Just received this press release from Congressman Dreier's office... Photo at left from the 2008 Memorial Day Service at Pioneer Cemetary, photo by Bill Coburn
Congressman David Dreier (R-San Dimas, CA) was unanimously reelected by his colleagues today to continue serving as Chairman of the California Congressional Delegation in the 111th Congress. Dreier said he will continue to advocate for California’s needs in Congress and looks forward to working with his Democratic colleagues as well. He identified the economy as the top issue confronting the incoming Congress.
“A strong economy in California is vital to the economic health of the entire nation, and California’s Republicans will be fighting hard to ensure we get our economy back on track,” Dreier said. “We look forward to working with our Democratic colleagues in a bipartisan way to see that California’s needs are met and best interests are served in the new Congress. Whether it’s immigration, water management, or combating fires and their aftermath, we can and will work together to help the people of California through these tough times.” (End of press release)
Will be interesting to see if, with a Democratic president and a Democratic controlled house, he really does work "with our Democratic colleagues in a bipartisan way," or if he continues to vote along party lines 94.1% of the time as he did in the past (as reported by the Washington Post).
Congressman David Dreier (R-San Dimas, CA) was unanimously reelected by his colleagues today to continue serving as Chairman of the California Congressional Delegation in the 111th Congress. Dreier said he will continue to advocate for California’s needs in Congress and looks forward to working with his Democratic colleagues as well. He identified the economy as the top issue confronting the incoming Congress.
“A strong economy in California is vital to the economic health of the entire nation, and California’s Republicans will be fighting hard to ensure we get our economy back on track,” Dreier said. “We look forward to working with our Democratic colleagues in a bipartisan way to see that California’s needs are met and best interests are served in the new Congress. Whether it’s immigration, water management, or combating fires and their aftermath, we can and will work together to help the people of California through these tough times.” (End of press release)
Will be interesting to see if, with a Democratic president and a Democratic controlled house, he really does work "with our Democratic colleagues in a bipartisan way," or if he continues to vote along party lines 94.1% of the time as he did in the past (as reported by the Washington Post).
Dreier is faced with the very real possibility of receiving the same kind of pariah treatment he dished out when the GOP ran Congress and he was the one holding a position of power. David Dreier is to bipartisanship what the ladies working at the Mustang Ranch are to family values.
ReplyDeleteAnd is it just me, or does the term "California GOP Delegation" bring to mind the bar scenes from the Star Wars movies ..
I agree, but would make one comment. The ladies working at the Mustang Ranch are working in an environment where what they do is actually legal, and many of them are supporting their family. While I don't necessarily agree with their way of supporting their family, it is legal. What you didn't mention are the men that are frequenting the Mustang Ranch behind the backs of their wives. That would seem to be like a bigger breach of family values. Just a point for consideration.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if that is to the point, though. The Mustangettes might be engaged in work that is legal, and it might be because they wish to put food on the table for those they are responsible for at home. But do these considerations alone make this a Family Values friendly kind of situation? I am not certain that the good vs evil dichtomy is in play here. Are you possibly inferring that they are victims of their customers? After all, patronizing their services is legal as well. And doesn't this makes it more of a business transaction than anything else.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is always the possibility that they haven't been on the level with their husbands on what it is they really do for a living. For all their families know they could be in real estate.
I don't think I said it was a family values friendly kind of situation. In fact, my statement that one was a bigger breach than the other pretty much states that they are both breaches of family values. So to answer your question, no, those considerations alone don't make this a family values friendly kind of situation. As to whether or not I was inferring that they are victims, if you meant am I implying that they are victims, the answer is no. If you inferred that, that's on your end, as I didn't imply that at all. Your next statement is interesting, as you seem to be arguing with yourself. Your first comment implies that it's a family values breach, your second comment asks if it isn't just a business transaction after all.
ReplyDeleteYou are right though, the married girls may not be on the level with their hubands. But I don't think that was what you started out to say in your comparison with Dreier.
And speaking of Dreier, we've kind of gone off-topic here. This thread is about Dreier, his election as Delegation Chairman, his assertion that he wants to act in a bi-partisan manner, and his past record of the opposite. When I posted this, I didn't intent to discuss prostitution or family values. Let's take the thread back to its original theme, about which we both seemed to agree.
OK. Just following your lead here, dude.
ReplyDeleteBut you did bring up something interesting. Do you really think that because something is a family values breach, it can't be business? Or that something that is business can't be a family values breach? Or that it being business somehow absolves those involved of any moral responsibilty? Isn't that the very basis of the culture wars? And therefore not the contradiction you've implied here?
And I do believe that this kind of thing is germane to any conversation of our slippery congressman. He and his ilk have trafficked in this kind of moral malarkey for years.
I'm not sure how, from what I said, you drew the conclusions you drew. You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I don't think I said anywhere that because something is a family values breach, it can't be business. Nor did I say that something that is business can't be a values breach. Nor did I say that because something is business it absolves those involved of any moral responsibility. You may have implied a contradiction by asking if that doesn't make it more a business transaction than anything else, but I don't think I did.
ReplyDeleteAs for our so-called slippery congressman - I'm not sure what you mean by that. The Washington Post has stated that he's voted in a partisan manner quite a bit, but neither they nor I accused him of anything other than partisanship. What "slippery" acts are you accusing him of? Surely you aren't suggesting that Congressman Dreier and "his ilk" are involved in prostitution. So what "moral malarkey" are you saying that he has trafficked in?
*Sigh.* Words really do have meaning. Here, let me show you.
ReplyDeleteInitially you said:
"Your next statement is interesting as you seem to be arguing with yourself. Your first comment implies that it's a family values breach, your second comment asks if it isn't just a business transaction."
And after I called you out on the logic disconnect in this statement, you dissembled thusly:
"I don't think I said anywhere that because something is a family values breach, it can't be business. Nor did I say something that is business can't be a family values breach."
Then why did you suggest that I was arguing with myself over this?
You can't have it both ways, guy.
And honestly, is there any way to have a conversation on this board without you reducing it to a conversation about you? Believe me, there are far more interesting topics than that.
Actually, if you check back, I think you'll see I've been trying to steer the topic back to the theme, i.e., Congressman Dreier. In fact, in my last post, I asked direct questions about statements/accusations you made about the man. You've chosen not to discuss Congressman Dreier, instead making your post all about me. And you're right, I'm one of the least interesting people around, so let's (again) try to steer this back to the Congressman. Feel free to respond to the questions in my earlier post. Or don't. Your choice.
ReplyDeleteI have no comment on Dreier, but speaking of bipatisan, did you ever read a book called "Founding Brothers" by Joseph J. Ellis? I thought it was outstanding and an invaluable lesson in the formation of our country. Too often we think of the founding fathers as all having the EXACT same idea about how to form our country, when the reality is quite different.
ReplyDeleteI wish it could be assigned to high school students. (How come you never really read the cool stuff - i.e. the history that you remember most - in high school and college?)
-Justin
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo, I haven't read that, but it sounds very good. AS I've read the biographies of individual founding fathers, I've thought about how the author's perspectives are different depending on who they are writing about, and how each makes their own subject appear to be in the right, of course. To read about them in relation to one another sounds like a very interesting idea. I'll put it on my list. Thanks for the tip.
ReplyDelete