We can hope Senator Smith will be an advocate for moderation, but it seems he has lost his nerve for standing against partisan excess. Note that he sided with Frist about the "nuclear option." Who really believes he saw it as only a parliamentary procedure issue?

What a disappointing cave-in after his work to thwart the massive Medicaid cuts in the budget bill. He put together a coalition of moderates that forced a reduction from $16B to $10B in cuts over 5 years, although that was less than he had hoped. He got good press for it, but obviously he has been called on the carpet.

Perhaps he is also afraid of being tarred with the same brush as the Majority Whip in the lobbyist-funded travel scandal. I doubt the R's would have any compunction about threatening to thus take out any dissenters in their "bund".

It's a cryin' shame! He could be a leader of moderate Republicans with whom Democrats could work for the betterment of Oregon. God knows there's going to have be a constructive dialog to avert disaster!

I think Gordon is gone on this one. I too think Bolton is wrong for the job. I appreciate the letter you wrote, it's to the point/get's to the core of the matter. Somehow I don't think it will make a difference.

The form letter you'll get in return will no doubt drive you mad, as it is likely to refer to Bolton's experience, service and patriotism. I've quit reading the letter's I get back from Gordon for this reason; last one I got said the republicans stood for sound fiscal management. Yeah right. What can you do in the face of a wall like this. And yes I'm glad he did something about Medicaid and the Artic National Wildlife refuge. I'm not sure what this guy really cares about though.

What exactly do you have against Mr. Bolton? As far as I can tell the only charge you make against him is that he is a "rogue."

Personally I don't care if two-bit dictators, facist regimes, and failed societies like America any more than I care if rapists, drug dealers, and car thieves like me.

Daniel's Political Musings

Went to your webiste. You're a sick man.

Hey Gregor,

This is getting tiring. I hate just responding to you, but please grow up. Seems like are you can do is drive-by insults with nothing to back it up. Went to your webiste. You're a sick man. What makes Daniel sick? Is it only because he is on the right side? The least you can do if you are going to keep calling people names is to give a reason why.

Dearest Andrew-

If this is the right side, I'll be moving further wrong.

Following is his musing related to a study of the diets of Mexicans in this country.

"The goal of this program is to keep illegal aliens from turning to the American evils of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. These people are actually worried about illegal aliens becoming Americanized with their diets and are actively working to prevent that!

This is one more example of how illegal immigrants have no desire to assimilate. Instead they want to turn America into a northern province of Mexico. And our public institutions want to help them."

If you hate responding, Andy, don't. As to this musing, I don't even know where to begin. Go ahead and explain why this is right. I'm afraid I haven;t eaten enough peanut butter and jelly to be an American. I won't be explaining this further.

Dearest Andrew-

Here is a quote from a post related to the study of Mexicans in this country.

"The goal of this program is to keep illegal aliens from turning to the American evils of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. These people are actually worried about illegal aliens becoming Americanized with their diets and are actively working to prevent that!

This is one more example of how illegal immigrants have no desire to assimilate. Instead they want to turn America into a northern province of Mexico. And our public institutions want to help them."

Listen, I don't have to explain myself to you, nor you to me. Hate to respond? Don't! Don't care for my remarks, start your own blog.

As the grandchildren of immigrants, I resent anyone implying people are required to assimilate. I do agree they need to learn our language, and bring their own interpreter if they don't understand any precedings, but outside of that, a sombrero is not intrinsically offensive, nor are wooden shoes, or kafeyahs, or any other ethnic garb.

That great Republican Senator Barry Goldwater used to say "You get more flies with honey than by hitting them over the head". I think Sen. Voinovich's concerns about Bolton are along those same lines.

What supporters of Bolton seem to be saying is "The only way to reform the UN is to send a UN ambassador with sharp elbows, and John Bolton is that man".

Fine, if that is the way they feel, they should say "we won't succeed in changing the UN if we send a diplomat". That is a position reasonable people can argue over.

But nothing is solved by someone saying "since I don't believe in diplomacy, you shouldn't either".

The dictionary definition of diplomacy is: Main Entry: di·plo·ma·cy Pronunciation: d&-'plO-m&-sE Function: noun Date: 1796 1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations 2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : TACT

There are those of us who have solved problems with diplomacy which could not have been solved with confrontation, and who have had their voting decisions (candidate/ballot measure regardless of political persuasion) made by choosing to vote for the civil, friendly side over the rude confrontational side.

[This is for Andy because I know he LOVES partail quotes.]

Our greatest Republican once said, "Carry a big stick!"

Oh! No foot note. It was Theodore Roosevelt.

"Flies and honey, precisely. Your first paragraph makes it far too easy for Smith's staff to toss aside your letter as another meaningless rant"

My opinion/belief - Gordon has his mind made up already, this letter won't mean anything to him one way or another. His staff will put it in the opposed pile or the garbage and send a nice form letter in return. And talk about crappy letters; Gordon has done nothing to win me over with his letters even though they are as sweet as can be. So why not express yourself, backed up by factual details of course (just like the Heritage Foundation would back their statements up)?

Hey Gregor,

I think you've gone off the deep end. Or it must be that time of the month, because you sure are sensitive. If this is the right side, I'll be moving further wrong. You should know that I was describing 'the right side' as being the conservative side, not as in right and wrong. Duh! I could care less what Daniel has to say on his blog and I have no idea what you are going on with such a rant about it. I don't even have a clue if I agree with Daniel at all. I've never read his blog.

I'm sure you didn't know this, but TRoosevelt finished his political career running for president in 1912 for the Progressive Party.

Andy once again is drowning out thoughtful debate with turgid, contentless adverserial rants. First he demands Gregor explain his judgement of Daniel's motivation for his extremist post, then writes that he doesn't care what Daniel writes and makes ad hominem attacks on Gregor. It's a waste of bandwidth.

For the record, I agree with Gregor. Even without reading Daniel's vitriolic blog, you can see the mental gymnastics of a tortured soul in the genesis of his post. His view of the role of the next UN ambassador betrays his attempt to deflect his constituency's responsibility for the promotion of "two-bit dictators, facist regimes, and failed societies" by projecting it onto the UN.

The only reason for installing Bolton would be to wreak havoc upon the organization that dared to recognize Bush as a war criminal for his unjust war on Iraq.

I thought this conversation was supposed to be about Gordon Smith and John Bolton so it is disappointing that most of it has turned into a hissy fit among some people that could spend their time more beneficially at the library - in the children's section.

To get back to the main topic: Gordon Smith is someone who lives in his own world without understanding pain and tragedy until it hits him personally. He goes along with planting of land mines that have wreaked enormous misery for years and continue to do so. He is willing to be lied to by the Bush Administration and support a war that is illegal and has resulted in slaughter and mayhem. He has no problems with our tax-supported psychopaths torturing people as long as an Alberto Gonzales gives it the Bush Administration's seal of approval. As for John Bolton, as anyone who has been in the military or worked in a bureaucracy can understand, he is the quintessential manipulator of power and people and the last person you would want to work for unless you were prepared to be his poodle and doormat. Ambassador to the U.N.? You know we are in an Orwellian world when that happens. Ambassador to Uzbekistan would be more appropriate.

But I'm assuming you didn't take the time to write Smith- if you did, maybe you should post something in addition to your critiques.

So, the Capitol Hill mail system has now been fixed? Last I heard there were members of Congress who were asking for calls, emails, or letters to district offices because how many years after the anthrax problems the mail system to Capitol Hill was still not back to where it was before the anthrax situation.

The Smith office does send letters at least some of the time in response to emails. But they read like form letters (insert Bolton paragraph here..) and are not very responsive.

And yes, I have in the past written letters, called, talked in person to Smith and his staff.

E-mails, letters and phone calls are only added to score sheets in Congressional offices. If you want to get a senator's or congressperson's attention, send a fax with a brief (40-50 words) and very pointed comment using a large font. This one got the attention of at least one person in Smith's office: "Since you voted for Condoleeza Rice to be secretary of state, I assume you are willing to be lied to. If you vote for Alberto Gonzales for Attorney-General, I'll assume you approve of torture." This got an immediate response. The response was, of course, mealy-mouthed claptrap but it was exceptionally quick.

Yes, it helps to to sound moderate and reasonable, but what is one to do when the executive branch is criminal? It is not criminal as in making a few $ billion on the influence of office or criminal as in lying to a grand jury about sex in the oval office, but criminal in its very approach to governing. Just how does one come off as measured and calm? Everything about Bolton is wrong for the job, but the real issue is that the Shrubbery is subverting the critical functions of the UN because the organization interferes with their unbridled power to rape the planet and all its people. How is that said politely?

Check out this Washington Post column about Smith.

<h2>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/29/AR2005052900788_2.html</h2>