|
"Everybody has written us off, and rightfully so."
-Ron Gardenhire |
Aboot Reader's Rep Home RSS Feed Save money when you DIY with appliance parts POSTS BY TOPIC Baseball Beer Culture Drinking Economics Football Global Warming Hockey (02-05) Hockey (06-07) Hockey (08-09) Media-Local (02-04) Media-Local (05-07) Media-Local (08-09) Media National (02-06) Media National (07-09) NARN (04-05) NARN (06-07) NARN (08-09) Politics-Local (02-03) Politics-Local (04-05) Politics-Local (06-07) Politics-Local (08-09) Politics-National Religion Separated At Birth? Travel CHAD THE ELDER: rightwinger23 at hotmail.com Twitter SAINT PAUL: saintp at excite.com JB DOUBTLESS: abunodisceomnes at hotmail.com ATOMIZER: atomizer77 at yahoo.com SISYPHUS: NIHILIST IN GOLF PANTS: NihilistPaul at yahoo.com Twitter THE CRAZY UKE: karkoc5 at earthlink.net FEATURES Beer Ratings 
Recommended Reading Fraters At The Fair Hugh Hugs A Tree Separated At Birth? Travels With Ralphie ATOMIZER's A-LIST JB's SACK SITES SAINT PAUL'S SHOW STOPPERS ELDER's ELITE THE USUAL SUSPECTS IN AGGREGATE CENTER OF GRAVITY INVISIBLE AIRWAVES |
Friday, September 18, 2009
David Harsanyi says Civility is overrated:
If you've been paying attention lately, you may be under the impression that the United States was spiraling into mass incivility. The evidence keeps mounting: Congressman Joe Wilson yelling. Serena Williams yelling. Kanye West...whatever. All of these uncouth characters have been strung together by critics to establish, indisputably, that there is a societal explosion of boorish and coarse behavior. On the political front, columnist Kathleen Parker calls this "a political era of uninhibited belligerence." House speaker Nancy Pelosi, lamenting an imaginary climate of violence, wishes "we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made." Such a preposterous statement should be actionable. Pelosi, who only recently compared her political opponents to Nazis, isn't exactly a paragon of civil discourse. American politics has always been unsightly. Most of the time, in fact, far worse than today. Have we transformed into so brittle a citizenry that we are unable to handle a raucous debate over the future of the country? If things were quiet, subdued and "civil" in America today, as Pelosi surely wishes, it would only be proof that democracy wasn't working. It's no accident, either, that those in power are generally the ones choking up about the lack of decorum. The truth is, we could use far less bogus civility in Washington. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, September 10, 2009
I've been waiting.
Ever since I read the news early Sunday morning (late Saturday night if you're in Santa Monica) that the beloved founder of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement was no longer working at the White House. The victim of vicious smears, he resigned. A tough environment for jobs, coming home to roost. Nobody, no where, no how, has had the temerity to raise the issue of "Communists in the White House!" So passe is the notion of revolutionary Marxist-Leninist "intellectuals" in the academy, in the arts, in the unions and in the Democrat Party, that they no longer merit attention. The notion of "smearing" someone with the label (of self-professed Communist) has lost it's cachet along with the long forgotten epithet of "McCarthyism". Today's thirty-second attention span generation can't be bothered to waste time texting or tweeting such terms, much less understanding their historical context or factual foundation, emanating from the "witch-hunts" of yore. Let's be honest. The communist "threat" died with the glorious experiment formerly known as the Soviet Union. A moribund ideology, left on the scrap heap of history. (Hat-tip Ronaldus Maximus) And so it is. Except. Except Communist China. Except Communist North Korea. Except Communist South Africa. Except Communist Zimbabwe. Except Communist Venezuela. Except SEIU. Except ACORN. Except Code Pink. Except Move-On.Org. Except Bill Ayers. And except Van Jones. The highly valued, highly regarded, widely respected (?) and highly sought-after (former) Special Assistant to the President of the United States of America. "Sure, sure" say the sceptics and nay-sayers, groaning and rolling their eyes. "Thin gruel that, Crazy Uke. Hardly anyone noticed, and even less people care." Maybe. Maybe professing allegiance to an ideology that consumed EIGHTY-FIVE TO ONE HUNDRED MILLION LIVES during a sixty to seventy year slice of the twentieth century no longer causes concern, or for that matter a raised eyebrow. (The Black Book of Communism)Most of this genocidal madness occurring during peace-time, and was committed against a compliant and cowering citizenry by it's own dictatorial rulers. How are these ancient historical events and long-forgotten tragedies meaningful today? The reality of the situation is this. The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, has for his entire life has been surrounded, influenced, shaped, guided, advised and assisted by those who professed allegiance and swore fealty to that ideology. It is readily apparent that this unsettling phenomenon continues to this day. No one, including your aghast interlocutor, suggests or intimates that devastation, destruction or death camps are imminent, resulting from the above noted current state of affairs. It is passing curious however, that no one (NY Times, CBS, MSNBC, et.al.) finds the situation disturbing on it's face. Two more thoughts, for your individual consideration, before I leave. The appeal and root core of the Communist creed is the notion of the perfectibility of man, by virtue of a perfected ideological understanding. Unfortunately the true-believers who are charged with delivering and administering our promised salvation, inevitably fall prey to human failings and human conceit. Leading to the devaluing of all other human thought, belief, ideology and faith. In fact, to the very devaluing of human life itself. With predictable results. And so it seems, in the face of odles and boodles of crisises hither and yon, the enlightened elite hasten us, the polity, towards urgent solutions, unavoidable actions and decisive decisions based on what THEY KNOW is best for US. And those who question or oppose? Enemies, obstuctionsists, fear-mongers and worse. Why hurry to pass legislation to solve a health-care "crisis" when the cure won't take effect for years? Why hurry to pass legislation to stimulate (?) growth in the face of an economic "crisis", when that "stimulus" won't be spent for years? Why hurry to pass legislation to shackle economic and industrial growth to solve a climate-change "crisis" when that policy won't be implemented for years? (A crisis whose central premise continues to disapate in the face of honest scepticism and true science.) Because Van Jones says so, and he's a member of the elitist cadre that's been appointed (selected not elected!) to lead us to the Promised Land. He and his fellow travlers. Understand also, that this cursed ideology is antithetical to the system of governance we enjoy, and to the philosophical underpinings that engendered it. Personal property. Personal liberty. Personal responsibility. Political, religious and philosophical pluralism. Take Honduras for example. Is it inconceivable and unconscionable that the world's oldest democratic republic would reject the will of the Honduran people as evidenced by a free and fair election. And yet this stands as the current foreign policy of our elected government. Cleary a position based on the enlighted understanding and superior intellect of the perfected ideologues currently steering our ship of state. And not so much the citizens of Honduras. Beware! There are Socialists, Communists, Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries imbeded in our government apparat. And what if you don't personally fear their ideology, or share concern over their beliefs? Be aware. They are striving mightly to impose their enlightenment on you. Labels: Foreign Policy, Politics-National Thursday, August 27, 2009
And the winner for worst historical analogy when eulogizing Ted Kennedy goes to Joan Vennochi of The Boston Globe (via NRO's The Corner):
Like all figures in history--and like those in the Bible, for that matter--Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse. Let's see here. Moses did get angry at times, but he also lead the Israelites out of slavery to the Promised Land. Peter did deny Jesus (the betrayal was by that other guy for the thirty pieces of silver), but he also became the Rock of the Church and was martyred in the name of Christ. Kennedy left a woman to die and never accepted responsibility for his cowardly actions. Yeah, I see how they're comparable. Labels: Politics-National Monday, August 24, 2009
Back in March, I had a post on the dramatic fashion in which Democrats had turned the political tables in Colorado and what lessons that red to blue state reversal might hold for the rest of the country.
Today, Michael Barone has a piece in which he reports that the Democrats' Colorado Gold Rush Is Turning Into a Bust: The Colorado model showed how dedicated leftists could produce victories for Democratic candidates. It doesn't seem to have been as useful a guide for how those Democrats, once elected, could govern in a way that produces sustained public approval. And that's really the most important part. Labels: Politics-National Sunday, August 09, 2009
David Harsanyi presents the new rules for radicals:
In today's world, the "radicals" are the ones who protest the takeover of a huge swath of the economy by government bureaucrats who have proven they can't even run a program that gives free money away to car buyers properly. It is radicals who want to preserve the pillars of a system that over 80 percent of Americans still believe works--though certainly not perfectly. In this new world, radicals are the ones who protest adding trillions to our debt and who have the temerity to ask if legislators have read the bills they sign. You've seen them. Those radicals who are ranting and raving about silly things like the Constitution. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, July 02, 2009
To follow up on Saint Paul's post on Mark Sanford's loose lips and on behalf of married men everywhere I'd like to take this opportunity to call on Governor Sanford to kindly shut the hell up. It was bad enough when he destroyed the sanctity of two of our favorite innocent activities forever.
"So what are you going to do this weekend when I'm out of town with the kids, honey?" "Nothing much. Thought I might take a long solo hike on the Appalachian Trail." And... "So what are you going to do this weekend when I'm out of town with the kids, honey?" "Nothing much. Thought I might fly down to Argentina, drive along the coast, and do some deep thinking." Now he's forever soiled yet another of our traditional weekend getaways. How do you think this is going to go over from now on? "So what are you going to do this weekend when I'm out of town with the kids, honey?" "Nothing much. Thought I might get together with some friends and blow off steam." Thanks for nothing Governor. When it comes to Sanfords, Mark should heed the advice of Fred and "Shut up, dummy!" If the whole sordid Sanford scandal has any positive side at all it may be the new sexual euphemisms that come out of it. "I'd like to hike through her Appalachian Trail." And... "Looking forward to your date, dude?" "Oh yeah. Definitely goin' to be some crying in Argentina tonight." "Blowing off steam" however sounds a bit too literal to qualify. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, July 01, 2009
For some reason, Gov. Mark Sanford sat down with the Associated Press over two days to give even more details on his romantic conquests. This part stood out: He acknowledged that he had casual encounters with other women while he was married but before he met Chapur, on trips outside the country to "blow off steam" with male friends. Pundits nationwide are perplexed as to why he insists on unnecessarily confessing these details to the press, to the further detriment of his career and reputation. I think his motivation can best be found in this classic Borscht Belt quality joke:
Labels: Politics-National
In yesterday's WSJ Roger Altman--former deputy secretary of the Treasury in the first Clinton administration--wrote that it's not a matter of if President Obama will raise taxes but when. And he thinks that in order to get a grip on the growing budget deficits, it will be soon:
Only five months after Inauguration Day, the focus of Washington's economic and domestic policy is already shifting. This reflects the emergence of much larger budget deficits than anyone expected. Indeed, federal deficits may average a stunning $1 trillion annually over the next 10 years. This worsened outlook is stirring unease on Main Street and beginning to reorder priorities for President Barack Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership. By 2010, reducing the deficit will become their primary focus. Why has the deficit outlook changed? Two main reasons: The burst of spending in recent years and the growing likelihood of a weak economic recovery. The latter would mean considerably lower federal revenues, the compiling of more interest on our growing debt, and thus higher deficits. Yes, the President's Council of Economic Advisors is still forecasting a traditional cyclical recovery -- i.e., real growth of 3.2% next year and 4% in 2011. But the latest data suggests that we're on a much slower path. Probably along the lines of the most recent Goldman Sachs and International Monetary Fund forecasts, whose growth rates average about 2% for 2010-2011. A speedy recovery is highly unlikely given the financial condition of American households, whose spending represents 70% of GDP. Household net worth has fallen more than 20% since its mid-2007 peak. This drop began just when household debt reached 130% of income, a modern record. This lethal combination has forced households to lower their spending to reduce their debt. So far, however, they have just begun to pay it down. This implies subdued spending and weak national growth for some time. Altman goes on to suggest that some form of VAT will be considered and acknowledges that getting it passed will be an immense challenge for President Obama especially in light of his oft-repeated campaign promise to not increase taxes on those earning less than $250K a year. The first President Bush's infamous "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge ended up being a millstone around his political neck that helped sink his chances for reelection to a second term. Could a breaking of President Obama's promise not to raise taxes on "middle-class" Americans have the same impact? Labels: Obama, Politics-National Thursday, June 25, 2009
Although I didn't get a chance to watch Mark Sanford's entire pathetic press conference yesterday, I was struck by the fact that during those parts of it I did see Sanford spent a lot of time talking about his heart:
And that is, I suspect, a continual process all through life of getting one's heart right in life. And so I would never stand before you as one who just says, Yo, I'm completely right with regard to my heart on all things. But what I would say is I'm committed to trying to get my heart right because the one thing that Cubby and all the others have told me is that the odyssey that we're all on in life is with regard to heart--not what I want or what you want, but in other words, indeed, this larger notion of truly trying to put other people first. And I suspect if I'd really put this other person first, I wouldn't have jeopardized her life as I have. I certainly wouldn't have done it to my wife. I wouldn't have done it to my boys. I wouldn't have done it to the Tom Davises of the world. This was selfishness on my part. And for that, I'm most apologetic. What the hell? This is sort of silly romantic drivel that one might to hear from a self-help author on "Oprah" or one of the self-absorbed man-boys on MTV's "The Real World." But not from a forty-nine year old governor of a state who previously had aspirations to become the leader of the free world. Instead of worrying about "getting one's heart right" Sanford should be focused on getting his head right. It's really sad that a man in his position would fall into the trap of believing the crap about "your heart's always right" and "go with your heart" as if we're helpless to resist emotional impulses. Yes, you have a heart, but you also have a head and it's never a good thing to completely allow one or the other to guide your life. The other thing that bothered me about Sanford's commitment to "get my heart right" is that this isn't all about his heart. Sanford is a Christian (Episcopal) and I know that he talked about his faith during the press conference. However, I'm surprised that a bigger part of his contrition wasn't focused on the sins he committed against God. It's great that you're going to work on getting your heart right Gov, but how about getting right with God? When you blindly follow your heart (or other parts of the anatomy) you easily can stray from God's path. Labels: Politics-National Saturday, June 20, 2009
In an otherwise ordinary New York Times story on President Obama's message to fathers, we discover this nugget:
After the session Friday, Mr. Obama's guests headed to the South Lawn for barbecue cooked by the celebrity chef Bobby Flay and mentoring sessions between youths and local fathers, celebrity fathers and every other type of father. In one mentoring group under a tree, the White House budget director, Peter R. Orszag, sat wearing sunglasses and looking poised to offer mentoring but was seemingly unsure of exactly what to say to the 11 young men assembled before him. No worry. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. soon appeared. "Orszag!" he yelled, then sat next to him and talked at length with the young men. Is there any other way VP Biden communicates? You don't see a lot of stories with the line "VP Biden was short and to the point in his remarks today." One can only imagine what it was like to be on the receiving end of Mr. Biden's mentoring. At least there was probably some good shade under the tree. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Karl Rove and James Carville are apparently on a mini debate tour around the country, speaking at Madison Square Garden last night and the Chicago Theater tonight. Don't see a broadcast outlet for these. Charlie Rose is the moderator, but his PBS program isn't scheduled to show it. Hopefully the entirety of these will see the light of day at some point. The insights of the political masterminds behind the last 16 years of Presidential administrations will be must see viewing.
Or at least it should be. So far, I can only find the 4 minute segment provided by CNN from the New York debate, shown below. Unfortunately, it indicates we'll be getting something less than the full intellectual potential. Rove is his normal self. Intelligent, civilized, engaging with ideas, bringing unique insights to the conversation. However, Carville is as you remember him from nearly every media appearance he makes. Loud, BS-laden, emotional, hyperbolic, interrupting, distracting, obfuscating. And, unfortunately, winning over the audience. Reminds me of the 1992 election. It also reminds me of the the Michael Medved-Ed Schultz debate the Patriot and Air America hosted last year. You come prepared to enjoy your supremely qualified champion engage in the forum of ideas and debate. Then soon after it starts you realize the over matched opponent is dedicated to dragging it down into a confused cesspool of shouting, name-calling, insults, cliched one-liners, misdirection, and misinformation. All to the tittering and applause of the half-soused Daily Kos chat room rabble that lap up the inane "observations". (h/t Newman) Example: If the entire debate is played by these Carville rules of order, one thing is certain. Like the Medved-Schultz debate, there will no winners, only losers. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Stu Kreisman is an Emmy award winning writer-producer. It says so right in the byline of his blog at the Huffington Post. Impressive credits too: SCTV, Saturday Night Live, Night Court, Cheers, Newhart. He's also written for Homeboys in Outer Space.
His work at the HuffPo reveals the man's dynamic range as well. He puts aside the comedy entirely and adopts the very convincing persona of an indignant, uncompromising, seething, retribution seeking zealot in this post about the unforgivable sins of David Feherty. Excerpts: David Feherty insulted every person who puts on a uniform to fight for the United States. He cast them all as hate mongers willing to assassinate members of the government that Feherty and his pals don't care for. And for that he must be punished.Well, he's certainly entitled to his opinion. And I see it is not an entirely subjective one. For Stu Kreisman doesn't just go around making judgments on other people's actions based on abstract concepts of proper behavior. No, Stu Kreisman bases his judgments on the examples of civilized behavior, morality and rhetorical restraint of others. In particular, this paragon of virtue: [Feherty] has defended himself by saying that he supports the troops, made a trip to the Mideast and visits them in hospitals. Well good for him but guess what? Thousands of other people do the same thing without any publicity. I highly doubt any of them engage in a conversation that would cause a soldier to threaten a member of congress. Al Franken has been doing USO shows for years with minimal publicity, but Franken is probably not the type of patriot Feherty or his friends at the PGA cotton to. Visiting the troops does not give you a free pass to smear them.I'm sensing Kreisman may not be a daily Fraters Libertas reader. To get him up-to-date, from yesterday's post, the words of Al Franken while on national TV self-promoting his work with the USO in Iraq: I actually had an officer who - I obviously won't say who he was - who said to me, listen, George W. Bush is my commander in chief. I have to respect him. But if I got Rumsfeld in my sights, I would not hesitate to squeeze off a couple rounds.Questions for Mr. Kreisman. Stu, bubie, if you had known about his comments in 2005, would you have called for the firing of Al Franken from his Air America radio show? Now that you know about them, how about Al Franken's assuming a position in the US Senate? Should he withdraw from the election contest? Should he concede the seat to Norm Coleman? By the Kreisman standard, Franken has insulted every person who puts on a uniform to fight for the United States, cast them as hate mongers who would assassinate members of the government Franken and his pals don't care for. Failure to terminate him will tar every Minnesotan. Tar every member of the US Senate (and I didn't think that was possible any more). Visiting the troops does not give Franken a pass to smear them! This is an opportunity for a bipartisan profile in courage. The stridently liberal Kreisman has set an objective standard for abhorrent behavior and now he gets a chance to demonstrate that it is not mere political gamesmanship. Be a profile in courage, start the Dump Franken movement at Huff Po now! Failure to do so can be interpreted as his Feherty post being in the tradition of most of his work, comedy. Not quite as funny as Homeboys in Outer Space. Then again, his blog doesn't have a laugh track to tell us where the jokes are. Labels: Politics-Local (08-09), Politics-National Tuesday, May 12, 2009
CBS sportscaster David Feherty has visited the troops in Iraq a couple of times. This experience and what he heard from the troops apparently informed his recent controversial comments in D Magazine. Comments which have led to national media outrage, pressure groups calling for his firing, his employers denouncing him, and ultimately an apology and retraction of his comments as inappropriate and unacceptable.
The full context of his universally reviled comments: My own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death.Even shock-academic Camile Paglia was taken aback. Her comments in Salon Magazine indicate she thinks this is a new level of public indecency: I was utterly horrified to hear Dallas-based talk show host Mark Davis, subbing for Rush Limbaugh, laughingly and approvingly read a passage from a Dallas magazine article by CBS sportscaster David Feherty claiming that "any U.S. soldier," given a gun with two bullets and stuck in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, would use both bullets on Pelosi and strangle the other two.To be sure, she's right about the impropriety of these kinds of gutter level, unfunny jokes being carelessly thrown around in the mass media. But she's dead wrong in assessing this as a new low for national broadcasting. There's nothing new about celebrities in the entertainment business going to Iraq and coming back trying to play soldiers' fragging fantasies for laughs. From January of 2005, on MSNBC, Chris Matthews interviewing none other than the presumptive next Senator from the Great state of Minnesota who had these remarkably similar comments to Faherty: I actually had an officer who - I obviously won't say who he was - who said to me, listen, George W. Bush is my commander in chief. I have to respect him. But if I got Rumsfeld in my sights, I would not hesitate to squeeze off a couple rounds.(Originally linked to in this Fraters post in 2005.) Not clear is whether it was Franken and/or Matthews who was laughing it up. Only the MSNBC transcriptionist knows for sure. Needless to say, there was no controversy over Franken's comments on national TV. He tells his stories about the assassination of top government officials, gets his laughs, gets the unqualified support of liberals and the Democrat party, and merrily goes on his way to (probably) getting elected to the US Senate. What a country! If only the media deemed the comments of a liberal US Senate candidate as important as a conservative CBS golf analyst, we might have been spared this whole recount drama. Even in Minnesota, I have to believe that's worth at least 322 votes for Norm Coleman. Labels: Politics-Local (08-09), Politics-National Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The news yesterday that Arlen Specter had officially flown the GOP coop is the latest example of the dangerous game that Republicans play when they try to appease mushy moderates for perceived political gain. In the long run, such calculated coddled more often than not comes back to blow up in the party's face as it has with Specter.
Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and there's not necessarily a lot to be gained by saying "We told you so," but with the case of Specter the defector I think it is helpful to recall that Republicans had a chance to avoid this fate had they acted differently back in 2004. Here's something that I posted in November 2004 chiding those who told us we had to support Specter at the time: I for one have had enough of the "stability" in the Senate offered by the likes of Specter, Chafee, and Snowe. When Specter was challenged in the Republican primary by conservative Pat Toomey, many commentators on the right (including yours truly) backed Toomey. Unfortunately, President Bush, Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania's other senator), and Hugh supported Specter and helped him fend off Toomey. Hugh Hewitt is an intelligent, generous man of unquestionable integrity who has done much to help the conservative cause (to say nothing of the blogosphere) through his talk radio show, his blog, and his books. But he was wrong about Specter in the Pennsylvania primary and he's wrong about him now. Again, this isn't about me being right and Hugh being wrong (although that does bring me some measure of pleasure). It's about Republicans getting away from the short-sighted thinking about immediate political gain (or loss) and thinking about the long-term principles, integrity, and strength of the party. That might mean losing some battles today. However, it will make us a stronger party tomorrow, less vulnerable to the shifting allegiances of wobblers like Specter. In this particular case, even the practical political realities of the time suggest that Republicans would have been better off choosing Toomey over Specter in 2004. While there's no guarantee that he would have won the general election in 2004, I gotta think his chances would have been better than in 2010. Labels: Politics-National, Ralphie Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Everyone knows that today is Tax Day. And unless you've been living under a rock (or getting your news solely from traditional media sources) you have probably heard about the many "Tea Parties" taking place today across the fruited plain. While I understand the motives behind those participating and hope they get an impressive turnout, I find myself ambivalent about the whole Tea Party movement (if it can yet be described that way).
Perhaps it's the natural conservative inclination to view protests in general with a skeptical eye, especially regarding their efficacy. In regard to the Tea Parties in particular, I'm still struggling to grasp what they're really about and what they really hope to achieve. I understand that people are mad as hell and they're not gonna take it anymore. However, it's not clear to me exactly what they're mad about and what they're not gonna take anymore. Is it bailouts? Spending? Tax increases? Expansion of government control? All of the above? None of the above? Some of the above? The answer may be that this just the beginning and that as various groups and individuals continue to coalesce together, a more coherent and defined message about issues and aims will emerge. But right now I wonder how all this is going to play to the majority of Americans standing on the sidelines. Will they dismiss the Tea Party protesters as nothing more than a bunch of freaks in tricorne hats or will they consider that maybe there's a message there that they need to consider? Given the way the media is sure to cover the events, I expect far more of the former reaction. Another problem with the Tea Parties is the name itself. Yes, I understand that they're trying to recapture the revolutionary spirit of the famous 1773 Boston Tea Party. But you gotta admit "Tea Party" is not a name that naturally conveys action or inspires interest. Dude, what are you doing tonight? Going down to the capitol to attend a Tea Party. Okay, well have fun with that. And the original Tea Party was a direct act against British attempts to tax tea that the colonists felt violated their rights. Today, no one is proposing to increase taxes on tea (at least as far as I know) and even if they did, the reaction would likely be far more muted. While many Americans still drink tea at least occasionally (including yours truly), the beverage does not play nearly as prominent role in American life as it did during the colonial era. But there are present attempts to tax other drinks. Drinks that Americans will likely get far more excited about showing up at a rally in their name. From an editorial in today's WSJ called This Tax Is for You: Today is the dreaded April 15, but at least in Oregon it's even going to cost you more to drown in your tax sorrows. In their sober unwisdom, the state's pols plan to raise taxes by 1,900% on . . . beer. The tax would catapult to $52.21 from $2.60 a barrel. The money is intended to reduce Oregon's $3 billion budget deficit and, ostensibly, to pay for drug treatment. If it passes, Oregon will overnight become the most taxing state for suds, one-third higher than the next highest beer tax state, Alaska. The state may do this even though Oregon is the second largest microbrewery producer in the U.S. The beer industry and its 96 breweries contribute 5,000 jobs and $2.25 billion to state GDP. Kurt Widmer of Widmer Brewing Co. says the tax would 'devastate our company and small breweries throughout the state.' Adds Joe Henchman, director of state projects at the Tax Foundation, 'This microbrewery industry has gravitated to Oregon in part due to low beer taxes.' Get your grubby taxing paws off my Widmer Original Drifter Pale Ale! See, now that's how you get people mad as hell. For Oregon to enact punitive taxes on its homegrown beer industry makes as much sense as Idaho slapping an excise tax on potatoes or for New York to tax stock trading. Even without the tax increase, taxes are the single most expensive ingredient in a glass of beer, according to the Oregon Brewers Guild. But Democrats who run the legislature are desperate for the revenues to help pay for Oregon's 27.9% increase in the general fund budget last year. If they have their way, every time a worker steps up to the bar and orders a cold one, his tab will rise by an extra $1.25 to $1.50 a pint. Half of these taxes will be paid by Oregonians with an income below $45,000 a year. Voters might want to remember this the next time Democrats in Salem profess to be the party of Joe Six Pack. How many Joe Six Packs are really going to show up for anything as fey sounding as a "Tea Party" anyway? But if you called it a "Beer Party" you'd have to keep people away with sticks. Sure, there might be a little confusion about what they really were getting into, but that confusion is just an opportunity for education. And, unlike the original Tea Party, there isn't a chance in hell that Americans are going to destroy something as precious as beer as a form of protest. But instead of throwing our beer into the harbor, what if we drank it instead? (chug, chug, chug) Just try taxing this now, Governor! So go on and enjoy yourself at a local Tea Party today. But think about how much better it would be if we called it a Beer Party. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, March 19, 2009
There was a time, perhaps not so long ago, when the employees of the City Pages would have defined a "wild" time as nothing less than a booze-fueled late brunch at a hip Uptown bistro, followed by a crypto-anarchist protest rally in front of a government building downtown, followed by post-protest bong session with some squatters in a Dinkytown tenement, followed by an in-store book signing with a dark, nihilistic, cult fave comic book author, followed by a meal of Oaxacan tacos at an acceptably grungy and ethnic Lake Street eatery, followed by drinking conspicuously downscale beer and listening to ironically popular music from the 70's on the juke box at the CC Club , followed by an Entry show by an up and coming angry, reggae-rap-ska-Mbaqanga fusion band from Japan, followed by a midnight showing of a film featuring an autopsy being performed to the music of Sleater-Keany at the Uptown, followed by all night, E-fueled, glow stick twirling rave at an abandoned Nordeast warehouse.
How times have changed. From today's City Pages: Vice President Biden will be arriving in St. Cloud this morning for a town hall meeting about the economic stimulus and the middle class. Biden along with the Middle Class Task Force will arrive at the at St. Cloud Regional Airport at 10:15 a.m. for a 11:30 a.m. event at the New Flyer of America in St. Cloud.Two theories: Either the years of fast living have finally caught up to the City Pages staff and its permanently altered their perception of reality. Or, the presence of Joe Biden is more powerful than any drug. OK, third theory. The Barack Obama halo effect on liberals is even more powerful than we believed. For some realism associated with the Joe Biden visit, check out the Nihilist in Golf Pants. Labels: Media-Local (08-09), Politics-National Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Sometimes no matter how many times you repeat something, it seems like the message never gets through. This happens to parents with young children on a regular basis, but also occurs in the political sphere. Even though you think the message should be glaringly obvious to everyone by now, you really can't repeat it enough.
So even though I've done my level best to beat down the tireless trope that "big business is conservative," it's clearly one of those situations where there's no such thing as over communication. Back in high school French class we would strap on enormous headphones to listen to audio tapes of Gallic phrases preceded by the instruction "ecoutez et repetez." So please indulge me and ecoutez et repetez the following: Big business has no interest in advancing policies based on free market principles. Big business' only interest in politics is supporting the party that can better advance their interests at the time. Got it? Good. The latest evidence of this truth comes in an article by Kevin D. Williamson in the March 9th edition of National Review called Losing Gordon Gekko (sub req): In 2006 and 2008, Wall Street poured money on Democrats. Big Wall Street firms that made major political contributions--including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Lehman--gave the majority of their contributions to Democrats. The hedge funds followed suit, as they are inclined to do--they depend on the big Wall Street institutions to clear their trades. And it wasn't just Wall Street: Democrats led in six of the ten big-business sectors tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics: law, health care, defense contractors, communications/electronics, finance/insurance/real estate, and the catch-all category that includes chemical firms, retailers, manufacturers, food processors, and other industrial operators. Republicans held on to agriculture--which is, not coincidentally, the industry in which they are the least interested in practicing capitalism: It's not the philosophical commitment to free markets that opens up corporate checkbooks, but the promise of favorable exceptions to those principles. So why is the bulls-and-bears set going donkey? Partly it's self-interest: Wall Street loves a tax break, but Big Money has over the years found a lot to love about Big Government. Those carbon-offset exchanges may be clearinghouses for products that are, in essence, imaginary, but they are going to make a real bundle for the bankers who set them up--and, since they'll inevitably have the support of government, there will be relatively little risk involved. And Democrats' anti-war talk hasn't spooked the defense contractors. For all the conspiracy-mongering about Halliburton Republicans, now that Democrats control defense appropriations it's no surprise to find the likes of Rep. Ike Skelton, the Democrat who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, enjoying the support of military providers such as Armor Holdings Inc. What is surprising is that Democrats now lead Republicans overall in financial support from defense firms. Remember, big business isn't about politics or principles. It's about business. Red? Blue? Whichever brings more green. Labels: Business, Politics-National Wednesday, March 04, 2009
A couple of items that caught my eye from today's Remarks by President Obama on Contracting:
* We will stop outsourcing services that should be performed by the government and open up the contracting process to small businesses. Outsourcing services has been a tool that companies have long-employed to contain costs. Usually when they look at what can or should be outsourced, they try to define what their core compentencies are. It's not always possible, but desirable to outsource as much of your non-core work as possible, while keeping your core compentencies in-house. Trying to line up government and businesses (or families around the kitchen table) often leads to inapt comparisons. However, in this situation I think it would be valid to ask Mr. Obama how he plans to define those services that "should" be performed by the government. In his view, what are the core compentencies of the federal government? * Now, none of this will be easy. We'll have to end old ways of doing business. We'll have to take on entrenched special interests. Ah yes, Mr. Obama will mount his trusty steed and once again sally forth to battle those "entrenched special interests." In this case, special interests being defense contractors who donate money to campaigns and lobby government to try to win business. Which is of course completely different from labor unions who donate money to campaigns and lobby to have more services performed by the government. Said services performed by government employees who more often than not just happen to be dues paying members of these same unions. The difference is completely clear, isn't it? Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Lately when I've been listening to conservative talk radio, I've noticed what seems to be a growing sense of panic among many on the right. You hear it on the national shows and it was especially evident on last week's NARN First Team broadcast where caller after caller voiced their despair with the present political circumstances and offered little in the way of hope for the future.
The consensus was that something needs to be done now to avert catastrophe. What was really eye opening was hearing more than a few callers say that it was past the time for mere politics and more drastic action was required. When pressed on what that action should entail, few details were forthcoming, but the frustration nearing desperation in the voice of these callers was clear. Now it's true that there have always been a very small minority on the right who called for extreme action: stock up on guns & ammo and move to the country, stop paying your taxes, overthrow the government, etc. However, only six weeks in to the glorious Age of Obama, it seems like this radical sentiment is attracting more support. Even more disturbing is the defeatist attitude and doom and gloom outlook that has griped the psyches of a far broader group of conservatives. There's a sense that each day the country is slinking closer and closer to some sort of government-driven statist society and that each day that passes only makes this decline more and more irreversible. Allow me to play the starry-eyed optimist for a moment and provide some advice and perspective. If you can step back from the day to day for a moment and expand your timeframe, you might see that things aren't as bad or as hopeless as they may now appear. First, some advice. As conservatives we like to consider ourselves to be more realistic about the circumstances of the world and more mature in our outlook (funny that liberals think the same about themselves). So let's not act like petulant teenagers and pout because we didn't get our way. We lost a couple of elections. But it's not the end of the world as we know. Don't repeat the hysteria of the left during the Bush years. No one "stole" your country. This is still America. Still the best country in the world and still the last best hope for mankind. Next, get some perspective. Believe it or not, things have been worse. In 1974, the wake of Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon, the Democrats picked up four seats in the Senate (after the special election in New Hampshire) and held a 61-38 advantage. In the House, Democrats picked up 49 seats to give them a commanding 291-144 advantage. No one wanted to admit they were a Republican in those days. In 1974, Democrats enjoyed a 22 point lead over the GOP in party identification. In 1975, it was a 25 point spread. In 1977, the first year of Jimmy Carter's administration, it increased to 27 points. And yet from the depths of '74 it was only six years (yes, painful long years) to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. A lot can happen in six years. Remember what things were like in 2002? The GOP picked up two Senate seats to gain a 51-49 edge. They won eight more seats in the House to increase their majority. President Bush was enjoying approval ratings of 70%, the party identification gap was the narrowest it had ever been (+3% for the Dems), and people were seriously asking if the Democratic party would splinter into bickering factions in the near future. Yes, while it seems like a world away today, that was only SIX years ago. So yes, things don't look so rosy at the moment. But it's helpful to remember that this is just the early stages of the Obama administration. There's still plenty of time for more overreach, failure of his policies once enacted, and voter backlash at the ballot box. While there is no guarantee of it, time very well may be on our side. And don't overreact to Bobby Jindal's less than stellar outing last week. Remember that he's only thirty-seven, a full ten years younger than President Obama. He still has a lot of time to find his footing and comfort on the national stage. No reason to rush him at this point or panic when he missteps. He may be the "next Ronald Reagan" or he may not. But we have some time to find out. In the meantime, we should try to avoid falling into some of the same pitfalls that have plagued us of late. I was dismayed to learn that Mitt Romney was the 2012 candidate of choice in a straw poll at CPAC. The surest way to extend the Republican wilderness stay would be to nominate Romney in 2012. He is not the voice to lead a reborn and renewed conservative movement and putting him in the driver's seat is just going to lead to more spinning of wheels. Labels: Politics-National Monday, March 02, 2009
Last week there was much fuss made about Northern Trust having the temerity to sponsor a golf tournament after having received TARP funds from the federal government. On Saturday, John Paul Newport--the Wall Street Journal's golf guy--attempted to restore rationality to the proceedings by explaining that Northern Trust was simply doing what businesses do best (sub req):
Building up business by developing closer relationships with clients is, of course, the main reason many companies sponsor golf tournaments. Northern Trust's agenda last week also included seminars for clients, such as one on the credit crunch. In undertaking such commitments, sponsors tend to be rigorous in their analysis of the substantial costs versus the benefits, just as they are for all marketing and advertising layouts. As business propositions, underwriting tournaments can make sense on many levels, especially for companies like Northern Trust, which cater to high-net-worth individuals and for whom personal relationships are central. But never mind all that, because last year Northern Trust accepted $1.6 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program funds, despite record profits of $795 million and a solid balance sheet. The bank, in a letter to shareholders this week, said it didn't seek the funds but accepted them to accommodate "the government's goal of gaining the participation of all major banks in the United States." Whatever the reason, taking the money changed everything. It turned all of the bank's business practices, especially those that smack of cultural excess, into red meat for politicians and others looking to direct public outrage about the state of the economy. Within hours of the TMZ report, Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts wrote a letter to Northern Trust, co-signed by 17 others, demanding that it return to the federal government all the money it "frittered away on these lavish events" at the golf tournament. The New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a sarcastic column the next day headlined "I Ponied Up for Sheryl Crow?" Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly hopped on the bandwagon Thursday, commending Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts (an unlikely bedfellow) for proposing legislation that "would prevent any recipient of TARP funds from hosting, sponsoring, or paying for conferences, holiday parties and entertainment events." This is another example of why I dislike O'Reilly. When the news of the Northern Trust "scandal" first broke last week and politicians like Barney Frank were scrambling for microphones to begin the ritual denunciations of yet another greedy company, Rush Limbaugh went after them hard, explaining what their real motives were and revealing their hypocrisy. Not necessarily an easy argument to make. So what does O'Reilly do? He lazily throws in with the hoary rhetoric of the populist demagogues and embraces their mob mentality. All in the interests of looking out for "the folks" as he assures us. That sort of easily manufactured and stoked faux outrage is part of his stock and trade and I'm frankly quite tired of it. The Northern Trust incident is yet another warning to companies that they should absolutely avoid taking a dime from the government if at all possible. While the cash may seem like a God send at the time, in reality it's a corrupt bargain, a deal with the devil. And we all know that the devil will get his due. Once you enter into such a "partnership" with the government, you leave all of your business practices open to question and query. You get guys like Barney Frank poking and prodding around in areas that you would normally keep off limits to his ilk. Everything you do is subject to public exposure and criticism whether it be your sponsorship of golf tournaments, the off-site conferences you host, and even the money you spend promoting your company and selling your product through commercials. A scene from "Goodfellas" comes to mind: INT. MARTY KRUGMAN'S QUEENS BOUEVARD WIG AND BEAUTY SALON -DAY ANGLE ON MARTY'S TELEVISION COMMERCIAL WE SEE MARTY swimming the length of a pool, surrounded by adoring MODELS in bathing suits. MARTY'S TV (V.O.): They'll stay put even in a typhoon. And I should know. I'm the president of the company. WE SEE MARTY and HENRY standing near television set commercial is repeated over and over. MARTY is taking bets on the phone and complaining to HENRY. WE SEE an agitated JIMMY BURKE in BG poking at wigs and looking toward HENRY and MARTY MARTY: (complaining sotto voice to Henry while taking bets on the phone) Jimmy's busting my chops. (into phone) Okay, give 'em eight to five on Cleveland. (hangs up phone and to Henry, while nervously eyeing in the other room) He wants three points over the vig. From me? I don't believe this s***? HENRY: (pleading) Marty. Please. You know Jimmy. You borrowed his money. Pay 'em. MARTY: (so outraged his voice gets louder) I didn't agree to three points over the vig.- What am I nuts? I didn't need it that much. HENRY: (getting exasperated) What are you gonna do? Fight with him? He wants his money. MARTY: F*** 'em. I never paid points. I always did the right thing. Did I ever bust his balls? Did I? Did I? I could have dropped a dime a million times, and I wouldn't have had to pay dick. HENRY: (getting annoyed) Marty, you're talking crazy. Drop a dime? Call the cops? Don't even let anybody hear such bulls***. Hey, why don't you just pay the man his money and shut the f*** up. WE SEE JIMMY in BG start toward HENRY and MARTY when he hears HENRY raise his voice.WE SEE JIMMY come up behind MARTY and wrap the long telephone extension cord around MARTY's neck. WE SEE MARTY's eyes begin to pop. WE SEE HENRY try to get his hands between the wire and MARTY's neck while trying to get JIMMY to stop. JIMMY: (total fury) You got money for your bulls*** television, don't you? I gotta watch you swimming back and forth on TV all night long, don't I? You got money for that, but you don't have my money? HENRY: Jimmy. He'll be okay. He's good for it. Relax. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tim from Colorado e-mails to complain about the way the wealth is being redistributed:
I am just writing to congratulate you and your fellow Minnesotans for finishing fifteenth among all states and DC in terms of stimulus spending per capita, coming in at $1,789.62 per Minnesotan. That is a very good showing. Yes! We're #15! In your face California! We Coloradans are very disappointed at our showing, especially given the amount of nose-up-Obama's-butt-time that our Gov. Ritter has spent. We practically hand the keys to the whole friggin' state during the DNC, and then Ritter volunteers our SuperMax prison to the Feds to house Gitmo detainees, and then we lock down the city so Obama can sign the porkulus bill in all the pomp and circumstance it so richly deserved, and the thanks we get for that is a whopping $1,451 per person? Wyoming kicked our butts!! What was I to expect with two freshman senators, I guess? Of course, our state only has one sitting senator and we still came in fifteenth. Not to rub it in or anything. At least we're not as bad off as Utah ($1,372). Not the first or last time you'll hear that sentiment voiced. When do we get our checks? More importantly Tim is when do you get your bill. Labels: Politics-National Friday, February 20, 2009
In the on-going discussions about the Obama mortgage rescue package (rescue package, comin' to the rescue!), I keep hearing that opposing it would pose political risk for Republicans because, "Everybody personally knows somebody who's struggling to avoid foreclosure and save their home." Really? I don't.
Maybe I just run with a more responsible crowd, but as far as I know I can't think of a friend, relative, co-worker, or neighbor who faces the imminent loss of their home. Is this unusual? From what I've been hearing on a purely anecdotal basis, I don't think so. Granted, you could probably find polling data that shows that most Americans favor lending a helping hand to those homeowners who are in over there heads, but what I'm hearing and seeing more and more is a rising backlash against the whole bailout business, whether it be for banks, auto makers, or underwater homeowners. The overriding impression seems to be that those who acted responsibly are now being asked to bail out those who did not and a lot of ordinary Americans are ready to say, "No mas." Again, this is purely based on anecdotal observations and it could very well be true that if Republicans oppose the latest and greatest mortgage fixin' plan, they will pay a political price. However, sometimes it's better to be right than popular. And this is one of those times. If previous patterns hold true, a year from now many of those homeowners who supposedly were given a lifeline by the government will again be about to go under for the third time and lose their homes. At that point, Republicans can justly ask what exactly was accomplished by the $75 billion dollar mortgage bailout. It's worth taking some heat now to be able to take advantage of that opportunity in the future. Labels: Politics-National
David Harsanyi says it's time to stop complaining, be patriotic, and pay up:
Given that most of you will be paying your neighbors' mortgages soon, it only seems prudent that we start thinking in bolder terms. And by "thinking in bolder terms," I mean "thinking about me." Why, for instance, should I be on the hook to pay those grating high-interest credit cards I signed up for? Or those detestable car payments? For you folks who are less than ecstatic about straightening out my fiscal affairs, I have two things to say: 1) Don't be selfish. 2) Forget everything you ever have heard about the American Revolution. Taxes, extreme government spending and wealth redistribution are patriotic. You're going to see so much patriotism that your kids will be pigtailed uber-nationalists by the time they hit kindergarten. This week, Barack Obama heroically signed away $787,000,000,000 for so-called stimulus. He reportedly praised a Republican supporter for her patriotism in supporting the bill ? which, by logical extension, means that those who voted "no" are unpatriotic toads. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, February 18, 2009
More and more I'm coming to believe that abdicating power to the Democrats in the '06 and '08 elections was the best thing that Republicans could do to improve their party's long term fortunes. Giving the Dems absolute power now looks like a brilliant bit of political strategery. The most surprising aspect is how quickly it's borne fruit.
Not even a full month into the Age of Obama and not a week goes by without a new report of a member of the administration (or two) failing to live up to Joe Biden's definition of patriotism. One wonders if he is questioning their patriotism? Must make for some interesting cabinet meetings (assuming loose talking Joe is even invited). And of course the always changing saga of the Illinois Senate seat that was put up for sale by the Democratic governor before finally being filled by a Democratic politician who never had any contact with the governor about the seat or did anything to try to secure. Well, upon further review maybe he did: Let's see if we have it right: Burris had zero contact with any of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's cronies about his interest in the Senate seat being vacated by President Barack Obama--unless you count that conversation with former chief of staff Lon Monk, and, on further reflection, the ones with insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma and, oh yeah, the governor's brother and fundraising chief, Robert Blagojevich. But Burris didn't raise a single dollar for the now ex-governor as a result of those contacts because that could be construed as a quid pro quo and besides, everyone he asked refused to donate. Now, we have today's Wall Street Journal with a front page story on the latest wealthy financier accused of defrauding investors (sub req): The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Texas financier R. Allen Stanford with an $8 billion fraud, alleging in a civil complaint that he lured investors with promises of high returns on certificates of deposit but poured their money into a "black box" of hard-to-trade assets. The second huge alleged fraud to emerge in three months -- following Ponzi-scheme charges against Bernard L. Madoff -- reverberated around the world, given Mr. Stanford's status as an international cricket sponsor, Washington political donor and private banker to Latin America's wealthy. Federal agents searched the Houston buildings that are home to his Stanford Financial Group, and customers lined up to withdraw money from a bank he owns in Antigua, the Caribbean island nation where Mr. Stanford's offshore banking operations are based. These are the kind of stories that stoke populist fires. Another fat cat living high off the land by cheating the system. And just who were these politicians that Mr. Stanford was donating to? An accompanying article in the WSJ described how Stanford Sought Influence in Corridors of Capitol (sub req): Among the recipients of Mr. Stanford's largesse is House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.), who has long advocated lenient tax policies toward Virgin Islands residents and in 2007 introduced a bill to enforce a statute of limitations on IRS scrutiny of islanders' old tax returns. That year, Mr. Rangel traveled to Antigua for a development conference partly sponsored by Mr. Stanford, who also donated $28,300 to Mr. Rangel in 2008. "I met Stanford a couple of times," Mr. Rangel said. "He has never discussed any legislative issue with me nor has anyone to my knowledge representing him ever discussed any legislation." Maybe they talked about tax preparation: U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, who still faces an ethics inquiry into a host of tax problems, plans to put his face on a new program Tuesday meant to assist taxpayers in filing their 2008 returns. Yes Alanis, the fact that the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means committee--who faces an ethics inquiry for avoiding paying THOUSANDS of dollars in taxes--is the face of a campaign to assist taxpayers in preparing their returns is indeed ironic. And quite deliciously so. Back to following Stanford's political money trail: Mr. Stanford wrote two $250,000 checks to the Democratic Party in 2002. He also was a big supporter of New York Democrat Gregory Meeks, a member of a House Financial Services subcommittee dealing with offshore banks that received an estimated $17,600 from a Stanford fund-raiser held in the Virgin Islands in July. Mr. Meeks's campaign later reimbursed the organizers of the event $3,591 for the cost of food and beverages, according to the campaign's financial disclosures. From 2003 to 2006, Mr. Meeks and his wife traveled to the Caribbean every January on trips paid for by the Inter-American Economic Council, a group backed by Mr. Stanford, federal records show. The first trip was for "fact finding" and subsequent trips were for a "business roundtable," often including hotel and meal charges of over $2,000. On at least one occasion, the trip was taken on Mr. Stanford's jet. In fact, Meeks released a detailed report after every trip on the facts that he found: * The beaches are nice. * The water is warm. * The rum is good. * Private jets are the only way to fly. * Being in the Caribbean in January beats the hell out of New York City. Another familiar name in Stanford's political payoff ledger: Influential Democratic lobbyist and fund-raiser Ben Barnes of Texas is among Mr. Stanford's roster of advocates, lobbying records show, with $1.125 million in fees over the past two years. In his lobby filings for Stanford Financial Group, Mr. Barnes states that he works on "economic development in the Caribbean, specifically the Virgin Islands." The tax law on which Mr. Sanford is lobbying, which allows Virgin Islands residents to pay an effective rate of 3.5%, is construed by the territories as an economic-development measure. And here I thought paying higher taxes was patriotic. None dare call it treason! At least not when the Dems do it. In the interests of fairness and in a nod to bipartisanship, it should be noted that there is one Republican pol named in the story: Other top recipients of the Stanford employees' political giving are Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), who received $43,000, and Rep. Pete Sessions (R., Texas), who received $39,000. Mr. Nelson said Tuesday that he would donate the money to charity. On the state level, the largest recipient of Mr. Stanford's help was former California Gov. Gray Davis. One Republican and two more Democrats. There was an alliterative phrase that was floated a couple of years ago that describes this type of pervasive political rot. Dome of Dishonesty? Veil of Venality? Umbrella of Unethicalness (is that even a word?)? It's right on the tip of my tongue. Don't worry it'll come to me. As it has to the Democrats. UPDATE: Since the left loved playing the "guilt by association" game every time anyone whom Bush ever crossed paths with ever got in trouble, enjoy this photo from the WSJ story showing Sir Stanford and then candidate Obama in happier times:  Labels: Politics-National Monday, February 09, 2009
With President Barack Obama in office the Democrats control the White House.
They enjoy a significant majority in the House. And in the Senate they are oh so close to that fillibuster-proof majority. When it comes to national political power, the Republicans currently have nothing. But with support for the Democratic-owned bloated "stimulus" plan slipping and the economic impact of said plan being seriously questioned, the GOP may want to adopt the words of a natural-born world-shaker: "Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand." Labels: Politics-National Thursday, February 05, 2009
I have seen the future.
Sen. Tom Coburn for President in 2012. UPDATE: More evidence of his impeccable judgment, Coburn's comments from yesterday's Hugh Hewitt show: Any day without Al Franken in the Senate is a good day. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Everyone kept telling us how much better things were going to be with President Obama in the White House. As a somewhat cynical conservative commentator, I was skeptical and disinclined to hope that the change would make all that much of a difference. Now, I have to admit that they were right. If Obama's first two weeks in office are any indication, this promises to be the dawning of truly a golden age for conservatives.
During the campaign last fall, my blogging compadre Saint Paul tried to look at the bright side of the coming Obama victory and opined that conservatives would be better off with Obama in office. Instead of having to try to excuse or ignore the less than conservative actions that a President McCain would surely have taken, we instead would be freed up to actively criticize and oppose the liberal actions and missteps that surely would come with an Obama presidency. While I appreciated the insights offered by Saint Paul at the time, I never realized just how accurate and prescient they would turn out to be. Seriously, with the filling his cabinet with people who seemed to think they were too important to pay taxes to pandering to foreign enemies like a kid afraid of getting beat up on the playground to allowing Congressional Democrats to turn his economic stimulus plan into a joke by loading it with every pet project that had been gathering dust on the liberal wish list, is there anything else Obama could have done in the last ten days to make it easier for conservatives to rediscover their vim and vigor? The only negative so far is that the mishits have been coming so fast and furious of late that it's difficult to keep up. It would nice to space them out a bit more to allow us to savor each one more fully. Maybe only have one of your cabinet appointments withdraw in disgrace per day. In case you too have been struggling to keep track of Obama's bungles, Victor Davis Hanson has compiled a rather through scorecard at National Review Online: We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion--and with no Dick Morris to bail him out--brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking. First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson--with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?). Second, was the "stimulus" (the euphemism for "borrow/print money") that was simply a way to go into debt for a generation to shower Democratic constituencies with cash. Then third, there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas to a censored Saudi-run press organ (e.g., Bush is dictatorial, the Saudi king is courageous; Obama can mend bridges that America broke to aggrieved Muslims--apparently Tehran hostages, Rushdie, serial attacks in the 1990s, 9/11, Madrid, London never apparently occurred; and neither did feeding Somalis, saving Kuwait, protesting Chechnya, Bosnia/Kosovo, billions to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, help in two Afghan wars, and on and on). Fourth, there was the campaign rhetoric of Bush shredding the Constitution--FISA, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq, renditions, etc.--followed by "all that for now stays the same" inasmuch as we haven't been hit in over seven years and can't risk another attack. Fifth, Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won't go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama's calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn't work. He already reminds me of Reverend Wright's undoing at the National Press Club--and he will get worse. Six, Biden is being Biden. Already, he's ridiculed the chief justice, trashed the former VP, bragged on himself ad nauseam in Bidenesque weird ways, and it's only been two weeks. Two golden weeks. Obviously not for the country, but definitely for conservative commentators. The question now is whether things could possibly get even better for us. VDH warns that unless Obama changes his course, he risks historical comparisons not to Lincoln or FDR, but another Oval Office occupant whose legacy is not so vaunted: This is quite serious. I can't recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton's initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn't quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism?angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame. We all recall what four years of Carterism wrought: bad times for the country, good times for the conservative movement. Labels: Politics-National Friday, January 30, 2009
I see Gov. Rod Blagojevich got bounced last night by the Illinois Senate, with a Kyoto protocol rejection-like margin of 59 - 0. It was unanimous! Forget Obama, Blagojevich is truly a man capable of bringing us all together.
Frankly, I am amazed to see not a single blindly partisan true believer stuck by their dear Governor, a man embraced by just about every craven Democratic politician from Illinois over the past few election cycles. I guess loyalty ends at the point the publicly disclosed irrefutable wiretaps of selling political favors begins. I'm also amazed Blagojevich's closing argument from yesterday didn't sway a single vote. The Washington Post, among others, printed the transcript, and it is an amazing piece of rhetoric. Audacious, shameless, deceptive, off topic, long winded, and embarrassingly self serving? Yes. But also, absolutely inspired and strangely effective, in an evil genius sort of way. As an argument from a defense attorney in a lousy Hollywood court room drama (like the OJ Simpson trial), it would have gained an acquittal. As a campaign speech, it might have won an election. But, the audience here had an interest above what their emotions were telling them. Since they thought they might personally pay a price for giving in to their hearts, they slam dunked the man on the facts. Too bad for Rod. Again, the transcript in full is worth a read. If for no other reason, to observe the perfect Democrat political animal operating under laboratory conditions. Selected highlights: Take those four tapes as they are and you will, I believe, in fairness, recognize and acknowledge, those are conversations relating to the things all of us in politics do in order to run campaigns and try to win elections. I remember when I was a legislator. I remember when I was a freshman in Congress and I got a chance to be on a conference committee, when you get to sit with the leaders of the different committees in the House and in the Senate, and what a thrill it was for me to be able to, as a freshman congressman, be in a room with legendary U.S. senators like John Glenn and Ted Kennedy and John McCain and John Warner, the senator from Virginia who, incidentally, had once been married to Elizabeth Taylor. If you're impeaching me on providing safe and affordable prescription drugs by going to Canada and getting the same medicines made by the exact same companies, then the governor of Wisconsin ought to be impeached, the governor of Kansas ought to be impeached, the governor of Vermont ought to be impeached. My background's humble, like most of yours. My dad was an immigrant who came here from a communist country, a Republican, co-warrior. Spent four years in a Nazi prisoner of war camp. And then instead of going back to his home after the war, he waited for three years in a refugee camp so that one day maybe he might have a chance to go to the United States. And then I would say to all of you, think about the things we've been able to do together. Health care for all of our kids, first in the nation. Preschool for three and four year-olds, best in the nation. Record amount of money in education. All of our senior citizens riding public transportation for free. Holding the line on taxes. Think about all the good things we've been able to do for people. Give me a chance to stay here so we can roll up our sleeves and continue to do good things for people. Thank you very much. This particular Blagojevich comment reminded me of another Illinois legend: I didn't go to Harvard. Applied on a Monday, got my letter of rejection back on a Tuesday. I went to more modest type schools. That would be Joel Goodson, of the North Shore: I get the feeling Blagojevich is kicking himself for not thinking of Joel's method for getting into the Ivy League first. BTW, Blagojevich wasn't forced to go as modest at the University of Illinois. Instead of Harvard, he got stuck with low rent degrees from Northwestern University and Pepperdine Law School. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, January 29, 2009
The GOP holds together in the House:
In contrast to the House, where Republicans complain that the $819 billion economic recovery package has been drafted without their input, the Senate is ramping up for a more open process. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed on Wednesday by a vote of 244 to 188, with no Republican support. Eight Democrats voted with 177 Republicans to oppose the bill. I suppose it would too much to hope that Senate Republicans could also form a united front, especially when Obama appears so willing to work with them: In response to Senate GOP concerns, the president urged cutting some of the more controversial provisions, including $200 million to resod the National Mall and increased payments for contraceptives in Medicare. Ladies and gentlemen the era of bipartisanship love and understanding has finally arrived! Sure, Obama wants to spend close to a trillion dollars on highly dubious stimulus projects--most of which are nothing more than sops to various Democratic constituencies--but he's willing to dig deep and give up some new grass and condoms. Who says compromise isn't possible? Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Wall Street Journal takes a hard look at the stimulus plan and finds little to like:
In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities. Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy." The fact is that this plan is about as stimulating as watching a Joy Behar sex video. The term "litmus test" in politics has gotten a bad rap of late, but if individual Congressional Republicans don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up, take off their Obama goggles, and reject this flaccid blob of waste then they might as well make it official and crawl into bed with the Democratic leadership. At least they should know who they're going to wake up with in the morning. UPDATE: The Freedom Foundation of Minnesota has a Top Ten List of Least Stimulating Requests For Federal Ching Made By Minnesota Cities: 1. St. Cloud $750,000 Skateboarding Park Ever since a local entrepreneur closed the doors of his skate park in 2006, enthusiasts in St. Cloud have tried to raise a quarter of a million dollars to start building a huge state-of-the-art skate park "plaza." The city even agreed to carry donors' debt for four years, but donations--to use skateboarding terminology--continue to "grind" along well short of their goal. So the city has done a "kick turn" and asked taxpayers to foot the bill for the entire project. Taxpayers need to become familiar with another skateboard term and "grab" their wallets. Or simply tell the boarders to go "shove it." Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, January 27, 2009
A couple of recent news items demonstrate once again that in spite of all the high flying rhetoric that Democrats and Republicans like to throw up, at its core politics is about two things: winning elections and implementing your policies.
Example numero uno is the Minnesota Senate contest. When Al Franken was trailing during the recount, the mantra of his campaign was "Count every vote!" while the Coleman campaign was content with the status quo. Now that Coleman is behind, he's the one talking about protecting the precious rights of every citizen to have their vote counted while Franken is trying to prevent any further votes from being tallied. The reality is that neither campaign ever cared about every vote being counted. They just wanted the right votes counted that would allow them to win. To pretend that one campaign's actions have been more noble or principled than the other's is naive. During all phases of the election, both campaigns have operated with one goal in mind: win the election. The one that appears to have been more effective at is the one that will likely be the winner. Number two is the curious case of Timothy Geithner. No liberal with a shred of intellectual honesty can pretend that if a man with his background and tax trouble had been nominated for Treasury Secretary by a Republican, they wouldn't have been at the ramparts in high dudgeon screaming at how outrageous it was that a man who had failed to pay his taxes would now be overseeing the IRS. Different rules for the "common man" and the elites and all sorts of other populist wailing would have been heard from every liberal blogger and pundit in the land. But since this the man that Obama wants, it must be the right thing to do. It shows once again that ethics are nice to talk about during a campaign, but once it comes to actually getting things done they take a back seat. It shouldn't be surprising since that's how politics has always worked. The message is different--"hope and change"--but the politics are the same. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, January 22, 2009
From the Politico, an article on the implications of Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay before he knows what he's going to do with the prisoners:
The Bush administration complained that it could not release many of the prisoners because it was unwilling to send them to U.S. facilities, and no other country would take them. Obama's greater popularity abroad might make foreign countries more receptive to such requests.Perhaps an early test of the vaunted ability of Obama's personality alone to breech chasms of substantive, heretofore intractable disagreement. I see it going something like this: OBAMA: I've closed Guantanamo and I need you to take this guy thought to be involved in killing 3,000 innocent civilians due to his religious beliefs. Hope. Change. [GRIN] LEADER OF FOREIGN COUNTRY: You know, we're convinced that bringing back an irrational, blood thirsty savage with popular appeal among the radicalized segment of our population would have negative consequences for our society. But . . . . I can't say no to you! Put him on the next flight, we'll make room! Unlikely. But you have to be sympathetic to the President for thinking this approach might work based on its previous success with 52% of the American people. Labels: Politics-National, Terrorism Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Even though I wasn't able to watch any of it, here are a few quick thoughts on the inauguration:
- Would people have kept their kids home from school and companies have allowed employees to watch the event during work if it was a black Republican president taking the oath of office? My wife posed that query yesterday and I'm not sure what the answer is. I gotta think the hype factor would be at least 40% lower. - In some ways the unrelenting focus on Obama's race and the historic nature of the moment reminded me of the Bears-Colts Super Bowl of a few years ago when much of the pre-game chatter revolved around it being the first such NFL matchup of black coaches. At that time, I felt that it distracted the attention that should have been given to the accomplishments of Dungy and Smith as football coaches. In a similar manner, I think Obama's achievements as a politician have been overshadowed because of the emphasis on his being the first black president. While it's necessary and good to acknowledge the historic nature of this event, we should be able to move beyond that now and be able to focus on Obama as a man and leader of the country rather than a symbol of the progress of African Americans. Then, we will now that real progress has been made. Labels: Politics-National Friday, January 16, 2009
Robert Ferrigno conjures up a whimsical look at the passing of Presidential Wisdom at NRO:
"Next week, while you're still trying to find your way around the place, call up the CEO of Exxon-Mobil and invite him over to watch a movie. Something with soldiers. A war movie where we're actually the good guys. You may have to use Netflix, because there's nothing like that at Blockbuster and I'm not loaning out my copy of Sands of Iwo Jima. Serve Mr. Big Oil a big bowl of buttered popcorn. Better yet, have one of your flunkies from Greenpeace or the trial-lawyers association there, too, and have them serve the popcorn. Teach that puppy to heel." W. swigged down the last of the orange Nehi. "And the president of Exxon, he's not a bad guy to know, if you get my drift." Obama nodded. "It would be nice to be my own man. To show them, show them just once." W. stared at the condensation on his Nehi. "You want to be your own man, the trick is to pick one thing and stick with it no matter what anybody says. With me, after 9/11, it was all about the war against the jihadis. You pick one thing and hold fast to it, you're going to be hated worse than you can imagine." "This one thing," said Obama. "You have to be right about it, though. Otherwise..." "Clinton, he didn't have any focus," continued W. "Billy walks down the cafeteria line and needs a half dozen trays to hold it all, not just because of his appetite, but because he can't stand to let a choice pass. He wants every entree, every vegetable. He wants the Jell-O mold and the pecan pie and the devil's food cake, too. Nice thing about being him, though, you don't get hated much, and those that do hate you, after a while they forget why. Me, they're people on their deathbed made sure they voted absentee against me." "What if you're wrong about that one thing?" persisted Obama. "The big things, the important decisions, you may not ever know if you were right," said W., "but you have to do what you think best, anyway." Obama squirmed on the La-Z-Boy, getting a whiff of what was ahead of him. On a serious note, we all should hope that Obama gets his "one thing" right. Labels: Politics-National
[Christmas 2009]
Little Cindy Lou: Daddy, why didn't Sandy Claus leave us any presents this year? I've been a good little girl. Daddy: Well Cindy Lou, times are tough at the North Pole and Santa couldn't afford to build any of the big name, brand new toys this year. He did have a sack full of hand-crafted and second-hand toys and books to give out to all the good little girls and boys but then... Little Cindy Lou: But what Daddy? Daddy: But then the Wench came along. Little Cindy Lou: The Wench? Daddy: Yes Cindy Lou, the Wench who stole Christmas. Remember last year when we kept hearing those news stories about "unsafe toys"? You know, those toys that those heartless multi-national conglomerates, in their mindless pursuit of profit, were bringing in from China. Yes, those toys that were endangering the health of our children and threatening our very way of life. Well, once the media stoked up the outrage and the people gathered up their torches and pitchforks and marched on Washington screaming "What about the children? Think of the children!" our brave public servants gathered in the hallowed halls of Congress and acted to protect us from the horrors of tainted toys. Finally our elected representatives heard the voice of the people and did something positive for a change. Who says the good guys never win? An editorial in Wednesday's WSJ looked at the unintended consequences that this "victory" has wrought: In the tale of "The Velveteen Rabbit," a child's stuffed toy can only become "real" once all its fur has been loved off, and it's missing a button or two. If only. Under a new law set to go into effect February 10, unsold toys, along with bikes, books and even children's clothing are destined for the scrap heap due to an overzealous law to increase toy safety. The damage comes from new rules governing lead in children's products. After last year's scare over contaminated toys made in China, Congress leapt in to require all products aimed at children under 12 years old to be certified as safe and virtually lead-free by independent testing. The burden may be manageable for big manufacturers and retailers that can absorb the costs of discarded inventory and afford to hire more lawyers. Less likely to survive are hundreds of small businesses and craftspeople getting hit with new costs in a down economy. Because the new rules apply retroactively, toys and clothes already on the shelf will have to be thrown out if they aren't certified as safe. When Congress passed the legislation in August, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi boasted that "With this legislation, we will not only be recalling, we will be removing those products from the shelves." Yeehaw. While large retailers may ask manufacturers to take back uncertified products, independent stores may be stuck with inventory that is suddenly illegal to sell. One Web site, NationalBankruptcyDay.com, is cataloging the costs faced by small businesses. Small batch toymakers, many of whom make old-fashioned wood and sustainable products, say the testing requirements -- which can cost thousands of dollars -- are unaffordable. At Etsy.com, a Web site where entrepreneurs can sell their handmade items, many expect the new law to put them out of business. Also ensnared are companies that make products like bikes or childrens books. Because they aren't toy companies, many were caught by surprise when it became clear the law would apply to them. The only lead that can be found on childrens bikes is on the tire, where it poses no risk to a child not in the daily habit of licking the wheels. And while childrens books may contain no more noxious materials than paper and ink, under the new rules they would still need a test to prove it. So let's recap. The Democratic Congress, acting to protect the children and the little guy, passed a law that will likely result in small, American-based toymakers going out of business and second-hand stores no longer accepting or selling used toys. Which will mean that more of the new toys will be made in China and sold by big corporate retailers and that economically challenged families will be able to afford fewer toys for their children than in years past. Well done Speaker Pelosi. Every Prol Down in Prol-ville Liked Freedom a lot... But the Wench, Who lived just Left of Prol-ville, Did NOT! The Wench hated Freedom! The whole Freedom from laws! Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the real cause. It could be the color that her hair was dyed. It could be, perhaps, that her eyes were too wide. But I think that the most likely reason of all May have been that her brain was two sizes too small. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, January 01, 2009
It seems hard to believe that something as disgusting as the Madoff scandal could have a silver lining, but this e-mail from MoveOn.org proves that there's always a ray of light behind the darkest cloud:
You've probably heard about how Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff scammed investors out of at least $50 billion. But you may not have heard that his victims included the foundations that support some really important progressive organizations. Groups that fight for human rights, fair elections and racial justice are getting hit hard--just in time for the holidays. We've worked side-by-side with many of them. If these groups can't replace the funding that came from investment accounts that Madoff stole, they may be forced to start cutting important projects or, in some cases, even lay off staff. That's a shame. Too bad Soros was too smart to get tied up in the Madoff meltdown or the progressive groups would be doing some real scrambling for funds. Labels: Politics-National Saturday, December 27, 2008
In yesterday's WSJ, Karl Rove addressed the trope of the incurious, illiterate President Bush:
It all started on New Year's Eve in 2005. President Bush asked what my New Year's resolutions were. I told him that as a regular reader who'd gotten out of the habit, my goal was to read a book a week in 2006. Three days later, we were in the Oval Office when he fixed me in his sights and said, "I'm on my second. Where are you?" Mr. Bush had turned my resolution into a contest. By coincidence, we were both reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals." The president jumped to a slim early lead and remained ahead until March, when I moved decisively in front. The competition soon spun out of control. We kept track not just of books read, but also the number of pages and later the combined size of each book's pages -- its "Total Lateral Area." "Team of Rivals," eh? You suppose that President Bush read this now much talked about work before Barack Obama? That would really mess up a few narratives out there. There is a myth perpetuated by Bush critics that he would rather burn a book than read one. Like so many caricatures of the past eight years, this one is not only wrong, but also the opposite of the truth and evidence that bitterness can devour a small-minded critic. Mr. Bush loves books, learns from them, and is intellectually engaged by them. For two terms in the White House, Mr. Bush has been in the arena, keeping America safe and facing down enormous challenges, all the while acting with dignity. And when on Jan. 20 he flies from Washington to Texas one last time, he will do so as he arrived -- with friends and a book nearby. As I've said before reading alone or even reading the "right" books does not necessarily make one a good leader or president. But the idea that President Bush didn't read and that Barack Obama will bring reading back to the White House is a ridiculous falsehood that--like so many others regarding the Bush administration--seems to continue to live on despite all evidence to the contrary. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Stuart Rothenberg wonders if Anyone Can Bring America Together in an Era of Division? In the piece, he shows that Obama's election was not in fact a unifying event and that the country still remains deeply divided, especially among cultural lines:
The country's deepest and most-explosive division revolves around culture. Four in 10 voters attend religious services at least weekly, and they went for John McCain, 55 percent to 43 percent. Almost an equal number of voters, 42 percent, said they attend religious services only occasionally, and they went for Obama, 57 percent to 42 percent. And among those voters who never attend religious services, Obama won by 37 points, 67 percent to 30 percent. On guns, another longtime indicator of cultural values, divisions remain deep. A substantial 42 percent of Americans own guns, and they voted for McCain, 62 percent to 37 percent. Those voters who don't own a gun, 58 percent of all respondents in the exit poll, went for Obama by 32 points, 65 percent to 33 percent. No word on how the "bitter" demographic voted. Those numbers are rather shocking and show that Obama did little to bridge the cultural chasm. Rothenberg also dismisses the notion that Obama's victory--while substantial in the electoral college--was a sweeping mandate for change. Further, the size of Obama's victory and the nature of the problems that he will confront don't suggest the end of division. Obama's 53 percent victory was a solid win, far more decisive than the last two presidential elections. But it was hardly a blowout. His apparent margin of 6.8 points (based on near-final numbers from CNN) was well below the true landslide margins in Richard Nixon's and Ronald Reagan's re-elections (23.2 points and 18.2 points, respectively), but it also was below Bill Clinton's re-election (8.5 points). Maybe more importantly, it was significantly below Reagan's margin over Jimmy Carter (9.6 points) and slightly below George H.W. Bush's 7.8-point margin in the 1988 open-seat race. In other words, America did not "come together" to elect Obama. The country was divided, and while most Americans now hope that he can solve the nation's problems, the new president's choices will invariably require him to make trade-offs -- trade-offs that are likely to anger some, maybe many, Americans. Obama's campaign didn't do much to unite the country. It will be a tall order for his presidency to do any better at truly bringing Americans together. Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, December 02, 2008
On last week's NARN First Team radio show, John and Brian featured actor Eric Bogosian as the Loon of the Week for remarks he made at The 2008 National Book Awards. You can listen to the clip here. I must admit that I do enjoy watching Bogosian ply his trade on "Law & Order Criminal Intent," but the recognition of his looniness was much deserved.
Not only was his swooning over Barack Obama--describing him as a "reader," "virtually an intellectual," and "smart"--and the reports that Obama was using Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" for guidance in selecting his cabinet--describing that as "so cool" and "wonderful"--he also saw fit to run down President Bush for allegedly not reading and the American people for being "afraid of thinking." It was truly a bravura performance in left wing lunacy. Had I been on the air last week, I would have offered these three observations on the matter: 1. There's an assumption that reading is always good and anyone who reads is smarter and therefore better than those who don't. The truth is that it's not that you read, but what you read. I run across a lot of people who like to talk about how much they read. But when you ask them they read, it's usually Stephen King, John Grisham, Grafton, Michael Crichton, Tom Clancy, Vince Flynn, or the latest dysfunctional family offering from the Oprah book club. Nothing wrong with the product those folks turn out. There definitely is a place for them. However, if that's all you read, you're hardly lifting yourself up to a higher intellectual plane. 2. Doris Kearns Goodwin is what I would call a popular historian. Like Stephen Ambrose and David McCullough, she writes books that are open and approachable for most Americans (and like Ambrose, she's had plagiarism issues). I'm not knocking this type of work. Lord knows we need history presented in a way that will get more people interested. But it's silly to pretend that the fact that Obama read "Team of Rivals" somehow proves his intellectual chops. I'd be more impressed if I heard that he read an obscure but highly regarded work on some particular historical event. 3. The idea that Bush doesn't read is absurd. There have been many reports over the years of him reading books and then either sending letters to the authors or inviting him to meet him at the White House. Three examples right off the top of my heard are Natan Sharansky, Mark Steyn, and Bernard Lewis. More on that here. And check out this sample reading list from a 2006 story.Yes, there are a couple of baseball books, but plenty of more serious works. Did you know that Lincoln was Bush's hero? Somehow the media didn't seem to get around to mentioning that much in the last eight years while Obama's admiration of Lincoln has been front and center ever since he started his campaign. It's entirely possible that Barack Obama will turn out to be a more successful President than George W. Bush. But it won't be because he reads and is smart while Bush was ill-informed and stupid. Give Obama credit for what he's earned and deserves. Just don't try to make him out to be something special for doing the same things that his predecessors have. Labels: Politics-National Sunday, November 30, 2008
The December 1st issue of National Review had a host of articles on the future of the conservative movement in wake of this year's election. They authors are some of the best and brightest minds on the right and if you can get your hands on that issue, I would encourage you read the lot of them. One article that caught my attention was by Yuval Levin called Back to Basics, Ahead to Particulars. I found this passage in particular--on common beliefs shared by conservatives--to be especially insightful:
The common core of beliefs that unites conservatives lies deep, providing a foundation but not a whole political edifice. Just about everyone who calls himself a conservative, for instance, is more grateful for what works in our world than angry about what doesn't. And just about everyone who calls himself a conservative believes that the most significant human problems result from human failings, rather than from imperfect distributions of material resources--and so are permanent rather than transitory. Because we are grateful and impressed that anything works at all, we value the social and political arrangements that make things work, and we seek to build on what is best about them rather than start over. Different institutions have evolved this way over time to address permanent human problems. The family is our way of contending with permanent moral imperfection and the permanent challenge of rearing the young. The next generation begins where every human generation has always begun, not where the latest liberal education fad left off. It must be raised more or less as good men and women through the ages have always been raised, and must be offered an example of time-tested moral living. Future moral progress has to be continuous with past moral progress. The market is our way of contending with permanent intellectual imperfection, and of channeling individual avarice toward common prosperity in a free society. Alternative ways of pursuing prosperity tend to fail because they fall back on two delusions: that we can know enough to govern the economy in every detail, and that a reallocation of resources can eradicate poverty. A strong military and an attitude of watchful caution are our ways of contending with the permanent belligerence of mankind and the permanent danger of hostile nations with an interest in weakening or harming us. We do not think that the absence of perfect peace is the result of temporary misunderstandings, and we have learned from history that peace is best achieved through confidence, strength, and interest-driven alliances abroad--and through economic prosperity and moral constancy at home. Levin goes on to say that rather than changing these foundational principals, conservatives need to do a better job of understanding the issues of the day and explaining how these principals apply to them. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thomas Frank (the Nick Coleman of the Wall Street Journal) thinks it's time to give voters the big government liberalism they want:
But it is also possible that, for once, the public weighed the big issues and gave a clear verdict on the great economic questions of the last few decades. It is likely that we really do want universal health care and some measure of wealth-spreading, and even would like to see it become easier to organize a union in the workplace, however misguided such ideas may seem to the nation's institutions of higher carping. How did he arrive at this conclusion? That was the sense I got when I met last week with officers of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Their mood was optimistic -- as well it should be, since labor unions spent some $450 million during the 2008 races, orchestrated massive voter outreach, and saw their candidates triumph. What is coming, they believe, is not triangulation redux. This was, SEIU President Andy Stern told me, "a clear election not on small things." Mr. Obama "talked about what people wanted to hear about," as opposed to the culture wars. "We've redefined the center," Mr. Stern said. "Universal health care is now centrist." Let's hope that for the majority of Americans (and not the rather small number who are union members) the leftward shift of the "center" isn't that severe. If it truly is, I'm afraid what's going to happen to the country if people get what they supposedly want. Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Good piece in today's WSJ by Bret Stephens pointing out that with an Obama administration and control of Congress, there are no more Excuses for Liberals:
Now the long wait is over, and the liberal ship has come in. In Mr. Obama, liberals have a president who seems to have stepped out of the last episodes of the West Wing. He has the Congress in his left pocket, the news media in his right pocket (or is it the other way around?), and he floats on a tide of unprecedented international enthusiasm. The Republican Party has no obvious standard-bearer, as it did in Ronald Reagan after Gerald Ford's defeat in 1976. It could well spend the next four years, or eight, tearing itself to pieces. Instead, the only things that stand in Mr. Obama's path are what Marxists like to call "objective factors": the financial crisis, the mess in Detroit, the disposing of Guantanamo detainees, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russian hostility, Chinese assertiveness, maybe the disintegration of Pakistan. Mr. Obama will get, and deserves, a period of political grace. Let's say a year. After that, it will become increasingly difficult to attribute whatever mistakes he makes to the legacy of his predecessor. American liberalism, such as it is, is finally being put to the test that fate has denied it these last many decades. Succeed or fail, this time there can be no excuses. This of course is probably the most silver of linings in Obama's presidency. The left will no longer be able to wistfully wish for what might have been if only this or only that had or hadn't happened. As Stephens adroitly notes: This liberal narrative of its own near-misses, bad luck and tragic interventions of fate is supplemented by a parallel liberal tale of unbridled conservative malevolence. They can't blame fate, bad luck, or evil Republicans for what happens in the next four years. Along with the power that they've now achieved, comes the responsibility. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, November 13, 2008
...the bottom of the barrel. Right Wing News asked bloggers to pick their least favorite people on the right. Interesting to see who holds down the top stop:
5) Arlen Specter (15) 4) Colin Powell (17) 3) Peggy Noonan (18) 2) Ted Stevens (19) 1) John McCain (25) By the way, along with Powell I would question whether these people should be considered "on the right": 6. Chuck Hagel 13. Christopher Buckley 16. Andrew Sullivan 20. Olympia Snowe 21. Lincoln Chafee 24. Scott McCellan Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Sign the Fight FOCA Petition:
Barack Obama is now the incoming President. And he made a promise to Planned Parenthood last year they expect him to keep. "The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do." The first thing? The man has some strange priorities. Right off the bat, I'd be up for a ride in Air Force One. Then maybe ask to see the files on aliens, "break in" the master bedroom, see what kind of cable package you get, check out the White House wine cellar... The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide. Barack Obama believes this legislation will "end the abortion wars." To him, "ending the abortion wars" means eradicating every state and federal law on abortion--laws that the majority of Americans support. Like Obama's promises about "getting beyond partisan differences" his idea of "ending the abortion wars" isn't about compromise. It's about getting the other side to accept your terms and cease resistance. In the case of the FOCA, it's like a nuclear first strike designed to cripple the ability of the opposition to respond. Americans United for Life (AUL) , a pro-life law and policy organization, has prepared an analysis of the "Freedom of Choice Act." Please click here to read AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke's analysis of this horrendous legislation. The time to Fight FOCA is now. With Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of Congress, we can expect a fight over FOCA to begin as soon as the next Congress begins. Please add your name to the Fight FOCA petition and let your friends know about President-Elect Barack Obama's promise to expand abortion throughout the country. The election is over, but the battles have just begun. Labels: Politics-National Monday, November 10, 2008
Usually it takes at least a few months for voters to realize that the promises they were made during the election will not be kept once the actual governing begins. In the case of pro-Obama Catholics, the illusion that he would somehow move beyond the "old politics" on issues of life has been shattered less than a week after his election (WSJ sub req):
President-elect Barack Obama will likely use his executive powers after taking office to block new drilling leases on environmentally sensitive land in Utah and to allow federal funding of stem-cell research, putting a quick mark on policy making. "There's a lot the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action," John Podesta, head of Mr. Obama's transition team, said on "Fox News Sunday." Mr. Podesta said Mr. Obama is "a transformational figure" and that the support he received among voters in some Republican states and conservative counties gives him a mandate to pursue his agenda aggressively. Rolling back executive orders issued by the Bush administration could give Mr. Obama a fast way to put his mark on policy making after he takes office, as past presidents have. Other Bush-era executive orders that Mr. Obama could reverse include a ban on federal aid to family-planning organizations that counsel women on abortion, and a decision in December that restricts California in regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from cars. The reaping has already began. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, November 06, 2008
You can't help but like a guy who can compare moderate Republicans with Brad Childress:
What the Squish faction is calling for should be familiar to everyone who remembers the pre-Reagan Rockefeller Republicans: a Democrat Lite option designed to appeal primarily to those who generally favor an amount of government intervention but fear the Democrats have gone too far. This is the political version of Brad Childress's coaching strategy, with which every despairing Vikings fan is all too familiar. Try to keep it close, don't take any risks or make any mistakes, just stay in the game and hope that your opponent makes a mistake towards the end that will let you steal a victory. In football, this strategy will win the occasional game, but it never wins the Super Bowl. Not only will it not help you win the big game, it's boring to watch! Denny Green never managed to win the big game either, but at least his teams were trying to win, not trying not to lose (well, at least most of the time). Well over a year ago, I concluded that the Democrats were likely to win the White House no matter who their candidate was. Had there been a legitimate solidly conservative Republican candidate available in the primaries (no e-mails from Ron Paul supporters please), I would have gladly hitched my wagon to that campaign and would have enjoyed going down to defeat with principals intact a la Goldwater in '64 (a defeat which--as George Will explains today--could have been constructive instead of sterile). But with no such option available, we had to opt for playing it safe with McCain and hoping that the Dems would fumble it away. The problem with such an approach is not only does it rarely succeed (as Vox points out), but even when it does there isn't that much upside. Labels: Politics-National
Roger writes to warn conservatives about eating their young (leaders):
It appears that both McCain staff and liberals are continuing their character assassination of Sarah Palin. One comment on Hot Air suggested the following: "Someone had said elsewhere that Gov Palin should appoint herself to Ted Steven's seat and get 4 years of washington experience under her belt before 2012." I think this would do more harm than good for Gov. Palin. If I recall correctly, former Gov. Wendell Anderson "arranged" to be named senator and this created a huge backlash from MN voters. Wendy was an extremely popular governor at that time. A better solution would be to appoint a true conservative (and reformer) and help develop a talent pool of young conservatives to lead our party out of the wilderness. Pres. Bush didn't seemed bothered with developing the next generation of Republicans (let alone conservative Republicans). I think bloggers and others need to help prevent the character assassination that is killing our young (e.g. next generation of conservative leaders). Having Palin appoint herself to the Senate is a prescription for disaster. Besides the likley voter backlash, a good part of Palin's appeal is that she's not a typical Washington political pro. The last thing she needs is to have the life and energy sucked out of her by being part of the world's most arrogant and insular political body (the Chinese Politburo is more in touch than the US Senate). Now that she's been on the national stage, she has enough visbility to be part of the conservative political scene going forward (if she so chooses). You don't need to be in Washington to be a player. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, October 23, 2008
Coming of age during the Reagan administration gave me the misguided believe that having a truly conservative president was the norm. I accepted the reality that George H.W. Bush didn't quite measure up to Reagan's standard and learned to live with it. In 1992, I thought that Clinton's victory was an anomaly and that it was only a matter of time before another conservative in Reagan's mold was returned to the White House. When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, I hoped that he would be that next true conservative president. Whether he ever held truly conservative convictions overall is now debatable. What is not debatable is that despite some areas of success (taxes, judges, the war), his administration--particularly after 9/11--abandoned too many conservative principals to legitimately retain the label.
Now, I think we may be destined to see conservative presidents come around only at the end of a rather long cycle. Not as rare as an appearance by Halley's Comet, more like the length of time between playoff appearances by the Brewers. Here is what I think this cycle might look like: 1960-1968 Eight years of Democratic rule under Kennedy/Johnson 1968-1976 Eight years of Republican rule under the not very conservative presidents Nixon and Ford 1976-1980 The unpopularity of the Nixon administration and negative economic and international events lead the country to embrace change in the form of four years of Jimmy Carter 1980-1992 The four years of Carter are even worse paving the way for the real conservative Reagan and the less conservative Bush 1992-2000 The cycle begins again with eight years of Democratic rule under Clinton 2000-2008 Eight years of Republican rule under the not very conservative Bush 2008 The unpopularity of the Bush administration and negative economic events lead the country to embrace change in the form of four years of Barack Obama? 2012-? The four years of Obama are even worse paving the way for the real conservative ??? So what I'm saying is that you only get a truly conservative president every thirty-two years. In fairness to the Brewers, it was only twenty-six years between their most recent playoff appearances. Obviously there are a lot of holes that can be punched in this cycle theory and trying to compare administrations and parties across decades is fraught with peril. I may also be simply engaging in wishful thinking to make it easier to swallow the coming Obama presidency. However, I believe that there are some interesting parallels to think about. The biggest problem that I see in completing the cycle in 2012 is that there isn't an obvious Reaganesque conservative waiting in the wings. Unless the Governor of Louisiana continues his impressive run and expands his national profile dramatically in the next four years. The other insight that comes from examining the previous political cycles is to realize how quickly fortunes can change. It was only six years from the nadir of Watergate to the election of Ronald Reagan. And think back to 2002 when the Republicans were ascendant and pundits were talking about a long-term GOP majority. That too was only six years ago. Conservatives may very well be headed into the political wilderness after this year's election. But the wandering may not necessarily be as long and the journey back to relevance not as painful as some now fear. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Lately I've received a couple of e-mails from a regular reader complimenting me for my curmudgeonly comments on various matters. And I do take that to heart as I've long dreamed of achieving curmudgeon status. Technically, I'm still a bit wet behind the ears to officially qualify, but with a little bit of luck and the proper attitude I will one day realize my dream of being that cranky old guy who loves to throw a wet blanket on irrational exuberance of any sort.
One item in the news that recently got my curmudgeon up was a story on early voting. It's likely that by the time election day rolls around this year (you know that one day when everyone used to vote?) nearly a third of all voters will have already cast their ballots. While I can understand that not everyone can make it to the polls on election day, we already have a remedy for that called the absentee ballot. Why do we need or want early voting? In the olden days of yore, the idea that everyone would go and vote on the same day was part of what installed a sense of civic duty and unity. It didn't matter who you were or what you did. You all went down to the polls together on that first Tuesday in November and cast your ballots. Seeing your neighbors at the polls was part of the common experience and reinforced the concept that whatever our differences we were all Americans who together determined who would lead us. Now in some states, people are voting two weeks before election day. In California, they have drive-in voting so you don't even have to get out of you car. Sure, it's convenient, but is that the primary driver of how we should conduct our elections? If so, then why don't we start the voting three weeks early? How about a month? If it's really such a horrible burden for people to commit to going to the polls on ONE day to fulfill their civic duty, then let's do as some have suggested and make election day a national holiday. Parents could take their kids with them to vote, helping educate them on the process and providing a visible model to follow. There would be no excuses about work or long lines or weather or any of the other lame reasons people give for not voting. At least that way we would all be voting together. A quaint notion perhaps, but one that I think has merit. Labels: Politics-National Monday, October 20, 2008
Lately, we've been hearing the refrain that "this is the most important election of our lifetimes" a lot. Usually it's delivered in a grave tone to signify the seriousness of the statement. Back in 2004, we heard the same oft-repeated warning and one wonders if there will ever again be an election that's not billed as the most important to date.
It also raises an interesting question: In hindsight, if the 2004 election were indeed so important, what would things look like if the result had been different? More specifically, would the political fortunes of the Republican Party be better or worse today if John F. Kerry had defeated George W. Bush in 2004? While the most delusional of Democrats might argue the point, the truth is that you can't blame everything that has gone wrong in the last four years on Bush. How would John Kerry have dealt with Hurricane Katrina? Would he have be able to do anything to reform health care? It seems unlikely that his budgets would have been less generous than Bush's and extremely unlikely that he would have been able to do anything to prevent the financial crisis that we now face. He may not reached the depths of unpopularity that Bush has now sunk to, but I doubt--given the circumstances--that he would be wildly popular at this point either. So it's worth taking a moment or two and wondering if perhaps the Republican Party (for the moment leaving aside the country) would have been better off today if Kerry had beaten Bush four years ago. Sure it's nothing but rank speculation but asking "what if?" can be a fun distraction and may also bring some perspective on how important the outcome of any individual election really is. The poll on the top left of the page will be open until the end of the week. Labels: Politics-National Saturday, October 04, 2008
More praise for the leadership of Congressman Paul Ryan from Kimberly A. Strassel in Friday's WSJ:
If political leadership is hard to come by in Washington, it's because it invites political retribution. Just ask Republican Rep. Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan, perhaps the free market's truest friend in Congress, earlier this week voted to help rescue that free market. He hated the Paulson plan, but hated more the economic crash he is convinced will follow inaction. And in casting his "yes" vote on Monday, he knew what was coming: "The easiest thing would be to vote no and go hide in my office and watch the markets collapse. I will suffer politically for this, but I will sleep at night." He was right. For his sin of acting to forestall economic mayhem, Mr. Ryan is being pilloried in Wisconsin, where he's in a competitive race. He's been accused of abandoning his conservative principles, of "caving" and "bailing out" Wall Street. He received 3,000 calls last week and wryly notes the "only one in favor came from Hank Paulson." The piece ends with a note sure to warm the hearts of dismal scientists everywhere: Mr. Ryan is now busy sending out charts of Libor spreads to radio talk-show hosts (no joke), intent on explaining the seriousness of the crisis, and hopeful his credibility will see him through. "The best outcome is that [those of us who voted yes] take a political hit but avert a crisis," he says. How's that for leadership? Labels: Politics-National Friday, August 29, 2008
The spectacle of the DNC presentation last night in the football field reminded me, in a way, of the Wellstone memorial at Williams Arena from almost six (SIX!?) years ago. The aspect of bringing together the stars of the party to rev up the troops with a message of inspiration and unity. I thought it was effective political theater then and it was again last night.
Through the mystic chords of memory, oberservations from 2002: Even though I didn't respect most of the politicians in attendance, it was exciting to see that many nationally prominent and historical political figures congregating in one place. The way they marched in one by one, Gore, Daschle, Clinton, Rodham-Clinton, Bird, Mondale, it incrementally swelled the excitement of the crowd and led to heightened and soaring expectations of who would be next. This kind of presentation, combined with the crowd's rock star-like adoration for these individuals, was gripping, particularly to the television audience. It reasonably should spread a positive opinion of the Democratic party to any of the undecided or so-called independent minded voters who watched. This should be true not just in Minnesota, but across the country too. To these swing voters, the dismal records of individuals like Clinton or Mondale can fade away to irrelevance when confronted with the sight of a crowd enthusiastically roaring their approval of them. This impression is cemented by the supposedly nonpartisan nature of the event and of the attendees. I think this type of event has potential to become an annual pre-election night tradition, for one or both parties. If they could broadcast it nationwide, it's impact could be substantial. The problem is achieving the impression that the crowd is simply made up of citizens rather than of hard core party activists. Short of the untimely, yet regularly scheduled, death of a candidate every year, I'm not sure how that could be accomplished. The answer to that conundrum turned out to be qualifying your candidate by their charisma and celebrity quotient, rather than more traditional means (experience, great ideas, proven judgment). Ah, if only I would have stopped that post in 2002 right there, I'd be considered a political prophet and probably blogging at a class joint, like MinnPost or Minnesota Monitor. But I had to keep running my mouth running and came up with these gems ..... Most certainly, a Republican-leaning crowd would have responded in the same way if they were brought together under similar circumstances. It would have been exciting, maybe thrilling, to be in an auditorium as the stars of the Right were slowly brought out to take their well earned bows. To see the likes of say Newt Gingrich, Condoleeza Rice, George Bush Sr., Trent Lott, Bob Dole, Nancy Reagan, Tom DeLay, Alan Keyes, Dennis Hastert, Jack Kemp, Vin Weber, and Arne Carlson march down the stairs (or to see Gerald Ford fall down the stairs). The crowd would have gone wild and those who "vote the man not the party" would have seen these men and women cast in the light of heroes and winners instead of as ambitious politicians merely trying to get votes. Pffffffffft. Was I really stupid then or did some of those GOP "stars" not mature all that gracefully? I'm just glad Larry Craig and Mark Foley barely missed my cut. OK, time to take another stab at it. For the time capsule, to be opened in 2014. The GOP stars circa 2008 who, through the power of their ideas and rhetoric, would electrify an audience, create unity in the party, expand its influence among the undecided, and stand the test of time are: --Gov. Sarah Palin (just watched her acceptance speech, a thrill .... it went up my leg) --Newt Gingrich --Karl Rove --Donald Rumsfeld --Sen. Tom Coburn --Rep. Steve King (a wild card, seen him on some late night C-SPANs, not leg-thrillingly good, but good) --some blood and guts General to be named later I also realize you need some non-pols to really get things jumping. Sprinkling in the following would blow the lid off the joint: Rush LimbaughMark Steyn Walter Williams a short film by David Zucker (our Speilberg/Lucas/Burns) Open for other suggestions from you, dear readers ....... The Elder Notes: While Saint Paul's list of thrilling Republicans may have come up short, I was struck by this paragraph near the end of the same 2002 post: From my observations, no one really likes the one perfect family on the block. Instead they're resented for their happiness and for the fun house mirrors their chronic smiles hold up in front of the faces of their common place and quietly desperate neighbors. Therefore, it follows that nobody would really want to vote for people like this. Yes we (I mean they) come to accept the fact these individuals will make more money, will acquire greater influence, will love more deeply and be loved more often, but that's just how the cards were dealt. But when we have a choice in the matter, do we really want to self select these people as our political superiors too? It's like being in high school and voting for the guy who's the starting quarterback and class president for Homecoming King. Sure he's already dating the hottest cheerleaders in school and he's on his way to an Ivy League education and fame and fortune, but yes, by all means, let's choose to also put a crown on his head and metaphorically throw ourselves prostrate before his regal gaze. Beautiful wife? Check. Ivy League education? Check. Fame and fortune? Check. Crowning, prostration, and regal gazes? Oh yeah. Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Today, the theme at the DNC is Renewing America's Promise:
DENVER--With millions of Americans struggling to get by, the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) and the Obama for America Campaign announced today that some of America's strongest leaders on the economy and energy will speak about how to renew America's promise on Tuesday night of the Convention. America's top Governors, Senators and a former Secretary of Energy and Transportation will echo Barack Obama's call for a new economy with new energy. We discussed this a few week's ago on the radio show and when Saint Paul mentioned this theme, it seemed very familiar to me. It took me a few minutes to realize how close it was to the title of a book of policy prescriptions as well as theme of the convention acceptance speech by a recent presidential candidate. GOP Convention: Gov. George W. Bush -- August 3, 2000 Mr. Chairman, delegates, and my fellow citizens ... I accept your nomination. Thank you for this honor. Together, we will renew America's purpose. Our founders first defined that purpose here in Philadelphia ... Ben Franklin was here. Thomas Jefferson. And, of course, George Washington -- or, as his friends called him, "George W." Gotta love the humor, don't ya? Yes friends, it was only eight short years ago that George W. Bush ran on the theme "Renewing America's Purpose." I have a copy of the book by that name that was distributed at the 2000 RNC in Philadelphia. As similar as the themes sound, there are differentiated by a key word. And as Saint Paul also noted a few weeks ago on the radio, there is world of difference between "purpose" and "promise." definition of purpose by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. pur·pose (pűrps) n. 1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: "And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue" Sarah Josepha Hale. 2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention. 3. Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose. 4. The matter at hand; the point at issue. tr.v. pur·posed, pur·pos·ing, pur·pos·es To intend or resolve to perform or accomplish. Note the words used. Strong, clear words of action. When used with America, the word purpose focuses on the why. This is why we do what we do. While there is an aim or goal toward which we strive, their isn't an expectation of what that will mean. There is also a sense of duty in this why. The scope of purpose is defined and therefore limited. And then you have the definition of promise by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. prom·ise (prms) n. 1. a. A declaration assuring that one will or will not do something; a vow. b. Something promised. 2. Indication of something favorable to come; expectation: a promise of spring in the air. 3. Indication of future excellence or success: a player of great promise. v. prom·ised, prom·is·ing, prom·is·es v.tr. 1. To commit oneself by a promise to do or give; pledge: left but promised to return. 2. To afford a basis for expecting: thunderclouds that promise rain. v.intr. 1. To make a declaration assuring that something will or will not be done. 2. To afford a basis for expectation: an enterprise that promises well. While there are some strong words with promise, there's also more passivity. An expectation, an indication of something. The focus with America now isn't on the why but on the what. What is our expectation of America? What have we been promised? There's a connotation of being owed. But what this is can be vague and open to interpretation. It can almost be unlimited. At times, one word can make all the difference. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, July 31, 2008
Front page article on the front page of today's WSJ on the how the Democrats used the housing "rescue" bill to pay off a loyal ally (sub req):
The housing bill signed Wednesday by President George W. Bush will provide a stream of billions of dollars for distressed homeowners and communities and the nonprofit groups that serve them. One of the biggest likely beneficiaries, despite Republican objections: Acorn, a housing advocacy group that also helps lead ambitious voter-registration efforts benefiting Democrats. Acorn -- made up of several legally distinct groups under that name -- has become an important player in the Democrats' effort to win the White House. Its voter mobilization arm is co-managing a $15.9 million campaign with the group Project Vote to register 1.2 million low-income Hispanics and African-Americans, who are among those most likely to vote Democratic. Technically nonpartisan (ha, ha, ha), the effort is one of the largest such voter-registration drives on record. I already thought the housing bill was a complete clusterfarg. Learning about this is like being on the receiving end of an acorn in the eye. Just ask anyone who's been in a good ol' fashioned acorn fight what that feels like. Labels: Politics-National Monday, June 30, 2008
Chester E Finn Jr. on the state of Ohio in Saturday's WSJ:
But the distance to be covered is vast. Ohio ranks 41st in the percentage of adults with bachelor's degrees. Though it has many fine colleges, their young graduates don't stick around. They head for the coasts or for "happening places" in between, none of which (with the partial exception of Columbus) happens to be in the Buckeye State. Bright Ohio kids aren't even enrolling in nearby colleges. The Cincinnati Enquirer recently reported that almost half the top seniors in local high schools were headed for out-of-state campuses. As jobs and young people exit, the remaining population ages. The Census Bureau projects that Ohioans over 65 will rise to 20% by 2030, up from 13% in 2000. Even some well-established cultural institutions are faltering. The 57-year-old Columbus Symphony is broke and canceled its summer season. There is not a single downtown in Ohio that could be described as "lively" in the evening. Looks the RNC made the right call after all when choosing the location for the 2008 convention. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, June 12, 2008
Maybe there is a good reason mimes traditionally don't talk very much. When they open up their traps, the following spills out.
From Mikael the Mime, on impeaching the President: "This is not the time for politics as usual," he says. "It is time to take an extreme stand against the extreme evil that has taken over our nation." If only George Bush had been satisfied with merely being evil, he would have been OK. But he had to go and be extremely evil and now he's got the mimes calling for his head. I think he can still hold out though, as long as he doesn't lose the support of the carnival geeks. UPDATE: Oops, too late! Labels: Politics-National Friday, May 30, 2008
Smashing editorial in today's WSJ on General McClellan's War:
By now you know the news, if that's the word for it: Mr. McClellan dutifully supported the war as presidential spokesman from 2003-2006, but he has since "become genuinely convinced" it was wrong. He has also had a revelation that the Administration used "propaganda" to sell the war, though this means he himself was chief propaganda minister for three years during which he expressed no similar qualms. Mr. McClellan settles various personal scores, and in particular seems bitter about former deputy chief of staff Karl Rove. White House aides can defend themselves, and we'll let others speculate about Mr. McClellan's motives for turning on his friends. We'd merely note that the book's publisher is PublicAffairs, an imprint founded by left-wing editor Peter Osnos and which has published six books by George Soros. PublicAffairs is owned by Perseus Books, which is owned by Perseus LLC, a merchant bank whose board includes Democrats Richard Holbrooke and Jim Johnson, who is now doing Barack Obama's vice presidential vetting. One of Perseus's investment funds, Perseus-Soros Biopharmaceutical, is co-managed with Mr. Soros. Mr. Osnos, who is "editor-at-large" at PublicAffairs, told liberal blogger Rachel Sklar that he "worked very closely" with Mr. McClellan and his editor, Lisa Kaufman. Readers can guess what advice Mr. Osnos gave them about how to make headlines and sell a book six months before a presidential election in which Iraq will be a major issue. The editorial goes on to show that McClellan's claims are for the most part nothing more than personal opinions rather than new revelations backed by evidence. It also helpfully explains the rather obvious difference between being wrong and lying. In closes by whacking McClellan upside the head thusly: Mr. Bush also tolerated too many mediocrities for too long, either out of loyalty or Texas ties. On that point at least, Mr. McClellan is persuasive. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, April 03, 2008
Sylvan e-mails to hep us to another story of a husband who's paying the price:
Saying she's going through a "very difficult and personal time," U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow on Wednesday promised to focus on her job in Washington while dealing with revelations that her husband paid a prostitute $150 for sex in a Troy hotel. Talking to the Free Press in Washington, Stabenow, a 57-year-old Democrat from Lansing who married radio talk-show executive Tom Athans in 2003, refused to discuss whether the two remain together or how she learned what he told Troy police detectives in late February. $150 for sex at a hotel in Troy, Michigan? Say what you will about Mr. Athans, but he's no Elliot Spitzer. Athans and Stabenow, a U.S. senator since 2001, were married five years ago after a brief courtship, though they had known each other for years. He is a radio producer who has spent the past several years trying to launch liberal talk shows that could counter popular conservative radio programming. Before starting his current firm, TalkUSA Radio, in 2006, Athans was the head of syndicated programming at Air America, a liberal network that declared bankruptcy in 2006. That probably explains his bargain basement booty shopping. Athans has strong ties to Democratic Party officials. Sen. Hillary Clinton publicly acknowledged him during her speech in Detroit last month. "Let's recognize the loyal husbands who support their wives like my Bill and Tom Athans..." A Troy police detective who had been trolling the Internet for leads on prostitution in the city posed as a potential customer when he called the woman, who listed her name as Kasey on a Web site with classified ads including personals. The detective learned that she was at the Residence Inn on Livernois off Big Beaver. No comment. Officers stopped Athans a few minutes later on I-75. The report said Athans acknowledged paying the woman $150 for 15 minutes of oral sex after meeting her on an Internet site. "He was very cooperative" and didn't tell officers he was married to Stabenow, said Lt. Gerard Scherlinck, the information officer for the Troy police. "He did not ask for any special treatment." Do you know who my wife is? The tearful press conference should be an interesting one. UPDATE: King e-mails with the first of what are sure to be many Spitzer-Athans wisecracks: What did Tom Athans says to Eliot Spitzer? "I can get it for you wholesale!" Not bad for a dismal scientist. Labels: Politics-National Friday, January 11, 2008
You know I wasn't sure if I was going to wear orange today to "symbolize my sadness and disgust with the national shame that is Guantánamo Bay." In fact, I'm wearing a very un-orangish green and blue sweater (which, my wife informed as I headed out the door this morning, is at least eight years old. Yeah, and your point is...what?).
But, I just received an e-mail from the ACLU informing me that some of my favorite celebrities are planning to join in the wearing of the orange: Here is what ACLU's celebrity supporters are saying about the Close Guantánamo campaign: Academy Award-winning actress Susan Sarandon said, "I'll be wearing orange because I believe in human rights." Alex Gibney, director of the new Guantánamo documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" said, "I wear orange to remind myself of the reckless, ignorant and arrogant individuals who violated fundamental American values by setting up Guantánamo: a cynical monument to what a world without law would be like." Actress Gloria Reuben from "ER" will "definitely wear" orange because "respecting human rights is the only way to preserve humanity." Musician and television personality Henry Rollins said, "I'll be wearing orange because this prolonged torture is obscene, nakedly sadistic and patently un-American." Is he talking about Gitmo or being forced to listen to his music? Singer-songwriter Meshell Ndegeocello, who will wear orange onstage at her performance tonight at the Music Hall of Williamsburg in Brooklyn, NY, said "I am wearing orange to help bring back the dignity our country has lost as a result of Guantánamo. We must join together in solidarity to demand the immediate closure of this shameful prison. It has tarnished America's image in the world and continues to be a symbol of torture and injustice." That last one really tipped the scales. If Meshell Ndegeocello is going to wear orange, how can I not? Honey, where's that old Miami sweatshirt of mine? Don't tell me you gave it to Good Will... Labels: Politics-National Friday, November 30, 2007
The way liberals and conservatives view their fellow Americans is markedly different. And this differing perspective leads directly to many of the political differences between the two groups.
Liberals tend to view most of their fellow citizens as children. Children largely incapable of taking care of themselves. They are not to be trusted with their health care, their retirement planning, their personal protection, their children's education, their safety, their charitable giving, their well being, etc. Rather than allowing people to make their own decisions in these areas (and live with the consequences), liberals believe that since people can't take care of themselves, the government must do it for them. For their own good of course. This belief leads to the liberal embrace of maternalistic state policies designed to ensure the well-being of the citizenry. Conservatives on the other hand tend to regard most their fellow Americans as mature adults. They are rational, competent, self-reliant grown-ups perfectly capable of analyzing available information and reaching decisions that serve them best. If the government would only get out of their way and quit interfering where it isn't needed, people could run their own lives and make their own decisions. And live with the consequences. This leads to the conservative impulse for limited government, individual freedom, and personal responsibility. The reality is that neither group's understanding of the American people is accurate. While the majority of Americans certainly aren't children, they haven't really reached the threshold of adulthood either. When you really think about it, the American people are for the large part teenagers. Like teenagers, they will loudly proclaim their independence and their ability to stand on their own two feet. You're not the boss of me, I can take care of myself. Until they need gas money for the car. Or they get in trouble on their mortgage. Or when they need money to buy books for the semester. Or help pay to send their kids to college. Then, they present an open palm to Mom, Dad, and Uncle Sam and aren't shy about borrowing the credit card, receiving a farm subsidy, or getting government help having their home rebuilt after a hurricane, wildfire, flood, etc. whether they had the proper insurance in the first place or not. Teenagers want the independence without the responsibility. Americans want the government to leave them alone unless THEY really need help. They may be against government spending in general, but when it comes to their pet programs, they feel its justified. As Ramesh Ponnuru observed a few weeks ago in National Review (sub req): And it's not just recent history that calls the administration's political premises into question. Spending restraint has rarely rallied conservative voters, and the GOP's reputation for it has never been much of a political asset. Polls have not recently been showing a public desire for less spending. But even when they have indicated such a desire, it has melted away when people were asked about particular spending initiatives. As long as spending programs benefit people who "work hard and play by the rules," as former President Clinton put it, the public supports them. This idea of American adolescent came up a few weeks when my wife and I were discussing health insurance. She has a great deal of experience in the area and was telling me about a local company that is trying to migrate to a program where their employees would be responsible for their own insurance. Instead of the company paying the premiums, the employees will pay them and then be reimbursed by the company. It's the first step toward a system that would remove the company from the process altogether with employees being allowed to choose the health care plan they want and pay for it themselves with the additional income they would receive that the company now uses for health insurance. Sounds great, right? To conservative ears, yes. Get the employer out of the picture. Give us the money, let us decide. The problem is in the execution. How many Americans do you really think are capable of managing under such a system? While conservatives would like to think nearly all Americans are, I have my doubts about many of my fellow citizens. It's not that they couldn't manage it if push came to shove, it's a question of their desire to if given the choice. People are busy. Or at least they like to think they are. For many, having to manage their own health care wouldn't be viewed as an opportunity, but a burden. And for instance, if they missed their premium payments and ran into problems with coverage, they'd scream bloody murder and blame the insurance companies. I believe that this is one of the reasons that President Bush's push for Social Security reform never made much headway. While the idea of allowing individuals to have more control over their Social Security again rings the conservative bells, it probably was viewed as merely another hassle to fret about by others. You mean I have to decide where the money is invested? What happens if it doesn't pan out as I hoped? Meh. Easier to just let the government worry about it for me. Coming to terms with this reality and accepting the unpleasant truth of Adolescent America is a pre-condition for conservatives if they harbor any hope of a resurgence in future elections. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out at National Review Online: But the ideal conservative program of a federal government strictly limited to constitutional responsibilities and nothing else would fare miserably at the polls. Almost as badly as an ideal socialist program. Like it or not, pushing messages of personal responsibility, an "ownership" society, and small government (as appealing as they may sound) is simply not going to play in an America that just doesn't seem quite ready to grow up. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Christopher Hitchens on the silence of the mainstream media on the culturally unorthodox beliefs of Mormon Mitt Romney:
Why should Romney not be made to give an account of himself? A black candidate with ties to Louis Farrakhan could expect questions about his faith in the existence of the mad scientist Yakub, creator of the white race, or in the orbiting mother ship visited by the head of the Nation of Islam. What gives Romney an exemption? Actually, no. Precedent suggests a candidate with ties to Louis Farrakhan need not expect those questions from the media either. Whatever exemption Romney is getting was first extended to now Representative Keith Ellison. Not only did the media not see fit to ask for details, they avoided the question of his radical ties/beliefs almost completely. The gatekeepers deemed that just wasn't relevant information to help voter's determine one's fitness for office. Romney has faced the Spanish Inquisition over his beliefs compared to the free pass Keith Ellison received. BTW, you can't mention the Spanish Inquisition either, what with Giuliani still in then race. Your self-censorship is greatly appreciated. Labels: Politics-National Friday, September 28, 2007
Nice to see the Democrats finally getting serious about national security:
As Gay City News went to press, a vote was expected on September 27 on a cloture motion to bring the federal hate crimes bill, the Matthew Shepherd Act, to the floor of the US Senate. People for the American Way called the 60 votes needed "attainable." The measure would include sexual orientation and gender identity among numerous protected categories. The act is attached to the Department of Defense authorization bill, but President George W. Bush has said he will veto it if it includes the hate crimes legislation. The House passed its version of the bill in May by a vote of 237-180, not enough of a margin to override a veto. The bill is a top priority of the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Senator Ted Kennedy, liberal Democratic warhorse from Massachusetts and the co-lead sponsor of the measure, called hate crimes "a form of domestic terrorism." Sigh. Leaving aside the issue of whether we should even have "hate crime" laws (we shouldn't), the trend to conflate terrorism with just abut any domestic issue that you can imagine is disturbing. It minimizes the threat of REAL terrorism and diminishes the meaning and impact of the word. It's also disturbing to see Democrats attaching bills that pay off one of their pet special interest groups to legislation with broader national interest and importance. This expansion of "hate crimes" should sink or swim on its own. Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, September 25, 2007
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal looks at other people's politics (free for all):
DailyKos holds forth regularly that "our democracy is in danger" from money in politics and loudly supports McCain-Feingold and other campaign and media restrictions. The New York Times position on campaign finance reform is that it "has not gone far enough," and that more should be done to control donors and prevent changes that would "open the spigots to corporate and special-interest money." Of course, it's always other people's influence that's a threat to democracy. DailyKos's misadventure was resolved with a Federal Election Commission ruling that allowed it (quite properly) to escape the rules it wants foisted on everybody else. And we certainly defend the Times's right to sign advertising contracts at whatever price it wants to charge--without the FEC combing through its books in search of rate discrepancies. Unfortunately, the Times's passion for regulating everyone else's speech has now boomeranged, with politicians calling for an investigation into its favor to MoveOn. This is getting to be a bad Times habit: Recall its campaign for a special counsel to investigate media leaks that turned into a probe of its own sources and led to judicial rulings that limited press freedom. House Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Tom Davis (R., Va.) wants hearings on whether the MoveOn discount represented a contribution in violation of campaign finance laws, and whether those laws are actually enforceable. Mr. Davis is indulging in some partisan opportunism here, and we wish instead that he was explaining that the problem is not that these organizations slipped through some campaign finance net. The problem is the net. The answer to bad campaign fincance law is not more regulation. It's less. Labels: Politics-National Monday, September 17, 2007
An e-mail from MoveOn.Org reveals that they're planning to go after Rudy Giuliani:
This weekend, Rudy Giuliani launched a series of attacks on us for exposing the White House spin on the "surge." Giuliani is hoping to scare war critics into staying silent. But that isn't going to happen. We've put together a rapid-response ad which demonstrates that Giuliani doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to leadership on Iraq: He was booted from the Iraq Study Group after missing meeting after meeting so he could make millions of dollars giving speeches. We want voters to know that Giuliani can't be trusted on Iraq. Can you help with $25 to get this ad on the air in Iowa? Click here to see the ad and contribute. I imagine the booze will be flowing fast and free at Giuliani Campaign HQ tonight. Being attacked by MoveOn.org is a mark of honor for any Republican candidate and I expect this will only serve to cement the rapidly developing impression that he is pulling away as the front-runner for the GOP nod. Now, if he could just get Michael Moore to say something bad about him... Labels: Politics-National Saturday, September 15, 2007
Alan Greenspan has a new book out and most of the attention on it has focused on his criticism of President Bush and the GOP Congress for their profligate spending. I found this nugget from a story in today's Wall Street Journal (sub req) to be far more interesting:
From serving under so many presidents, Mr. Greenspan concludes that there's something abnormal about anyone willing to do what it takes to get the job. Mr. Ford, he writes, "was as close to normal as you get in a president, but he was never elected." The Watergate tapes, he says, show Richard Nixon as "an extremely smart man who is sadly paranoid, misanthropic and cynical." He recalls telling someone who had accused Nixon of anti-Semitism that he "wasn't exclusively anti-Semitic. He was anti-Semitic, anti-Italian, anti-Greek, anti-Slovak. I don't know anybody he was pro." Ronald Reagan's ability to instantly tap one-liners and anecdotes in support of a particular policy represented an "odd form of intelligence." He describes Bill Clinton as "a fellow information hound" with "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth" whose relationship with Monica Lewinsky "made me feel disappointed and sad." Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Kay Hymowitz on how libertarianism breaks down when it come to the family in a piece at OpinionJournal (free for all):
A libertarian, according to Brian Doherty, "has to believe" that "the instincts and abilities for liberty . . . are innate," that we possess "an ability to fend for ourselves in the Randian sense and to form spontaneous orders of fellowship and cooperation in the Hayekian sense." But this view of the relationship between the individual and society is profoundly and demonstrably false, especially when applied to the family. Children do not come into the world respecting private property. They do not emerge from the womb ready to navigate the economic and moral complexities of an "age of abundance." The only way they learn such things is through a long process of intensive socialization--a process that we now know, thanks to the failed experiments begun by the Aquarians and implicitly supported by libertarians, usually requires intact families and decent schools. Libertarianism did not have to take this unfortunate turn. Ludwig von Mises himself warned that the attempt (of socialists) to undermine the family was a ploy to strengthen the state. Hayek, too, grasped the family's role in upholding the free market. Coming of age in Europe around the time of World War I, he stressed the state's inefficiency but also warned, more generally, of the limits of human reason. "Hayek's economics was rooted in man's ignorance," Mr. Doherty writes; so were his political views, which included both an enthusiasm for freedom and a Burkean respect for customs and institutions. It is difficult to say why this aspect of libertarianism has faded away, but the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset once provided a partial answer. In Europe and elsewhere, he observed, modern radicals have tended to be of a Marxist, collectivist bent; in America, with its peculiar Lockean legacy and Jeffersonian ideals, radicals have gone to the other extreme, searching for absolute freedom. It is a quest that has left little room for the confining demands of family and other unchosen social bonds. This is one of the reasons that I am not now nor have ever been a libertarian. While certain aspects of libertarian political philosophy have an undeniable appeal, when you try to anchor your foundational principles upon it, you find yourself drifting in too many critical areas. Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, September 11, 2007
In an ideal world, yesterday's announcement from Senator Chuck Hagel that he was resigning from the US Senate would have been effective immediately. That way we wouldn't have had to listen to his long-winded, blustering, rambling, self-serving
By the way, why do Senators constantly have to remind us--as Hagel did this morning--that "It's my job to represent the people and ask the tough questions, blah, blah, blah..."? Yes, we know it is Chuckie. What the people would really like you to do is quit talking and ask a freakin' question. I look forward to the day when we won't have Chuck Hagel kicking around the Senate anymore. By the way, if you're not able to watch or listen to the Senate testimony live (consider yourself lucky), you can follow every self-aggrandizing moment at the Power Line Forum. Labels: Politics-National Monday, September 10, 2007
I was able to catch a little more than half an hour of the Petraeus/Crocker testimony in front of the House today on the radio, and, for the most part, I was pleasantly surprised by what I heard. With the exception of a gentleman from Hawaii and a gentlewoman from California, the Representatives were serious about the business at hand and not just trying to score cheap political points. The questions were intelligent and thoughtful. Moreover, they were often the kind of questions that I would be asking the general and the ambassador if I had the opportunity.
That was the beauty of it. No matter what your view is on the war in Iraq, the surge, or how long we should stay, today's hearings should once again remind you how lucky you are to live in a country such as ours. In the midst of a war, the commanding general and the highest diplomat in the theater are required to come back and undergo a grilling by representatives of the people. It was a great demonstration of the strength of our system of government. Labels: Politics-National Saturday, September 08, 2007
Hagel is calling it quits:
Chuck Hagel will announce Monday that he is retiring from the U.S. Senate and will not run for president next year, people close to the Nebraska Republican said Friday. Hagel plans to announce that "he will not run for re-election and that he does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008," said one person, who asked not to be named. Hagel has scheduled a press conference for 10 a.m. Monday at the Omaha Press Club. According to one person interviewed, Hagel told Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky on Friday morning that he had decided to retire. Hagel's staff learned of his decision that afternoon. And there was much rejoicing. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Needless to say I'm shocked at Sen. Larry Craig's recent troubles. When I heard that a Senator from Idaho was involved in an incident in a bathroom, I assumed it had to be this guy.
This juvenile humor moment brought to you by Depends. When you're in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport and need to relieve yourself, but are afraid a member of the US Senate may have preceded you into the rest room, take control of your situation. Remember, Depends. Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, August 07, 2007
In the latest issue of National Review, Jonah Goldberg calls for something that I've long thought should be mandatory, a voting test (sub req):
This may be a hint about what America really needs. If more voters isn't the answer, how about fewer? Left-wing mythology has led liberals to push for an ever-expanding franchise. Even now, there's a movement afoot to lower the voting age to 16, on the assumption that social policies will be much improved under the influence of people who think MTV's Pimp My Ride is the bomb. But in a rational society, it would go without saying that young people are less wise, less informed, and less qualified to make important decisions. Take that insight a step further. Obviously, the policy of not letting very young people vote is arbitrary, and is unfair to the few hypereducated and precociously wise teenagers out there. Well, what about grown-ups caught on the other side of that line? There are millions of adults just as unqualified to vote as your typical teenager. The wisdom of the masses is depressing indeed. Numerous polls have found a majority of Americans unable to name a single branch of government. And in 1987, 45 percent of adult respondents to one survey thought that Karl Marx's dictum "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" could be found in the U.S. Constitution. No wonder liberals think there's a gusher of votes out there for them. Now, the instinct of the engaged and informed political junkie (i.e., the type of person most likely to be reading this article) is to say, "O my stars and garters! There are a lot of morons out there!" But in truth Americans are very smart about the things they care about, and ignorant about the things they don't. So why should those who don't care about voting be harangued to vote? I don't get to vote on who should make it into the Rose Bowl, so why are we so desperate to get the input of people who know less about government than I do about football? Poll taxes and property requirements would discriminate against the poor. But what would be so awful about a simple test of civic knowledge? Choosing the questions would be contentious, but the debate would itself be wonderfully educational. For starters, I'd suggest the test questions immigrants must answer in order to become U.S. citizens. They are so very vanilla--How many branches of government are there? What are the branches of government?--and yet they'd set a pretty high bar for many, if not most, Americans. Seems like a reasonable requirement. We don't let someone drive a car until they can demonstrate a knowledge of the rules of the road. And if you think voting doesn't hurt others like bad driving does, remember that I'm represented in Congress by Keith Ellison. Ouch. Before Lefties get their undies in a bundle about this idea and start screaming about "disenfranchisement," they should consider Goldberg's conclusion: A voting test would send the signal that it's a valued accomplishment to be an informed citizen. It would allow politicians to aim their appeals ever so slightly higher than the dumbed-down, Rock the Vote gutter. Would such a reform make conservative policies more likely? I don't know, and that's really not my chief concern. But I predict that shrieking and screaming from the Left would reveal which side thinks its success depends on voter ignorance. C'mon Lefties. If you're the smart ones, the reality-based community and all that and we're just a bunch of mindless drones who take our marching orders from talk radio and Fox News, then you should welcome such a test. Shouldn't you? Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Victor Davis Hanson's latest ruminates on the upcoming 2008 election and some of the dynamics we have to look forward to:
In general, I have supported the military's efforts consistently-and still adhere to a general past admission that when Army and Marine Captains, Majors, and Colonels-who are both in the field and also privy to larger tactical and strategic dilemmas-collectively seem to agree that we should not be in Iraq and cannot win, then that is a most valuable barometer, and we should not be in Iraq and must leave. Still, the war will end not when Democrats say so (a given), but when key Republican Senators this fall, worried about their positions in the 2008 election, defect and thus give the opposition a veto- and filibuster-proof 2/3s majority in matters cutting off funding, reminiscent of Vietnam circa 1974-5. We just might happen to have one of those Republican Senators in Minnesota. The funny business associated with Norm Coleman's behavior on Comprehensive Immigration Reform does give one pause. He's a savvy political animal who understands the liberal inclinations of much of his constituency and he's a career politician with nowhere else to go, at least for the moment, and determined to keep his job. An unsettling combination when it comes to needing a guy with resolve in the big votes ahead. I still find it hard to believe Norm would go wobbly on such a significant issue. But to be safe, let's hope the Democrats aren't able to continue to convince the majority of Minnesota voters that the US has lost the war and pulling out immediately couldn't make things any worse. Events on the ground will go a long way toward dictating this outcome. But the newspaper headlines and Democratic strategists are likely to press their defeatist public relations campaign no matter what. VDH's comment on the presidental election applies will apply to this campaign as well: I assume that the 2008 election will be one of the most distasteful, dirtiest, and unpredictable campaigns in American history. Labels: Politics-National Monday, June 25, 2007
Today's Supreme Court decision curtailing the ability of the Federal government to abridge the freedom of speech is a welcome development. According to the legal eagles at Power Line, it is a narrow holding which does not entirely blow up the provision that bars non-profits from naming a candidate in a broadcast ad within 60 days of an election. But hopefully the fuse has been lit for future challenges. Until then, organized groups of citizens will have to continue to watch what they say very closely, lest the politicians and bureaucrats disapprove of how they are interfering with the government's elections and drop the hammer.
The namesakes of this campaign finance legislation, McCain and Feingold, rightly get most of the discredit for imposing these laws on us. But we should note the lost Minnesota history behind this particular feature of McCain-Feingold now under scrutiny. Yes, it was sponsored by one of us. Hint, this person was short, angry, rode in a green bus, and is considered a minor prophet in certain sections of Kenwood and Mac-Grove. No, not Kathleen Soliah. It's Paul Wellstone. The facts, from March 27, 2001: By a 51-46 vote, the Senate approved Monday an amendment offered by Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minnesota, to expand McCain-Feingold's restrictions on union and corporate advertising to also include non-profit groups like the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association -- groups with "501c4" status. Supporters of campaign finance reform say the amendment is unconstitutional and fear the amendment could result in President Bush vetoing the legislation. (Ed note - ha!) But Wellstone said the amendment was needed to prevent a proliferation of non-profit organizations from "carpet-bomb(ing) our states with all of these sham issue ads." "This is a loophole that must be plugged," said Wellstone. Senator Wellstone referring to the First Amendment as a loophole. I guess when the only tool you have is a suffocating straight-jacket, every problem looks like a loophole. BTW, I see on sale now at Wellstone Action, a new book: Politics the Wellstone Way offers a comprehensive set of strategies to help progressives channel that energy into winning issue-based and electoral campaigns. Chapter One: Making your opponents' criticism of you illegal. Labels: Politics-National Friday, June 01, 2007
Rumors of a coming "conservative crackup" have been much exaggerated in recent years, usually fueled by members of the media eager to exploit the slightest hint of conflict and perhaps engaging in a little wishful thinking as well.
But if the recent fallout from the immigration bill is any indication, we may now actually be on the precipice of a major schism within the ranks of the conservative movement. When you've got the editorial page bigwigs from The Wall Street Journal and the editors of National Review going at each other with hammers and tongs (actually most of the hammer throwing is being done by the WSJ crew), you know that the we've reached a critical point. At Opinion Journal, Peggy Noonan believes that Bush's immigration push has already torn the conservative coalition asunder(free for all): What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future. The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place. For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad. But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad." She goes on to say: Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. With Republican prospects in 2008 already looking grim, the timing of this split within conservative ranks could not be worse. Welcome back to the wilderness. UPDATE: A few more thoughts upon further reflection. At the heart of the immigration divide is the problem that the "Republican Future" which the Bush administration believes they are trying to build is not the future that the current Republican base wants. President Bush has now managed to put himself in the unenviable political position of simultaneously being on the outs with the Left (who have despised him since day one) and now the Right (at least a good part of it). This of course is the muddled middle ground that media types like to claim stake to when they throw out the defense, "I get criticized from the Left and the Right, which means I must be doing something right." No, it probably just means that you're wrong. UPDATE II: More from the Never-ending Apes, Freedom Dogs, and Vox Day, who nobly resists the temptation to say "I told you so" (not). Labels: Politics-National Saturday, May 26, 2007
Last night I caught part of "An Hour With Al Gore" on the Charlie Rose show (video of the entire interview is available). This was the latest incarnation of Gore: confident, hip, laid-back, cool. He was wearing a trendy brown outfit and sporting fashionable cowboy boots. If it wasn't for his jowly--badly in need of several tucks--face, you might have thought him a Hollywood actor promoting his latest movie instead of a former vice president promoting his latest book, "The Assault On Reason."
From what Gore said during the interview, I understand the book to be his call for a return to reason to politics. Apparently the root cause of the current troubles facing the country is that the public is largely uninformed about the key issues of the day. Rather than reporting facts, the media is more interested in entertainment and fluff, giving people would they want, rather than the facts that would help them understand the "truth." And if anyone is brave enough to question the prevailing wisdom being dished out, they are immediately shouted down and "punished," which serves to intimidate others who might have spoken out. That all of this was coming from a man who hobnobs with the likes of Laurie David, Sheryl Crow, and Leonardo DiCaprio (I'm the king of the fluff!) and has unilaterally declared the debate over global warming "over," struck me as as a touch ironic. I also found it interesting that during the entire portion of the interview that I caught, the topic of global warming never came up, giving credence to the notion that he is still considering jumping into the 2008 race. While his image has changed since 2000, at the end of the day, he's still the same Al Gore, seemingly incapable of answering a simple question without veering down several different alleys of thought, loosely related to the original question. By the time he stops talking, you forget what the point of the question even was. He also shares with John Kerry the annoying habit of interrupting his own answers in mid-thought with "Let me give you an example..." Rose hypothetically asked Gore "Say it's 2008 and you're just been elected president," (the crowd dutifully applauded) "What are top five things that you do to turn the country around and return reason to public life?" It was an excellent question and I looked forward to getting further insight as to where Gore's real priorities lie. Twenty minutes (or maybe it just felt like twenty minutes) and three follow up questions later and Gore had yet to name even ONE action that he would take if he running the country, to say nothing of five as Rose had requested. I wanted to scream "Stop blathering and answer the question!" and had flashbacks to the 2000 campaign when Gore oft displayed the same tendency to talk and talk and talk without ever really saying anything. Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Mark Moyar, author of the excellent book Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965, writes in today's Wall Street Journl on the dangers of tossing around the "Worst in History'" label (sub req):
It was an unprecedented comment from an ex-president, someone who isn't a disinterested observer. Mr. Carter may be trying to spare his own administration the "worst in history" label, which it fully deserves. As president, Mr. Carter managed to alienate nearly every major country in the world and did so without asserting American power in ways that might justify that alienation. No other president has crammed as many foreign policy debacles into a four-year period. The Sandinista takeover of Nicaragua and the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis are but two examples of many. Near the end of his term, it should be remembered, Mr. Carter's approval rating fell to 21%, the lowest in the history of polling. Of course, the reason Mr. Carter, and others, rank President Bush at the bottom is the Iraq war. Mr. Carter himself did not get the country into a war during his presidency, likely because he lacked the fortitude. If we want a useful comparison with presidents who did get us into a difficult war, we need look no further than the two men who put the United States into its last protracted conflict, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Kennedy commands much admiration among the literati, in part because his Vietnam decisions have been misunderstood. Four-and-a half decades after Kennedy dramatically deepened America's commitment to South Vietnam, we are just now learning critical facts about his actions. This alone might cause us to beware of sweeping pronouncements about a president and his place in history while he is still in office. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, April 12, 2007
When you begin reading a Wall Street Journal editorial called The Fannie Tax and the first three words are "Democrat Barney Frank," you wonder just what might lay in store.
Housing. It's all about housing. Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and whatnot. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Ramesh Ponnuru has a piece in the latest issue of National Review on the crisis of conservatism:
Which brings us, finally, to the real crisis of conservatism, which is neither political nor philosophical but a mixture of both. That crisis can be boiled down to two propositions. The first is that, at least as the American electorate is presently constituted, there is no imaginable political coalition in America capable of sustaining a majority that takes a reduction of the scope of the federal government as one of its central tasks. The second is that modern American conservatism is incapable of organizing itself without taking that as a central mission. The Republican party is a coalition that includes some libertarian-minded members, some social conservatives, and some voters who have a foot in both camps. It is easy to imagine (as Sager does) that it can choose which kind of majority party to be: one oriented toward the libertarians, or one oriented toward the social conservatives. If that were the case, a voter could root for one definition or the other, depending on his own priorities. But only one of those coalitions would actually form a majority. If over the last generation the Republicans had not absorbed the statist social conservatives at the price of losing some libertarians, it would have remained a minority party. If it had instead tried to pick up libertarian Democrats while alienating social conservatives, it would have become a much smaller minority than it already was. You can try to separate the economic and social conservatives, but it's an illusion to think the groups can prosper independent of each other. Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Ross Douhat and Reihan Salam, who blog at The American Scene, have a piece in the Weekly Standard that looks at why white middle-class voters, much maligned by liberals after the 2004 election for their irrational voting in books such as What's The Matter With Kansas?, were more receptive to the Democrat's message of economic populism this time around:
For Rose, the economic story of recent decades is not one of immiseration but one of dramatic gains for both middle and working-class families. His most striking finding: When you average-out family incomes over 15 years and capture only the peak earning years--from age 26 to 59--fully 60 percent of Americans will live in households making over $60,000 a year, with half of these households making over $85,000. This has meant that more and more workers feel like beneficiaries of the changing economy rather than victims of it--and as a result, feel comfortable voting for the GOP. So what happened in 2006? Why is left-wing populism suddenly resonating? What's masked by Rose's averaging, and by the general picture of working-class success, are the tremendous fluctuations in annual income created by the globalized economy. This has made economic security, not poverty or prosperity, the central concern of today's working class--whether you're talking about the small business woman who can barely afford health care or the autoworker who's just discovered that his corporate pension is a mirage. And the bad news for the GOP is that the left has begun to figure out how to speak their language. In cutting-edge polemics like Jacob Hacker's The Great Risk Shift, the smartest liberal voices are focusing on voter anxiety about health care and income volatility--anxiety that the GOP hasn't even begun to find a way to address. The good news for Republicans, on the other hand, is that the left's preferred solution--making America more like Europe through a vast expansion of the tax-and-transfer state--is still extremely unpopular with most voters, which is why Democrats talked up economic security in 2006 but were thin on policy detail. To working-class Americans struggling to figure out how to get ahead in a more competitive economy, when you can expect to change jobs several times in a decade let alone a lifetime, the "Lou Dobbs Democrats" don't have much to offer--a minimum wage increase, a critique of the alleged inequities of small-bore trade deals, and tough talk on border security that will be drowned out in a caucus that's eager to liberalize immigration laws and increase the influx of low-skilled laborers. Once the artfully named bills pass and the signing ceremonies fade into the past, working class voters will probably wonder, as Walter Mondale once put it, "Where's the beef?" This gap between what the Democrats are promising and what they can deliver offers a renewed opportunity to the GOP. To date, Republicans have failed to come to grips with the issue of economic insecurity, offering table scraps and tax credits in place of real solutions. This signal failure is the reason that the Bush-Rove vision of a lasting Republican majority has hovered just beyond the GOP's reach. It's easy, however, to imagine a renewed "ownership agenda" focused on spreading capital ownership, freeing workers from employer-based health care, rewarding low-wage work, and defending the interests of hard-pressed parents. The question is whether Republicans, in their present state of drift and disarray, will be farsighted enough to embrace it. In May of 2005, Hugh Hewitt had an essay contest where he asked people to describe what the GOP message should be for the 2006 midterm election. This is part of my entry: The GOP strategy for 2006 should be to follow up the "ownership society" message that George W. Bush pushed (not aggressively enough in my opinion) in his 2004 reelection campaign. The message is a powerful one that appeals to all Americans, but particularly to young twenty and thirty-somethings that the party has made inroads with already. It also has strong appeal to minorities, who are beginning, however slowly, to realize how hollow the Democrats message of victimization and government as the only answer really is. It's a message of personal responsibility, individual freedom, and optimism that encapsulates the American Dream. But it needs a little rebranding. Instead of "ownership society" it should be simplified to "It's Yours." It's your retirement. It's your health care. It's your kid's education. It's your government. And most of all, it's your country and it's your future. It's impossible to say that such a message could have prevented the loss of the House and Senate in the recent elections. But, as Douhat and Salam point out, it is a message that at least begins to address the issues of middle-class economic security that the GOP for the most part chose to ignore in 2006. There is no reason that Republicans shouldn't own these issues if they decide to focus on them. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, March 30, 2006
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech (unless it's politically advantageous to do so)
One of the things that's always bothered me about John McCain is the apparent lack of underlying principles that guide his actions. On particular issues, like immigration and campaign finance reform, he's all over the ideological map and his appears to have arrived at his position based on crass political calculation rather than core beliefs.
Byron York reports that McCain is again leading the charge for politics over principle, this time in an effort to neuter those notorious 527 groups: Advocates of the first course are being led by--no surprise--Sen. John McCain. He blames the Federal Election Commission for failing to rein in 527s in the last presidential race, and in early March he unveiled a formal proposal that would limit contributions to 527s to $25,000 per person per year. That means Soros's $24 million would be cut to $50,000 in the next two-year cycle. McCain's Senate proposal is supported by a similar measure in the House sponsored by Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays. It's disturbing that other Republicans seem willing to join McCain in their putting personal political interests first: Yet many in the GOP--actually, most in the GOP--are instead leaning in McCain's direction. And the reason is not any principled belief in campaign-finance reform, but rather the fear that Democrats will use 527s to beat the hell out of Republicans in 2006 and 2008. GOP House aides who follow the situation believe that most House Republicans would vote for limits on 527s. And a key Senate aide says that a very large number--perhaps all--of the Senate's Republicans would support limits, and do it for nakedly political reasons. "Republican members believe that 527s are a bad thing, gnawing away at the vitals of our majority, and that what McCain supports means their elimination," the aide says. "No doubt the bad guys will just find another section of the tax code to abuse for anonymous giving and deadly attacks against Republicans, but for now, since Republicans don't like them, and McCain is scared to death about what they could do against him come primary time in '08, there's a marriage of convenience underway." This abandonment of principle for near-term political gain sickens opponents of campaign finance regulation: It would be an understatement to say that Republicans who oppose regulation on principle find the current situation disheartening. "From a conservative standpoint, it's clearly wrong to jump on the regulatory bandwagon for what's perceived as short-term partisan gain," says Bradley Smith, the former FEC chairman, who has been one of McCain-Feingold's most forceful critics. Adds Cleta Mitchell: "The thing that is so discouraging is that my party, which opposed McCain-Feingold, has become the party that throws in with the guys who want to regulate everything. It just gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach." York closes by reminding Republicans that what appears a win in the short term, may very well come back to haunt them down the road: So what is the lesson? That 527s should be strangled? Doing so not only would run against Republican belief in freedom of expression, but would make it harder to score targeted political points in coming campaigns. That's something Republicans might come to regret in 2008 if they find themselves in a race against a certain senator from New York who was once a First Lady enmeshed in numerous scandals. "There are huge numbers of voters in America who have no knowledge of Travelgate, cattle futures, the whole thing," says Bradley Smith. "Who's going to talk about that for Republicans? Are they counting on CBS to do it?" These days, however, Republicans seem more than willing to shut down the 527s. In the end, it is impossible to say whether 527 regulation would hurt or benefit either Democrats or Republicans. But it is possible to say that it would be yet another step in the wrong direction for political speech. "We are on the road to serfdom in American politics with campaign-finance reform," says Mike Pence. "We are eventually going to end up on the doorstep of George Soros's house, telling him what he can and cannot say." And not just Soros: T. Boone Pickens and Bob Perry, too. Republicans and Democrats alike. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, March 09, 2006
Along with many of my fellow conservatives, I have not been especially thrilled with the actions of the Republicans who currently control Congress. There is a laundry list of issues on which the stances of GOP members in "The People's House" as well as "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body" have proved disappointing. But, as this excerpt from a MoveOn.org e-mail titled "What Winning Would Mean" shows, things could be a hell of a lot worse:
Last week Debra from New York City e-mailed and asked me to write more about the difference between Republican control and Democratic control of Congress. I thought for a day or so and decided that the best way to describe this was by talking about the people who will lead when Democrats win control of the House. Taking just the House of Representatives, here is a small slice of who will be leading: * Nancy Pelosi--a progressive--becomes Speaker of the House of Representatives. * John Murtha--a veteran and anti-war champion--would become chair of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations. He would be in charge of the budget for the war in Iraq. * John Conyers--who forced a national debate on the Downing Street Memos--would be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. * Henry Waxman would be chairman of the Government Reform committee--he has a bulls-eye on war profiteers like Halliburton. * Barney Frank--who has led efforts to rein in out-of-control CEO pay--would be in charge of the Financial Services Committee. * David Obey--who led opposition to the Republican budget--would be chair of the House Appropriations committee--protecting Medicaid, food stamps, veteran's benefits, student loans and more. * Charles Rangel--who predicted the Medicare debacle--would be chair of the House Ways and Means committee--protecting Social Security. * George Miller--a big advocate for working people--would be chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and could bring a vote to raise the minimum wage. That is just a sample--six of these eight are either members or founders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Put aside for a minute any disappointment you might have in the Democrats overall--these leaders are what we'll get if we win in November. They are champions on issues we all care about. Be afraid, be very afraid. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, February 01, 2006
When Cindy Sheehan first appeared on the national stage, most Americans were willing to cut her a lot of slack. After all, she had lost a son in Iraq and we could empathize with the searing pain and indescribable sorrow that follow the loss of a child.
Over recent months, that slack has slowly but surely disappeared. From the camp out in Waco to chaining herself to the White House to threatening to run for Senate if Dianne Feinstein didn't support the Alito filibuster, Sheehan has lost whatever credibility she once had as a grieving mother and is increasingly viewed as nothing but a tool of hard-Left radical activists. For me, the last straw was when she traveled to Venezuela to play kissy face with Hugo Chavez, one of the leading voices of anti-Americanism in the world today. Don't mean to dare question your patriotism Cindy, but playing footsie with a self-declared enemy of our country leads one to be a bit skeptical about your motives. I don't think my feelings towards Sheehan are by any means unique among conservatives. That depths of that animosity was amply demonstrated last night at The Patriot Forum with Michael Medved. After Medved opened with a half-hour on why elections are so close these days (not just in the US), the audience watched the State of the Union on the very big screen at the auditorium. Fox News of course. It was an interesting experience to catch the SOTU with an enthusiastic and partisan crowd. During the speech itself, there were a number of moments when the audience erupted in applause, a few people even choosing to imitate the action on the screen by rising to their feet at appropriate moments. But the most notable reaction, the line that elicited the loudest cheering and hollering from the crowd occurred before the speech began when one of the Fox talking heads (possibly my dog Shep Smith) announced that Cindy Sheehan had been arrested. Suffice it to say that the place went wild with the news. Medved had earlier clued us in that Rep. Lynn Woolsey intended to bring Sheehan to the speech with her and there was an expectation that she would do something untoward in an attempt to disrupt the speech. Part of the crowd's reaction was no doubt relief that such a disruption would not occur, but most of it was likely a release of pent up frustration with the way that Sheehan has been anointed by the media as this untouchable paragon of moral authority who was beyond criticism no matter how outrageous her views were. Finally, people had a chance to express their true feelings about Cindy Sheehan. The patience is gone. The empathy has disappeared. The understanding has reached its end. There isn't any more slack in the line for mother Sheehan. Labels: Politics-National Friday, October 07, 2005
Whatever camp you're in regarding the Miers nomination--for, against, or undecided--there is one fact that no one can deny: it has teed off a good sized chunk of the much ballyhooed conservative base. Supporters of Miers can't quite seem to grasp why this particular action by Bush has set off the firestorm within the conservative core that it has. And, if it was only the Miers nomination that people were upset about, their outrage would appear to be a gross overreaction. The problem is that for many conservatives, the nomination is not the first straw, but rather the last.
And, if even a minority of these folks carry through on the threats they are now making to abandon their President and party, it could have far reaching consequences in 2006 and beyond. Consider this e-mail that I have received from Nathan after this post comparing Miers nomination to getting hamburger after being promised filet mignon: I like the analogy to building a deck but getting shafted on the reward. It describes part of my disappointment and partly why I'm upset with the Roberts and Miers picks. But that analogy doesn't go deep enough. I'm not just miffed that I spent a couple of weekends working on a deck, only to get stiffed with burgers instead of steak. I'm angry that I spent 25 years slaving away on it, only to get stiffed with Mystery Meat instead of steak. Twice. Maybe a deck on a house isn't big enough to convey the depth of my anger. Think of a different "deck," the deck of a ship. For the last 40 years, the USS Supreme Court has been veering further and further off course, always to portside, away from the safe and prudent course originally laid out by the shipbuilders, and heading toward the rocky shoals of bigger government; taxpayer-funded-abortion-on-demand; extinguishment of religion in public life; special privileges based on race or sex or sexual preference; same-sex marriage; wild social spending; idiotic foreign adventures; and other dangers. Those of us who wanted a course correction were told that first, we needed to change the crew. We elected a GOP majority in the House. Then we were told we needed to change the officers. We elected a GOP majority in the Senate. We were told we needed to change the captain. We elected a GOP captain. Now we're told that even though we control the entire ship, we can't change the course of the ship radically, it must be done incrementally, by appointing ever-so-slightly-right-of-center pilots who gradually will nudge the ship back on course. And although you know nothing about them, trust us -- these are the right people to do the nudging. I don't want to nudge the ship a little, I want to throw the wheel hard to starboard and go to flank speed. Not a complete reversal, maybe, but a major course correction for sure, not some hoped-for nudge. I've patiently been swabbing the decks of this damned ship since Jimmy Carter was the captain, waiting for the stars to align so we could get the pilots we were promised. This was supposed to be my time. I wanted to see some major payback action. But what did I get? Mystery Man Roberts. And now Mystery Old Maid Miers? And I'm supposed to be satisfied? I'm furious. I don't give a good G** damn if the Republicans never win another election as long as I live. I'm done with them. No more time. No more money. 2008 will probably pit Hillary against McCain and frankly, I can't tell which one I despise more, a pox on both their houses. Here's my attitude in a nutshell: I trusted you. You screwed me. Now there's going to be Hell to pay. Dismiss Nathan if you wish. Tell him to sit down and shut up. Wax on about the "perfect being the enemy of the good" all you want. Try to convince yourself that this is just another brilliant strategic masterstroke by Karl Rove. But, no matter how you twist it, the fact of the matter is that the choice of Miers has driven him from the Republican fold. And I'm afraid to say that he's far from the only one. Part of the base is goin' boys and they ain't coming back. Miers may turn out to be a fine justice and Bush and all those who supported her nomination from the start will be vindicated. But at what price? One of the arguments put forward by supporters of Miers is that her nomination is practical politics. They claim to be looking at the larger political picture and long term alignment of power. They talk of "incremental gains" and "moving the ball forward." Which sounds all well and good. But who are the foot soldiers who are going to hold the political ground that conservatives have gained so far, to say nothing of expanding it further? Who is going to provide the money, time, and passion required to win the critical races in 2006, 2008, and beyond? Don't look for Nathan, he's already gone. Labels: Politics-National Monday, September 19, 2005
As any resident of the Twin Cities knows, bumper stickers are the preferred way for Democrats to deal with political loss. Driving the highways and byways of these towns you see them everywhere, symbolic, tragic, self adhesive tributes to their fallen heroes: Kerry/Edwards, Gore, and, of course, the many faces of Wellstone!
If Elisabeth Kübler-Ross had used the Twin Cities as a case study for her research, her stages of grief would no doubt have been: Denial Anger Bargaining Depression Bumper Stickers This summer, I saw a literal loser mobile with stickers for Kerry (loss in 2004), Gore (loss in 2000) and, believe it or not, a Mondale! (losses in 2004, 1984, 1980). Mondale's name with a trailing exclamation point may be the most inappropriate use of punctuation in political history. Unless it was there to express alarm rather than excitement. All things considered, it would have been more correct to go with something like: Mondale; Dave in Minneapolis has also noticed the bumper sticker phenomenon and writes in with a suggestion: I'm wondering if either of you has access to a warehouse full of old Bob Dole '96 bumper stickers. I see a constant stream of "John Kerry" or "Kerry/Edwards" bumper stickers as I drive around town (usually they're on the back of that slow-moving vehicle in the left lane). Since the people sporting these stickers obviously haven't cottoned on to the fact that the election is over, and that their guy lost, perhaps the rest of us could put up "Dole" bumper stickers so they don't have to feel so bad about looking so silly. Of course, their stickers could be a sign of a problem deeper than simple "denial": it could be that keeping these bumper stickers around gives them a certain feeling of smug satisfaction - a feeling that, because they voted for Kerry, somehow they're better than the rest of us. Once again, I view the "Dole" bumper sticker as the perfect antidote: "Oh yeah, you think YOU'RE cool 'cuz you voted for Kerry? Well I voted for Dole! Take THAT, Mr. Smug!" If not that, do you at least have some old "Hinderacker for soil and water conservation district" bumper stickers? This should send the same message. I await your thoughts and guidance, and possibly the blueprints to Hugh Hewitt's garage (which I'm sure is chock full of old inventory for BOTH campaigns). A good idea, unfortunately, we don't have access to Dole bumper stickers ourselves. But someone out there on the Internet does. In fact, you have your choice between Dole's ill fated campaign in 1996, in 1988 or in 1980. Or perhaps you'd prefer his vice presidential plunge in 1976? Or maybe you really want to send a message about Quixotic irrelevancy, try this fleeting glimpse of another Dole effort. Sadly, none of these are probably enough to shake the Democrats out of their electoral fantasy funks. At this point they're in too deep. Drastic times call for drastic actions and perhaps only one remedy will work. Scaring them straight. Labels: Politics-National Thursday, August 04, 2005
One of the long-held articles of conventional wisdom that needs to be put to rest once and for all is the notion that U.S. corporations are politically conservative. Corporations have no core political beliefs. They care about one thing and one thing only: profits. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just the way things are and personally, I wouldn't want it any other way.
I think people have fallen for the "corporations being conservative" line because, over the years, conservatives and corporations have come down on the same side of a number of issues such as taxes, government regulation, and, especially of late, free trade. But while conservatives embrace lower taxes, less government regulation, and more free trade because they fundamentally believe in these positions, corporations support them solely because they believe it will help their bottom line. And only THEIR bottom line. Not their industries bottom line and certainly not in the bottom line of their competitors. In fact, corporations will often call for more government regulation and less free trade if they feel it will help their competitive position. We can see the latest example in a story from yesterday's Wall Street Journal (sorry, subscription required) on the good start for big business in Bush's second term: These are good times for business in Washington. President Bush's first term was a mixed bag for his corporate constituents. They got the tax cuts they wanted and some easing of environmental regulations, but also a massive increase in securities regulation and a war that threatened to undermine the appeal of American brands abroad. Term two is turning out to be very different. The Indian agreement is just one of a long list of pro-business actions that got significantly longer last week. Congress passed a Central American Free Trade Agreement eagerly sought by business, as well as an energy bill and a transportation bill that had been stalled for years. Add to those the new bankruptcy law and the changes in class-action lawsuit rules approved this year, and you have got what the lobbying group Business Roundtable's John Castellani calls an "unprecedented string of accomplishments to help drive the America economy." With the exception of the energy and transportation bills (especially the transporktation bill), the aforementioned actions should be pleasing to most conservatives. But look what's looming on the horizon: If anyone thinks this business push for government activism is a temporary phenomenon, well, think again. The elephant in this smoke-filled room is health care. Health care has become a migraine-intensity cost headache for any company that acts responsibly toward its workers. In the coming years, you can bet that the fiercest lobbying for change won't come from labor or liberal social groups, which have been pushing health-care reform for three decades. It will come from the companies -- and perhaps state governors -- that are footing the bills. There still are plenty in business who give lip service to the notion that the government that governs least, governs best. But their actions belie their words. The business plans of big business today increasingly involve government. More government, less cost for business (at least in the short term), and higher profits. The bidness of bidness is indeed bidness. Labels: Business, Politics-National Monday, May 23, 2005
Friday, March 04, 2005
They're trying to take bread out of Eddie's mouth:
The FEC, thanks to a John McCain lawsuit, will have to calculate the value of a link on a political website in order to determine whether the owner has overdonated to a campaign -- in other words, committed a felony. Bigger blogs will come under closer scrutiny, which means that any expression of support on CQ with a referential hyperlink may well get valued at more than the $2,000 maximum hard-cash contribution. In order for me to operate under those conditions, I will need to hire a lawyer and an accountant to guide me through the election laws and calculate my in-kind donations on almost an hourly basis. How many bloggers will put up with that kind of hassle just to speak their minds about candidates and issues? John McCain and Russ Feingold have effectively created an American bureaucracy dedicated to stamping out independent political speech, and the courts have abdicated all reason in declaring it constitutional. In case you're curious, we estimate that the value of a link from Fraters Libertas is approximately .0003279 cents. At least that's what we're telling the FEC. Labels: Politics-National Saturday, November 06, 2004
It's all starting to make sense now. For months we've been trying to find Hugh Hewitt's prom picture from the '70s, in which he is a sporting a canary yellow tuxedo. Obviously said photo is being held by Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania and used against Hugh as blackmail. How else to explain Hugh's defense of Specter?
On reflection, it seems to me a very bad idea to try and topple Senator Specter from what in the ordinary course of events would be his Chairmanship. I hope my colleagues on the center-right that embrace pro-life politics will reconsider. I understand that Senator Specter voted against Robert Bork, and that Senator Specter is not a friend of the pro-life movement. But genuine progress in the fight to return American public opinion to an affirmation of life before birth cannot be made through strong-armed tactics and almost certainly will not be lasting if it is accomplished through a putsch. Institutions that are destabilized for expediency's sake do not regain stability after a convenient alteration. Yeah, that's what we need in the Senate. More "stability." Remember during the excruciatingly drawn out run-up to the war in Iraq (labeled by leftists as a "rush to war"), when we were told that invading Iraq would "destabilize" the Middle East? The response to that objection was that years of "stability" in the Middle East had produced nothing but dictators, Islamic fundamentalism, and terrorism, and that it was high time to shake things up. I for one have had enough of the "stability" in the Senate offered by the likes of Specter, Chafee, and Snowe. When Specter was challenged in the Republican primary by conservative Pat Toomey, many commentators on the right (including yours truly) backed Toomey. Unfortunately, President Bush, Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania's other senator), and Hugh supported Specter and helped him fend off Toomey. Hugh Hewitt is an intelligent, generous man of unquestionable integrity who has done much to help the conservative cause (to say nothing of the blogosphere) through his talk radio show, his blog, and his books. But he was wrong about Specter in the Pennsylvania primary and he's wrong about him now. C'mon Hugh, is the picture really that bad? Labels: Politics-National Thursday, November 04, 2004
[Editor's note: for the most part we refrain from the use of expletives on this blog. In general, using profanity does not reflect well on the writer. It is often nothing more than a juvenile attempt to garner attention and is used as a substitute for meaningful thought (see the vast majority of local lefty blogs). However, on occasion circumstances dictate that its use is appropriate. And this is one of those occasions. If you are sensitive about such matters, I urge you to skip this post and come back tomorrow when the normal family-friendly atmosphere of Fraters Libertas will once again be evidenced. Unless Atomizer gets cut off at another wine tour that is.]
The election is over. The President has been re-elected. The GOP has picked up seats in both the Senate and the House. For those of us on the right side of the aisle, it's a time to celebrate. We're being told that we should be magnanimous in victory. That we should not gloat or mock those on the other side. And to a certain extent, I agree with that notion. I respect the stalwart Democrats who fought the good fight for their party. Guys like Flash from Centrisity. They are decent, honorable people who just happen to be wrong about most of the issues of the day. While I am glad that their candidate was not successful, I have no desire to rub their faces in their defeat. And anyone who has been at trivia night at Keegan's knows that I am nothing if not a gracious winner. But... My magnanimity only goes so far. And when it comes to those on the left who were fueled by irrational hatred and engaged in the most despicable, egregious, slanderous, defamatory, and disgusting attacks on a sitting U.S. president in memory, I have nothing but disdain. This may seem a bit extreme, but I find myself agreeing with sentiments like this: Let's face a hard truth: this was the bitterest Presidential campaign in living memory. The Democrats and their allies staked everything on the defeat of this President. All of the resources they had accumulated over a generation of struggle were thrown into this battle: and they have failed. Despite all of their tricks, despite all of their lies, the people have rejected them. They mean nothing. They are worth nothing. There's no point in trying to reach out to them because they won't be reached out to. We've got their teeth clutching the sidewalk and out boot above their head. Now's the time to curb-stomp the bastards. Metaphorically speaking of course. The truth is that ever since the 2002 election (and earlier in some cases) we've had to put with a non-stop barrage of invective directed against President Bush. And now it's time for a response. To the sneering punks who called Bush a smirking chimp, the conspiracy nutjobs who couldn't say four words without Halliburton dribbling out of their mouth, the goons who tried to shut down GOP campaign offices, the morons who think Bush is an idiot, the defeatists who encourage our enemies while demanding that we don't dare question their patriotism, the thugs who painted swastikas on Bush campaign signs, the sophists spouting "regime change begins at home", the historically challenged fools who compare Bush to Hitler, the "It's all about oil" idiots, the Fahrenheit 911 watching simpletons, the delusional paranoids who claim that fascism is now upon us, the self-important nobodies who fancy that their dissent is even worth crushing, and the disaffected expatriates who trash our president and country overseas to curry favor with their Euro buddies, I have a simple message using the straightforward words of Dick Cheney: Go fuck yourselves. I also want to extend my one fingered victory salute to some specific individuals and groups. So here's a big Fuck You victory shout out to: Michael Moore, The City Pages, Al Franken, National Public Radio, Bruce Springsteen, MoveOn.org, Barbara Streisand, the a-holes at The New York Times (big-time!), Dan Rather, Rock The Vote, Garrison Keillor, CBS News, George Soros, The Guardian, Michael Stipe, The Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial board, P Diddy , Minnesota Public Radio, Nick Coleman, CNN, Paul Krugman, Kim Ode, the eastern half of Canada, Molly Ivins, Whoopi Goldberg, and France. And I have a further message to all those (especially relevant for Michael Moore) who claim that they'd rather leave the country than spend another four years in George W. Bush's Amerika: Don't let the border gate hit your ass on the way out. Labels: Politics-National Friday, October 22, 2004
John Kerry's rally in the Metrodome parking lot yesterday is being hailed as one of the largest in state history. The Kerry campaign's estimate was 30,000. Inflated as that might be by spin, the pictures attest it was an impressively proportioned seething mob.
Big attendance and the pictures provided are the real point of these events. If you can portray an outpouring of genuine support and revved up excitement for a candidate, the independent swing voter might just be swayed. Because deep in his heart, all he really wants to do is support a winner. It's the bandwagon effect and this is partly why polls taken days after an election asking voters "who did you vote for?" typically result in the margin of victory for the winner far exceeding the actual vote tally. Believe it or not, sometimes the press even helps out in creating the impression of a chosen candidate as Mr. Excitement. For example, the Star Tribune's breathless headline today "Kerry Ignites Dome Crowd" and the objective description provided by the professional journalist on hand was: Tens of thousands of fans roared their way through an amped-up 34-minute version of the Massachusetts senator's stump speech. This Kerry fellow does sound like he's some sort of Magic Man. From that description, even I may have to consider voting for him. But I hope his chances aren't hurt by voters confusing him with that other John Kerry. You know, that aristocratic, moribund Democrat we've seen on TV for the past 20 years. Perhaps the Democratic partisans were really as fired up as the press reports. By their own "Anybody But Bush" philosophy, their standards for excitement are remarkably low. They'd probably be just as jazzed for an appearance by someone as coma inspiring as Walter Mondale. (Oh. Never mind.) This is the point that is missed in the press reports. The crowd was almost exclusively comprised of rabid partisans. No one was there with an open mind or drawn there on the basis of Kerry's magnetism. The crowd is there to play the game as much as the candidate is. He pretends he's the fresh new voice of optimism and excitement and progress, they pretend they're reasonable, intelligent voters who've conscientiously weighed the issues and realized this man is what the country needs. And it all looks good on TV and in the quotes provided to the newspaper. Things like: Kerry ignited thousands of supporters, many of whom waited outside the Metrodome in a light drizzle and steady winds for more than two hours. "We need change and we need help and I think he brought that to us tonight," said Marlys Fox, 43, of Columbia Heights. Getting back to the alleged record crowd for Kerry, I wonder how much of the turn out was due to another event, conveniently being held at the same time. The teacher's union convention started yesterday in St. Paul. These days they call themselves Education Minnesota and their convention is their annual gratuitous demonstration of power to the people of Minnesota. Instead of holding their meetings sometime over their three month break during the summer, they shut down the entire public school system in the middle of the school year. By their own estimates (which again should be looked on with suspicion) 10,000 - 12,000 professional educators attend. This out of their entire membership of 70,000. So the education system grinds to a halt so 17% of the membership can attend a union meeting, while the rest enjoy a nice four day weekend at taxpayer's expense. Showing once again, being a monopoly is good work if you can get it. I wonder how many in the crowd yesterday were teachers, fresh from their Excel Center meetings and seminars. Or simply teachers who had the day off, and no work the next day either, thus allowing them the luxury of taking hours to participate in a political rally on what is a work night for everyone else. There's no direct evidence to support this speculation (the local press sure isn't on it), but the teacher's union unyielding support for the Democrats is well established. According to George Will: one in 10 delegates to the Democratic [National] convention was a member of a teachers union According to Free Republic (via the AP), the 2.7 million member national teacher's union (NEA): ... has never endorsed a Republican for president and typically spends $9 out of every $10 it raises on Democrats. All of that money, by the way, provided by YOU. From your property taxes to teachers' salaries to the union to the campaign of John Kerry. Yet another reason to demand school choice - defund the Left! For these reasons, I think it's entirely reasonable to assume the Metrodome parking lot last night was lousy with teachers. But in actuality, they didn't even need to go to Minneapolis to participate in a partisan political rally. There was plenty of that going on at their convention. Flash from Centrisity was there: Bob Woodward was the keynote speaker at the Education Minnesota convention. I was fortunate enough to make it in time to get a nice center aisle seat, 5 rows from the front. He opened to a standing ovation, receiving a warm greeting from a crowd who wasn't really sure what he was going to share. He waved us down stating "Please sit down, it's not that good", which was greeted with a room full of chuckles. Giving a newspaper reporter a standing ovation is a bit much (which even Woodward seemed to realize). But never underestimate the love of this crowd toward those who helped bring down a Republican. The Education Minnesota promotion of the Woodward appearance tends to support this: Woodward first gained national attention when, as a young investigative reporter for the Washington Post, he teamed up with Carl Bernstein to investigate the burglary at the Watergate office building that eventually led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Bravo! Bravo! Sure, maybe they were only applauding that whole 'speaking truth to power' thing. If so, I expect Matt Drudge to get a standing ovation for instigating the Clinton impeachment, next time he's invited to address Education Minnesota. More from the Flash at the convention: This spiel was no rah rah speech like those that preceded his keynote. Prior to him, both Senator Mark Dayton and Garrison Keillor pumped up the crowd in a 'Political Forum' While it's good to see Mark Dayton has crawled out from his concrete bunker to make a public appearance, the whole idea of a "Political Forum" during a public employee union meeting, featuring a shameless hack like Garrison Keillor, is a little depressing. Remember, these are the people taking your tax dollars, demanding more and more every year, so they can turn around and give millions to John Kerry's campaign. Who knows how much more of your money they spent on Bob Woodward's and Garrison Keillor's speaking fees. Good citizens, these are the people teaching your kids! At least they will be on Monday. Remember, they have today off too. Labels: Education, Politics-National Saturday, September 25, 2004
Listening to the Art Bell show on KSTP, now hosted by some guy named George Nouri. But it's still devoted to the the weird and the bizarre. For example, right now he's interviewing Ralph Nader. Seriously, he's on right now and for the rest of this hour. Late night blog readers tune in now.
He's rantin' and ravin' and plugging his book and throwing around wild, unsubstantiated charges at both Kerry and Bush. It's outstanding. The highlight so far, moments ago, Nader referred to President Bush as a "dodge drafter." Is that the new rear-engine coupe from the folks at Daimler-Chrysler? Or has ol' Ralph been nipping at the ouzo tonight? UPDATE: Ralph doesn't believe in UFO's. His reasoning: "if they come here, why don't they ever stay?" Hard to argue with that. No wonder they won't let this guy in on the debates. UPDATE: Ralph is concerned about Bush and Kerry's Skull and Bones membership. Secret oaths and all that, who are they beholden to? Now he's talking about potential initiation rites and rituals, and he said, I quote "they bond in a very uncensored way." It seems this show is about to take a very ugly turn. UPDATE: Phhhhew, he's back to bitching about the minimum wage. UPDATE: On to Mad Cow Disease. A leading, non sequitur question by Nouri. Ralph seems momentarilly fazed. Now he enthusiastically concurs, it's a very serious matter. He says if there ever is an epidemic of it, that'll be the end of the meat industry. Move over John McCain, there's a new Straight Talk Express at the station. UPDATE: And that's it, the hour ends, fittingly, with the Eagles "Take it to the Limit". Desperado might have been more appropriate. UPDATE: Now a Menards commerical. It's the Octoberfest sale! Big savings on tarps! I'll stop now. Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, August 31, 2004
I listened to this evening's RNC speeches while doing some touch up painting in my office at home. Not as glamorous an assignment as the boys in Bloggers Row (why do I think of strip clubs everytime I hear that?) have perhaps, but we all have our role to play.
Ahnold was Ahnold. What he says doesn't matter as much as the way he says it, although tonight's speech had plenty of content to match his charisma. A- Hearing the Bush twins pathetic attempts at self-deprecating humor (could not they find someone to write some decent lines for them? Give us a ring next time girls and we'll talk.) was painful. The less we hear from these two the rest of the way, the better. D- Laura was Laura. Plain-spoken, modest, and nice. And boring. She's a wonderful woman and makes a great First Lady. But a headline speaker she ain't. C+ Other that Ahnold, a rather unimpressive evening. I still wonder why they stacked McCain and Rudy on the opening night, instead of saving Rudy for Wednesday. I'm sure that Zell Miller will do a bang-up job, but I can't imagine that he'll be able to approach the rhetorical heights reached by Giuliani. Tomorrow night will tell. Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Russ writes to Senator John McCain:
Senator McCain, I begin this missive with an embrazo, as we call it here in Texas, for your service to our country, as a warrior, as a prisoner of war and as a United States Senator. You have served far better and endured far more in the service of America than most men will ever do. For that, this old sergeant salutes you. That said, as a Vietnam ground combat veteran, I must take issue with you on the situation of John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans. You have labeled these men "dishonest and dishonorable," and that, Sir, is nothing more than your opinion based on no direct knowledge of the events they dispute. For you to so condemn these men publicly, without any firsthand knowledge of John Kerry's performance in their midst and under their professional observation, is unfair to them and all veterans who share their view that John Kerry is unfit to command. Who was best qualified to evaluate you as a naval aviator, those senior officers who flew with you or the enlisted men who serviced your aircraft? Who had the experience, training and knowledge to make a professional military judgment of your performance in the air, the trained naval aviators on your wing or the enlisted flight crew back on the carrier? Certainly the enlisted men were vital in performing the mission but observing and rating your performance was not their role. It is my understanding that you originally shared our animosity towards John Kerry, but during your senatorial service, you came to know John Kerry more personally and chose to forgive him for his labeling you a war criminal. That you are able to forgive a man even though he had denounced you and your fellow aviators as you languished in North Vietnamese prisons, with your captors using his testimony to try to break your will, is truly commendable. I admire you for your ability to turn the other cheek. However, I must point out that your forgiveness of John Kerry is purely personal and imposes not one iota of obligation to forgive him on those of us who still consider him contemptible. You carry no mandate to speak for us. Your personal feelings are yours and yours alone; but, emphatically, you do not speak for us. You spoke up to defend your friend and your friend has turned your words into talking points. It is truly reprehensible how the Kerry campaign and the mainstream media are hiding so cynically behind your condemnation of the Swiftvets, using your statement as an excuse to dismiss their claims as baseless, smear politics. Honestly, Senator, did you really intend to provide this kind of cover for those who are so desperate to prevent the truth from coming out? With all do respect, since you weren't there to observe John Kerry first hand as were these Swiftvets, may I humbly suggest that the honorable thing for you to do, is to stay out of this fight and allow them and us to have our voice. Moreover, there is one thing you could do to level the playing field: acknowledge that you have no true knowledge of events the Swiftvets describe and that your immediate condemnation of these men was premature. Call on the mainstream media to investigate all parties fairly and determine whose version of events is true. I understand John Kerry is your friend, but that places him neither beyond accountability nor above the truth. You have a unique ability at this moment in America's history to make a difference. You have long been a dutiful warrior and servant of the people. Please, do your duty now. Russ Vaughn 2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment 101st Airborne Division Vietnam 65-66 I would request that all who agree with the sentiments expressed here copy this letter and send it to: Labels: Politics-National Thursday, July 29, 2004
Dear John,
After all you've been through in the past year, losing in the primaries and being unable to win reelection to your own Senate seat, I do hate to bring more uncertainty into your life; but I've noticed that since being named John Kerry's new best buddy, your Two Americas stump speech and your new commercial now include a challenge to voters that goes something like this: "If you don't think John Kerry is a leader, just ask the men who served with him in Vietnam. They'll tell you he's a leader," or words to that effect. Well, OK, John, why don't we do just that? Let's ask them. At a press conference in Washington this past May, an organization called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of former sailors who served in Kerry's unit in Vietnam, presented a letter to Kerry signed by more than 200 of his former shipmates calling on him to release his military records so that the truth about his abbreviated tour of duty, his spurious wounds and his undeserved medals could be revealed to the American public. Not surprisingly, this event and this organization were totally ignored by the major media, as they continue to be to this day. Did you catch that press conference? No? Never heard anything about these ol' boys at all huh, John? Well, listen up, Senator. If you visit their website, Swiftvets.com or a sister site, Wintersoldier.com, you'll see some choice quotes from those fellows who served with your new best buddy. From Admiral Roy Hoffmann, his former commanding officer, come such phrases and characterizations as: "Contempt for the military and authority?." "Arrived in country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self serving determination to build a foundation for his political future?." "Aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments?." "A loose cannon?." "Bugged out of Vietnam?." and finally, "Not fit to command." I'll bet you a Florida precinct that any good trial lawyer would consider someone of Admiral Hoffman's stature an unimpeachable witness, wouldn't you? Loose cannon? Bugged out? Not fit to command? I'm not causing you to have any second thoughts here, am I, John? Hmmm? Now take a listen to retired Navy Captain, Charlie Plumly, who had Kerry, "under my command for two or three specific operations before his rapid exit." Plumly is even less charitable to your new bud than the admiral. His quotes on Kerry's service include these colorful expressions, "Devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive." And then he gives us this little jewel, "But the most common phrase would have been requires constant supervision." Boy that's a comforting thing to read on the resume of the guy who wants to control the world's greatest nuclear arsenal, isn't it? Makes it a little more understandable why your buddy was willing to swallow a Republican as his number two in command, doesn't it, John? You do have to give him credit for knowing he needed a more experienced hand like McCain watching out for him. Sounds to me like what he really needs is Dick Cheney, hear me, John? Then there's Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, now deceased, Chief of Naval Operations at the time of Kerry's service, who said, "With Kerry's large ambitions, his career in Vietnam will haunt him if he were ever on the national stage." Oh my, and just look at who's up there on that stage with him, bringing up that career at every opportunity. Hey, John, as a trial lawyer you've got to know some good investigators. Why don't you part with a few thou and check some of this out? I mean this could take the expression, "egg on your face" to a whole new dimension, know what I mean? The Swiftvets website has several testimonials from others who served with your buddy and none are laudatory. On the contrary, they are replete with refutations of John Boy's claims in his book, "Tour of Duty", ranging from emotional denials of the war crimes Kerry depicts there to ridicule of his wearing that leather flight jacket on the campaign trail and claiming it brought him luck in Vietnam, "No one wore such a jacket in 90+ heat." You sure you want to keep bringing this guy's service record up in every speech, John? I know it's easy for someone who never served to be a little overawed, but good grief, even a weenie liberal lawyer ought to be able to figure out you don't wear leather jackets on jungle patrols, you know? And what's with this flight jacket business anyway? What was John Boy flying over there? Sure as hell wasn't a supersonic F-102 interceptor like George Bush, now was it? But of course! Why didn't I think of it? That jacket could explain the minor nature of his award-winning wounds; kept all that nasty flak and flying lead from really hurting him instead of just breaking the skin, you know? Guess that's why he calls it his lucky jacket. But I gotta tell you, Man, speaking of breaking, I'm sitting here breaking out in a sweat just thinking about it. I mean, jungle fatigues were hot enough; but leather? With fleece lining? Whew, man, that's hardcore! Well, I guess I am going have to admit this, John. In this regard, you're right; there are Two Americas: there's the America that believes your buddy wore a fleece lined, leather aviators jacket in the jungle; the America that will mindlessly heed your impassioned challenge to listen to the bought and paid for endorsement of the half dozen or so enlisted crewmen your buddy has shanghaied into his campaign. Then there's that other America, the one out there waiting for the media to let us hear the more than 200 voices of those who served well and honorably, both officers and enlisted, who are telling the truth about your good ol' buddy. Somehow, some way, I believe, I pray, that will happen. And even if it doesn't, what those truth tellers are saying has relevance for you, John. Think about it; your oh-so-affectionate, backslapping partner bugged out on them and then libeled and slandered them viciously to serve his own political goals. So you might just want to consider this, Senator: if you guys lose in November there will be Two Americas all right. And you can bet your biggest contingency fee anyone Kerry can blame for costing him the goal of his life sure won't be part of his America anymore. Talk about getting a "Dear John" letter. Think, Johnnie Boy, think. Didn't your ol' Daddy ever teach you nuthin' bout leopards and spots? Russ Vaughn 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment 101st Airborne Division Vietnam 65-66 Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, July 21, 2004
After engaging in some Sandy Berger jokes this morning with the in-crowd at my workplace, I decided to do a visual gag with the receptionist. Upon retrieving a large Fed Ex from the mail area, I stashed it half way down my pants and made my way toward the front desk. (FYI--I discovered the experience to be not at all displeasing, which may be another, more base motive for Berger's actions.)
Anyway, I walked down the hall, put on my Berger face, adjusted the package (so to speak), turned the corner, and ..... found out the receptionist was on a break and someone else was filling in. Someone not in on the joke. Someone who's now filing a harassment complaint against me with the EEOC. Proving once again, sometimes prop comedy is no laughing matter. Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, July 20, 2004
When the news broke last night about Sandy Berger and the "misplaced" documents (hey Sandy, is that a classified dossier in your pants or are you just glad to see me?) my initial reaction was that people were making far too much of the story. Yes, he probably broke the rules. And yes, if it was Condi Rice the mainstream press would be all over it like lonely bloggers on Plain Layne, but I was willing to give Berger the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's got a bit of the absent minded professor in him I thought, and honestly was not aware of his illegal actions.
But today after reading this post at Captain's Quarters I'm beginning to have doubts: For my money, that's at least one "inadvertently" too many, and that is not a literary criticism. Perhaps this explanation will fly for those who have never worked around classified documents, but since I spent three years producing such material, I can tell you that it's impossible to "inadvertently" take or destroy them. For one thing, such documents are required to have covers -- bright covers in primary colors that indicate their level of classification. Each sheet of paper is required to have the classification level of the page (each page may be classified differently) at the top and bottom of each side of the paper. Documents with higher classifications are numbered, and each copy is tracked with an access log, and nowadays I suppose they're tracking them by computers. Under these rules, it's difficult to see how anyone could "inadvertently" mix up handwritten notes with classified documents, especially when sticking them into one's jacket and pants. Furthermore, as Clinton's NSA, Berger would have been one of the people responsible for enforcing these regimens, not simply subject to them. The DOD makes these rules crystal clear during the clearance process at each level of access, and security officers (which Berger clearly was) undergo even further training and assessment on security procedures. "Inadvertent" and "sloppiness", in the real context of secured documentation, not only don't qualify as an excuse but don't even register as a possibility. As Ed goes on to say, it's far too early in the game to tell what Berger's motives might have been, and perhaps there is nothing sinister about what he did. But his original excuse about "sloppiness" doesn't seem to hold water anymore. More from Ed on this story here and here. Labels: Politics-National Monday, July 19, 2004
Just polished off Hugh Hewitt's latest literary effort. Unless you've been hiding under a rock or living in a cave for the last three weeks (did anybody tell Osama?) I'm sure you've heard about Hugh's book. He hasn't exactly been shy about promoting it so far, and it sounds as if the real blitz is only just getting started. If you're at your local Barnes and Noble and you notice a bespectacled, silver-haired shock jock in Dockers with a goofy smile coming at you with a stack of red books, I recommend that you find the exit immediately.
Of course I did not have to shell out any lucre for my copy, although I hesitate to describe it as "free". Considering the mountains of abuse that Hugh has heaped on me and my good name in the last year, I feel that the book is the minimum that Hugh owes me. Reparations! I demand reparations! I don't agree with all the points that Hugh makes in his book. He's more willing than I am to trade principle for power; the Toomey-Specter race for example. But overall it's a concise, thoughtful examination of the reasons that people should support the GOP in the 2004 election, along with concrete examples of what that support should entail (it's much more that just voting). He isn't afraid to take the occasional jab at fellow conservatives either. In fact I believe that this particular line may very well be referring to a fellow talk radio host on Hugh's same network: While self-proclaimed experts on borders and quotas and culture rant away, voting citizens hear these rants as appeals to racists instincts, even when they are not intended that way. My only quibble with Mr. Hewitt's effort, other than the matter of his referring to our blog as "annoying", is that he is too quick to dismiss those who support third parties: Greens are useful only as a bleeding device on Democrats, and Libertarians only as a bleeding device on Republicans. Both Greens and Libertarians are good for chuckles, but it is an absurd choice to ally oneself with one or the other and marks the self-declared Green or Libertarian as a naive and beside-the-point political nonentity. There's no point being involved in politics unless you are an active Republican or Democrat. If you are an independent or minor party candidate, you have no say in things. Nor will you in your lifetime. I don't substantially disagree with Hugh's assessment of third party supporters. And I concur with his view that: ...if you walk away from politics because you can't have everything your way, you are helping the people win who are least like you and most opposed to your views. But we can't afford to just write them off so cavalierly. I'm speaking of libertarians here. When it comes to the Green party; I say the more, the merrier. Go Greens. What I'm worried about is losing votes of disaffected conservatives. And what we can do to convince them to vote for Bush. This past Saturday night, Atomizer was hosting a party at his new abode. Late in the evening, after the keg of Summit had been hit early and often, we got into a debate with an intelligent, articulate, well-read friend of Atomizer's (no, that's not an oxymoron) with views that would be described by most as conservative. For the most part he supports the actions taken in the war against Islamist militants and agrees that Bush's tax cuts have helped stimulate the economy out of recession. But he's not voting for Bush in November. He's pulling the libertarian lever instead. We went round and round with him on this decision. How a vote for the libertarian candidate was a vote for Kerry, how you could never find a candidate with perfect views to fit yours, how this was the most important election in years (at least since 1980), how you needed to weigh the most important issues and vote on them, how Bush could actually win the state this year, etc. etc. All to no avail. The reality on the ground for me and, I suspect many others who read Hugh's book, is that there are not many Democrats out there whom I can persuade to vote for Bush. Those few that I know are pretty hard core lefties and not likely to come over. On the other hand, I know a number of folks whose political views are much more closely aligned with the GOP than with the Dems, but are either wavering on Bush or already committed to voting for a third party (usually either libertarian or constitutional). These are the people we need to influence. The question is how. What are the killer arguments that can sway them to vote for Bush this November? Is it too late for a supplemental chapter Hugh? Labels: Politics-National, Ralphie Friday, July 02, 2004
John Kerry is campaigning in Minnesota today. He's in Cloquet, the hometown of Jessica Lange, no less. Although I don't expect her to be attending the rally.
But somebody named Muriel Kennedy is going to be there, and she had this prediction for the upcoming election: Muriel Kennedy, 72, of North Branch, said she thought the war had caused the biggest erosion in Bush's rural support. At 7 a.m., the lifelong Democrat was among the first to arrive to hear Kerry - more than five hours before his appearance was scheduled. "I want to be counted," she said. "He has to win. If he doesn't win, I'll just crawl in a hole and die." We of course wish Muriel nothing but good health in the future. But if she does survive a 2nd Bush term, her bold rhetoric will force us to brand her the Alec Baldwin of the Iron Range. Labels: Politics-National Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Jim e-mails to observe:
While reading the New York Times article on John Kerry's recent Hollywood fundraiser, I came across this sentence in the twelfth paragraph: "Mr. Kerry, as he is happy to tell you, has longstanding friendships with James Taylor and Carly Simon, as well as with Mr. Affleck and Matt Damon, but he lacks the cachet of Mr. Clinton in these parts." I decided to check Neighbor Search to see how much money these wealthy and famous longtime friends donated to John Kerry. I came up with nothing for the singer James Taylor, however Carly Simon's only donation was $1500 to Howard Dean. Ben Affleck donated $2000 to Wesley Clark and $1000 to Dennis Kucinich. Not a dime to John Kerry. Matt Damon gave $2000 to Dennis Kucinich. Again, nothing to Kerry. All three will no doubt donate the full $2000 to Kerry, but it is interesting that Kerry seems to have been the second or third choice of these supposed longtime friends in the Democratic primary (assuming the NY Times story is accurate--a risky assumption, I admit). Labels: Politics-National Wednesday, June 23, 2004
This past week, I have made a conscious effort to avoid getting immersed in the seemingly endless coverage of the biggest story ever created by the media. I speak, of course, of the recent release of Bill Clinton's memoirs. Eight years of having to deal with the man as my Commander in Chief was hard enough so I'll be damned if I will subject myself to reliving the whole ordeal over the course of a few days.
That said, I did catch a snippet of Dan Rather's 60 Minutes interview in which Clinton revealed that the nickname he disliked most was "Slick Willie". I hope Bill wasn't listening to The Laura Ingraham Show this morning (broadcast locally, along with various other programs, on AM1280 The Patriot) when guest PJ O'Rourke referred to him as "Pudgy the Wonder President". Do you want to change that answer, Bill? Labels: Politics-National
|
TALK O' THE TOWN 
Listen to the Northern Alliance Radio Network on Saturdays from 11am 'til 5pm on AM 1280-The Patriot:
|
![[Powered by Blogger]](bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
