and bringing fiscal responsibility back to Washington.”
Faust is campaigning on the issues of healthcare, education, fiscal and personal responsibility and the politics of uniting Americans behind common goals, not dividing them for personal political gain. He believes that the current political climate in Washington is one where legislators are focused more on gaining political power than faithfully representing their constituents. Failing to fulfill their duties, politicians have led us down a path of an exploding federal deficit, which is saddling our children with an enormous debt, and rising healthcare costs, which has led to tens of thousands of newly uninsured children in Colorado. Faust believes that to keep America strong and ensure it continues to grow in the future, Washington must change.
“Washington is far off course and needs to be brought back to the conservative ideal of a limited federal government,” said Faust. “National issues of defense, security, water rights negotiations between the states, and basic necessities of healthcare and education are the issues for Washington to be engaged in. Pork politics and divisiveness are issues in which no one should engage.”
“We can no longer afford to have a representative who is so concerned about what is going on in Massachusetts that she has forgotten about her own district. We are facing serious problems right now that must be resolved, but we also have tremendous opportunities on the horizon that we should not squander.” Faust concluded, “Let’s start working together for a better future.”
About Bob Faust
Born into a military family in Colorado Springs, Bob Faust, a fourth-generation Republican, lives in Johnstown with his wife and two children.
For more than a decade he has been helping companies overcome their problems, enhance their business processes, improve results and effectively compete in the marketplace as the Vice President of Quality Control Consultants, Inc. Faust holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Utah and a Master of Business Administration from Purdue University.
###