In my many political discussions, I often point out my support for people and issues on both sides of the proverbial aisle. Rarely does anyone challenge me on that, and I often wondered why. Recently, someone who was debating me about another issue being hotly contested in our nation's capitol began on the old tired "what about bill?" "bill did this too!" diatribe that anyone left of Dick Cheney is sick and tired of hearing. Per usual, I reminded my friend that unlike him, I am not here to defend Bill Clinton, or any other politician or political figure like that. I reminded them that I find people with all kinds of political philosophies to be good, well meaning people. And sometimes, more often than they probably realize, I find myself on the right side of the aisle, but just as often find myself agreeing with the left. And sometimes i'm in the middle. And sometimes I think they are all wrong. And like everyone else, sometimes I just don't give a hoot about an issue.
This time, instead of letting the debate end, I spoke up again. i asked him what issues or persons they had embraced over the years from the left. My friend was at a loss. The irony of this situation was that my right wing friend, who also had a chronic medical condition, was puffing on a "medicinally helpful" marijuana joint as he struggled to find an issue that he agreed with from the left.
I chuckled as I pointed out what he was smoking for relief and asked him about legalization, at least as medicine. He replied that while he knew the definitive benefits of his use (appetite (that his brutal therapy diminishes) and pain / stress relief primarily) he felt others would abuse it. I asked him about his chances of getting busted. He replied that he wouldn't get busted and those laws were for "scumbags and crackheads."
He then asked me about my feelings on some right wing folk. I pointed out that while Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay are definitely not on my "top 10 list", There are many GOP congressmen and figures that I have great admiration for. I spouted off some obvious names, like Chuck Hagel, John McCain and Rudy Giulliani. But I din't rest my hat on those guys. McCain isn't even considered a republican in much of the south, and Chuck Hagel rarely gets much attention (although he should get more). Guilliani is "everybody's mayor" from his great handling of 9/11 at the local level and hard to argue with. But that wasn't good enough for me, I wanted to drive my point home that I, unlike many others, don't hide behind party politics when looking at issues or people. Pointing out some of these guys is like right wingers telling me that Joe Lieberman doesn't totally disgust them.
I spoke about Trent Lott. A taboo name in left wing circles. Mostly for his racist (or appearingly racist) remarks over the years and his associations with some serious "good ol boy" networks thu the south. But I see Senator Lott another way. I think on some things, namely foreign policy issues, the guy is brilliant. When he shows up on hardball or gives an in depth interview on policy he usually impresses me. Not because I always agree with him, but because I know he came to his conclusions thru serious thought more often than not. I can respect that. The same way I respect a guy like Joe Biden, whom I don't always agree with either.
Now, I have come to expect that every few years, Trent will put his foot in his mouth. His last big one was at Strom Thurmond's retirement where he appearingly endorsed seperatist policies of the long defunct dixiecrats of the 1950's. But I expect that in the same way I expect Howard Dean's lack of polish make him gaffe something stupid every once in a while. Of course, like Howard , Trent is sometimes "thrown under the bus" like after Katrina when Bush and others made a big deal about his mansion being wiped out. I'm sure that wasn't intended (to make trent look like a crying rich boy) but it was amusing to see politicians try to show their sensitivity by pointing out how aware they are that a senator's house was affected, when the masses who had nothing (let alone other homes to take shelter in) were still getting nothing. But I don't blame Trent for that, and his knowledge and thoughtfullness on the floor in his role as senator make up for his occasional missteps, which are simply human.
I brought up the issue of a line item veto, before it was introduced by Bush earlier this week. There is a "conservative, executive power enhancing " move that I see as a good thing. And I see it that way regardless of who is President. And, even though it wasn't in the conversation I had with my friend, I would point out now, I approve of the approach that the administration took on the proposed bill. They are trying to avoid the constitutionality issues that the approved 1996 Bill Clinton signed law (in conjunction w/ a republican congress) ran into. It was unfortunate, becasue that bill led to a balanced budget and surplus bigger than any in American History. But the constitution states that giving 1 man that power was too much (in a nutshell). What Bush has proposed is a "revote" rather than a outright veto. I like this. It brings those bills and earmarks that usually sit in the pork laden shadows of more noble causes into the bright light. Then, if still approved by Congress, the President would be overruled. But this would eliminate some pork, and give both sides some more flexibility and accountability in the end. I don't see this as a right or left wing thing. I am sure that some President's may use this more against political opponents, but the fact that the president can now put some congressman's 50 million dollar earmark for a museum saluting salt or something else no one really cares about into the light of scrutiny can only be good. And if the congressman can sell their case on it's own merits, vs. tucking it in the back of an "anti'child porn" bill or something few would argue with, is a great step forward for everyone.
One of the senators I have been most impressed with is the old one from Pennsylvania. Arlen Spector. Growing up, I was pretty politically active. I helped out on campaigns (mostly GOP) from before I could vote. I held my 1st office barely out of school (Judge of Elections) and was generally more politically active and aware than most of my peers. In those days, I had a great admiration for John Heinz. he was "our Senator." Arlen Spector, on the other hand, was Philadelphia's Senator. I grew up in western, Pa. (around Pittsburgh) and that's just the way we saw it. Arlen Spector was the guy who screwed up the JFK assasinatoion investigations in our view. He represented Philly, while Heinz represented Pittsburgh. It really wasn't a dem vs. rep. thing.
Over the 90's, after Heinz's tragic death, politics became much more partisan than they ever had been. The rise of the internet and faster, cheaper means of communication lead to the pleothora of sources where anyone, regardless of political philosophy can safely find enough media out there to support their initial or preconceived beliefs. I, like most, got trapped for awhile in defending anyone who was "on my side." politically. Arlen Spector was on the other side. When Bush began his term, Spector was not only "that guy from Philly" but a republican who would blindly vote for whatever the administration wanted. But as the years have gone by, and my living in suburban Delaware (just south of philly) have gotten me to know a little more about the man. When I saw him stand up to the President on the NSA issue, the Dubai issue and several other administration ideas where they expected a rubber stamp from "their congress" it reminded me that this guy might not be that bad.
But where Senator Spector shows what kind of man he truly is, is in his office in Philadephia. My wife serves as the manager of the Federal Building where his office is. My wife has gotten quite used to whenever a new politician or judge or brass from the goverment moves in, they are given an overboard budget to fix up their office just how they would like it. Every single person getting this budget windfall takes full advantage of it, with one exception, Senator Arlen Spector. Countless politicians order new desks (always a fine hardwood) , carpets (plush and comfy) and furniture (nothing but the best) to receive their constituents and guests.
The Senator takes a different approach. Go into his philly office and you will find a couch as old as his service, actually older. It came from his house and has been in his office ever since he has served there. Recently, when some other office furniture needed replacing, the Senator's staff (who are always courteous and nice according to the employees in the building, unlike osme other people and their staffs) asked to look at some of the furniture that was being thrown out by other offices. Thru the rubble they found just what they needed at no cost to any of us taxpayers. That is true "fiscal conservatism" in my view. That action goes farther for me than any speech on the subject in front of their faithful partisan masses. But that is typical of the office. These are people who don't crank the heat "cause they can" but instead think about every one of their actions and it's fiscal effect on the taxpayer and voter. Of course, the money drawn from isn't from Pennsylvanians when a judge or congressperson wants to revamp their office's look. It's federal money. That means they are spending the nation's money for their own comfort and style.
Is Spector the only one doing this? Probably not. But in this philly federal building, he is alone. I no longer see the senator as "that guy from philly." But as a Senator from philly who realizes he represents everyone. And everyone includes not only the people from Pa who voted for him, but everyone in the nation who pays their taxes and entrusts him with spending it wisely.
By the way, my friend, who insisted that medical marijuana laws not be changed despite his own use....was pulled over a few days ago. He was found in posession of 30.4 grams (that's .4 over the "personal use" limit in De) and at the time wasn't high or doing anything besides having a broken taillight (from a vandal). Now he's facing charges that include "intent to deliver / distribute" and a host of other charges. His career is in jeopordy and unfortunately he has no medicine to help him even eat, which he hasn't done in the 2 days since he was bailed out. I wonder if he's reconsidering his position.