Portman: A Painful Admission or a Pitiful Betrayal of Principle?

One of my two Senators, neither of which is worth a plug nickel, Rob Portman is a McCain-Romney-Lugar Republican. You spell that R-I-N-O!  George Voinovich, Portman’s Predecessor was a RINO, too. One characteristics of RINOs is that they change their minds and ‘convictions’ almost as much as babies’ diapers need changed. Their promises and their convictions are also full of it…

Well, Senator Portman did it this time. He finds out that his son is a homosexual. So that revelation ‘forces’ him to change his mind in Romneylike fashion. Flip flop, flip flop like a fish out of water… In a tweet earlier this evening I used the words “unprincipled” and “selfish” in describing Portman’s position reversal on the same-sex “marriage” issue. Where is his courage? Where is his conviction? Maybe he never had any true convictions. He may be wishy-washy, just like the “conservative” George W. Bush spending like a liberal much of his time in office.

The following is a press release that I thought captured the essence of what the wayward senator did by betraying traditional, sacred, and biblical marriage because of his “love” for his son.  What his son really needed was tough love, to remind him that homosexuality is an immoral, unnatural, unhealthy chosen course of behavior and life style.  Unfortunately Portman is too typical of the permissive parent who chooses to ignore truth and principle.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Traditional Values Coalition president Andrea Lafferty issued the following statement in reaction to Ohio Senator Rob Portman's recent repudiation of his stance against gay marriage in reaction to his son's homosexual preferences:

These past few days have been very painful ones for me.

Earlier this week one of my children came to me and told me something which was shocking.

He is a drunk driver and has been driving drunk regularly since college.

I have taken several days to reflect on this and I have decided to reverse my earlier opposition to drunk driving.

My child is a drunk driver and I love him. It is a part of his identity, who he is.

I have reflected on all of this, consulted Scripture (the story of Jesus changing water into wine when the wedding he was attending in Cana ran dry is particularly relevant) and decided that drunk driving is a generational issue. Younger people take a much different view of drunk driving than older people.

Therefore, today I am reversing my opposition to drunk driving. My child has caused me to revisit a decision which, up until now, had been based simply on morality.

My child is a drunk driver. That has personalized the issue for me and taken me above the whole discussion of the morality of it. It is now personal with me.

In addition, I would like to say that drunk driving will make all of us stronger drivers. Think of how much more interesting driving will be in the future if more people have the freedom to drive drunk. It will sharpen the defensive driving skills of the rest of us.

"This unreleased press statement follows the same twisted, self-serving logic that several public officials have used in explaining their switch from opposing homosexual marriage to favoring it.

"If you remember nothing else from this exchange, remember this: our children are learners and unable to determine morality and then hand it down to their parents and other impressionable adults. This is one factor in why our culture is so morally upside down!

"This whole line of argument suggesting that opposition to homosexual “marriage” is a personal and “generational” matter is equally silly.

"There are absolutes. There is right and there is wrong. There are objective truths. A civilization which has no governing principles or laws is doomed to collapse. That is the soul of conservatism.

"The tough part of being a parent is telling one of those young souls whom we have been charged with raising that he or she is wrong. But because it is tough that doesn’t mean that we are excused from doing it or we can delegate our responsibility to a teacher or “the village” or some other entity.

"Parents hold the primary responsibility for the upbringing of their children. Parents are fully capable of still loving a child who is wrong.

"American parents hold the power to begin the process of reversing this dangerous downward trend. Our children look to us for direction and we owe them more than a collective shrug.

"I wish no harm to either Senator Portman or his son but they are wrong.

"And Senator Portman’s attempt to use his position in the Senate to affect the future path of our culture and the lives of other Americans compounds the wrong.

"Being a good parent is infinitely more difficult than being a Senator or President. And telling someone you love that he or she is wrong is the most difficult part of that difficult job.

"A nation which recognizes this is on the road to a vast spiritual recovery."

(Please Note: The introduction to this article is satire. Drunk driving is immoral. I abhor it. I also believe homosexuality is immoral and sinful.)

Senator Rob Portman
The Face of Cowardice, Compromise, & Lack of Conviction

Seven Republican Senators Help Obama Get More Czars

The following article was in today's Red State Report.  I'll bet you never even heard about this.

Please share as you see fit.

 

Senate Plans to Abdicate its Confirmation Duties 

The Obama Czars will trump the constitution.

Posted by Daniel Horowitz (Profile)

Tuesday, June 21st at 1:45PM EDT 

In recent years, the job of United States Senator has evidently been added to the list of ‘jobs that Americans won’t do.’  Harry Reid’s Senate has categorically shirked its core constitutional responsibility by refusing to pass a budget for over two years.  Concurrently, the Senate has been preoccupied with feckless, unconstitutional legislation that fails to deal with any of the paramount public policy problems facing the nation.

Today, Chuck Schumer, with the help of Mitch McConnell and Lamar Alexander, plans to vitiate one of the Senate’s few remaining constitutional duties; advising and consenting to presidential appointees.  The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act (S.679), which was never reported out of a committee, would eliminate the confirmation requirement for 200 presidential appointees.  This bill would completely abrogate the safeguards against tyranny that were established in the “Appointments Clause” of the constitution.  [The Heritage Foundation has a useful primer on the bill.]

The bill has seven Republican co-sponsors:  Lamar Alexander, Scott Brown, Susan Collins, Mike Johanns, Jon Kyl, Richard Lugar, and Mitch McConnell.

One would think that without the inconvenient burden of dealing with the budget process, the Senate would have plenty of time to execute its ‘advise and consent’ duties.  They are claiming that the confirmation process is too cumbersome and time-consuming, and as such, is precluding other more important legislation.  The reality is just the opposite.  Their abdication of their core responsibilities has left them with nothing other than executive confirmations on their plate.  Senator Marco Rubio succinctly observes the priorities of the Senate in a piece for the Daily Caller today:

Meanwhile, in the five months I have been in the Senate, Democratic leaders have focused on a reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, a patent bill, a bill to increase spending on the Small Business Administration and a plan to increase spending on the Economic Development Administration, a relic of the Great Society that funnels debt-financed cash to states and localities (never mind that the president’s own Fiscal Commission recommended eliminating it entirely).

The Senate has taken just 91 roll call votes, many on non-controversial nominations, and a third of our time has been spent in “quorum calls,” literally doing nothing. No one should be under any illusion about the desire of leaders in the Senate to confront our sagging economy and looming debt crisis.

Now, they have the moxie to complain that the confirmation process is distracting them from more important legislation!

Undoubtedly, there is a need to expedite the presidential appointee process.  However, ceding more power to an administration that is overzealous to impose policy by administrative fiat, is not the way to go.  Congress has slowly abjured its power to the executive branch by writing open-ended legislation, granting federal agencies wide latitude to promulgate destruction over our economy.  Obama has already used radical executive appointees for the purpose of consolidating power in the executive branch.  Why would any Republican sign on to such a dangerous expansion of executive power?  Whom do they think Obama will appoint to these positions if there is no oversight?

Here’s a novel idea for streamlining the confirmation process of presidential appointees: shrink the size of government so there will be no need for most of these jobs.  It’s high time for Congress to halt its self-immolation, and reign in the executive department behemoth.

The Senate is scheduled to hold the first cloture vote on S.679 later this evening or on Wednesday, following the expected failure on passage of the inane Economic Development Revitalization Act.  Call your senators and ask them if they plan to outsource their jobs to Obama.  Tell them to keep the presidential appointment process in the hands of the elected branch of government and vote no on S.679.

You Go Michelle (Malkin, that is)

Matt Lauer interviewed conservative Michelle Malkin on NBC’s Today Show yesterday. The exchange between Lauer and Malkin was telling. The discussion regarded the recent U.S. Senate Judiciary vote that recommend Sonia Sotomayor be sent to the entire sent to be voted on for confirmation as Supreme Court Justice. Hat tip is due to NewsBusters.com for the following excerpt of the interview transcript. I was very impressed with Michelle’s quick wit and concise critique of Lindsey Graham.

LAUER: After the, the last election it was said that the Republicans need to broaden the tent, they need to reach out to minorities. Reach out to Hispanics. Is that, are those six "no" votes gonna hurt Republicans down the road?

MALKIN: No, because they were six principled votes AGAINST RACIAL PREFERENCES and the idea that somehow IDENTITY POLITICS has a place on the court of law.

LAUER: Why do you think Lindsey Graham voted in favor?

MALKIN: I think Lindsey Graham has a history of PANDERING to this idea that somehow the, the party should broaden itself for the sake of PANDERING TO DIVERSITY.

Michelle Malkin demonstrates that she is a ‘nice’ Ann Coulter, every bit as perceptive, brilliant, wise, and sarcastic. The things that Malkin said about Graham holds true for Ohio’s George Voinovich, Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Indiana’s Dick Lugar and Arizona’s John McCain. All six are unprincipled pandering, wishy-washy, politically correct moderate liberal RINOs, who cannot be trusted as true conservatives on very many important issues.