Defend marriage in once sentence or less

Today, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced the “one sentence marriage amendment”. The amendment is geared to advance the debate on the marriage issue more quickly. Several times before the marriage act has been stalled in Congress, but Brownback is hopeful that his new amendment will simplify the definition of marriage.

According to his Senate staff, Brownback “feels very strongly that in order to advance the debate on this issue we needed to have more alternatives on the table, and, as Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, he believes it to be is obligation to see that such a debate could proceed efficiently.”

Here is the actual language of the Senator’s amendment:

“Section 1: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Section 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

This amendment looks to present one more option on this hotly contested issue. While stalwart actions against this definition of marriage are still expected, I am hopeful that Congress will enact legislation that provides a unified definition of marriage as being between a man and woman only.

As I receive more information on this issue, I will continue to post it. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts.

Pirates of the Senate

At first even I was fooled. Republicans in Congress are trying to abolish the time-honored filibuster? Of course, then I had to bone up on my research and get the facts straight. This was just Democratic hoopla and minority bickering. Hill insiders tell me that we will begin seeing Republicans hammer the liberal rhetoric on this issue in the coming weeks.

The truth is that Senate Republicans are only attempting to restore the “advice and consent of Constitutional obligations of the Senate for judicial nominees.” In layman’s speak, Senate leadership is proposing to reconsider cloture* rules on judicial nominees. This isn’t an elimination of the filibuster by any means.

Democrats are once again flip-flopping. Ten years ago the Democrats tried to abolish the filibuster altogether. Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes all wanted to end the filibuster permanently. Now they want to "preserve" it?

In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate. (See Karen Hosler, “Senators Vote 76-19 To Maintain Filibuster,” The [Baltimore] Sun, 1/6/95)

Nor is changing these rules unconstitutional as some would have you believe. Senate debate is governed by rules adopted by the Senate every two years at the convening of each new Senate. The number of votes for cloture has gone up and down throughout the years. Originally two-thirds (67 votes) was required to end a filibuster. Those rules were eventually changed to three-fifths (60 votes).

Ironically, those who allege the unconstitutionality of this issue are forgetting that it is the responsibility of the Senate to confirm presidential nominees under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. To block votes on judicial nominees negates legislative obligations prescribed in our legal framework.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has previously made proposals to adjust the rules so that a simple majority (51 votes) is required to end debate on judicial nominations only. The recent hype on the so-called “nuclear option” is to revisit this proposal to minimize the amount of votes needed to end debate.

This is largely a maneuver to fight fire with fire. Democrats in the Senate have been using the filibuster to block most of President Bush’s judicial nominations. This is a cheap political move lacking the refinements required of such a prestigious body. It is a misuse of the filibuster which was originally intended to block debate only on policy issues, but never on judicial nominations. Republican leadership is simply proposing that the Senate return to it’s Constitutional duties and move on with the business of the government.

Liberals argue that Republicans pulled the same tactics on Clinton nominees. The truth is that President Clinton’s nominees were not filibustered and never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied confirmation through a filibuster. According to David Reinhard of The Oregonian, the confirmation rate for Bush nominations is the lowest of any modern president. Reinhard says that,

“A better figure would compare Bush’s four-year appellate confirmation rate to recent presidents. According to the American Enterprise Institute’s John Lott Jr., Bush’s four-year rate was 69 percent, the lowest of any modern president. Bill Clinton’s rate was 74 percent.” (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, “Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibuster,” The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

There was a record number of Clinton nominees to the federal bench that were confirmed in 1994 under a Democratic majority in the Senate. Fifty-four of these nominees were pushed through in the 3 months prior to the 1994 elections. Conversely, ten of fifty-two circuit court nominees from the Bush White House have been filibustered according to a recent AP story (Jesse J. Holland, “Senate Confirms First Judge Of Bush’s Second Term,” The Associated Press, 4/11/05). Blocking votes on judicial nominees is unprecedented.

This is an issue of principle, not politics. The Senate should be concerned with fulfilling its constitutional obligations. Either it confirms or doesn’t confirm judicial nominees. To thwart that function is to shut down a major tenant of government, and the democratic process itself.

In a press conference yesterday, Senator Frist said, “At the end of the day, I fundamentally believe that advice and consent under the Constitution of the United States of America means that we should be given the opportunity to vote. And that's all that we're asking for. We're going to continue to work in that regard.”

The President’s nominees deserve a fair up or down vote. If these judges are as poor a selection as Senators like Minortity Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) say they are, then let the Senate decline their confirmation by vote. Anything else is poor gamesmanship.

In many respects this issue has been blown out of proportion. Legislative rules in both Houses of Congress are often amended. The purpose of the “nuclear option” is to advance the purpose of the U.S. Senate. For certain Senators to block that process makes me question whether they know why they are there to begin with.


*Cloture is the only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes. Source: Glossary of Senate Terms

Send them to Melmac instead

Headline: “Wisconsin Gov. Dampens Cat Hunting Hopes” Fox News.com, April 13

"I don't think Wisconsin should become known as a state where we shoot cats," said Gov. Doyle, a Democrat who neither hunts nor owns a cat. "What it does is sort of hold us up as a state that everybody is kind of laughing at right now."

The Gov is right, we're all laughing. Hysterically. Wisconsin is still above the fray though. Neighbors South Dakota and Minnesota both allow wild cats to be shot.

Bipartisan means ‘Do it my way’

If you have ever heard a politician tout the virtues of bipartisanship, you should know that it means nothing.

Oh, it’s true that “bipartisanship” comes in some forms. Usually it arrives on a meager bill like designating the Potato Commission, or to authorizing a special theme for a license plate. But that’s not true bipartisanship. Those are nonpartisan issues – how can you be bipartisan on an issue where no party line exists?

What politicians usually mean when lobbing bipartisan idiom is that the other side needs to adopt their views.

A perfect example of this came last week when Senate Republicans released their budget solutions. Senator Joseph Zarelli (R- Ridgefield) revealed that the half billion dollar tax increase wasn’t necessary, but that Democrats weren’t willing to quit spending.

House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler (D-Hoquiam) said Republicans should quite trying to make political hay and adopt a bipartisan spirit. “I wish they would work with us instead of jamming us with all this tax-and-spend criticism,” she said.

Kessler and her colleagues don’t really want to meet in the middle to fix the state’s budget woes. If you listened to any of the floor debate on the budget, you’d see that clearly. Instead our legislators should look to find a solution that does more than band-aids our budget with continued excessive spending. All else is drivel.

End the political charade, give DeLay a break

No doubt, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s travel practices have raised some ethical questions. Were there violations of House Ethics Rules in DeLay’s travels abroad? Did DeLay knowingly and intentionally violate these rules?

But further, the public (namely those who reside in DeLay’s district) should consider the character assailing by DeLay’s foes suspect. Sen. Rick Santorum (R–PA) said yesterday on ABC’s This Week:

"Now you may not like some of the things he's done," said Santorum, who is up for re-election next year in Pennsylvania. "That's for the people of his district to decide, whether they want to approve that kind of behavior or not."

Two years ago Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) was forced into stepping down as Senate Majority Leader by way of the same tactics. When ambiguous racial comments were made by Lott regarding the late Sen. Strom Thurmond’s bid for the presidency, Lott was immersed into a firestorm that ended in his resignation from Senate leadership.

The GOP should not permit such sophomoric tactics on a second go-around. This formula appears to go as such: Take an allegation to which there is little or weak evidence of, blow it out of proportion, get the liberal media to back your efforts, and force a leader to step down.

My addendum to that formula would be: Continue to lose elections.

Cheap shots like that don’t work. While the opposition may succeed in waging a successful smear campaign, such tactics are not a majority-winning game plan.

Instead, the Democrats should follow the advice of their leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, 8th) and focus on issues concerning the business of the government. Pelosi said in an AP article last week that the controversy was distracting DeLay from dealing with more-pressing problems.

However, it would behoove DeLay to hold a press conference and be up front about his travel practices to diffuse the situation.It’s political common-sense to do so. When a high-profile politician hides from potentially damaging allegations, he will only be caught looking by the backspin.

Until then, political foes should back off and concentrate on issues with substance.

More on guber-election ‘oh four: WSJ’s Fund rocks truth

Wall Street Journal’s John Fund writes today of the ongoing election debacle here in the state of King County…er…Washington. Fund’s column appropriately summarizes the events over the last 5 months. Again, KC Election officials are growing increasingly weak in their arguments that this was a legit election.

[Dean] Logan admitted it had been "a messy process."

He wasn't kidding. During the two recounts, Mr. Logan's office discovered 566 "erroneously rejected" absentee ballots, plus another 150 uncounted ones that turned up in a warehouse. Evidence surfaced that dead people had "exercised their right to vote"; documentation was presented that 900 felons in King County alone had illegally voted and that military ballots were sent out too late to be counted. A total of 700 provisional ballots had been fed into voting machines before officials had determined their validity. In the four previous November elections, King County workers had never mishandled more than nine provisional ballots in a single election.

Fund’s column, Florida With Rain, can be found at http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006543

Shark Tales

Props to Stefan Sharkansky for his surge of good press in days of late. Shark appeared on Robert Mak’s Up Front on King 5 as well as receiving a mention in Fund’s column.

If you haven't done so already, check out SoundPolitics.com. It's one of the most informative blogs on Washington State politics.

Plus one

The incompetence of the King County Elections division keeps growing, one ballot at a time. Last week they found 93 previously uncounted ballots. Just yesterday, one more surfaced.

I am going to go ahead and make the obvious prediction: Inductive reasoning* says that there will be more, oh yes, there will be more.

*I was corrected by Banks when I originally said this was deductive rather than inductive reasoning. I have a knack for mixing those details up. My apologies to my philospher friend.

I tip my forty to your memory…

Today John Paul II was laid to rest in a beautiful ceremony. Up until now I have refrained from joining in the chorus of blogging about the Pope’s passing. However, today I feel it is appropriate to blog my respects to the late Pope.

Having Irish heritage (no, really), we have a benediction; the Old Irish Blessing that I think is a fitting farewell to a great man:

May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind always be at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
And rains fall soft upon your fields.
And until we meet again,
May God hold you in the palm of His hand.

This is a good week for the church. We have been able to reflect upon the life work of a saint who now enjoys the sweetest of rewards for his dedication to the will of God. The Pope said it best when he breathed his last, “Amen.”

You’re right; the ’04 Election hasn’t been boondoggled enough

Council Chairman Larry Phillips, D-Seattle, said it would be ‘premature’ to call for Logan’s resignation.” Seattle Times, April 5, 2005

Porn star mustaches, escaped ballots and bad elections management, oh my!

King County should fire Dean Logan. You’ve heard that one before. But now, Ron Sims should really, really fire him. It is safe to say that King County probably has the poorest election management in the country. I echo Slade Gorton on that.

Just yesterday, the KC Elections division found another 93 ballots. Are you kidding me? Even after election officials found 83 ballots just lying around after the first recount in November, and after they found scores more here and there they are still finding more ballots? I am beginning to wonder if they have counted any at all?

It would behoove Logan and his clan to ensure that all those mistakes were corrected in a timely manner – before the election was finalized and the “winner” took office. To find another 93 ballots when the election was only won by 129 votes is beyond incompetence, it is…it is…words escape me.

Republicans are right to demand a Federal investigation of the election. It is obvious that King County has not earned the trust of its constituents. It is only appropriate that a third party mitigate this bunk.

We are beyond partisanship now. This isn’t a matter between democrats and Republican (and Ruth Bennett). We have surpassed that; it is now an ethical issue – a matter of right and wrong.

Sims has said that he stands behind Dean Logan telling King 5 News that he hired Logan to overhaul the county’s election system. However, there should come a point where the County must concede that Logan has not done enough to ensure that elections have been efficient enough. KC Elections have not improved under his watch. Finding 93 ballots 5 months later is not an improvement. The question is, how many ballots will it take?

The Office: Yeah, we’ve all worked there

Here’s a shameless plug: Hands down the best new show on television isn’t another reality piece of garbage. No The Donald, no skanky biznitches in hot tub scenes, no cast feuds. Though all that has been quite amusing in the last 5 years, it’s now grown trite and old.

Quite possibly the funniest thing since Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Office is the TV’s best new comedy and proves you don’t have to have a bunch of no-talent-ass-clowns to provide your boob-tube entertainment.

Steve Carrel (formerly of the Daily Show) is a work of comedic genius. Check it out Tuesdays at 9:30 on NBC.

What's left? A Time-Out?

“Seattle police restrict Taser use” – headline, Seattle PI, April 4

It’s the taxes, stupid!

Democrats in the Senate, as well as the current governor have proposed significant increases in taxes for the coming biennium. This week, the House is also expected to release its proposed budget where tax increases are expected to mirror the Senate’s proposals.

While Washingtonians await the final verdict on what taxes new taxes they will pay, they should keep in mind that the legislature has already passed roughly a half billion dollars in taxes and fees already this session. When calculating your tax increase, be sure to add this figure to the likely $400+ million to take effect in the new revenue package.

Here’s the breakdown on what has been approved by the House thus far:

HB1031: A B&O tax on gambling businesses; a 0.13% B&O tax increase = $763,000

HB 1314 Marriage and divorce fee: A $10 fee on Marriage Licenses and Divorce Petitions = $1.35 Million

HB 1386 Historical documents fee: A $3 recording fee increase = $10.68 Million

HB1484 Local property tax for schools: 75 cents per $1,000 = $443 Million increase if all counties imposed. (This figure is low because it’s based on 2004 Home Assessments, not 2005)

HB 1631 Property tax: 3.75 cents per $1,000 – proposed tax increase = $50.77 Million if all counties imposed - For Conservation Futures

HB 2085 Waste tire cleanup: A $1 fee per tire = $7.58 Million

HB 2163 Ending Homelessness: A $10 recording fee surcharge = $27.24 Million

HB 2259 Utility Tax: Water-sewer districts 6 percent utility tax – Indeterminate*

Total new taxes so far = $539 Million!

Clearly taxpayers have been misled. Overall, Democratic leadership in Olympia has been disappointing at best. The current governor went against her campaign pledge to not raise taxes in the first biennium (blogged about here) and House and Senate democrats have reversed reforms enacted two years ago (like unemployment insurance, found here), placing further strains on our frail economy. Such policies are the equivalent to beating up a kid in a wheelchair on the playground.

I have long thought that raising taxes to pay for over spending is an uncreative way to increase revenue to the government. Instead we should be looking to relieve the tax burden on our state economy to encourage spending.

One of Washington’s greatest revenue tools is our sales tax. Encouraging people to spend the money they have will bring far more back into the state General Fund that lackluster tax hikes.

If we were to cut property tax, and decrease the amount of fees we impose, Washingtonians would have far more capital. I hope to be married soon. Anyone who has been through the wedding process knows that a wedding is an expensive event. With current fees and surcharges imposed on marriage licenses, newlyweds will now pay $50 to get hitched. Lawmakers also want to tax items not previously taxed, (insurance and warranties). These are all costs associated with marriage as well. If we were to cut those fees, I would have far more money to spend on things like boutonnières, a new pair of cufflinks, champagne for a toast, and on and on and on…

We need to cut taxes, encourage consumerism, stay the course, Thousand Points of Light, stay the course…

*Utility Tax Increase (HB 2259) has not been determined and is not reflected in the $539 million tax increase figure. Actual increase can be seen on your utility bill.

Cease Fire! End the Spanish-American War

Today I was surprised to learn that I am still financing a war we fought over 100 years ago.

In 1898 Congress enacted an excise tax on telephone service to help finance the Spanish-American War. Now, five generations later, Americans are still paying for that war. Today our phone bill includes a 3% Federal telecommunications tax – the same tax imposed to pay for our war with the Spaniards.

Peter J. Ferrara of Americans for Tax Reform writes:

The telephone excise tax imposes a total burden on the public of $5-$6 billion per year. It is one part of the oppressive overall tax burden, which costs the average family more than food, clothing, and shelter combined. Taxes overall take 40% of national income, which is far too high. There is no justification for the telephone tax and it should be repealed, as part of a broader, overall tax reduction program.

The late President Ronald Reagan couldn’t have been more right when he said, “There is no such thing as a temporary government program.”

Governator meets Gipper

"No one has ever raised taxes and solved the problem, nor will we solve the problem. We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem."
Gov. Arnold Schwazenegger

If I didn’t know any better I’d swear the Governator plagiarized Ronald Reagan on that one. I’d like to see someone provide me evidence that disproves this. Even the current governor of Washington has admitted that her new taxes don’t solve our problem, they just band-aid it.

“I don’t like it,” she [Gregoire] said. “It’s not sustainable. It’s what’s wrong with the budget in the state of Washington.” Christine Gregoire, Seattle Times, 3/21/05

There is a $2.2 billion deficit predicted for the coming biennium. The budget shortfall is only created by the assumption that we must spend at the same rate we always have. The state’s proposed spending is far higher than projected revenue.

If we would limit our spending for this biennium, we would have enough tax revenue to increase spending by $1.6 billion and fix our budget woes in the process.

The key to fixing the states budget is not the death tax, and it’s not in sin taxes. The legislature needs to curb spending to fit within our budget. This means that state employees and teachers may have to wait a year for a much deserved pay raise. It means we may have to wait until the next cycle to purchase new vehicles for the state motor pool, or hold off on enacting one more health care mandate that could drive up insurance premiums to the state by as much as 10%.

The Dems don’t really want to fix our budget problems in this state. If they did, we would quite spending.

Twelfth Grade Economics Absentia

Here’s an idea: To create a budget, decide on everything you are going to spend, and then decide how you are going to pay for all you have spent. Sound a little backwards?

Senate Democrats have done just that. Only days after releasing their proposed budget, the Senate rushed to vote yesterday on its spending programs. All told, the new budget has $26 billion in spending.

Next week Senators are expected to vote on the funding mechanism for their budget. None too surprisingly, tax hikes are expected to reach $482 million – that’s $200 million more than the current governor’s proposal. Not even Sir Edmund Hillary could climb that high.

I must admit my malaise at this, and not for fiscally conservative reasons. Last week I tried to purchase a new car. The vehicle I wanted was listed at $18,925. However, my bank would only finance me for $18,825. With the steep 9.1% Pierce County sales tax, the car would have been just shy of $21,000 when all was said and done. I had to determine how much I could spend before I spent it, and it turns out that wasn’t enough. My envy rests with the government here as they are not confined to such rational principles. Otherwise I’d be rolling in my new whip right now instead of writing this blog.

Outlaw Sin

The new trend making its mark on the state budget is sin taxes. In recent years, boosting the”big three” (property, sales, and B&O taxes) has become an increasingly unpopular idea. Democrats have since strayed from the “tax and spend” moniker since the days Reagan used to blast them for it and since “new Democrats” like Bill Clinton have become more fiscally moderate.

In Washington State, sin taxes replace their hardcore predecessors. This year both the current governor and Senate Democrats are relying heavily on cigarette excise taxes for new revenue.

According to the Yakima Valley Herald sin taxes are increasing sharply and are predominate factors in the new biennial budgets.

Gregoire's proposed budget calls for generating $73.2 million over the next two years by boosting the state cigarette tax by 20 cents a pack over the current $1.425. The increase would jump an additional 60 cents in the summer of 2007.

Senate Democrats unveiled their budget earlier this week and front-loaded their hikes. They would raise $168.2 million from cigarette tax increases — 60 cents per pack over the next two years and an additional 20-cent-per-pack increase thereafter — also bringing total increase to 80 cents.

In her press conference announcing her budget two weeks ago, the current governor said that if she could tax people out of smoking, then she is doing something good for the health of our state. Meaning, she is taxing smokers for their own good.

That seems to be the justification for taxing tobacco. We’ll force people into being more health conscious because no one will be able to afford to smoke.

If smoking poses such a high health risk, then why do we continue to allow it at all? Wouldn’t it be more prudent – in the name of health, of course – for Washington (or even the Feds for that matter) to outlaw tobacco?

This would seem at least a little fairer to tobacco companies in lieu of the outright discrimination against a single industry.

Just the other day I saw a television ad by Phillip-Morris that offered services to help smokers quit. This is in every logical way a bad business practice. Could you imagine Nike running ads to encourage people to go barefoot? To be sure, there is a tax incentive for companies like Phillip-Morris to be, well….anti Phillip-Morris. That doesn’t make it right.

In order for the government to truly adhere to its righteous principles, then smoking should be illegal. I don’t mean smoking in public should be illegal. I’m not a New Yorker. It should be illegal to buy, sell, and consume tobacco products. If liberals are truly concerned for the health of our citizens, then we should prevent them from unhealthy practices.

However, their neglect to move towards prohibition is truly telling of their real motives. Health and welfare masquerades the fact that democrats might not be so new in their ideology after all.

Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

If you haven’t acquired your daily vitriolic diatribe, I recommend you read this senate staffer’s email response to a state senator’s announcement of Washington’s annual Prayer Breakfast.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sen. Joyce Mulliken
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:55 AM
Subject: Your Invited!

This coming Friday, April 1 is the annual Governor's Prayer Breakfast. Please come and enjoy the inspirational music, speakers from our Legislature...*

In your Service,
Senator Joyce Mulliken
13th Legislative District

*Irrelevant details have been omitted


-----Original Message-----
From: Keller, Barbara
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: Your Invited!

Actually, I am not invited.

As an atheist - the only belief system that relies on science not mythology to explain the natural world - I continue to be appalled that, more than 200 years after the signing of the Constitution, even our legislators do not understand the concept of separation of Church and State.

While this breakfast and all the "fellowship" meetings may technically meet the requirements of the law, they are totally out of keeping with the spirit of our Constitution.

Throughout my employment here I, and others, have felt oppressed by this inundation of emails and events and its apparent endorsement by the State government of one particular religious belief system. I simply can no longer sit quietly by while those in charge of ensuring others' rights tread on mine.

Barbara A. Keller
Aide to Senator Adam Kline


It is ironic that Ms. Keller has asserted that her rights were violated. Surely she cannot mean her moral rights; to her those do not exist – you’d need God for that. So she must really mean that it is her legal rights that were violated….but wait, the email and the event itself “technically meet the requirements of the law”!

In any event, I recommend Ms. Keller seek the 9th Circuit on this, I hear they do wonders with religious oppression.

Stem Cell Opponents Take Heat From Jewish Community

As blogged previously here, the Washington legislature’s passage of the stem cell bill undoubtedly allows for human cloning. Seemingly innocent now, this is what I might humorously call “gateway science” that could lead to all sorts of unethical and gratuitous experimentation with our newfound legalized science.

Republican arguments in the House floor debate on this bill cast comparisons of Auschwitz and the Third Reich to state sanctioned embryonic human cloning. The legislators who drew these comparisons simply meant that the Nazis aimed to establish the perfect human race and allowing human cloning could lead to experimentation on the same level.

House Republicans are now taking heat from Jewish organizations that are crying anti-Semitism. The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle and the Coalition for a Jewish Voice are seeking an apology from legislators who made such comparisons in the debate.

The Olympian has now reported the Jewish outrage at the comments made during the floor debate.

"To take such unspeakable horrors and inhumanity, and to try to create a moral equivalency to using scientific and medical knowledge to alleviate the suffering and the pain of people, is something which is totally inappropriate and terribly disappointing," said Rabbi Moshe Kletenik, leader of Washington's oldest synagogue, Bikur Cholim-Machzikay Hadath in Seattle. Both of his parents are Holocaust survivors.

Yet House Republican remarks should have hardly been inflammatory to the Jewish community. If anything, the arguments made on the floor were in defense of such atrocities.

Rep. Glenn Anderson, R-Fall City, said in his floor speech that Nazi Germany's policy was "in order to perfect humanity, it was necessary to selectively destroy humanity. And the medical experiments at Auschwitz were carried out for that explicit purpose."

It is irrational to tie anti-Semitism to such arguments. Many opponents of government endorsed cloning do not want science to repeat the awful experiments that occurred under Nazism. Nazis reportedly did horrific things to holocaust victims at Auschwitz and elsewhere. Rep. Jim Clements (R-Selah), a man I deeply admire, also made comparison during the debate.

He talked in his floor speech about how "the Jewish people suffered in the history for science -- the 'Super Race' and all those theorems of a better life in the 1930s all come to pass."

I watched this debate from the sidelines of the House floor. Many of my colleagues were offended that Jews would single themselves out as being the only persecuted group during the Holocaust and therefore any arguments in comparison were incomparable to their suffering. Let’s not forget that there were Catholics, Gypsies, mentally disabled, and many other groups who suffered the same atrocities in the Holocaust.

One thing needs to be made clear in all this. The Republicans who made these comments, as well as the rest of their caucus are not against scientific research that would find cures for diseases like Alzheimer’s et al. However, when such research expends human life – even in its earliest stages – we should be wary. Additionally, we should never allow for the cloning of human embryos no matter what the intent of its use is (i.e. therapeutic or reproductive).

As for the argument itself that compared embryonic stem cell research and human cloning to the Nazi experiments, never will such comparisons win the hearts and minds of those unsure of such technology. Sadly, I’d say that social conservatives (and House Republicans) lost the PR battle in this one.