Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Is Sen. Dole out of her mind?

Many letters in our local paper, the News & Record, contain wild and unbelievable accusations (along with exciting punctuation!!!). So, I didn't give much initial credence to this letter, which said
Sen. Elizabeth Dole recently stood on the U.S. Senate floor and requested that the AIDS Relief Bill be named after Jesse Helms!
Though I would fault her on many issues, Sen. Dole has always come across as sensible. Moreover, given her former position as the head of the Red Cross and that organization's struggles with the safety of the blood supply, one would think that she would be sensitive to issues associated with AIDS. So, it just seemed inconceivable that she would do something so outrageous and offensive. After all, this is the same Jesse Helms that fought for AIDS funding cuts, arguing that gays' "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct" caused the disease and that "we've got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts."

So much for giving her the benefit of the doubt.

If I had been following the papers and blogs more closely a month ago, I would have seen that she did indeed try and fail to get an AIDS bill named after our esteemed former senator.

We're left with two equally disturbing explanations for Sen. Dole's. Either she's cluelessly insensitive to Helms' hateful legacy, or she's fully aware of that legacy and shamelessly pandering to Helms' former supporters in her tight re-election race with Kay Hagan. Both explanations suggest that it's time for her to retire.

In the meantime, who knows what other bill naming opportunities Sen. Dole might be contemplating for notable North Carolinians. The Eric Rudolph Women's Reproductive Freedom Act? The Coy Privette Defense of Marriage Act? The Dwight Watson Safe Streets and Traffic Management Act?

Sen. Dole has recently announced that she won't be attending the Republican convention. Maybe she's become too much of an embarrassment even for them.

3 comments:

Rev. Don Spitz said...

Eric Rudolph is not a terrorist, but an anti-terrorist fighter. Those who have killed babykilling abortionists have done so to protect the innocent. People use force everyday to protect the innocent and no one has a problem with it, except when it comes to protecting unborn human beings, then they go ballistic. It's very simple, the unborn deserve the same protection as the born. Born people are protected with force quite often. Force that you would be glad if it was to protect your children against a murderer. Force that you yourself might use to protect your own children from being murdered. The unborn deserve the same protection.
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

Dave Ribar said...

Rudolph is the very definition of a terrorist as well as a murderer. In addition to his bombings at women's clinics, Rudolph killed an innocent woman and injured others at Centennial Park in Atlanta. He bombed a lesbian nightclub. At two of his clinic bombings, he set secondary bombs to kill and maim rescuers who assisted those hurt in the first explosion.

I'm not the one who "went ballastic," your hero is.

Alice Hawthorne WAS somebody's child.

Robert Sanderson WAS somebody's child.

The 120 additional people who were maimed by him were also somebodies' children.

They all deserve our protection.

Ged Maheux said...

Hard for me to even fathom that anyone, especially so-called "spiritual people" could think "a life for a life" is a valid, ethical and moral solution.

Devote your life and your work to ending unwanted pregnancies, but don't advocate violence in God's name. That isn't the God I worship, and it isn't Jesus' father either.

So sad.