The War in Iraq and Sam's "Nuking Syria" Remarks

The current alleged libertarian-leaning, alleged Conservative, alleged Republican incumbent, Sam Johnson, voted to invade Iraq. This conflict has cost over $300 for every man, woman, and child in the US per year, not even counting the number of dead and wounded soldiers. Thanks to the increased terrorism (making us LESS secure!), oil is now 150% higher in price. energy prices in general have gone way up (including utilities), and gasoline is now twice as expensive. This is all rather odd since Sam Johnson used to vote to keep us out of Bill Clinton's wars (e.g., Bosnia and Kosova where we STILL have troops to this day and where Conartista Rice recently had to visit to patch things up and smooth things over). During the 1990s I'd hoped that the Republicans had started to figure it out after the demise of the USSR and go back to their non-interventionist roots, and because of Sam Johnson's anti-war stance, I thought maybe he was a good guy, having known the hell of war in his own life. Instead, he seems to be partisan - Democrat war BAAAAAD, Republican war GOOOOOOD! Oh well, at least he's consistently partisan! I guess it's no wonder that he thinks that the WMD still exist, that they're in Syria, and has volunteered to fly an F15 with a couple of A-bombs to nuke Syria. If you're a marionette for the Bush Administration, it's easier than admitting that Bush was at the very least wrong and very possibly deliberately lied.

But I Thought He Swore to UPHOLD the US Constitution!

He has voted consistently for the so-called PATRIOT Act which does 'sneak-and-peak' on bank accounts without a warrant (4th Amendment? WHAT 4th Amendment? you'd think that when they start looking at people's bank accounts like the IRS, the Republicans would scream, and some like Butch Otter of Idaho have, but not Sam Johnson) as well as looking up your library readings, etc. Even the American Conservative Union wanted the so-called PATRIOT Act to sunset in 2003, but not our Congressman.

But I Heard All Y'all's Republican Liberty Caucus Endorsed Sam so Isn't He a Libertarian?

He voted against decriminalization of marijuana for medical purposes. Doctors have found marijuana useful to relieve the nausea of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, and have used it to help Multiple Sclerosis and AIDS patients as well. He also voted against partial birth abortion for all states of the union except when the mother's life is in danger, even though such abortions are usually performed precisely because the mother's life IS in danger, and even though forcing ALL states into this pattern is going further than the status quo ante Roe v. Wade, since many states allowed third trimester abortion in all cases before Roe v. Wade. Moreover, the partial birth abortion bills 'forgot' about the health of the mother and have been struck down even in Nebraska! For example, a woman in New York found out in the second trimester that her foetus had a brain edema and would be born dead, and that unless she had an abortion, she'd never be able to have kids again. Thanks to current Federal law, no abortionist in New York would do it, and she had to go to Witchita, KS.

But I Heard He's So Fiscally Conservative, Even for a Republican!

With all this money he voted to spend on everything from Iraq to funding throwing cancer patients in jail to going through our library selections and bank accounts, perhaps it makes sense that his reputation as a fiscal ultra-conservative is a bit of a myth. Citizens Against Government Waste ranked Congress in 2004 and found that Sam Johnson wasn't even as fiscally conservative as eight other Texas Congressmen, all of whom got a 'taxpayer hero' ranking, Sam Johnson only having gotten a 'taxpayer friendly' ranking of 77 (that would have been a C plus when I was grading students). Since Sam Johnson seems to be a sock puppet for George Bush more than being a 'real' Republican or a 'real' Conservative, it's not surprising that he got such a lousy rating - after all, Bush makes Lyndon Johnson look like a fiscal conservative. At least with the Reagan Deficits we Conservative Republicans could argue that it went to outspend the USSR which got us Gorbachev and later Yeltsin instead of the usual Brezhnevite leaders. Such a deficit might be a good investment if the payback was 1989 and 1991. What's the possible payback of Bush's deficits?

How Could Sam Johnson, of All People, be Against the McCain Anti-Torture Bill?

During a recent vote on the McCain anti-torture bill (which passed 90 to 9) Sam Johnson opposed the bill when it reached the House. Why McCain's former "roommate" at the same "hotel" in Hanoi would be for torturing other people, given what he endured himself, is beyond me.

But Wouldn't an Anti-Communist Like Sam Johnson Oppose Trade with Red China? Surely Conservatives and Labor Unions Agree on THAT!

Equally beyond me is understanding why someone who was tortured for seven years in a Communist slave labor camp would vote for Most Favored Nation status for Red China. This is the same trade status we give to nations like Britain or Norway or Japan or Canada. Yet Red China has millions of people in slave labor camps for no other reason than that they were Baptists or Pentecostals or Catholics or Falun Gong members or political dissidents. Frankly, some folks are in slave labor camps because some Communist Party apparachik wanted the guy's property, or his wife or mother or daughter. Some of these laborers are used in factories run by foreign companies in sweetheart deals with the local military commander or Party official. Not only is slave labor used for many of products we purchase from Red China, but they violate patent laws as standard operating procedures. Thus, when you buy cheap Red Chinese goods, you're buying the equivalent of a stolen car. I thought Republicans were supposed to be against that. Despite Right-Wing Republican stereotypes to the contrary, even DEMOCRATS had enough belief in property rights to be against that. Is this good for the world economy? It's certainly not good for the slave laborers, or American workers competing against them, or patent holders. Back when the USSR existed, we never had MFN status for them. Instead, we had the Jackson-Vanik Amendment which put the USSR's trade status somewhere between China's current MFN status (wide open) and Cuba's embargo status (little trade or tourism at all - yeah, like THAT'S worked to bring down Castro!). Since Shcharansky said that the two Americans who inspired dissidents in the old USSR the most were Reagan and Scoop Jackson. So why are we giving a free pass to Red China? For a nation like Red China, with a high growth rate and a high savings rate, our trade with them drastically helps their government to build their military. Thus, our MFN status with Red China has helped to give us a stronger enemy in just six short years. Once again, you'd have to ask Sam Johnson why he'd want to help build a Chinese equivalent of the USSR, but with five times as many people.

In 1990, the 3rd was 15% Minority. In 2000 it was almost 37% Minority. How has Sam Responded?

I guess if you're not cool with allowing marijuana even for those who need it for medical reasons, you're not going to be too concerned about letting people be beaten to death for their alleged sexual orientation. Naturally, in 2004, Sam Johnson voted not to expand hate crimes legislation to cover sexual orientation, gender, or disability. That's not surprising when you consider that the Texas Republican Party has endorsed getting rid of hate crimes legislation even for minorities. Moreover, in 2004, Sam voted for the Istook Amendment which failed by about a hundred votes. The Istook Amendment would have banned contractors for Health and Human Services, Labor, etc. from being forced to offer translation services for citizens whose native language is not English. At first the Istook Amendment might seem reasonable. If EVERY form were translated into EVERY possible language, that could get pretty expensive. But that's not how it works out. Actually, most folks can get friends or family to help them translate, so it's only by request. What's even more amazing is that his vote came after a lengthy discussion in Congress where Nancy Pelosi (whose state, California, is the most polyglot in the nation) pointed out that forcing her own state to comply with translations for forms for citizens whose native language is not English cost the state government a mere $648,000 which works out to about two pennies per person, or eight pennies per family of four. Not one person stood to object to Pelosi's figures. She even used a 'real world' example of a Cambodian man in her district who had escaped the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge and was a landscaper in California. He had lost his job and didn't have any relatives who could translate unemployment application forms for him - they'd all gotten killed by Pol Pot. Remember that this fellow has paid his taxes for unemployment and is an American citizen like the rest of us. Please also remember that Puerto Ricans are US citizens as well, and that lots of grandparents who are refugees aren't going to ever learn English well, and in emergency situations might need translation services (e.g., hospital situations). You'd think that after Pelosi gave her figures, Istook might have withdrawn his amendment, or that he'd have checked with other members of Congress before even introducing it, but it was instead left in and voted on so as to allow him and others like him to do xenophobic racist grandstanding. Yes, Sam Johnson voted for this nonsense even when it was obvious that it should fail, and did fail by a wide margin. We have a Congressman who won't spend eight pennies of your family's money to help refugees with translation services but will spend $3000 of your family's money for so-called Leaving No Child Behind, the Prescription Drug Benefit, and Iraq.

What's Sam's Attitude on Poorly Paid Undocumented Workers?

Since he doesn't care too much about the rights of Americans if their English isn't so hot yet (and if it's a Cambodian refugee from the Khmer Rouge, isn't that understandable?), one can imagine what he says about undocumented workers. In a candidates' night vis a vis his previous Republican opponent in 2004, Sam Johnson said "it would be a cold day in hell" before he'd settle for any kind of amnesty, including a guest worker program. Is this practical? There are over 11 million undocumented workers today. Perhaps a few million have violated enough laws that they ought to be literally rounded up and sent back to their respective home nations, but all 11 million? Most of them are doing jobs that most Americans don't want. Clearly we need better control of the borders (and if Sam Johnson has been in there for 16 years and it hasn't happened, Whose fault is THAT?). Yet we also need guest workers who are, after all, doing fairly unpleasant jobs that most Americans don't want to do. Bush favors this, Cornyn favors this, McCain favors this, even Kennedy favors this. So why the ferocity of Sam Johnson's statement concerning people in such relatively modest economic circumstances? And why is it that, at the same time, my opponent voted to let in H1Bs to drive down the wages of formerly high-paying jobs, and waited until 2004 (after 9/11 and some fairly lousy economic conditions under Bush) to claim that the H1B program "may have outworn its welcome" (gee, Sam, ya THINK??)? If you read between the lines, you can figure out what Sam's vote for the Istook Amendment, his remarks about undocumented workers, his statements about nuking Syria, and his attitudes on hate crimes legislation all have in common.

Well, Bob, I Guess I Could Vote for You As The Lesser of Two Evils

Have you had enough? I have, and have decided to run against the incumbent Congressman in the 3rd District. Please donate your time and money, and vote Republican on March 7th to return the Republican Party to sanity. Thank you!