Elephants in the Blue Grass

McCain: Time to Kill the GOP debates

2012-01-30T09:22:00.000-05:00

Sen. John McCain says we need to put a moratorium on Republican presidential debates before they drive up the unfavorables of the ultimate nominee any further.

He may be on to something. The debates are beginning to look like a cheesy reality show. We know that Newt will attack Mitt on Bain just as certainly as we know that Snooki will do jello shots.

We have had ample opportuni to assess the debating skill, temperament and demeanor of each of the four remaining candidates.

There is still a real and urgent need for the candidates to outline their positive positions on the economy, for starters. But this can be more effectively done in a substantive and serious policy speech rather than in a debate.

Sure, the debates are kind of fun to watch. People who do not follow politics are tuning in just to see who gets bloodied worse. It's great theater, but it is not the job of the Republican party at this critical juncture to entertain America. Our purpose must be to defeat Barack Obama.

Neighbor Gets It Right....

2012-01-29T16:30:00.002-05:00

Our neighbor to the north, Indiana, is on the verge of becoming the 23rd state to enact a Right To Work law. The legislation passed the Indiana House on Wednesday and with a Republican controlled Senate and the strong endorsement of Governor Mitch Daniels, the legislation is on the fast track to becoming law. Indiana would be the first state in ten years to enact such a law and will presumably create more momentum for other states to follow suit.

Under the new law, unions would be banned from collecting mandatory fees from workers. Unions are understandably upset because this will greatly limit their ability to generate campaign dollars for union friendly (read Democrat) politicians. They are waging a mighty battle against it, but it appears at this point that the battle is lost in Indiana.

Unions need to face up to the fact that they, in their current form, are facing functional obsolescence in this country. When we had a relatively closed economy, we could afford the luxury of unions. There was a time when almost all products were made in the United States and workers could negotiate higher wages because they had little competition. Management was forced to meet many of their demands. Unfortunately for the unions, we now live in a global economy where capital and wages can quickly flow to cheaper labor markets. Union members that make $30 an hour do not understand that they are not competing anymore against American non-union workers making $20 an hour, they are competing against Asian and Indian workers making $5 an hour. Their alternatives are no longer between high union wages and lower non-union wages, they are between non-union wages and unemployment, as so many have painfully learned.

Unions are not intrinsically bad and they have done positive and beneficial things for many workers over the years. The reality though is that things change and that they are no longer viable, in their current American form, in the global economy. One would hope that smart and progressive union leaders could see this reality and proactively make changes to make unions more competitive and relevant, but this does not seem likely. In the meantime, progressive states like Indiana and 22 others will reap the benefits of increased business and investment from non-union companies.

Indiana has strong, forward looking political leadership that is looking out for the best interests of a majority of its citizens. One can only hope that Kentucky could be so lucky.

Marco Rubio Gives Republican Weekly Address

2012-01-28T11:31:00.000-05:00

Sen, Marco Rubio give this week's Republican Address. Whoever gets the nomination needs to pick Rubio as V.P. He does a masterful job skewering Obama's record. He reveals the meanness of Obama's appeal to class warfare. And his description of American exceptionalism is downright inspiring. Take a moment to watch:

http://m.youtube.com/?rdm=4pauejspo&reload=3#/profile?desktop_uri=%2Fgopweeklyaddress&user=gopweeklyaddress&gl=US

SantorumShowed Up

2012-01-27T08:15:00.000-05:00

Rick Santorum had his best debate of the election last night, maybe because his mom was in the audience. He seemed less whiny. And his request that the time be used for substance, as opposed to Mitt and Newt's sniping, was welcome and overdue. I still don't see Santorum winning. However, he should do well enough in Florida to press on.

Newt has crested, in my view. The more I see of Newt, the better everyone else looks. It didn't help that Elliott Abrams put the lie to Newt's claim that he helped Ronald Reagan win the Cold War. On NRO, Abrams details all the snotty things Newt said to and about Reagan, and how Newt in fact undermined Reagan. Had Newt prevailed, it is unlikely that America would have won the Cold War. It is a devastating critique of Newt and a must-read for anyone who is seriously considering him and anyone who considers Reagan the standard by which we should judge those who seek to carry the Republican mantle.

I fear that Newt would demean the Office of the President. As one elderly lady observed to me recently, the man has the "morals of an alley cat." When I see Newt, I think of Bill Clinton, and then I think about how W. had to put new carpet in the Oval Office. My mind doesn't want to go there, but this is the consequence of Newt's life choices.

Mitt Romney did well the first hour. But it is uncomfortable to watch him go negative against Newt; plainly, this is not in Mitt's character. That raises the concern: will he be similarly awkward attacking Obama?

Andy Barr Raises $425k

2012-01-26T19:33:00.000-05:00

Andy Barr, who lost by a hair in the 6th Congressional District, will file an FEC report stating that raised $425,000.

Barr ran the third closest Congressional race in the country two years ago. On Election night, the NRCC sent out emails to its volunteer lawyer network in anticipation of a recount. The margin, 647, just wasn't close enough.

The challenge for Barr is that Ben Chandler has voted to the right of the Democratic caucus. It is therefore harder to motivate conservatives from outside the district to donte than they would be inclined to donate to defeat John Yarmuth, for example.

But that's where realism comes in. No matter how much Yarmuth annoys conservatives, his advantage in registration makes Kentucky 3 a bad value for Republican donations. In Kentucky 6, however, we have a real shot.

John Yarmuth Whining

2012-01-26T10:38:00.003-05:00

John Yarmuth had an amusing editorial in today's CJ. It highlighted his proposed constitutional amendment to overturn key provisions of the recent Citizens United case. This was the case in which the Supreme Court determined that corporations were "people" as regards their free speech rights and ability to make contributions to political action committees, or PACs. Mr. Yarmuth thinks the ruling was deplorable because of its injection of more corporate cash into the political process.

The most amusing statement in the editorial was this one: "The last thing Congress needs is more corporate and special-interest candidates who don't answer to the American people." Now a guy who is beholden to union interests and doesn't answer to the American people is okay. What hypocrisy!

For decades the Democratic party has used unions as campaign piggy banks. In effect unions have been "people" for a long time. Now that the Citizens United case allows legitimate PACs that might oppose their interests, they, and their bought-and-paid-for politicians like Mr. Yarmuth, are all upset and whiny.

Citizens United was a good decision. Mr. Yarmuth, get over it.

List of Barack Obama's Positive Achievements......

2012-01-25T17:51:00.000-05:00

About That Republican Response

2012-01-25T15:44:00.000-05:00

Watching the Republican Response to the State of the Union by Gov. Mitch Daniels last night felt like a flash-back to when Gov. Bobby Jindal gave the Republican Response to an earlier Obama State of the Union. There was so much anticipation among conservatives that we were going to see something great -- a break-through performance by a rising Republican star.

And then we watched with horror as Jindal did that deer in the headlights thing, thereby dashing our hopes (and nearly, his career, until the BP Oil Spill gave him a chance to show how to govern under pressure).

Mitch Daniels didn't perform quite as badly as Jindal, last night, but nonetheless was disappointing. He looked visibly nervous. It is a hard setting, to be sure: an empty space in Indiana with no crowd to work, and none of the grandeur of a Joint Session of Congress.

I still wish Daniels was our nominee because of his extraordinary record as governor, not because of this speech.

Talk About Getting Things Done

2012-01-24T22:25:00.001-05:00

In the past hour, President Obama called on Congress to compromise and get things done.

"I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days." said President Obama.

Interesting. It seems like every time someone asks Obama to make up his mind, he says "no," that he didn't have time to make an informed decision.

Is three years not enough time to decide whether or not to approve an oil pipeline that would create thousands of jobs?

Apparently not. Maybe he wanted to please his environmental friends, or perhaps Mr. Buffet's railroad?

Obama has no business asking people to follow his deadlines when he can't even follow their own.

Any responsible boss would fire an employee who takes three years to avoid a decision. The American people should do the same.

Sen. Paul on Roe v. Wade Anniversary

2012-01-24T16:24:00.001-05:00

Sen. Rand Paul did not get to deliver his remarks to the March on Life yesterday, due to the TSA treating him like a terrorist at the Nashville airport. Here's what he would have said, if TSA had not made him miss his flight. Note that Paul used the formulation of John Locke -- "life, liberty and property" rather than Thomas Jefferson's version, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The distinction is not relevant to anniversary of Roe, but is interesting nonetheless.

The question remains, can a nation long endure or can a civilization long endure that does not respect Life? Our Liberty comes from our Creator and our freedoms depend upon a respect for Life.

In order to protect the unborn from the very moment life begins, I introduced the Life at Conception Act during my first year in the Senate. I have also cosponsored several other pro-life bills including the Life at Conception Act, the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.

I also strongly support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would confirm in law that an unborn child is a person entitled to the right to life and support legislation that would restrict federal courts from hearing cases involving abortion. State governments must be allowed to implement laws that protect life.

It is the government’s duty to protect life, liberty, and property, but primarily and most importantly, a government must protect life. Today, tragically our nation wavers; our moral compass is adrift. Today, I worry about our nation's future. Together a brighter tomorrow is possible if we join hands to restore our nation's virtue.

To respect life and to listen to the voice of God that lives and breathes and beckons and yearns for our attention. When America remembers and restores her respect for life, when America refinds her moral bearings then we will thrive again, then we will find our way.

I will never give up fighting for the lives of our unborn children. May God bless America.”

Obama Must Go

2012-01-22T19:20:00.000-05:00

Credits: Conservative FaceBook Page.

Kentucky's Primary May Matter

2012-01-22T12:44:00.000-05:00

One consequence of Newt's win last night in South Carolina is that the primary season will drag on, maybe until the Kentucky primary in May. We may have a chance to pick the nominee for a change, or at least influence the outcome.

Maybe we will even get our own debate. Who would moderate? Joe Arnold would be good. Then we could have some sanctimonious jerk or other from the Courier-Journal for Newt to smack down. That would be hilarious. I foresee a standing ovation.

I have not seen much of a Newt presence in Kentucky, other than some spontaneous comments in Facebook. Romney, on the other hand, has been raising money and building connections here for five years. He held a fundraiser in Kentucky just this past November. Establishment Republicans in Kentucky have bee gravitating to Romney for months, as well, so it would not take much for him to set up a ground game to get out the vote.

The challenge for Newt would be to mobilize the Tea Party. That will not be possible so long as Ron Paul remains in the race. Given his son's popularity here, Ron Paul has a real shot at winning Kentucky.

We may not have many delegates, but a Kentucky primary is guaranteed to entertain.

South Carolina Blues

2012-01-21T12:00:00.000-05:00

Regardless of who wins today in South Carolina, the Republican Party loses. We are out of viable options for president. Each of these candidates has attributes worthy of praise, regrettably offset by their shortcomings.

Newt is a masterful debater - a thrill to watch. How much fun it would be to watch him smack down the One. Yet the characteristic that makes Newt so mesmerizing also disqualifies him as president. He is, as a colleague who served with him in Comgress put it, a "high wire act." We watch with baited breath, not knowoing what he will do or say next. This is not the demeanor of someone who should have control of the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Further, Newt's attacks on capitalism recently reek of the class warfare we get from Obama. These attacks on free-market principles have no place in the Republican primary. That they come from the so-called ideas guy is alarming.

Mitt Romney has the requisite steadiness to be president. That same steadiness, however, is what makes it unlikely that he will govern as a true conservative. He may slow down the pace of growth of the state, but he will not reverse it. He is a incrementalist.

Rick Santorum has no chance. None. Same for Ron Paul. Gentlemen, it is time to do the right thing.

So those are our picks. Any would be better than the current occupant of the White House. But does anyone seriously believe theses are the best we can do? It is time to nurture the farm team so we are not stuck with a field this weak in 2016.

A Simple Math Problem....

2012-01-18T18:18:00.002-05:00

Here is a simple math problem for the Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Louisville/Occupy Wherever folks:

Which person contributes more towards government programs which help the poor, the person that earns $1,000,000 a year and pays 15% in taxes, or the person that earns $50,000 a year and pays 20% in taxes?

Jon Huntsman Sulks Away

2012-01-16T20:26:00.000-05:00

I must admit I was startled to hear that Jon Huntsman had quit the race. I had forgotten he was still in it. The tone of his calling-it-quits speech reminded me of why his candidacy was so off-putting. On the one hand, he seemed like such an elitist, showing off in the debates by speaking Chinese. On the other hand, he whined about the meanness of the other candidates and the coarseness of the process . . . all the while attacking the other candidates.

There was also the problem of ideology; Huntsman is at best a moderate. He probably would have done quite well in a Dmocratic primary. Republicans should welcome candidates with a wide variety of philosophies. That's how we develop and refine the ideas that become our platform. Huntsman, however, added no new ideas, neither good nor bad. Herman Cain gave us 9-9-9. Ron Paul has made us focus on the Fed. Mitt Romney, heaven help us, gave us Romneycare. Jon Huntsman just took up space on the debate stage tonight.

A Modest Proposal For Mr. Zillionaire

2012-01-12T17:13:00.002-05:00

Senator Rand Paul announced today that he's returning $500,000 to the U.S. Treasury that his office did not spend this year. Maybe Warren Buffett could begin his philanthropic tax-paying by matching this amount dollar-for-dollar with additional taxes he pays? And here's another thought: maybe Mr. Buffett would consider matching dollar-for-dollar in additional taxes paid by him for every other dollar that Congress cuts in spending?

Listening to the Left will move you to the Right...

2012-01-12T15:12:00.004-05:00

If you want to clarify and revalidate your conservative ideals, then it is highly recommended that you take a listen to Sirius XM Left, channel 127 on Sirius satellite radio. This is their liberal talk radio station. Here is just a little of what you will experience on this station:

* Profanity and blasphemy, including the "F" word
* Inappropriate sexual innuendo
* Palpable anger and constant whining
* Ad hominem attacks and belittling and mocking of those of diverse philosophical thought
* Hostility towards religion, especially Christianity
* A distinct lack of calm, well reasoned, thoughtful or provocative political discussion. Such ability does exist on the Left, but
apparently the majority of their radio talk show hosts lack it.

Some may gain affirmation of their conservative ideals by listening to Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, but I have found that listening to Sirius XM Left is an even better way to bolster confidence in the rightness of the conservative cause.

Warming Up to Mitt

2012-01-12T10:45:00.000-05:00

Could it be cognitive dissonance? I am starting to actually embrace the candidacy of Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee. For me, the turning point has been his unapolgetic defense of capitalism. We need this at a time of class warfare; it is the perfect foil to Obama's Politics of Envy.

And I am starting to appreciate Romney's demeanor, particularly when contrasted with Obama or Rick Santorum -- both of whom grate on my nerves with their sniveling and whining. It is true, to a large extent, that who we vote for is influenced by who we want to listen to in our living rooms every night for the next four to eight years. As much as I admire Rick Santorum's character, intellect and defense of the unborn, the shrillness of his personality and lack of self-deprecating humor are just too similar to Obama.

Redistricting Fun

2012-01-12T10:38:00.000-05:00

From the Kentucky House Republican Caucus:

House Republicans released their redistricting plan early this morning as a Floor Amendment to House Bill 1. Under the House Republicans plan filed by Rep. Joe Fischer, R-Ft. Thomas, only two additional counties would be divided on top of the 22 counties currently divided by law while meeting the required five percent plus or minus deviation.

“It is our belief that our plan meets the requirements of the Kentucky Constitution and would stand up to judicial scrutiny, unlike the version that the House Democrats are trying to push through,” said House Republican Floor Leader Jeff Hoover, R-Jamestown. “But more importantly we believe our version is a more fair and equitable plan for all Kentuckians and for those they choose to represent them.”

Under the House Republicans version, four incumbent Democrats and two incumbent Republicans would be placed together in the 7th, 54th and 92nd Districts. The House Republican redistricting plan would also create new seats for the 84th District in a section of eastern Jefferson County.

House Bill 1 is scheduled to be heard and voted on by the full House of Representatives later this afternoon. House Republicans will ask that their floor amendment be heard and considered during this afternoon’s session

McConnell's Response to Buffett's Horsing Around: Let The Democrats Pony Up Instead

2012-01-12T09:33:00.000-05:00

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had a good comeback yesterday to Warren Buffett's pledge to match Republicans dollar-for-dollar (and $3 for every $1 paid by McConnell) in paying more taxes: How about Mr. Zillionaire's pledging to match the Democrats instead? After all, the Democrats in Washington are part of the one percent in the country not philosophically opposed to more taxes.

McConnell Slams Obama Recess Appointment of "Czar"

2012-01-04T13:54:00.000-05:00

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell quickly criticized President Barack Obama's recess appointment of yet another Czar. Obama appointed Richard Cordray as head of the new CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. All the Czars are unelected and unaccountable, and for this one, Obama by-passed Congressional approval by making the appointment while the Congress is in recess.

Here is McConnell's statement:

Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people by 'recess' appointing Richard Cordray as director of the new CFPB. This recess appointment represents a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer. Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.

The CFPB is poised to be one of the least accountable and most powerful agencies in Washington. Created by the deeply flawed Dodd-Frank law, it is subject to none of the checks that independent agencies normally operate under, and will have an unprecedented reach and control over individual consumer decisions. Earlier this year, 44 of my Senate Republican colleagues and I served notice that we will not confirm any nominee as director, regardless of party, until structural changes are made to make the bureau accountable to the American people—and more transparent. Our request was met with silence from the administration. As a result just last month the Senate rejected Cordray’s nomination. Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power. But once again, the President has chosen to circumvent the confirmation process.

Glad Iowa is Over

2012-01-04T12:02:00.000-05:00

My disgust with this Republican field is such that it has become hard to even pay attention to Iowa. Sure, any of those candidates would be better than Obama.

The Republican track record of nominating "moderates," however, alarms me, because this is no ordinary election. Tthe electoral fates of Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and John McCain suggest that if Mitt Romney is the nominee, Obama will be reelected. The Rasmussen poll says otherwise, but history is a better predictor than polling.

If Obama is reelected, I am not sure that we can ever recover as a country. American cannot endure four more years of narcissistic incompetence and hedonistic class warfare.

Consider the percentage of Americans who pay no taxes: with another term of an Obama presidency, will anyone be surprised to see that number pass 50 percent? It's close now -- 42 percent; another four more years and we may well cross the threshold of the point where more people get money from the government than pay money to it. There will be more takers than producers. And the takers will have the votes to demand ever more government, funded by the producers.

Mr. One Percent

2011-12-23T10:13:00.002-05:00

The Louisville Occupiers are upset because the city has told them that they have to take down their tents at Jefferson Park. The Occupiers have some legitimate grievances, but many of us do not take them very seriously because of their support for Mr. One Percent, Barack Obama. We cannot know for certain, but it is a fairly safe bet that most of the Occupiers voted for Obama and will vote for him again. This is completely irrational in light of their cause.
Who provides the majority of financial support for Obama's political campaigns? Answer: The One Percent. Who did Obama pick his economic team from? Answer: The One Percent. Who benefited most from Obama's bailouts and stimulus spending? Answer: The One Percent. Barack Obama is a poster boy for the One Percent. It is their interests that he is most committed to protecting. It is beyond understanding how the Occupiers cannot see what is so clear.
If the Occupiers are serious, job number one is getting rid of Barack Obama. Until they support that, the rest of the 99 percent cannot take them seriously.

Neil nails it!

2011-12-22T15:49:00.002-05:00

Wrapping Christmas presents to the sounds of Neil Young's Harvest album. Song is "I'd Love to Change the World". Lyrics are:

Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Until there are
no rich no more?

Even 70's hippies understand economics better than the current regime.

Looking Ahead to KY-4 and Calling Hunter Bates

2011-12-21T16:29:00.001-05:00

Few expected Geoff Davis to announce he was retiring from Congress this soon, but there is no surprise at the amount of interest in replacing him. For Republicans, in particular, KY-4 is a very attractive district, notwithstanding that Democrats still hold a registration advantage.

Davis's retirement must be causing plenty of East End Republicans to wish they'd moved from Jefferson County to Oldham County. The voter registration for KY-3, Jefferson County, makes it so unlikely that a Republican can win that it is a waste of resources to even contribute to a Republican there. Not so in KY-4.

In the inevitable Republican primary for the 4th Congressional District, Hunter Bates would be terriffic. He is smart, humble, has a very strong faith and great political instincts. And he's a true conservative. He would be an outstanding Congressman. I hope he runs; he would win and serve his district, Kentucky and the nation with distinction.

Trump Card

2011-12-05T14:51:00.003-05:00

Donald Trump, of The Apprentice and monumental real estate bankruptcies fame, is set to moderate yet another Republican Presidential debate on December 27th. Now Donald Trump is a fun guy to watch, he has great bravado and the finest comb over on the planet, but having him as a moderator for a Presidential debate is taking the process into the realm of the absurd. Huntsman and Paul have sensibly already begged off on the invite, we will have to wait and see what other candidates bite.

We can just hear Trump's response to a weak answer from one of the candidates: "You're fired!" When pop culture icons become Presidential debate moderators, we know we have abandoned any sense of seriousness about the matter. Who will be the next Republican Presidential debate moderator, Madonna?

Trying to Enthuse About Romney

2011-12-02T13:32:00.000-05:00

The brilliant Charles Krauthammer has done what no one heretofore has been able to do: convince me that the Republican nominee must be Mitt Romney for the sake of our country.

Krauthammer compares the strengths and weaknesses of Romney against the latest non-Romney, Newt Gingrich, and concludes with evident reluctance that it must be Mitt -- and this without even mentioning Newt's personal baggage.

Listen to how Krauthammer distills the difference between the two front-runners:

Two ideologically problematic finalists: One is a man of center-right temperament who has of late adopted a conservative agenda. The other is a man more conservative by nature but possessed of an unbounded need for grand display that has already led him to unconservative places even he is at a loss to explain, and that as president would leave him in constant search of the out-of-box experience — the confoundedly brilliant Nixon-to-China flipperoo regarding his fancy of the day, be it health care, taxes, energy, foreign policy, whatever.

I recently spoke with someone who served in Congress with Gingrich who described Gingrich as a "high wire act." Even in the Republican caucus, members held their breath, not knowing what Gingrich would do next -- but certain that it would make for big headlines.

With Romney, on the other hand, we know what we are getting: a moderate Northeastern Republican a la Nelson Rockefeller. We might not like it, but we know what to expect.

As Krauthammer points out, it is Gingrich's "need for the grand display" based on his own certainty of his brilliance -- his narcissism -- that makes Gingrich a dangerous bet for conservatives. That's assuming he could get elected, which Krauthammer doubts given the stench of lobbying for Freddie Mae and Mac that accompanies Gingrich.

My sense of foreboding about Romney has nothing to do with his character, his intellect or his religion. I just fear that he will join the growing list of "moderates" that Republicans keep nominating in a vain attempt to appeal to independents: Gerald Ford; George H.W. Bush after we "read his lips"; Bob Dole; John McCain. Mitt Romney fits more comfortably in that list than he does in the much shorter list: George W. Bush; Ronald Reagan, who made no apologies about their adherence to conservatism and were rewarded with election.

It is unfortunate that the choice has come down to Mitt vs. Newt. Mitch Daniels could have won this election. He would have been a superb president. Perhaps he still will be, one day.

But here is the danger. Even if a Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan gets elected in 2016, if Obama has been reelected, this country may no longer be recognizable in 2016. It will be too late.

You play the hand you’re dealt. This is a weak Republican field with two significantly flawed front-runners contesting an immensely important election. If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).

Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?

Dem Pollsters Urge Hillary to Run

2011-11-21T15:39:00.000-05:00

The Wall Street Journal has a jaw-dropping op-ed today by Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Douglas Schoen, who worked for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, respectively.

Not only do Caddell and Schoen urge Hillary Clinton to run for president, they implore Barack Obama to take a cue from Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman: Decline to seek a second term for the good of the country.

Caddell and Schoen maintain that if Obama runs for reelection, we are in for the most negative campaign in history. So much for hope and change.

Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.

. . .

We write as patriots and Democrats—concerned about the fate of our party and, most of all, our country. We do not write as people who have been in contact with Mrs. Clinton or her political operation. Nor would we expect to be directly involved in any Clinton campaign.

If President Obama is not willing to seize the moral high ground and step aside, then the two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, must urge the president not to seek re-election—for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country. And they must present the only clear alternative—Hillary Clinton.

Of Course the Democrats are Behind the Cain Accusations

2011-11-20T21:05:00.001-05:00

Let's face it: Romney can't beat Obama. Cain ~~can~~ could have. The Democrats realized that. So they formulated a plot to bring Cain down. And it worked.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Cain sexual harassment accusations are a plot made up by liberals to bring down the best candidate to emerge in the 14 years of my life.

This is just like the Justice Thomas scandal.

"Liberal advocacy groups called me repeatedly looking for anything that could stop his confirmation." Juan Williams wrote.

“Have you got anything on your tapes we can use to stop Thomas?” A Senate aid asked Williams.

Yes, Juan Williams, a liberal, admitted to being asked to help come up with a conspiracy about Thomas. Why wouldn't the liberals do the same for Cain?

I am fed up with these scandals and lies. Liberal bureaucrats will ruin this country for my generation. While we spend our lives paying off their debts, we will look back and learn an important lesson on moral values.
We will realize that lies and fabricated scandals ruined our once great country.

That is the sad direction our country is headed.

But there is hope. If we can go back to the ethics and moral values that the founding fathers used to build this great nation, than America may soon see its brightest days yet.

We could be a thriving nation with innovations in science, medicine, technology, literature, the list goes on and on.

I hope and pray that liberals and conservatives alike will come together and see the light before it is to late.

At least I know that God will always be at my side even if we become the United States of China.

Dirty Hippies...

2011-11-17T18:50:00.003-05:00

When the Occupy Wall Street movement began, many were quick to criticize the movement as just a bunch of dirty hippies. I thought this seemed unfair and overly critical. It seemed to me that many of the protesters were probably reasonable people with legitimate grievances. After seeing C-SPAN views of the camps and listening to a number of interviews with the protesters, I realized that I was wrong, dead wrong. They ARE a bunch of dirty hippies!

Okay before you Occupiers crucify me, let me say that I am using a little levity here. You are all not really a bunch of dirty hippies (although some of you really are!) You are misguided though. The 1%, for all their faults, and there are many, are not the source of your problems. If you are unemployed, it is not because of rich folks. If you want to blame someone besides yourself, blame the guy in the White House. He is far more culpable in this than the 1%. Occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if you really want to protest against the source of your woes!

Also, most of America is giving the Occupy Movement a giant yawn. With the exception of lefty news outlets, most folks are not sympathetic to the protest. This is more of the same old, tired, hackneyed class warfare crap that most folks just don't buy. Many are sympathetic to your plight and frustration, we just think your unfortunate circumstances would be better cured by getting rid of Obama than by attacking Wall Street and the 1%.

Seriously, John Boehner?

2011-11-16T11:38:00.002-05:00

How much fun the copy editors at the Courier-Journal must have had writing the headline that House Majority Leader John Boehner has agreed to tax hikes.

This, from the guy who told us just two weeks ago at the McConnell Center that he was all about finding common ground but not compromising on principle.

There is no way that Boehner will get the Republican votes he needs, so why even upset conservatives by pretending that this is a possibility?

Everyone is starting to freak that the Super Committee's deadline is next week. Automatic cuts will occur unless the Super Committee can agree on identifying alternative cuts or funding the budget with, let me get the euphemism right, "revenue enhancements."

This economy cannot sustain the hit of hikes right now: it would ensure the double-dip that everyone fears is happening anyhow.

So let the automatic cuts take place. Pull the trigger. Sure, Republicans don't want the massive military cuts. Truth be told, however, there is fat in the military budget just as there is in every federal department.

McConnell Reacts to SCOTUS Accepting Obamacare Challenge

2011-11-14T12:02:00.000-05:00

Here's the statement of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on the U.S. Supreme Court granting cert to hear the constitutionality of Obamacare. Recall that early on in the initial challenges, McConnell filed an amicus brief in opposition to law's constitutionality. According to McConnell,

Throughout the debate, Senate Republicans have argued that this misguided law represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American. Most Americans agree. In both public surveys and at the ballot box, Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and I hope the Supreme Court will do the same.

We now know that the Supremes have asked for five and a half hours of argument, to take place in March. The mandate to purchase insurance will get two hours of argument, and 90 minutes will go to the severability issue of whether the law survives if a portion, such as the mandate, is struck down. The Democratic Congress that rushed this monstrosity through on Christmas Eve, neglected in all its arrogance to include a severability provision. Apparently that was one of the little niceties to which Nancy Pelosi was referring when she said they needed to pass the bill first, so we can find out what's in it.

I cannot wait to get Mitt Romney's reaction.

SCOTUS to Hear Obamacare Challenge! Jack Conway Yawns!

2011-11-14T10:21:00.000-05:00

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari to hear a challenge to the mandate to purchase healthcare, the heart and soul of Obamacare. This just happened eight minutes ago, so I do not yet know any details.

This is the same challenge that our newly-reelected Attorney General, Jack Conway called too legally frivolous for Kentucky to join. So much for his legal acumen.

Conway is said to have held a big meeting the morning after Election Night last week. The meeting lasted a full two hours. Kentuckians might like to think he was setting goals for his second term as AG, but no: Conway was laying the groundwork for his plan to run for governor.

He spent his first term as AG running for senator, and he will spend his second term running for governor. What a disgrace: the office of Attorney General is too important for a mere seat-warmer. Voters will get exactly what they deserve; Conway made no pretense of even campaigning for the job, and he will perform the job the same way he campaigned, with indifference.

Rick Perry Steps in It

2011-11-10T10:54:00.000-05:00

Watch how it took Rick Perry only 53 seconds to end his political career. This YouTube clip from last night's debate will be shown by debate coaches from this point forward, evermore. Watch this at your peril: this will give nightmares to anyone who does any public speaking.

The poor guy. Yet note how he doesn't even seem all that bothered by his inability to remember his third talking point. Most of us would be break out in hives, have a heart attack, run crying from the stage. But Perry kept his composure during what had to be one of the more embarrassing moments of his life.

Election 2011 Wrap-up

2011-11-09T08:47:00.001-05:00

It was about what I expected. I had hoped that David Williams would have cut into Gov. Beshear's lead a little more, but that is just a question of a few extra points that Gatewood Galbraith unexpectedly snagged.

Todd P'Pool did better than I had feared. So did K.C. Crosbie.

Jamie Comer performed exactly as I had hoped and expected -- the only consolation in an otherwise dismal night.

So what is the upshot for Kentucky? A governor who evokes the words: milquetoast, vanilla, non-offensive.

Truly, Beshear's margin of victory is astonishing given Beshear's record of non-accomplishment . He has had no successes, not a single one as governor. If ever there was an election when a candidate won simply by virtue of not being the other guy, this was it.

Republican Party leaders had better step up and do a better job with managing candidate recruitment and selection. Phil Moffett or Bobbie Holsclaw would have won more votes than David Williams did yesterday, no question about it. There are probably others who would have been even stronger candidates than Holsclaw or Moffett; David Williams' wife, (former) Judge Robin Williams did a great job in that last commercial, for example. The problem in the primary is that everyone was so terrified of David Williams that most potential candidates took a pass.

That is, the attribute of David Williams that won him the primary -- the ability to terrify others -- cost him the election, where the anonymity of the private ballot allowed the voters vent their true feelings about him.

Applebee's Thanks Our Vets; You Can, Too

2011-11-08T16:46:00.000-05:00

Applebee's restaurants will serve Veterans and Active Duty Military free meals on Veteran's Day, as it has done in the past. This year, Applebee's also has started an online movement that gives each of us a quick way to write an email of thanks to our men and women in uniform. Even better, there is a contest to determine the Most Thankful Neighborhood by zip code. Click here to participate and learn more.

Go Vote Already

2011-11-08T10:01:00.001-05:00

I am really tired of holding my nose when I vote. Last year, it was because John McCain was at the top of the ticket, the wrong ticket. This year it is because Kentucky Republicans have nominated for Governor the political equivalent of Lord Voldemort. In both instances, the outcome is known before the first vote is cast, so what should be a joyful act that expresses freedom just feels sad and pointless.

We don't know whether any of our down-ticket races will survive. I am hopeful Jamie Comer will win Agriculture Commissioner. In the Attorney General race, however, we are probably looking at four more years of Jack Conway's perfectly coiffed hair, or however long it takes for Jack to find a better gig. His campaign reflects his ambivalence about the job; he doesn't want to lose and yet does not really want to be Kentucky Attorney General. He said as much to one of his Republican friends who was looking at running for AG. Conway's honest take of the job is that it's not so great.

What we do know, before the polls close, is that David Williams is going to get pounded. So what lessons do we draw from that?

That it is important to be nice.

Kentucky is a small state. We view each other as neighbors and family. Consequently, when one is rude and vicious, even to fight for a really important ideological principle, we cringe. Word gets 'round. Kentuckians don't like to reward the use of sharp elbows.

David Williams is a brilliant man. I appreciate his willingness to serve, and I think that he is a true conservative on most issues. The smallness of Kentucky -- the fact that we all know how David Williams comports himself -- makes it nearly impossible to elect a politician who is ideologically and intellectually solid and yet also regarded as a jerk. This is a consequence of our smallness, and I don't think that it is such a bad thing.

Sure, in Chicago, David Williams' aggressiveness and causticness would play differently; maybe he'd be up by 25 points instead of down by that margin. But one of the things that many of us (particularly transplants!) value about Kentucky is that we will never have to look at Rahm Emanuel as our mayor.

That could never happen here. Let's remember that reality the next time we vote in a primary.

Sarah Palin Endorses Todd P'Pool

2011-11-04T11:38:00.000-04:00

Sarah Palin's endorsement of Todd P'Pool may be too little, too late. Her endorsement of Rand Paul actually helped him in the Republican primary against Trey Grayson, and might have given P'Pool a boost in name ID when he really needed it early on. It's odd that Palin's endorsement comes at this point, when Republicans have all but given up. Maybe it will motivate a few people to go to the polls, but certainly not enough to change the inevitable outcome.

Meanwhile, a local tea party group is running a radio ad during a.m. rush hour on 970 AM, the Bill Bennett Morning in America Show. The ad promotes P'Pool and Jamie Comer -- but not David Williams. It's like he doesn't exist. Williams has evolved from radioactive to invisible.

McConnell Contrasts Jobs and Infrastrucure Bills

2011-11-03T11:48:00.000-04:00

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement on the floor of the Senate today in which he contrasted the starkly different approaches of the two parties regarding creating jobs to fix our crumbling infrastructures.

Louisville readers will be particularly interested in McConnell''s comments about bridge construction and repair: the Republican bill takes unspent money and allows the states to use it to, for example, fix the Sherman-Minton Bridge rather than build bike paths. The Republican bill allows for immediate repairs; the Democrats, in contrast, take longer to do less and yet spend more money.

The Republican bill strips away the red tape that delays such projects; that's what it takes to make a bill "shovel ready."

Here's the video of McConnell's statement, and here's the text:

“We’re going to see two very different approaches to infrastructure and job creation today. The American people can decide for themselves which one makes more sense.

“The Republican proposal extends the current highway bill for another two years, giving states and contractors the certainty they need to start new infrastructure projects and create jobs.

“The legislation Senator Hatch is proposing today puts an end to that uncertainty for the next two years.

“This proposal also gives states the authority to decide how this money is spent. If folks in Ohio or Kentucky want to build a bridge, Washington can’t force them to build a bike path.

“The Republican proposal accelerates the review period and clears away the bureaucratic red tape. The President admitted a few months ago that the shovel-ready projects in his first stimulus bill didn’t turn out to be as shovel-ready as he thought. Our proposal helps make sure they are.

“Our bill prohibits the EPA from imposing burdensome and unnecessary new regulations on American cement producers and domestic boilers, so the cost of American-made materials for the projects paid for through this highway bill don’t skyrocket just as they’re set to begin. This bill keeps those costs down.

“Best of all, it’s fully paid for through funds that were originally appropriated for another purpose but not spent. Whatever’s left over after these projects are funded goes to pay down the deficit.

“The Democrats are taking a different approach.

“First, according to the CBO, the Democrats’ proposal will do little for the economy and putting people back to work in the short-term because the money will be spent gradually.

“According to the CBO, less than one tenth of the funds in the Democrat proposal will be spent next year. And roughly 40 percent won’t be spent until after 2015. This hardly matches the President’s calls for doing something ‘right away.’

“Second, it costs another $57 billion we don’t have.

“Third, they want to pay for this temporary spending bill with a permanent tax hike on job creators.

“And fourth, they already know that Republicans and yes, some Democrats, don’t think we should be taxing job creators, particularly at a time when 14 million Americans are looking for a job — and that we’ll vote against any proposal that does so.

“In other words, the Democrats have deliberately designed this bill to fail.

“So the truth is, Democrats are more interested in building a campaign message than in rebuilding roads and bridges. And frankly, the American people deserve a lot better than that. The people of Kentucky deserve better than that.

“The people in my state have serious, time-sensitive bridge projects– Brent Spence, the I-69, the Louisville bridges, Sherman Minton.

“They deserve better than this.

“The Associated General Contractors of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have already spoken out against the Democrat proposal.

“The rest of the American people can decide which approach they prefer: our proposal, which doesn’t add to the deficit, doesn’t raise taxes, empowers the states to make decisions on the local level, and is designed to gain bipartisan support.

“Or the Democrat’s top-down approach, which perpetuates uncertainty, raises taxes on businesses at a time when we should be giving them more reasons to hire not less, and which was designed in coordination with the White House political team to fail.

“These are the two approaches on display in the Senate today.

“The choice should be obvious.”

David vs. Goliath: A Small Android Tablet Maker Takes on Apple

2011-11-02T20:25:00.002-04:00

For over a year, Apple has filed numerous baseless patent infringement lawsuits against Android smart phone and tablet manufacturers. For example, Apple says that the Samsung Galaxy Tab (below to the left) looks to much like an iPad (below to the right). For your information, the devices below are to scale, the Galaxy Tab being 7" while the iPad is 9.7".

Image credit: Skatter Tech.

What's even more ridiculous is that Apple is actually winning these suits. Until today.

Apple is just being a jerk. They went after a small Spanish tablet manufacturer called NT-K, which makes dirt-cheap Android tablets. Personally, I have no idea why Apple would even care about this company. But there are consequences for being a bully, and in this case, a small company took down Apple's attorneys, who bill over a thousand dollars an hour.

Here is part of a blog post from the company: (Please by advised that this was translated with Google Translate).

We are a small company like many others in these times of crisiswe are
trying to get ahead, and it seems grossly unfair that a company the caliberof
Apple has to use its dominant influence.

With the file in this case, reinforce the claim that we madelast August
to the National Competition Commission (CNC) and are confident that this entityresolved
quickly.

Parallel to this, start the corresponding civil suit againstApple for
consequential damages, lost profits and moral damage.

As stated in the blog post, NT-K does plan on retaliating with a civil suit. They deserve to win.

Dropping Politico

2011-11-02T13:34:00.000-04:00

I am dropping Politico from the Blog Roll. They have given up all pretense at any kind of journalistic standards or ethics, and I will not promote them.

President Invited to Speak at Manual

2011-10-27T20:57:00.001-04:00

As Whas 11 recently reported, Manual High School Seniors have created a FaceBook page called "The Presidential Project" inviting President Obama to speak at their commencement pep rally. The page is taking off and now has over 727 fans, close to half of the entire school population.

I think there is a good chance that the president will come. After all, it is Senator McConnell's school, and one of the nation's top schools.

Sen. Richard Burr Delivers GOP Address

2011-10-22T09:42:00.000-04:00

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) gives this week's Republican Address. He presents a counterpoint to the president's bus tour, in which the president drives to battleground states in his million dollar Canadian bus and argues for massive amounts of new government spending. That tour, incidentally hit North Carolina this week -- a key state for Obama -- and Burr is therefore a fitting choice to respond not only for the Republican Party, but to speak to those constituents directly.

Burr makes the case for government getting out of the way to allow the private sector to create real jobs, as opposed to phony government jobs. He outlines the Republican jobs plan to consist of the following points:

Simplify the tax code. This is part of the appeal of the 9-9-9 plan, by the way.
Rein in government regulations. Steve Jobs apparently told Obama that the amount of regulation in this country was going to make Obama a one-term president.
Cap spending and reduce budget deficits. Need we say more?
Propose common sense healthcare solutions. It is not enough to repeal Obamacare; Republicans need to restore competition to drive down costs.
Encourage domestic energy development. This is Rick Perry's platform.
Create a competitive workforce, To the extent that this justifies the federalization of education, I disagree.
Increase exports. There is bi-partisan support for passage of free trade agreements. Let's get it done.

Herman Cain Bounces Back

2011-10-15T12:43:00.003-04:00

After a lackluster debate performance this week, Herman Cain picked up some impressive support. First, Arthur Laffer -- the economist for whom the Laffer Curve is named -- praised the 9-9-9 plan. This did rebutted the inference at the debate that some unknown guy in Ohio had just made the plan up on a whim.

Laffer, who was the architect of Reagan's supply-side economist, called Herman Cain's plan a "wonderful plan."

Laffer told Human Events that the proposal

was pro-growth and would create the proper conditions for America's economy to expand and thrive again.
"Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy," Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS in a statement. "The goal of supply-side tax reform is always a broadening of the tax base and lowering of marginal tax rates.
"Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9."
Laffer also said that "such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment."

But Herman's week got even better: Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour praised the candidate on the Laura Ingraham show and said that if Cain is the Republican nominee, he will "sweep the South."

Barbour is highly respected for the outstanding job he has done as governor of Mississippi -- including during Hurricane Katrina -- as well as his role as a political operative in the Reagan administration. Indeed, many of us hoped he would run for president.

Barbour is a former head of the Republican National Committee; he can therefore be fairly described as an "Establishment Republican." And he is former head of the Republican Governor's Association, which makes his plug for Cain so much more interesting, and telling, given that Cain's rivals for the nomination include a sitting governor, Rick Perry, and a former governor, Mitt Romney.

What Happened to Herman Cain?

2011-10-12T07:55:00.000-04:00

Herman Cain did not perform in the debate as hoped or expected. He didn't make any huge mistakes. Rather, his constant reference to the 999 plan became first tedious and then comical. Substantively, the plan is a good idea, but without an alternative way to describe it, the name diminishes it.

Mitt Romney, as always, looked more presidential than most presidents (including this one). It is beginning to feel like a Romney nomination is inevitable. That wouldn't be so terrible but for the fact that if Romney is the nominee, Republicans take the Obamacare issue -- which inspired the creation of the Tea Party -- off the table. It will be gone.

Moreover, given Romney's experience at Bain, Democrats will portray him as the personification of Wall Street. It is not clear that Romney can or will defend himself from the #OccupyWallStreet kooks; contrast Romney's non-response to those demonstrations with Herman Cain's vigorous denouncement of the protests.

One odd moment of the debate: when the candidates were allowed to question each other, Romney used his opportunity to throw Michele Bachmann a soft-ball. It looked sort of chivalrous, sort of condescending. She was having a good debate, so why did Romney choose to help her? Maybe he is thinking about her as VP.

Newt had a good debate; whoever wins the nomination, if they are able to defeat Obama, should put Newt in the cabinet.

Rick Perry is finished. He doesn't appear to have the depth or intellect.

As for Huntsman and Santorum, can we please stop inviting these guys to debates? I am sick of Santorum whining that he hasn't had enough chance to speak. Both of these guys just annoy me. They are worse than brown-nosers -- they come across as the class snitches, oozing with sanctimoniousness.

Chris Christie Disappoints; Herman Cain Wows

2011-10-11T19:26:00.000-04:00

Does he want the VP slot? Chris Christie's endorsement of Mitt Romney, coupled with his pathetic attempt to distinguish Romneycare from Obamacare, the whole thing stinks. What made Christie an attractive potential candidate is his boldness about speaking the truth. After today's speech, his nose grew to Pinnochioesque proportions, and it is not a good look.

Herman Cain, consequently, looks better and better. He brings the courage and boldness, a sunny optimism that evokes memories of Reagan, and he tells the truth -- consequences be damned. Moreover, his political instincts on the #Occupy Wall Street protests are prescient. While Romney is waiting to see how it all plays out, Herman has called the rabble to account for their lack of personal accountability, their class warfare and their foolishness in understanding that this is Obama's economy: picket him.

I am really looking forward to see how Herman performs in a debate now that he has a target on his back.

Here is what Fox News and the Republican leadership need to understand: everyday conservatives take Herman Cain very seriously, and we have had enough of the elites telling us that he is a not a contender.

Herman Cain's Reaganesque Rebuke Of Protesters

2011-10-09T20:41:00.007-04:00

Herman Cain's speaking the truth about the Occupy Wall Street protesters brings to mind then-California Governor Ronald Reagan's calling the anti-Vietnam protesters the spades that they were. And judging by the geriatrics showing up at today's protests, some of them likely are the same folks who vowed in the 60's not to trust anyone over thirty. Good for Cain for his Reaganesque stance against this bad acidic trip down memory lane.

Letter to Obama

2011-10-08T19:18:00.000-04:00

On September 8, exactly one month ago, I sent a letter to President Barack Obama urging a flat tax, and for those on welfare and unemployment to complete some kind of community service in exchange the benefits they receive. Here's my letter: (sorry for the small print).

Today, I received a response. Here it is:

This is clearly a standard letter. Along with it came a picture of the Obamas, their dog Bo, an interview of Obama about general questions a kid might ask him, a diagram of the White House, and an art guide to the White House. This all came in an official looking 8.5" x 11.5" envelope marked, "First Class Do Not Bend."

The package included some interesting information, but the letter was disappointing. It was irrelevant to my own letter, and an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of people my age across the country. Notice that they couldn't even put my name on the letter, instead addressing me as "student." To me, addressing me as student it the equivalent to me addressing him as "adult."

Many kids ask Obama questions like, "What is your favorite book?" These are answered in his "interview," or FAQs for the President if you ask me. But my letter was nothing like that, but it was treated that way. I wonder what stock letter they would have sent me if I claimed to be an adult.

In my father's study, there is a letter on the wall to President Reagan from a student asking Reagan his advice for her. He gave her a personal response. If she had written Obama, his stock letter probably would have satisfied her, but my point is that Reagan took the time to respond.

One more thing: The postage was $1.68 plus the cost of color ink and nice stationary for an irrelevant letter.

Herman Cain Hostile Interview

2011-10-07T20:58:00.001-04:00

Just saw this hostile interview of Herman Cain by Lawrence O'Donnell. O'Donnell asked some tough question, but Cain responded terrifically.

Since the first GOP debate, I have liked Cain, but after watching this interview, I knew he was the man. Cain points out several times where O'Donnell had misquoted him or used one of his quotes out of context. One of the most notable times was when O'Donnell asked him if he was grateful for the government paying for his graduate degree while he was serving in the navy. To set the record strait, Cain explained that did not serve in the Navy, but he did work as a ballistic missile mathematician consultant for the Navy. Embarrassed, O'Donnell asked Cain why he should be Commander and Chief if he avoided service in the Vietnam war. Cain then made it clear that he did register for the draft, but that the Navy though he would be more helpful where he was. Believe me, that ticked O'Donnell off.

I encourage you to watch the video for yourself on Real Clear Politics.

RIP Steve Jobs (Update)

2011-10-05T21:28:00.001-04:00

Earlier today, Apple announced that former CEO and Chairman Steve Jobs has passed. Although I am not a huge Apple fan, as you may have guessed from my iPhone 4s post, I appreciate all of the innovations Apple has brought to the tech industry, largely because of Jobs.

In this post, I'd like to take a quick look at Job's life and some of his major accomplishments.

Jobs was born to a Syrian Muslim and an American graduate student. He was adopted to a couple from Mountain View, California. During high school he often attended technology lectures at HP. Jobs was hired at HP for a summer job with soon to be Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak.

Soon Jobs went to Reed College in Oregon where he quickly dropped out, but stayed there sleeping on his friends' dorm room floors listening in on classes. After two years, Jobs returned to California and went to Homebrew Computer Club meetings with Wozniak.

Jobs, Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne founded Apple. They made the first commercially successful personal computer. As things took off, Jobs convinced Pepsi-Cola CEO John Sculley to come run Apple from a commercial aspect. Jobs and Sculley didn't get along well, and Sculley ended up firing Jobs.

While gone from Apple, Jobs formed a new company called NeXT Computer. NeXT computers were the first PCs to have a built in ethernet port and helped improve the way we communicate through email by adding more graphical support. NeXT later switched solely to software due to poor hardware sales.

Next, Jobs purchased Pixar from Lucas Film for $10 million. Pixar's first commercial success was the movie Toy Story, licensed to Disney, with many other Disney movies following. Disney bought Pixar in 2004 for $7.4 billion, making Jobs Disney's largest single shareholder, with nearly 7% of the company.

In 1996, Apple purchased NeXT from Jobs bringing him back as Apple's CEO. Jobs terminated several projects at Apple and brought it back to profitability. He introduced products like the iMac that are extremely popular to this day.

Apple has since launched the MacBook Air, an ultra light laptop with flash memory instead of a hard drive. This has helped draw attention to this super fast memory solution that may replace hard drives in the near future as it become more cost effective.

Apple also launched the iPod under Jobs direction, revolutionizing the way we enjoy music.

We can't forget the iPhone. The iPhone was the first phone with a multi-touch display which paved the way for intense competition resulting in cell phones as fast as computers.

And the iPad. There were very few tablets before the iPad, but the iPad was the first commercially successful one. Just like the iPhone, the iPad has resulted in innovation from other manufacturers that may not have happened without the iPad.

When you think about it, almost everything tech wise today came about from an Apple innovation.

It certainly says something about Jobs when you find out about his death on an iPad.

Update:

Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak has released a short video about what Steve Jobs meant to him. You can tell that Steve meant a lot to him from watching the video.

Update:

President Obama released a statement late last night which can be viewed here. The second to last sentence says, "And there may be no greater tribute to Steve's success than the fact that much of the world learned of his passing on a device he invented." It sure feels nice to know President Obama liked the ending of this post.

Editorial: Apple in Decline

2011-10-04T20:30:00.000-04:00

Today Apple launched the iPhone 4s. This is the phone that we have been waiting for months to arrive. Every iPhone, besides the 4s, has been launched during the summer, so when that didn't happen this year, our suspense grew. We knew Apple must have needed extra time to make not just a smart phone, but a super phone. Today Apple let us down.

Every iPhone in the past has been cutting edge, so far ahead of the competition that by the time they have caught up, Apple is ready to launch a new iPhone, starting the process over. Unfortunately for Apple, that game doesn't work anymore. There are so many new phones constantly being launched that there is no way for Apple to continue this one year refresh cycle.

The iPhone 4s is a very nice phone, but it's not cutting edge, it's barley up there with many Android handsets. Sure, it has a dual core processor like many new Android phones, but it's missing something: 4G LTE. Is that such a big deal? Yes, when you live with it, you can never go back. Verizon's not joking when they make their claims about their 4G network. I ran a speed test on it, and it really is 10 times faster than 3G.

I was waiting for the iPhone to "wow" me. This is what I wanted:

Although I knew this would probably not be the next iPhone, I wanted something that would have current technology for eight months, but I'm guessing this will only be current for three months.

This was Apple's chance to take a free shot on all Android phones. This will hurt Android, but only temporarely, as it will only help Apple temorarly. Android market share will continue to climb, and Apple too, but only slightly.

And to think Steve Jobs has only been gone one month! Apple is already missing him, and I am as well.

The iPhone 4s will not save iOS. Don't take my word for it, take the Apple investors' word, who chose to sell Apple stock on arguably the biggest day of the year for Apple. Apple closed at $372.5 today down .56%. At it's worst point of the day, Apple was down to $355.11, over 5% below it's opening price.

My advice: Don't spend the extra money to upgrade from an iPhone 4 to a 4s.

Catching Up on Kentucky Races

2011-10-01T13:02:00.002-04:00

Apologies for the light blogging recently. I have been otherwise occupied, and quite frankly, depressed about our the state of the Republican slate in Kentucky.

David Williams is a ball and chain around the necks of the rest of the ticket. He just is. Worse, he appears to have given up. At the Bluegrass and Burgoo Festival in Louisville recently, he was there and yet lacked any presence. His family joined him, but there did not appear to be any staff passing out bumper stickers or pamphlets. He said hello to a few people. No real effort to work the crowd, however. And this should have been a friendly crowd.

My son met him only because they were in the Burgoo line together and Robin Williams introduced herself. My son's take was that David was "shy" and "awkward." Surely this is the first time in his adult life that David Williams has been described as shy. The more accurate word is probably "defeated." It has to be very discouraging to keep campaigning when one is 20-plus points down in the polls. Nonetheless, Williams has an obligation to the rest of his slate to close the gap, even if the lead is so vast that he cannot win.

If Williams can close the gap to 12 points or so, then Todd P'Pool and Jamie Comer and the rest of the ticket might be able to pull off a win. P'Pool argued on the Joe Elliott show this week that he has been elected in a district that is 70 percent Democrat -- and is the first Republican elected there since the Civil War. It follows, according to P'Pool, that he can win regardless of what happens at the top of the ticket.

That is wishful thinking, I'm afraid. P'Pool needs to go negative. P'Pool needed to go negative a month ago. He is running out of time. There is so much material with which to attack Jack Conway -- take Conway's "time to destroy evidence" call to his brother. Why on earth is P'Pool holding back?

Jamie Comer, meanwhile, continues to impress; he is building momentum for a future of service to the Commonwealth. At a recent Louisville fundraiser for Comer, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was all smiles as the hostess set a backdrop that included not only bales of hay and antique pitch forks, but live animals: a baby goat and a calf. In the world of stodgy political fundraisers, a little levity goes a long way.

"America's Mayor" Gives GOP Address on 9/11 Anniversary

2011-09-10T11:02:00.000-04:00

Former New York City Mayor gives this week's Republican address on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Who can forget his remarkable courage, leadership and calm in the midst of that chaos and destruction? Like Washington at Valley Forge, it was providential. As I listened to his words, I was filled with gratitude -- and worried that this administration cannot comprehend the nature of the enemy who attacked us.

Here's the video, and here's his text:

“Everyone can remember exactly where they were when they first learned that our country had been attacked. As with Pearl Harbor and the John F. Kennedy assassination, these defining events have a big impact on a nation because they're not just a shared experience, they're a shared memory.

“On the 10th anniversary of the attacks, we must take stock of what we've learned.

“The attacks had two purposes. The first was to kill as many Americans as possible. The second was to destroy America's spirit.

“As we remember the thousands of lives lost on that day, there’s no doubt that the terrorists achieved their first goal and will leave us with a deep wound forever.

“When it comes to destroying our spirit, however…as we consider the rescue and recovery effort we witnessed at the time of and in the aftermath of the attacks, it’s clear that the terrorists failed.

“The country was not broken, but rather, it was more united in the days after September 11 than at any time in my lifetime. We displayed heroic spirit in many ways, but perhaps the most heroic was the unity of spirit that we shared as Americans. The American people demonstrated one of the most basic values that we share - our love of freedom and the value we place on individual human life.

“People often ask me, ‘Is America safer now than it was before September 11?’ The answer is: ‘Yes, but not as safe as we should be.’ We're safer because we faced a difficult truth. A danger that we allowed to fester and grow without confronting properly, was suddenly staring us in the face.

“The engagement of Islamic extremist terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is an important part of our having prevented additional large-scale attacks. We’ve made significant improvements in intelligence gathering and in airport security. But much work remains. We have not significantly improved port security and our state and local governments range from very well prepared to not prepared at all. We’ve even seen some massive breakdowns in security, as demonstrated by the near attack on Christmas morning in 2009, as well as the inappropriate decision-making and irrational application of political correctness in the attack at Fort Hood.

“Perhaps the most dangerous impulse we've developed since September 11 is impatience demonstrated by the calls to put our armed forces on timetables. It's a re-emergence of a dangerous historical pattern that sometimes afflicts America -- a desire to demilitarize by minimizing the dangers we face and that’s led to catastrophes in the past, including the ‘peace dividend’ taken in the 90's as Islamic extremist terrorists were attacking us regularly.

“American security requires a long-term military presence in the part of the world where people and organizations are plotting to kill us. The timetable should not be based on a politically expedient calendar, but on when we've eliminated the threat of domestic attacks being generated in that particular part of the world. We must not allow impatience to prevent our military from achieving its objective in Iraq and Afghanistan and the objective is the elimination of the threat to our nation.

“Finally, America must take care of those who were harmed during the difficult and dangerous recovery effort. We must not forget what it meant to the country to watch these brave men and women work toward recovery and they shouldn't be abandoned now. If they become ill, we are responsible for taking care of them. After all, they took care of us.

“The lesson of September 11 is that America is truly exceptional. We withstood the worst attack in our history, intended by our enemies to destroy us. Instead, it drew us closer and it made us more united. Our love for freedom and for one another had given us a strength that surprised even ourselves. At the same time, it's a strength that must be guarded and nurtured. We must rediscover our unity. We must never forget what we witnessed on that day, both the incomprehensible face of pure evil and the depth of love and compassion. Today, ten years later, the fight continues and the memories remain etched into our national character.”

Obama Gave Federal Money to Corrupt Green Firm Where Obama Fundraiser Invested

2011-09-09T11:43:00.001-04:00

The name Solyndra is about to become a big problem for the Obama administration. ABC News has done an expose on a green technology firm called Solyndra, to which the Obama administration gave stimulus money amid great fanfare -- even a presidential visit. Solyndra has devolved from the Obama administration's example of shining sustainability, to bankruptcy, to a federal raid and Congressional investigations.

Now ABC reports that Obama administration officials "from the Department of Energy have for months been sitting in on board meetings as 'observers' at Solyndra, getting an up-close view as the solar energy company careened towards bankruptcy after spending more than $500 million in federal loan money."

That is, the Obama administration was complicit in this mess, that has resulted in 1,1000 people losing their job and taxpayers losing millions in wasted stimulus money.

It is impossible to square the company's collapse with its CEO's visit to Congress this summer when Brian Harrison praised the government loan and cited the company as an example of successful green technology. Just two months later and the FBI is raiding the building.

This is where it matters that Republicans control the House: Congressional investigations.

Perhaps the House can explore: (1) why Solyndra misrepresented its financial condition; (2) how the company got such a sweet loan; and (2) whether its loan is connected to the fact that one of its largest investors is George B. Kaiser, Obama's billionaire fundraiser.

While they're at it, the House should investigate the subject matter of those 16, count them 16 visits that Kaiser made to the Obama administration.

Whoever decided to send Obama to Solyndra's headquarters to tout green technologies is probably hiding under his or her desk.

Rand Paul Responds to Obama's Joblessness Speech

2011-09-08T21:03:00.000-04:00

Sen. Rand Paul's take on the president's "jobs speech":

If the President were to ask me my advice on how to deal with the worst recession since the Great Depression, I would politely ask him to turn off the teleprompter. It’s hard to have a conversation with the American people when speaking through scripted words. And besides, the script really isn’t working.

I would tell the President, politely, to turn off the teleprompters. To turn off and maybe to quiet the loudmouths who are calling us – those who oppose some of his plans – “terrorists.” Those who are hurling invective at us as if that is somehow constructive. I would tell him to turn off or disassociate himself with this type of rhetoric.

Leadership means accepting responsibility. Accepting responsibility for where we are after nearly three years of his administration. For the first year or two it was always Bush’s fault. The economy, the recession – it’s all Bush’s fault. But at some point and time leadership means accepting responsibility.

We have unemployment nearly 10 percent. This administration is set to accumulate more debt than all 43 Presidents combined. With the unemployment, 2 million new workers are out of work. Leadership means accepting responsibility. And I would ask at this point that he accept some responsibility for this failed economy and for these failed policies and that we try something new.

Leadership isn’t just attaching blame to the other side and saying it’s just the Republican’s fault. But likewise, it’s not us standing up and saying it’s just the Democrat’s fault. It’s both sides admitting that there’s blame to go around.

The No. 1 problem that fuels our deficit crisis – that has us pushing on toward this deficit problem – is entitlements. And this is not anyone’s fault. It’s not the Democrats fault. It’s not the Republican’s fault.

Entitlements are broken because of two incontrovertible facts: No.1, people are living longer; No. 2 there are less workers than retirees. When Social Security was started there were dozens of workers for every retiree. Now we’re less than three workers for one retiree and we’re headed toward a time where there’s going to be one worker for one retiree. Social Security now pays out more than it brings in. These are just facts.

We can fix these programs but we can’t fix them if we involve ourselves in the rhetoric where each side or one side is calling the other terrorists. Mr. President, we need to get beyond that type of rhetoric. We need to sit down together and try to figure out our nation’s problems.

Likewise, I don’t think it’s good for you to simply say it’s the rich, blame the rich, the rich are not paying their fair share. Well, the facts speak otherwise: We have a progressive income tax in our country. In fact, the top 1 percent of wage earners who earn about 20 percent of the income, pay 38 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent of wage earners which earn about 50 percent of the income, pay 70 percent of the income tax. So the only thing the facts could tell us about the tax code is that the wealthy are paying their fair share – their fair share and then some.

You point out examples and say, well, this corporation didn’t pay any tax or this individual didn’t pay any tax. Those are anecdotes and anecdotes do not make a trend and do not make the truth. The truth is that the middle class and the rich pay the vast majority of the income tax. In fact, the bottom 50 percent, nearly half of all income tax is paid by those above, nearly have of income tax, nearly half of wage earners don’t pay any income tax.

So really we need to get our facts straight and get beyond sort of this blame-the-rich game. This class war-fare, this class envy. We need to remember that this is America; where the American dream is open to all. You, Mr. President, are a product of the American Dream. You should be proud of those who gain wealth. You should be proud of those who make a profit. We should extol the successes of American businesses, of American individuals. That would help us to move forward.

Now we do face a problem, we do have great joblessness in our country. How would we fix it? I would have five different things we would do. I think if we did these then our economy would begin to rebound. We would see a recovery almost immediately.

No. 1: We need a balance budget amendment to the Constitution. For too long we have been running these massive debts and debt has a face. Some economists are saying that our debt causes a million people to be out of work each year. Debt also causes our prices to go up. Gas prices have doubled. That’s because we are financing our debt by printing new money, that’s what the rising price is. These rising prices hurt seniors; these rising prices hurt those who are on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. So the first thing we need to do is get rid of our debt problem: a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Now in order to do that you also have to have a spending plan. The second thing I would say is that we need a spending plan. You did propose a budget, but everyone voted against it. All 100 Senators; all the Republicans and all the Democrats voted against your plan. So obviously it wasn’t a plan that was acceptable to representatives on either sides of the aisle.

But I think there is a spending plan that America would accept and I call it the Penny Plan. The Penny Plan would cut the spending by one percent each year for six years. Cut one penny of every dollar of federal spending. Families have to do across America when times are tight, is there any reason why government couldn’t cut one percent of spending? If you cut one percent of spending for six years, and then free spending for two more years, your budget will balance in eight years. So it’s not enough just to have a balanced budget amendment, we have to have a spending plan that tells us and shows us how we could get to a balanced budget.

No. 3: I think we should immediately cut in half the corporate income tax, we should eliminate the capital gains taxes and we should make the tax rates that are out there now, give them some permanence, so businesses could have some predictability.

No. 4: I think we need a regulatory moratorium; we need to add no new regulations. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to repeal one regulation every week until the economy starts recovering. The regulatory burden is adding $2 trillion to the economic woes that we have in our country. And if we could get a business-friendly, regulatory-friendly government that acknowledges that we need some regulations, but that we’ve gone way overboard. I think that you would see an enormous recovery to economy.

And No. 5: We have to have an entitlement reform. Like I say this is no one’s fault. We are living longer; they’re folks-there’s just not as many workers to pay taxes anymore. So we have to fix entitlements and we can fix them. I’ve mentioned these to you and to others in your Administration. We could allow the age to gradually rise for social security over a 20- or 30-year period and we could allow means testing. Which would mean the rich would bear more of the burden for paying for their benefits and their entitlements. These are things that both sides of the aisle could come together on and I think if we did you would see an economic boom like we haven’t seen in a long time.

In order to get there though, many people say “Oh we have to compromise.” Well compromise goes both ways. You’ve put forward your ideas tonight. You need to come talk to us about how we could work with you, but that means you need to entertain some of our ideas.

Thank you and God bless America.

McConnell's Prequel to Obama's Jobs Speech

2011-09-08T11:50:00.000-04:00

Former Majority Leader (still love the sound of that) Nancy Pelosi takes umbrage that Republicans will not give a response to President Barack Obama's job speech tonight. And why should they. The speech comes nearly three years too late and include retreads of previous Obama solutions, in particular, more billions of government spending.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has written a piece for Politico today, sort of an advance response to Obama's inevitable "solutions." McConnell proposes specific steps to allow the private sector to increase jobs:

cut government regulations
simplify the tax code
reform the budgetary process so that every line item is reviewed annually
pass free trade agreements with Central America.

Here's McConnell's piece in full:

President Barack Obama will reportedly do two things in his speech to a joint session of Congress tonight: ask us to believe that a second stimulus will be more effective than his first; and pin the blame on others for a jobs crisis that his own economic policies have done more than anything else to perpetuate.
Such a speech would, no doubt, cheer the most ardent Democratic partisans. But it would do nothing to create jobs.
That’s why many of us believe the president should instead begin by candidly acknowledging the failures of an economic agenda that centers on massive government spending and debt. He should then reach across the aisle for a plan that puts people and business at the forefront of any effort to lift the economy.
The plan we’re suggesting is built on the simple premise that if the American people are going to have control over their destiny, they need to have more control of their economy. The only way we can bring about a stable, long-term recovery is by shifting the center of gravity away from Washington and toward those who actually create jobs.
Above all, this means putting an end to the regulatory overreach that’s holding job creators back. The president took a positive step last week by reversing himself on a proposed ozone regulation. But he’ll need to do more if he’s intent on sparking serious and sustained job creation.
The administration has 4,000 regulations in the pipeline, according to one estimate. Every one should be reviewed. If the president really wants to create jobs, he needs to be as bold about liberating job creators as he has been about shackling them.

Putting the American people back in charge of our economy also means reforming an outdated tax code. Washington should get out of the business of picking winners and losers and lower the U.S. corporate tax rate — the second highest in the world, behind Japan.
We should also level the playing field with overseas competitors by approving the free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea that have been languishing on the president’s desk. These pacts would help create tens of thousands of jobs here by vastly expanding the market for U.S. goods.

Another thing we need to do is reform the budget process. There is no good reason that nearly three-fourths of government spending is on autopilot. Or that last year’s spending levels should automatically carry over into the next — regardless of whether they’re effective or affordable. Reforming the budget process is an essential part of getting Washington to live within its means and thus removing the specter of default.

Contrary to the president’s claims, the economic approach outlined here is not aimed at pleasing any one party or constituency. It’s aimed instead at giving back to the American people the tools they need to do the work that Washington has not been able to do, despite its best efforts over the past few years.

Equally important: All these ideas are rooted in a respect for the independence, the wisdom and the power, as President John F. Kennedy once put it, “of a free people and the efficiency of free institutions.”

The president is free to blame his political adversaries, his predecessor or even natural disasters for America’s economic challenges. Tonight, he may blame any future such challenges on those who choose not to rubber-stamp his latest proposals.

It should be noted, however, that this is precisely what Democratic majorities did during the president’s first two years in office. Where did that get us? The national debt exploded, America’s once-pristine credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history, the average length of unemployment recently surpassed 40 weeks for the first time ever. Just last week, we learned that in August not a single new job was created in this country — not one.

Here’s the bottom line: There are now 1.7 million fewer jobs in America, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, than there were before the president signed the economic stimulus into law. By the president’s own standards, in other words, the centerpiece of his jobs agenda has been a failure.

At this point, most Americans have concluded that the problem with our economy isn’t that Washington is doing too little — but that it’s doing too much.

Whether you believe this or not, however, there is a simpler reason for opposing the president’s economic agenda that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics: It hasn’t worked as advertised.

RIM Investors call on RIM to Sell Itselft

2011-09-07T18:07:00.001-04:00

Investment firm Jaguar Financial told Research in Motion, or RIM, the parent company of BlackBerry, that it's time to sell itself or its patents, according to Bloomberg. RIM's value has fallen nearly 50% this year. Jaguar says that RIM is putting all its eggs in one basket on its new QNX-Platform which will be available on RIM's 2012 smart phones.

Personally, I think RIM needs to downgrade significantly, but not go away. Many companies only allow BlackBerrys versus Android and Apple phones due to security concerns, so there definitely still is a market for BlackBerrys, although I believe that will slowly decline as Android and iOS improve.

The Gov. Race is Over

2011-09-05T11:15:00.000-04:00

Sen. David Williams, despite a brilliant intellect, cannot overcome the perception that he is a big jerk. He is loathed by voters across the political spectrum. Sadly, I therefore agree with Joe Gerth's analysis and that on Joe Arnold's blog: the Kentucky gubernatorial race is over.

It is hard to conceive of a scandal big enough to dethrone Beshear. The vanilla Beshear has not done anything to deserve reelection, but he will win by default because Republicans put up the wrong candidate.

In light of this reality, Republicans need to focus time and money on the down-ticket races. It's triage time.

Todd P'Pool has a real shot against Attorney General Jack Conway. P'Pool has done a great job picking issues --coal, Obamacare -- that showcase the ideological differences between the two candidates.

Moreover, Conway's run for U.S. Senate against Sen. Rand Paul may have boosted Conway's name ID, but in the process of getting trounced, he looked silly, thanks to the Aqua Buddha ad. Conway is vulnerable. P'Pool needs the resources pick up where Rand Paul left off and end Jack Conway's career once and for all.

Now Who's Endorsing Todd P'Pool?

2011-09-02T16:12:00.000-04:00

A mysterious media advisory from Todd P'Pool's campaign: look for a "major" endorsement of the Republican nominee for Kentucky Attorney General, to take place this Wed.

Who could it be?

He already has both of Kentucky's U.S. Senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul. David Williams backed him early on. Several Attorneys General from other states have endorsed him or even campaigned. Trey Grayson has praised him, as well as Mike Huckabee. The Fraternal Order of Police has endorse P'Pool.

Maybe one of the presidential contenders? Not sure that would make much difference.

Perhaps a sports celebrity?

Critique of Obama's Speech to Congress

2011-09-01T15:31:00.002-04:00

The great thing about critiquing Obama's speeches is that you do not have to hear them first, because they are all basically the same. By now we could give them ourselves, except for we could never match his skill with a teleprompter. So, here is a critique of next week's speech to the joint session of Congress. The speech will contain the following:

1. He will eloquently pour forth much high sounding language that means nothing. He will be very articulate and use wonderful cadence in doing this. Most of his words will be like pretty balloons, nice to watch as they float off into the air, but ultimately having no known destination.

2. Obama will blame the current economic situation on everyone and everything but himself. Following is partial list of who or what he will blame: George Bush, the European economic crisis, Hurricane Irene, George Bush, the Japanese sunami, the Tea Party, unrest in the Middle East, George Bush, China, the Republican Party, Wall Street, rich people, George Bush.

3. He will propose massive government expenditures on jobs stimulus that will be failures just like the first ones. They will be paid for by additional borrowing that will add to the burden of our crushing debt. He will talk about creating jobs, while proposing more things that will destroy jobs.

4. He will talk about bipartisanship and the need for Democrats and Republicans to come together for the good of the American people. He will say that we should be above partisan politics at this time of national crisis. What he really means by this is that Republicans should roll over and let his hyper-partisan politics carry the day.

5. At some point, he will tilt his head back, lift his nose in the air and in a condescending tone let us know that he is the adult in the room, that he is above the fray, a cool, calm and collected leader. It will be an admirable acting job.

There you have it, no need to listen to it.

U.S. Government to Block AT&T/T-Mobile Merger

2011-08-31T18:32:00.001-04:00

According to Bloomberg, the United States Justice Department has just filed papers in Washington to block the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger despite the fact that AT&T and T-Mobile are pledging 5,000 new jobs if the merger were approved. The Justice Department says the merger would "substantially lessen competition" among wireless carriers. If the merger falls through, AT&T would owe T-Mobile $3 billion.

The FCC has responded with the following statement:

"Although our process is not complete, the record before this agency also raises serious concerns about the impact of the proposed transaction on competition."

AT&T also responded:

"We are surprised and disappointed by today's action, particularly since we have met repeatedly with the Department of Justice and there was no indication from the DOJ that this action was being contemplated. We plan to ask for an expedited hearing so the enormous benefits of this merger can be fully reviewed. The DOJ has the burden of proving alleged anti-competitive affects and we intend to vigorously contest this matter in court. At the end of the day, we believe facts will guide any final decision and the facts are clear. This merger will:

· Help solve our nation's spectrum exhaust situation and improve wireless service for millions.
· Allow AT&T to expand 4G LTE mobile broadband to another 55 million Americans, or 97% of the population;
· Result in billions of additional investment and tens of thousands of jobs, at a time when our nation needs them most.

We remain confident that this merger is in the best interest of consumers and our country, and the facts will prevail in court."

T-Mobile's statement:

On August 31, 2011, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) informed Deutsche Telekom that it will file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a permanent injunction blocking the proposed stock purchase agreement between AT&T and Deutsche Telekom under which AT&T will acquire T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom.

The Company is very disappointed by the DOJ's action, and will join AT& T in defending the contemplated merger against the complaint in court. DOJ failed to acknowledge the robust competition in the U.S. wireless telecommunications industry and the tremendous efficiencies associated with the proposed transaction, which would lead to significant customer, shareholder, and public benefits. We appreciate the DoJ's willingness to discuss possible remedies to address the competitive concerns.

And this post would not be complete without Sprint's statement:

"The DOJ today delivered a decisive victory for consumers, competition and our country. By filing suit to block AT&T's proposed takeover of T-Mobile, the DOJ has put consumers' interests first. Sprint applauds the DOJ for conducting a careful and thorough review and for reaching a just decision – one which will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of a competitive U.S. wireless industry. Contrary to AT&T's assertions, today's action will preserve American jobs, strengthen the American economy, and encourage innovation."

AT&T and T-Mobile are both disappointed and argue that there are plenty of other small, budget carriers for Americans to choose from, while Sprint, and more importantly the Department of Justice, think otherwise.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) Gives GOP Weekly Address

2011-08-27T10:36:00.000-04:00

Sen. Dean Helller (R-NV) gives this week's Republican Address, which focuses on the economy. Heller is in a position to know something about how that hopey changey stuff is workin' out. His state's economy has the sad distinction of leading the country in unemployment, foreclosures, and bankruptcies.

Here's the link to his video. Democrats like to complain that Republicans have no specifics on how to fix this economy. To the contrary, Heller's address is replete with specifics: repeal Obamacare; pass a balanced budge amendment; provide certainty by simplifying taxes to close loopholes and by making tax cuts permanent; open up energy exploration; and fix social security and medicare for the long haul..

U of L Law Federalist Society Events

2011-08-26T10:22:00.000-04:00

Some upcoming events that should appeal not only to lawyers but to non-lawyers who consider themselves constitutional conservatives:

August 30 at 12:00. room 275 of the Brandeis Law School: "Do Public Unions Cause the Public Harm?" The speakers are Prof. John McGinnis from Northwestern University Law School and Don Meade from Priddy, Cutler, Miller and Meade. This event is co-sponsored by the Labor & Employment Organization. Certainly a timely topic after the events in Wisconsin.
September 8, 12:00, also in room 275: "Does the PATRIOT ACT draw the right balance between liberty and security?" The speakers are Nathan Sales, Prof. of Law at George Mason and Prof. Marcosson from U of L Law. This event is co-sponsored by the American Constitutional Society (the liberal clone of the Federalist Society). Lunch will be provided.

The law students who have organized these events are our future. Come support them with your attendance, and a job interview, if you are a member in a law firm that is hiring.

Time to End Metro Council Sludge Funds

2011-08-25T12:12:00.001-04:00

The Metro Council members' "discretionary funds" are once again being used to promote incumbents -- with our tax dollars. These discretionary funds ($75,000 per member) need to go. Republicans are criticizing the latest misuse when they should be making a motion to abolish the funds altogether.

The C-J reports that Mayor Greg Fischer promised to advertise the names of any Metro Council members who donated part of their discretionary fund to pay for the WorldFest. A city worker from the office that organizes WorldFest asked Councilman David Tandy to solicit $1,000 from his fellow council members.

Here's the quid pro quo: those council members who ponied up donations from their discretionary funds would be named on banners, in print and radio advertising regarding WorldFest. In other words, taxpayers would pay to promote the name ID and reelection chances of these members.

Vice Chair of the Republican Caucus Keven Kramer called the practice "incredibly distasteful." That's an understatement but at least he spoke up. As did Councilman Kelly Downard, who said council members were being asked to buy advertising rather than support a worthy project. (Not only that, you're being asked to buy advertising with other people's money: the taxpayers.) Jerry Miller did not contribute from his discretionary funds, according to the C-J, because the promise of advertising made him uncomfortable.

We learned last year that some members of Metro Council were using their discretionary funds to give gift cards to citizens for putting up Christmas lights. Seriously. And then there was Judy Green, who gave discretionary funds to 100 Black Men and told the group to steer it to others.

In short, the discretionary funds have been abused too often for too long. It 's time to end this form of budgeting altogether. The response, no doubt, will be that this is decentralized government; the members from each district know best what needs are in that district, and should have a fund to respond to those needs. Take pot holes and minor road improvements, for example. It's hard to see why such needs -- if they are legitimate -- cannot be addressed by the mayor. It's not like he lives in Washington, D.C. In any event, the WorldFest event asked each member to pool their money; this was a not district-specific event, it was a city event.

But assuming for sake of argument that we do need this level of decentralization, then let's replace the "discretionary funds" with a pothole fund. And let's reduce the amount.

Huck to Campaign for Todd P'Pool

2011-08-23T16:28:00.000-04:00

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee will appear at a fundraiser for Republican nominee for Attorney General, Todd P'Pool, at the home of Cathy and Irv Bailey

That's a perfect fit for the P'Pool campaign; many of us have been struck by the similarities between P'Pool and Huckabee in terms of style and substance.

Todd P'Pool Takes to the Air

2011-08-17T13:40:00.002-04:00

Republican candidate for Attorney General Todd P'Pool is running his first TV spot. It's well done: top of the line narrator and a positive tone to introduce his candidacy. Though the ad is feel-good, it is substantive regarding Todd's attributes (faith, family, hard work) and his key issues (fight crime, protect coal, fight Obamacare).

With respect to Obamacare, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will campaign with P'Pool on September 29th in Elizabethtown. Cuccinelli made a national name for himself as one of the first state Attorneys General to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Sen. Pat Toomey (Member of the Super-Committee) Gives GOP Address

2011-08-13T10:48:00.000-04:00

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) gives this week's Republican address (video here). Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell appointed Toomey to the joint special committee to cut spending. It's worth a couple minutes to listen to Toomey's address just to take comfort in this solid appointment. Toomey, as a small business owner, has a personal understanding of how government regulation has stymied job creation. His address is also worth a listen -- especially as consumer confidence has plunged -- for his optimism that America can move past this recession by returning to the principles that made us great, that is, by government getting out of the way.

Note that the last Republican address featured the Republican Whip Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Kly also serves on the "super-committee." His address (click here if you missed it) emphasized the damage that raising taxes could do to our fragile economy. Kly gave his address just days before the concept of the "super-committee" became the basis of the debt ceiling compromise. Again, a listen to Kyl's address should reassure conservatives that McConnell did well to choose Kly.

I'm guessing that the next Republican address will be given by the third Senate Republican on the "super-committee": Sen. Rob Portman. Stay tuned!

Todd P'Pool Praises 11th Circuit's Obamacare Ruling

2011-08-12T15:20:00.005-04:00

The Republican nominee for Kentucky Attorney General, Todd P'Pool was quick to praise the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit for holding the Obamacare individual mandate to purchase insurance unconstitutional.

P'Pool has made his opposition to the individual mandate a cornerstone of this campaign -- in contrast to Attorney General Jack Conway, who refused to join the multi-state Attorneys General challenge the the healthcare takeover.

Conway justified his failure to join the multi-state challenge on the grounds that he did not want to waste taxpayers' money on a "frivolous" suit. Now, the 11th Circuit has vindicated P'Pool and made Conway's legal skills look sub-par.

Here's P'Pool's statement:

I am encouraged to see that the 11^th Circuit ruled to uphold liberty and protect the general police powers reserved to the states by ruling Obamacare unconstitutional"; said P’Pool.

“Jack Conway believes that Obamacare is irrelevant to his job as Attorney General. When I’m Attorney General, the Constitution will be relevant to this job.”

On Friday, the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Atlanta, ruled the individual mandate in Obamacare to be unconstitutional. Since the individual mandate provision is the cornerstone of President Obama’s law, this ruling is a significant blow to the White House and to supporters of the
President’s health care reform.

Todd P’Pool has pledged throughout his campaign that he would join the other 26 Attorneys General from around the country who are challenging Obamacare in federal court. Democrat Attorney General Jack Conway has refused to join any of the lawsuits, repeatedly referring to them as “irrelevant” or as a “gimmick.”

McConnell on 11th Cir. Ruling Striking Obamacare

2011-08-12T15:10:00.001-04:00

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is praising the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit for its decision striking down the Obamacare individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

McConnell and many of his Republican colleagues had filed an amicus brief with the court. Here's McConnell's statement:

Like countless other Americans, I welcome the 11th Circuit's ruling against the individual mandate. Forcing Americans to buy health insurance approved by the government was an unprecedented, unwelcome, and unconstitutional expansion of federal power, and today's decision only strengthens and adds more momentum to the efforts of those of us who are working to repeal it. Congress should repeal this costly and burdensome law and replace it with the kind of commonsense reforms Americans really want.

That Iowa Republican Debate Sure Was Fun

2011-08-12T10:57:00.001-04:00

The Republican field at last night's Iowa debate looked electable, all in all. That is, except for Ron Paul, who insisted that a nuclear Iran is no threat to the U.S. because the old Soviet Union had nukes and that worked out OK.

Michele Bachmann looked presidential. She remained poised, and kept a sense of humor, no matter who attacked her. She managed to answer -- without rolling her eyes -- a really offensive question about whether her religious beliefs would force her to "submit" to her husband even if she is elected president. Without condescending or taking umbrage, she patiently explained that the verse in question meant that she and her husband have built a marriage based on mutual respect.

The only time Bachmann failed to deliver was when pressed about government-run healthcare at the state level. In that example, the tenth amendment does not provide a vehicle for attacking the program. As a constitutional conservative, and a lawyer, she should have grasped that distinction. Her instinct that even a state should not compel a citizen to buy a product (healthcare) was laudable but not well reasoned.

Tim Pawlenty attacked Bachmann relentlessly, unfairly and to little effect. Bachmann, for her part, gave as good as she got -- revealing an intellectual toughness and calmness.

T-Paw's theme was that Bachmann had failed to achieve any of the causes she had championed in Congress. But let's be clear: when Bachmann was railing against Obamacare, Republicans did not control the Congress. Rather than fault her for her inability to prevent the passage of Obamacare, she should be commended for making the case against it -- loudly and articulately -- even knowing that she lacked the votes. That is called courage and principle. It was a cheap attack on T-Paw's part and it diminished his standing even further.

Newt Gingrich had a good night. He alone stressed that time is of the essence on creating jobs; he called Republican members of Congress to return on Monday, and gave a specific plan of action: repeal Dodd-Frank; repeal Oxley-Sarbanes. His specificity and sense of urgency were refreshing. One surprise from Newt: he embraced Ron Paul's call to audit the Fed. Even Ron Paul expressed surprise that his idea had gone "mainstream."

Mitt Romney comported himself like he always does. He is the presidential candidate from central casting. His responses were intelligent and polished. No one was able to land a punch on him, though he failed to explain why federalism works for healthcare (state experimentation good! 10th amendment!) but not for marriage (NY vote on gay marriage bad! need for uniformity).

Rick Santorum, poor guy, got little air time. But he used what he got masterfully to advance the cause of life. He pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to allow the execution of a rapist, which means that under current law, the rapist gets to live but the baby conceived by the rape can but put to death. It was a powerful moment.

Perhaps the biggest surprise to those of us who don't know him was Herman Cain. He is smart and funny. Best moment of the night was when he told the panel of questioners that the country needs to learn how to take a joke. Like Gingrich, he was very specific on what he would do to encourage economic growth -- including by cutting capital gains and corporate taxes. Cain made clear that he brings a business savvy that all the other candidates (except Romney) lack.

Poor John Huntsman. Enough said.

More Super-Committee Members Named

2011-08-10T13:35:00.000-04:00

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has named the following to the committee: Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA); Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT); and Sen. John Kerry (D.MA). Kerry recently tried to peg the S&P downgrade as the "Tea Party downgrade," so we can't look to him to support any serious cuts. Perhaps his role, as a super-rich windsurfer, is to advocate the "balanced approach" that is code for raising taxes on those wealthy enough to create jobs.

House Majority Leader John Boehner has named: Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX); Rep. David Camp (R-MI) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI). I don't know anything about these members of the House, but I find it odd that Boehner chose two from Michigan.

The Republican Members of the Super-Committee

2011-08-10T12:15:00.000-04:00

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has just announced his choices for the joint super-committee that must designate massive cuts by Thanksgiving. They are: Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz., Republican whip); Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA; former head of the Club for Growth); and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH; former head of OMB).

Note that I have not called it a "Super-Congress," as have some in the media. The Constitution does not provide for a "Super-Congress." Instead, this a joint, bipartisan and bicameral committee.

McConnell has said all along that he wanted creative, thoughtful conservatives who were committed to finding the cuts without blowing up the process. On the one hand, it would have been fabulous to have Jim DeMint and Rand Paul sit on this committee. Chances are, however, that it would have blown up. We need to approach cutting the government like a diet, with discipline, perseverance and the realization that the government didn't get this big overnight and we cannot shrink it overnight.

Let's lift the senators up in prayers. The importance of the task at hand is historic.

The Day the Magic Died

2011-08-09T20:00:00.000-04:00

President Barack Obama has been losing luster for a while. It didn't help, for example, that he lectures us to "eat our peas" and then sneaks a smoke. The ostentatious "date nights" and vacations in the midst of 9.2 percent unemployment seemed a bit tone deaf. His performance yesterday, however, has called into question his vaunted intellect. This is a milestone, not seen since Jimmy Carter's donned a cardigan and told us to turn off the Christmas lights because of our "malaise."

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank -- no friend of Republicans -- had these words about Obama's press conference yesterday, in which he managed to take a volatile stock market and drive it further south:

No matter what some agency may say, we’ve always been and always will be a AAA country,” Obama said, as if comforting a child who had been teased by the class bully. . . . It’s not exactly fair to blame Obama for the rout: Almost certainly, the markets ignored him. And that’s the problem: The most powerful man in the world seems strangely powerless, and irresolute, as larger forces bring down the country and his presidency.

Bret Stephens was even more pointed in the Wall Street Journal, quoting Forrest Gump that Obama is a case study in: "Stupid is as stupid does."

Much is made of the president's rhetorical gifts. This is the sort of thing that can be credited only by people who think that a command of English syntax is a mark of great intellectual distinction. Can anyone recall a memorable phrase from one of Mr. Obama's big speeches that didn't amount to cliché? As for the small speeches, such as the one we were kept waiting 50 minutes for yesterday, we get Triple-A bromides about America remaining a "Triple-A country." Which, when it comes to long-term sovereign debt, is precisely what we no longer are under Mr. Obama.

Then there is Mr. Obama as political tactician. He makes predictions that prove false. He makes promises he cannot honor. He raises expectations he cannot meet. He reneges on commitments made in private. He surrenders positions staked in public. He is absent from issues in which he has a duty to be involved. He is overbearing when he ought to be absent.

It is now clear that Obama will not lead, even leftward, because he lacks the ability; leadership is just not in his skill said. Given the effect his rhetorical skills had on yesterday's stock market, it is in nation's best interest that someone hide his teleprompter until it's time for the concession speech.

How an AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Could Benefit Rural Kentucky

2011-08-08T00:02:00.000-04:00

Governor Steve Beshear and Kentucky Senate President David Williams do not agree on very much, but both agree that high-speed internet should be available to all Kentuckians, and that it could be achieved through a T-Mobile/AT&T merger for zero cost to taxpayers. AT&T promises that if its merger succeeds, it will invest $8 billion to cover 97% of Americans with its 4G LTE network, including rural Kentucky.

In a letter to the FCC, Williams explained the major economic growth that result from wireless broadband in rural Kentucky:

For rural Kentucky, particularly, economic recovery has, and will continue to be, hard won. Without the resources to support its businesses, schools, and communities, these areas are apt to struggle for years to come. But by expanding its advanced wireless broadband network to reach an additional one million square miles across the country, the merged AT&T and T-Mobile can give rural communities a connection to the future of education, employment, health care and more. Expanded wireless broadband capabilities will put communities like rural Kentucky on a more level playing field with its more metropolitan counterparts.

Beshear also wrote a letter to the FCC where he noted that the Commonwealth can only encourage this innovation, and that the private sector is needed:

The merger of T-Mobile USA and AT&T is a private-sector initiative that complements our efforts to build Kentucky's future now and that’s why I support it. Once approved, the merged company would be able to expand the upgrade of its existing wireless networks to offer our residents, businesses, schools, hospitals, and other organizations with access to state-of-the-art mobile broadband.

Besides helping rural communities, the proposed merger will also benefit people in urban areas. AT&T and T-Mobile both use GSM wireless technologies for their 3G networks: therefore AT&T customers could use T-Mobile towers, and vice versa, resulting in expanded coverage for both companies' customers.

Verizon recently acquired Alltel Wireless. It took six months to get the approval of the FCC. AT&T has said that it believes its merger with T-Mobile will take 12 months, and many people think it may take even longer. Why? Market saturation.

Currently, there are four large cell carriers in the U.S; Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile. If AT&T merged with T-Mobile, there would only be three. Some people think that three large carriers are not enough, and that there wouldn't be enough competition, resulting in less innovation. To the contrary, If AT&T merged with T-Mobile, more competition would result, because AT&T would have the funds to deploy a 4G network that others would try to match.

Wireless broadband would open up a whole new world for people living in rural Kentucky. All that’s stopping it is the FCC.

Rand Paul: Sack Geithner

2011-08-06T18:10:00.000-04:00

Sen. Rand Paul has called for the resignation of Treasury Sec Timothy Geithner, who told the country in April that America's credit rating would not be down-graded. Historians will debate whether Geithner was telling a whopper or just didn't know what he was doing. In any event, it is time for him to join the 9.1 percent of unemployed Americans who suffer the consequences of his policies.

Here is Sen. Paul's statement:

Sen. Rand Paul today issued a statement calling for the resignation of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner from his cabinet post, effective immediately, for his gross mismanagement of federal economic policy and for his role in the first-ever downgrade of United States debt.

“Secretary Geithner assured everyone that raising the debt ceiling without a plan to balance the budget would not result in a downgrade to our debt,” Sen. Paul said. “He was clearly wrong. Our debt has been downgraded for the first time in history, and now American taxpayers will have to suffer the consequences”

This is not the first time Secretary Geithner and his team have failed to correctly diagnose or manage an economic problem. During his tenure at the Federal Reserve and as Treasury Secretary, Secretary Geithner has had a direct role in the failure of the Fed to diagnose and act on the housing crisis. He presided over bank bailouts, auto bailouts and failed trillion-dollar stimulus plans.

Last year, he announced to the American people “welcome to the recovery,” when in fact the our economic crisis has continued. He has contributed not only to the first-ever debt downgrade, but is on the record as clearly disputing it could ever happen.

“There is plenty of blame to go around. Both parties have contributed to our $14 trillion debt. But it is hard to say this crisis wasn’t predictable, because it was. House and Senate conservatives clearly predicted this, and also offered the only solution that could have prevented our downgrade with our Cut Cap and Balance plan,” Sen. Paul continued. “We must rescue our finances through a Balanced Budget Amendment, and we must do it soon. We must cut spending immediately. And we must get new leadership, and put in place people who have seen problems coming and offered credible solutions, rather than those who continue to misdiagnose and mismanage our economy.”

EIB Facebook and Twitter Pages

2011-08-06T17:08:00.000-04:00

You can now like EIB on Facebook by simply clicking "like" at the bottom of this post. You can also follow us on Twitter @EIBKY. We hope that through the use of social media, we will be able to better connect with our readers.

Fineman: This is McConnell's Moment

2011-08-03T10:21:00.004-04:00

Howard Fineman has a piece on the Huffington Post regarding McConnell's pivotal role in the recent debt ceiling compromise. Fineman, who wrote for the Courier-Journal before he left to make a name for himself at Newsweek, has been observing McConnell since the '70's.

Fineman is grudgingly complimentary of McConnell's intellect and mastery of the legislative process. He attempts a tortured analogy between the populist demand to cut spending as compared to the the debate over school busing. Add some references to the canny McConnell and the angry white people, and Fineman's take fits so nicely into the Mainstream Media portrait of the tea party as mean-spirited racists:

If you haven't noticed, this is Mitch McConnell's moment. And if you haven't realized it, this won't be the last. In fact, there will be many more, especially if -- as is quite possible -- he becomes Republican majority leader of the Senate after next year's elections.
In what amounted to a victory speech as the final vote approached on the debt ceiling he brokered, the senior senator from Kentucky reached what has been a career-long goal: to be this century's Henry Clay.
Only instead of being Kentucky's "Great Compromiser," McConnell is and wants to be the Bluegrass's "Great Dismantler."
A handsome portrait of Clay hangs in McConnell's spacious Capitol suite. But the two men represent diametrically opposing traditions. Sen. Clay wanted to be president, and used his eloquence and shrewdness in the service of constructing and protecting the power of the federal government. He championed the "American System" of national roads and public works, and spent decades trying to keep the Union from flying apart under the centrifugal stress of slavery, economics and ideology. He inspired another Kentucky-born politician named Abe Lincoln, and infuriated yet another named Jefferson Davis.
McConnell, equally as shrewd if not as eloquent, has a fundamentally different view. He sees his job, as he said on the floor as the vote began, to "rein in Washington" and "slow down the Big Government freight train." He mesaures success in terms of how much he can reduce the power, purse and reach of a federal government he has been a part of since he was elected at the height of the Reagan Era in 1984.
McConnell is a past master of channelling middle-class resentment at the power of government to gain power for himself in government. And he is one of the most patient and canny legislators and negotiators in modern politics: always superbly prepared, never given to rash actions or statements and a potent mix of brains and chip-on-the shoulder disdain for people with fancier pedigrees but fuzzier minds.
With the debt ceiling negotiations, he basically took the president to the cleaners. He used the energy of the Tea Party as a threat, and the weakness and division in the House GOP leadership to make himself the indispensable player in the final days. He proposed a fail-safe route to avoid default that played to the president's vanity (the idea of giving the president the power to decide debt-ceiling raises on his own) and then used the sense of trust to drive a hard bargain that took takes off the table. McConnnell also used his 26-year relationship with Vice President Joe Biden to smooth the pathway to a deal. As Rep. Charlie Rangel said, the GOP "mugged the president but let him keep his wedding ring.

"The president thinks that the "super committee" that now will be appointed will be able to -- and will -- recommend revenue increases and even tax cuts when it has to report Nov. 23. There may indeed be some loophole closings, but don't count on it.
Was the president listening today when McConnell discussed the "super committee" group of 12, which will include six Republicans and six Democrats? McConnell called it the "cost-cutting committee."
Game on.
McConnell's whole career has been about skillfully tapping anti-government resentment and turning it into deals and power. That is how he began his rise in Louisville and Kentucky.
In 1974, Louisville -- a border city on the Ohio River in the Border State of Kentucky -- was sullen and divided in a way it had not been since the Union Army occupied it during the Civil War. The issues in many ways were the same: race and the power of the federal government. In the summer of 1974, a federal judge had ordered the widespread use of busing to integrate -- in fact not just in law -- the public schools in Louisville and surrounding Jefferson County. Well over 100,000 students were involved, but so were decades of de facto segregation.
In the working class neighborhoods of the city and its suburbs, anger at the order -- even occasional street protests -- was widespread. McConnell, originally born in Alabama, hailed from one of those neighborhoods. He wasn't a protestor or anti-busing leader by any means. He had worked for moderate GOP Sens. John Sherman Cooper and Marlow Cook, and had been an attorney in the Ford administration.
But he knew the neighborhood folks, as well as their fears and resentments. When he ran successfully for County Judge (the chief administrative job) in 1978, he ran strongly in places where he could make the case that government had too much say in local lives, and that services needed to be decided by families and neighbors, not by distant powers downtown or inside the Beltway.
That was the Reaganesque message he took statewide when he ran for Senate and won with the Gipper atop the ticket in 1984.
It is a straight line from there to the floor today.
And we may not have seen anything yet. As patient as he is remorseless, as deeply political as he is lawyerly, McConnell built a machine in Kentucky. It is crumbling now -- the incumbent Democratic governor is up by 25 points in new polls, and Sen. Rand Paul of the Tea Party is hardly a faithful ally -- but Mitch is moving on to do the same thing in the Senate that he did in the state years ago.
Meticulous, tactically focused, he runs a tight ship in the Senate and keeps a very close eye on the GOP's Senate election process. Here's the key statistic for 2012: of the 11 seats considered to be in play by handicapper Charlie Cook, nine are held by Democrats. The Democrats currently hold a 51-47 majority, with two others caucusing with them. Do the math. The GOP is within reach.
The Great Dismantler is on the march.

Senate Passes Debt Ceiling Bill

2011-08-02T13:39:00.001-04:00

The Senate has passed the bill to raise the debt ceiling. The bipartisan vote was 74-26. Given that Rep. John Yarmuth voted no to it in the House, and Sen. Rand Paul voted no in the Senate, it's probably a pretty good compromise: it enraged extremes from both ends of the spectrum. This is just the start in the long process of restoring the proper size and scope of the federal government, but it is a start.

Here are some of the statements in reaction to the vote:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell:

“Over the past few weeks, Congress been engaged in a very important debate. It may have been messy. It might have appeared to some like their government wasn’t working.

“But, in fact, the opposite was true.

“The push and pull Americans saw in Washington these past few weeks was not gridlock. It was the will of the people working itself out in a political system that was never meant to be pretty.

“You see, one reason America isn’t already facing the kind of crises we see in Europe is that presidents and majority parties here can’t just bring about change on a dime, as much as they might like to from time to time. That’s what checks and balances is all about. And that’s the kind of balance Americans voted for in November.

“The American people sent a wave of new lawmakers to Congress in last November’s election with a very clear mandate: to put our nation’s fiscal house in order. Those of us who’d been fighting the big-government policies of Democrat majorities in Congress welcomed them into our ranks. Together we’ve held the line. And slowly but surely, we’ve started turning things around.

“That’s why those who think that no problem is too big or too small for government to solve are worried right now. They’re afraid the American people may actually win the larger debate we’ve been having around here about the size and scope of government; and that the spending spree may actually be coming to an end. They can’t believe that those who’ve stood up for limited government and accountability have actually changed the terms of the debate in Washington.

“But today, they have no choice but to admit it.

“Now, I know that for some of my colleagues reform isn’t coming as fast as they would like. I understand their frustration. I too wish we could stand here today enacting something much more ambitious. But I’m encouraged by the thought that these new leaders will help lead this fight until we finish the job. And I want to assure you today that although you may not see it this way, you’ve won this debate.

“In a few minutes, the Senate will vote on legislation that represents a new way of doing business in Washington.

“First, it creates an entirely new template for raising the nation’s debt limit. One of the most important things about this legislation is the fact that never again will any President, from either party, be allowed to raise the debt ceiling without being held accountable for it by the American people and without having to engage in the kind of debate we’ve just come through.

“This kind of discussion isn’t something to dread; it’s something to welcome. And while the President may not have particularly enjoyed this debate, it was a debate that Washington needed to have.

“As for the particulars, this legislation caps spending over the next 10 years, with a mechanism that ensures that these cuts stick. It protects the American people from a government default that would have affected every single one of them in one way or another. It puts in place a committee that will recommend further cuts and much-needed reforms. It doesn’t include a dime in job-killing tax hikes at a moment when our economy can least afford them. And, crucially, it ensures the debate over a balanced budget amendment continues, and that it gets a vote.

“This is no small feat when you consider that just last week the President was still demanding tax hikes as a part of any debt ceiling increase, and that as recently as May, the President’s top economic advisor said it was `insane’ for anybody to even consider tying the debt ceiling to spending cuts. It’s worth noting that two and a half months later, that advisor is no longer working at the White House and the President is now agreeing, as a condition of raising the debt ceiling, to trillions of dollars in spending cuts.

“Let me be clear: the legislation the Senate is about to vote on is just a first step. But it’s a crucial step toward fiscal sanity, and it’s a potentially remarkable achievement given the lengths to which some in Washington have gone to ensure a status quo that’s suffocating growth, crippling the economy, and imperiling entitlements.

“We’ve had to settle for less than we wanted, but what we’ve achieved is in no way insignificant. And we did it because we had something Democrats didn’t. Republicans may only control one half of one third of the government in Washington. But the American people agreed with us on the nature of the problem. They know that government didn’t accumulate $14.5 trillion in debt because it didn’t tax enough.

“And if you’re spending yourself into oblivion, the solution isn’t to spend more, it’s to spend less.

“Neither side got everything it wanted in these negotiations. But I think it was the view of those in my party that we’d try to get as much spending cuts as we could from a government we didn’t control. And that’s what we’ve done with this bipartisan agreement.

“This is not the deficit reduction package I would have written. The fact that we’re on pace to add another $7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years is nothing to celebrate. But getting it there from more than $9 trillion the President continued to defend until recently, is no defeat either. And slowing down the big-government freight train from its current trajectory will give us the time we need to work toward a real solution, or give the American people the time they need to have their voices heard.

“So much more work remains. And to that end, our first step will be to make sure that the Republicans who sit on the powerful cost-cutting committee are serious people who put the best interests of the American people, and the principles that we’ve fought for throughout this debate, first.

“But before we move on to the next steps, I would like to say a word about some of those who made today’s vote possible.

“I’ll start with Speaker Boehner.

“It should be noted that he helped set the terms of this debate by insisting early on that he’d oppose any debt limit that didn’t include cuts that were greater than the amount the debt limit would be raised. And he stuck to his guns. The Speaker and I have worked shoulder to shoulder over the past few months, and it’s been a pleasure. He’s been a real partner. We wouldn’t be here without him.

“So I want to thank the Speaker and the entire Republican Leadership in the House for standing on principle, and I want to thank my Republican colleagues in the Senate for their determination and their ideas and their support. We wouldn’t be here without them either. And I want to thank my friend, the Majority Leader, for his work in getting this agreement over the finish line. We may disagree a lot, but I hope everyone realizes it’s never personal. And I think today we can prove that when it comes down to it we’ll come together when a larger good is at stake.

“I also want to thank the President, the Vice President, and everyone on their staffs who believed, as we did, that despite our many differences, we could all agree that America would not default on its obligations. It’s a testament to the good will of those on both sides that we were able to reach this agreement in time. Neither side wanted to see a government default. I’m pleased we were able to work together to avoid it.

“This bill does not solve the problem. But it forces Washington to admit that it has one. And it puts us on the path to recovery. We’re nowhere near where we need to be in terms of restoring balance. But there should be absolutely no doubt about this: we have changed the debate. We’re headed in the right direction.

“How’d it happen? Because the American people demanded it.

“So, in the end, we’re back to where we started. The only reason we’re talking about passing legislation that reins in the size of Washington instead of growing it is because the American people believed that they could have a real impact on the direction of their government. They spoke out, and we heard them. And it’s only through their continued participation in this process, and lawmakers who are willing to listen to them, that we’ll complete the work we’ve begun. As Winston Churchill once said, `Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; [and] courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.’

“I can’t think of a better way to sum up this last year and, in particular, these last few months, in Washington than that.

“The American people want to see accountability and cooperation in Washington. And they want to see that we’re working to get our fiscal house in order. This legislation doesn’t get us there. But for the first time in a long time, I think we can say to the American people that we’re finally facing in the right direction. And for that, we have them to thank.”

Sen. Rand Paul:
To paraphrase Senator Jim DeMint: When you're speeding toward the edge of a cliff, you don't set the cruise control. You stop the car. The current deal to raise the debt ceiling doesn't stop us from going over the fiscal cliff. At best, it slows us from going over it at 80 mph to going over it at 60 mph.

This plan never balances. The President called for a "balanced approach." But the American people are calling for a balanced budget.

This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt.

The deal that is pending before us now:

Adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. The deal purports to "cut" $2.1 trillion, but the "cut" is from a baseline that adds $10 trillion to the debt. This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate - results in a BEST case scenario of still adding more than $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening.

Never, ever balances.
The Super Committee's mandate is to add $7 trillion in new debt. Let's be clear: $2.1 trillion in reductions off a nearly $10 trillion,10-year debt is still more than $7 trillion in debt. The Super Committee limits the constitutional check of the filibuster by expediting passage of bills with a simple majority. The Super Committee is not precluded from any issue, therefore the filibuster could be rendered most. In addition, the plan harms the possible passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Since the goal is never to balance, having the BBA as a "trigger" ensures that the committee will simply report its $1.2 trillion deficit reduction plan and never move to a BBA vote.
It cuts too slowly. Even if you believe cutting $2.1 trillion out of $10 trillion is a good compromise, surely we can start cutting quickly, say $200 billion-$300 billion per year, right? Wrong. This plan so badly backloads the alleged savings that the cuts are simply meaningless. Why do we believe that the goal of $2.5 trillion over 10 years (that's an average of $250 billion per year) will EVER be met if the first two years cuts are $20 billion and $50 billion. There is simply no path in this bill even to the meager savings they are alleging will take place.

Buried in the details of this bill is the automatic debt limit increase proposed a few weeks ago. The second installment of the debt ceiling increase is initiated by the President automatically and can only be stopped by a two-thirds vote of Congress. This shifts the Constitutional check on borrowing from Congress to the President and makes it easier to raise the debt ceiling. Despite claims to the contrary, none of the triggers in this bill include withholding the second limit increase.

Credit rating agencies have clearly stated the type of so-called cuts envisioned in this plan will result in our AAA bond rating being downgraded. Ironically then, the only way to avoid our debt being downgraded and the resulting economic problems that stem from that is for this bill to fail.

This plan does not solve our problem. Not even close. I cannot abide the destruction of our economy, therefore I vigorously oppose this deal and I urge my colleagues and the American people to do the same.

Rand Paul Gets Creative for David Williams

2011-08-01T17:54:00.001-04:00

For a guy who likes to tell us how he stands on principle, Sen. Rand Paul's direct mail piece for Republican gubernatorial candidate David Williams reads like an exercise in truthiness.

Take the first sentence: "It's clear that Governor Steve Beshear is one of Barack Obama's most loyal Governors."

Really? Then how come Beshear wasn't invited to join Obama in congratulating the Navy Seals at Fort Campbell? And how come Beshear faked us all into thinking (1) he had been invited to the Obama event but (2) declined because he was so busy (and Obama is so unpopular in Kentucky)?

"Snub-gate," as Joe Arnold has dubbed it, illustrates that Beshear and Obama are not BFFs. The Fort Campbell trip is the only time Obama has come to Kentucky since he was elected president; he hasn't even come to the Derby!

Moreover, as Joe Gerth points out, Beshear was not a big Obama supporter in 2008 and did not commit to vote for his nomination until Beshear arrived at the Democratic National Convention.

The "p.s." to Rand Paul's letter states that "With liberal Steve Beshear's brazen support of 'Obamacare' and the entire Obama agenda, it's little wonder Kentucky is in competition with Puerto Rico for among the highest unemployment rate in the nation!"

I don't recall Steve Beshear's "brazen support of 'Obamacare'" or the "entire Obama agenda."

Beshear requested that Kentucky be given a three year exemption from Obamacare. (The administration denied the request and will only exempt Kentucky for part of 2011.) Someone who asks to be exempt from a law can hardly be called a "brazen supporter" of that same law.

Gerth notes in the same article linked above that Beshear has criticized the Obama administration's proposed coal rules.

Obama is hugely unpopular here, no doubt. A campaign strategy that ties Beshear to Obama would work if it were based on something other than to two having a "D" next to their name on the ballot. The fact is that they appear to have no personal relationship and little ideological overlap. Kentuckians know that Obama is much more liberal than Beshear. The strategy is doomed to fail because it has such little basis in fact.

More is the pity that Rand Paul tarted up his letter with exaggerations trying to tie Beshear to Obama; Paul offered some really great ideas about how to make Kentucky better able to compete with Tennessee for jobs: reform the Kentucky tax code; repeal the prevailing wage; pass a Right to Work law. These are substantive issues that could transform the economy of Kentucky.

To be sure, these are complex issues, but Williams has the intellect to present them in a way to make Kentuckians not only understand but care about them. Williams needs to remember that voters are smart enough to get these sensible changes to make Kentucky competitive. And Kentuckians are smart enough to know that Steve Beshear is not some wild-eyed liberal in the tank for Obama.

Beshear Scandal Goes National

2011-08-01T13:55:00.001-04:00

The Instapundit has picked up this tid-bit from Roger Alford:
A whistle-blower is alleging his colleagues in the Department of Juvenile Justice have been threatened with termination if they don't contribute to Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear's re-election campaign.

State psychologist Rodney Young, who works at the Hazelwood Center for the Mentally Handicapped in Louisville, made the claim in letters to the head of the state GOP and to the attorney general's office.

Republican Party Chairman Steve Robertson attached Young's letter to complaints he filed Monday with the Executive Branch Ethics Commission and the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance. In the letter, Young said he also contacted Attorney General Jack Conway for a potential criminal investigation.

Young said a Beshear aide told his colleagues that they could lose their jobs if they don't contribute $500 each to the re-election campaign.

The Beshear campaign had no immediate comment.

WaPo: McConnell is Winning

2011-08-01T11:31:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post lists winners and losers in the recent negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. McConnell is a winner, according to the Post:

WINNERS
Mitch McConnell: The Kentucky Republican was like the Mariano Rivera of the debt deal. He waited until the game was in its final moments, came onto the field and helped close things down (in a good way). McConnell was also a voice of reason and frankness for Republicans, making clear that default would be a huge political loser for the party. In the end, he got a deal the way he wanted one — with him at the center of negotiations.

Rand Paul Proposes Compromise

2011-07-30T19:39:00.000-04:00

Sen. Rand Paul's most recent statement has a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with respect to his comments about Harry Reid's filibuster (see below).

More importantly, he spells out a potential compromise that he -- and presumably, other Tea Partiers -- would support:

It seems odd that the Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid would decide to filibuster his own legislation. In fact, the Senate Republican Leader offered to move the vote on this legislation up, but Democrats objected. My Senate Republican colleagues and I are here waiting in the Senate for a vote on the debt limit bill but Sen. Reid would rather delay a vote until 1:00 Sunday morning, running down the clock instead of providing real solutions and real leadership on this issue.

“I remain committed to solving this debt crisis and again offer a compromise. I am willing to give the President what he wants – to raise the debt ceiling $2.4 trillion. But there must be a long-term fix to our debt problem in the form of a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Sen. Harry Reid, Bill Killer

2011-07-30T09:47:00.000-04:00

Sen. Harry Reid has always reminded me of a mortician. Perhaps it's all his talk about every Republican bill being "dead on arrival" in the Senate. It's hard to reconcile Reid's language of killing bills -- and his act of tabling the Boehner bill last night -- with what Reid said earlier in the day:

"Time is short, and too much is at stake to waste even one more minute."
”We have hours - I repeat, hours - to act.hat is why, by the end of the day today, I must take action...”

Or what he said the day before:

"The bottom line though is this. There's only one bill in Congress that is a true compromise. We're running out of time."

Or what Reid said last week:

“Time is of the essence. We are running out of time…”

Odd, when he tabled the Boehner bill he didn't seem in any hurry.

The most maddening aspect of Reid tabling the Boehner bill is that it deprived the country of an opportunity to watch Democrats go on the record. Give the bill an up or down vote so that we can know with certainty which Democrats will not support a balanced budget amendment and draft candidates to replace them.

Sen. Paul Opposes House Bill

2011-07-30T09:34:00.000-04:00

I had hoped that once John Boehner amended his bill to include a call for a balanced budget amendment that Sen. Rand Paul might support it. Not so. Sen. Paul's ideological purity allows no room for compromise, which is unfortunate since he has chosen to serve in the legislative branch. He ignores the reality that much good can be achieved through sustained, incremental changes. Sure, we'd all like to see bigger, faster cuts. But the federal government didn't get this bloated over-night, and it can't be dismantled over-night.

Here is Sen. Paul's statement in response to last evening's passage of the Boehner bill:

I stand in opposition tonight to the recent debt ‘deal’ passed in the House and presented to the Senate. This two-tier approach allows for a $1 trillion debt limit increase immediately, while putting off the discussion of a Balanced Budget Amendment to a later date. I’ve pledged to not vote for any debt limit increase not tied to a Balanced Budget Amendment. Increased debt now, with promises to fix the problem later, is what has gotten us into our current debt crisis. I remain committed to working with my colleagues to find a solution that raises the debt limit while fixing the debt problem.

Sen. Jon Kyl Gives GOP Weekly Address

2011-07-30T09:26:00.000-04:00

Sen. Jon Kyl gives this week's Republican address (video here). It's more than just the same Republican arguments about cutting government simultaneously with raising the debt ceiling. Sen. Kyl discusses the devastating economic news that most media ignored yesterday while focusing on the Boehner bill vote. Yesterday we learned that the economy only grew 1.3 percent last quarter, and in the first quarter grew only .4 percent. The second dip of this recession is almost upon us.

Kyl also notes that the tax hikes -- excuse me, "revenue increases," that Democrats want to feed their massive programs will not just hit billionaires. Rather, the tax hikes will necessarily be much broader, and will therefore hit middle-class Americans, unless Democrats agree to scale back the size of the federal government. As Kyl notes, a tax hike in the midst of an economy that is even weaker than we had previously understood is a combination that will kill jobs.

Hoping Boehner Gets the Votes

2011-07-28T11:15:00.000-04:00

House Majority Leader John Boehner's plan is not perfect. But conservatives who oppose it for not going far enough are making a big mistake. His plan cuts government. Not as much as it needs to be cut, but it is a start. We will have many, many more opportunities to role back the size of the federal government. It didn't get this big over-night and it will not be rolled back over-night.

On Obama's Speech

2011-07-26T09:51:00.000-04:00

President Barack Obama is losing his touch, or at least his handlers are. In last night's speech, the shot was framed so as to fit his ears precisely in the door frame behind him. Not to focus on form over substance, but it was very distracting. Just another reminder that the magic has worn off.

That didn't stop the president, however, from attempting a sleight of hand. He invoked his standard rationale for class warfare and the need for the rich to sacrifice. Then he casually mentioned the number $250,000 and in the next sentence referred to millionaires and billionaires. Since when is someone who makes $250,000 a "millionare"? Or "billionaire?" Never mind the fact that many people who earn $250,000 are actually small business owners who file as individuals -- the very people who need to start hiring if this vaunted recovery is ever to take place.

Obama's speech was also noteworthy for his code language. Tax hikes are now "revenue." Whenever Obama refers to "revenue" it is time to listen up, because he's getting ready to sock it to so-called rich.

Then there was his invocation of a "balanced approach" -- which is in turn code for tax hikes. The odd thing about the phrase"balanced approach" is its resemblance to the Republican plan to "Cut, Cap and Balance." For Republicans, "balance" refers to a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. constitution -- something two-thirds of Americans support. For Obama,however, "balanced" just means more taxes.

Rand Paul Responds to Obama Speech

2011-07-25T22:50:00.000-04:00

Sen. Rand Paul continues to impress both in terms of rapidness of response and substance. Here's his take on the president's speech tonight regarding the need to wage class warfare on jet owners in order to keep the U.S. government from defaulting on its debt. Best about Paul's remarks -- he calls the president's bluff. There is no need to stop cutting the checks to our military or social security recipients. There is enough money to meet those demands. If we have to furlough a few bureaucrats in cubicles, so be it: From Sen. Paul:

The President tonight took to the airwaves to make yet another speech – but has yet to provide a solution to address our current debt crisis, and again insisted on historic tax hikes. The plans proposed by the respective leadership of both chambers of Congress do nothing to defeat our debt, but rather perpetuate it.

“Both of the Congressional ‘deals’ would leave our nation spending more and accruing more debt – at least $7 trillion more over the next 10 years. Real spending cuts – not small reductions in proposed increases – need to be at the core of this debate, and neither plan balances ever. The Cut, Cap and Balance bill is a great starting point. Any deal must fix our debt problem, which I believe can only be solved through a Balanced Budget Amendment.

“I call on the President to stop threatening Americans with the possibility of defaulting on our debt. We have enough money coming in to keep paying out Social Security checks and the interest on our debt. Political scare tactics and smoke-and-mirror ‘deals’ won’t solve our debt problem, and in fact will likely cause a larger one by forcing the downgrading of our debt rating. This is irresponsible by all parties. It’s time for real leadership to protect our nation’s fiscal security. It’s time to balance our budget.”

NYT "Shoots" Knob Creek Gun Range

2011-07-21T17:36:00.000-04:00

The New York Times Magazine's blog ran a cool series of photos this week from the Knob Creek Gun Range's Machine Gun Shoot (held last April), but you have to get past the Old Gray Lady's elitist disdain for gun owners in the fly-over states.

The Times was denied a press pass. Its photographer was able to gain access because, according to the Times, he's from West Texas (and thus privy to the secret red-neck handshake and vernacular).

Chris’s own request for a pass was denied, too. He was led to believe the reason was that managers of the range were concerned that the magazine would publish a negative story. So Chris, who grew up in Abilene, Tex., and, as he puts it, “speaks the language” of guns, persuaded the son of the man who owned the range, who persuaded the guy who was in charge of the firing line, who persuaded the range’s manager to give Chris the access he needed.

One glaring omission. The Times failed to note Knob Creek's singularly appropriate county location: Bullitt County.

Sen. Paul on Cut, Cap and Balance

2011-07-20T09:02:00.000-04:00

Last night the House has passed legislation to address the nation's debt: "Cut, Cap and Balance." Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement last night, "implor[ing" the Senate to do the same. Unfortunately, Republicans just don't have enough troops to make that happen -- this term.

Here's Sen. Paul's statement:

Tonight the U.S. House of Representatives voted with the voice of the American people in supporting the Cap, Cut and Balance Act. The gravity of our debt crisis weighs heavy on our nation’s shoulders, and I commend my colleagues in the House for passing legislation that leads us toward a solution. They have now passed the only current legislation that would both raise the debt ceiling and fix our debt problem.

I implore my Senate colleagues to follow the same path in voting in favor of this bill, and for the President and his Administration to stop playing games with this matter and support the important goal of defeating our debt and balancing our budget.

Sen. Orrin Hatch Give GOP Address

2011-07-16T11:22:00.003-04:00

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) gives this week's Republican address (video link here).Hatch makes the case for a balanced budget amendment. Recall that he introduced one in 1997, when it last by one vote. Imagine how different our nation's financial picture would have been had that amendment been ratified! Would Barrack Obama even run for president of a country with a balanced budget amendment?

This week he will introduce another balanced budget amendment. As Hatch observes, "the only reason congressional Democrats would refuse to pass it, is because they know the people of this country would rise up and quickly ratify it."

Here's the text of Hatch's address:

“Our nation is in the midst of one of the most critical debates in generations. It is a debate about the size, scope, and shape of our national government. It’s a debate over whether we act responsibly so our children and grandchildren aren’t left carrying the burden of unsustainable debt.

“While the details of this debate change by the day, the fundamentals are clear. President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress refuse to come up with a legitimate plan to confront our run-away spending that has left our country over $14 trillion in debt. He refuses to reform our near bankrupt entitlement programs -- all while pushing job-killing tax hikes.

“We’ve been down this road before, and Republicans will not go down it again. In 1990, Congress and the President struck a deficit reduction deal that combined spending cuts with tax increases. Unfortunately, while the tax hikes remained, the spending restraint did not, and our debt has only marched higher.

“The solution to a spending crisis is not tax increases. Yet, Washington has consistently demonstrated that it cannot control its urge to spend. That is why the only long-term solution is a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Only by restoring constitutional restraints on the ability of Congress to spend, can we constrain the growth of the federal government.

“Think of how different our fiscal picture would be if we’d passed one in 1997. After a fierce debate, the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that I introduced was defeated by just one vote in the United States Senate.

“Instead of sending that amendment to the states for ratification, and addressing the need for fiscal balance, fourteen years later, our nation faces a debt crisis of epic proportions. Our national debt has gone from roughly $5 trillion in 1997 to over $14 trillion today. That’s more than $45,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

“And that debt keeps growing. According to Congress’s nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, the nation’s debt could reach an astonishing 101 percent of domestic product in a decade – with interest payments that could reach over a trillion dollars a year.

“The situation has only gotten worse after the Obama administration. In his first two years in office, discretionary spending has skyrocketed by 84 percent, including the failed stimulus, with spending reaching 25 percent of our nation’s economic output. We haven’t seen spending levels this high since World War II.

“This soaring debt is the number one issue I hear about from the people in my home state of Utah. As our economy continues to flounder, and families across Utah and all of America are forced to cut back, Washington refuses to make the tough choices that will bring down our massive debt. They know that we need immediate spending cuts; they know we need to cap spending; they know we need a Balanced Budget Amendment.

“Next week we have an opportunity to set things right. In the Senate, all 47 Republican senators back a Balanced Budget Amendment I’ve introduced with my colleagues Mike Lee and John Cornyn. It would require the president to submit, and Congress to pass, a balanced budget every year. And most importantly, it limits spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product and requires supermajorities in both houses of Congress to raise taxes.

“Unfortunately, last week the White House dismissed a Balanced Budget Amendment saying it is not good for the economy, and that our debt isn’t a constitutional issue.

“The American people know better. A Balanced Budget Amendment is essential for our economy, and our debt is definitely a constitutional issue.

“After all, the constitution belongs to the people, who determine what is a constitutional issue – not the White House. And if the debt isn’t a ‘constitutional issue,’ why is it that every state in the union but Vermont has a constitutional balanced budget requirement?

“This kind of strong budgetary reform would put us on a path to fiscal health and would prevent this White House or any future White House from forcing more debt on the American people.

“The only reason this Administration doesn’t want a constitutional amendment is because they want to keep spending the American people’s money. And the only reason congressional Democrats would refuse to pass it, is because they know the people of this country would rise up and quickly ratify it.

“A balanced budget amendment makes sense; its time has more than come. Now, Congress must act. Thank you for listening and may God continue to bless America.”

WSJ: McConnell Plan Forces Obama to Own the Debt, Economy

2011-07-15T10:50:00.000-04:00

The Wall Street Journal has a great piece today that lays out the choice for Republicans and concludes that the McConnell plan will force the Obama administration to own the consequences for its profligate spending and borrowing. The Boehner approach, in contrast, has not worked and cannot work so long as Republicans only control the House.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking heat from some in his caucus for "caving" on debt-limit talks. They might instead be thanking him for finally laying out the real choice Republicans face in this debate: 2012 or 2010.

Put another way: With President Obama now committed only to bad options, does the GOP allow him to unilaterally take ownership of his spending mess going into the 2012 election? Or does the party remain so rigidly committed to its own 2010 promises of spending cuts that it joins the president in irresponsibility?

Republicans took a flyer on the debt debate, betting that the high stakes gave them enough leverage to force Mr. Obama to accede to spending cuts. It was bold. It was a potential shot at serious spending reform. It hasn't worked.. . .

Option No. 1 is for the GOP to do a $4 trillion "big deal," in which it gets some cuts, including to Medicare, though only in return for agreeing to significant tax hikes. The president forces Republicans to make a mockery of their own tax promises, and he gets cover for what's been his goal all along. He also gets to brag to his base about that victory, even as he demoralizes conservative voters.

Option No. 2 is the smaller, $2 trillion Biden deal. Even here the White House is demanding some tax increases, while Democrats insist a significant chunk of the cuts take place in future Congresses (which can ignore them). The conservative base will deride this as budget gimmickry, and the GOP will get little credit. The president, however, will boast to the rest of America that he has clocked "significant" spending reductions, and he'll run as a deficit-cutter.

Option No. 3 is for the GOP to go to the brink and share the turmoil or shutdown that follows default. Ask Newt Gingrich how that worked out for him in 1995. Mr. Obama today owns a failing economy. Republicans are begging for joint custody. Come turmoil in August, the president will lay every unemployment uptick, every poor economic statistic, at the foot of whatever panic or pain came out of the debt-ceiling mess—and the Republicans who helped push it to that point.

All this is why Mr. McConnell earlier this week proposed to step back and give the president authority to raise the debt ceiling. If he's so committed to his positions, let him swim in them. Let him own a deficit that's on track to hit $1 trillion for his third presidential year running. Let him tell America why he's cut nothing. Let him explain a credit downgrade caused by his failure to get serious about American debt.

Let him explain the slowing economy, the high unemployment and his proposals for new taxes—next summer. Let the Democrats up for re-election have to vote (as Mr. McConnell's proposal requires) to back up Mr. Obama's profligacy. Let Americans understand, clearly, that this is what they will continue to get if they re-elect him.

Resisting this position are dozens of House Republicans who were elected in 2010 on the promise that they would get America's spending problem under control immediately. This promise has been the animating principle behind all of Speaker John Boehner's and Mr. Cantor's negotiations with the White House. This crowd is aching for a giant spending-cut number to flaunt to the base, proving they are as good as their 2010 campaign word.

Yet despite campaigning on the Constitution, most appear to have missed the whole "separation of powers" bit. You know, the part that provides a presidential veto. Republicans cannot run government from the House alone, yet many have bought into their own debt-limit rhetoric. Rather than see this as the failed gamble it is, they truly believe they have the leverage to make this president give them all they want. "Call his bluff," goes the cry.

These are the same Republicans who have spent years rightly describing Mr. Obama as ideologically committed to giant government—the architect of stimulus, ObamaCare, blowout budgets. The same Republicans who believe Mr. Obama is pursuing a deliberate strategy to turn America into a European entitlement state. Yet now they believe he'll just roll over and give up all he's attained?

If the GOP is so eager to call an Obama bluff, how about this: Call him on his argument that he is acting like a leader, working to fix the debt problem, offering the GOP the opportunity to go big. That's the story line Americans are being fed right now, and the GOP shores it up every time it agrees to another White House summit. A shame, since in fact the only Obama offers are for mediocre cuts, higher taxes, and the opportunity for Republicans to help permanently enshrine big government. That, or for joint ownership of a failing economy and/or shutdown turmoil.

Let him own it.

Ann Coulter's Take on McConnell, Debt Talks

2011-07-14T18:19:00.000-04:00

I don't recall Ann Coulter ever discussing Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in a column, so this caught my eye. Coulter's take is that McConnell has "schooled" President Barack Obama:

In general, the trend seems to be in the direction of higher spending and endless debt.

The government will just keep spending and spending until we're all on bread lines. But there won't be any bread because within 10 years, nearly the entire federal budget will go to pay Social Security and Medicare recipients. (On the plus side, a lot of us will be speaking Greek by then.)

But now, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has checkmated the Democrats. He has proposed a bill that will allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling three times, up to $2.4 trillion, over the next 18 months, but only provided Obama proposes equivalent cuts in spending each time.

Finally, the Democrats will be forced to pony up spending cuts -- or default on the debt and crash the economy.

Contrary to some hysterical Republicans, McConnell's bill does not forfeit any of Congress' authority: The House and Senate will still have to decide whether to accept Obama's proposed cuts when they write their appropriations bills.

But we will finally get some proposed cuts to federal programs from Obama, and not more nonsense about theoretical savings from "investing" in our children's future with additional spending on Pell grants and prenatal counseling.

McConnell's deal cleanly takes the debt ceiling issue off the Republicans' back and puts it on the president's back. Either the Democrats tell us what they'll cut or they'll have to admit: "We will never cut anything. Everything Ann Coulter says about us is true!"

McConnell: Debt Solution "Unattainable" With Obama in Office

2011-07-12T13:11:00.000-04:00

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has never been one to sugar-coat it.

In a Senate floor speech this morning. McConnell said, in part:

“It was their commitment to big government that stood in the way of a grand bargain,” McConnell said of Democrats and the White House, “The American people don’t want that, and Republicans won’t be seduced into enabling it.”. . .

I truly believed we could get this done,” he said. “In the end, it appears that the perceived electoral success of demagogueing a solution proved its undoing. Or perhaps it was just the ideological commitment to preserving the size of government by the most stridently liberal members of the other side. “. . .

“Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people — which is to do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn’t default on its obligations. And to continue to press the administration to rein in Washington. Not to freeze it in place. That’s why I will continue to urge the President to rein in our deficits and debt in a way that puts the short and long-term health of our economy ahead of his personal vision of government. “

Flat out, McConnell stated that he believes now that as long as President Obama is in the Oval Office, “a real solution is unattainable.”
“In my view the President has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above. I hoped to do good; but I refuse to do harm.”. . .

At a moment when we needed leadership the most, we got the least. The financial security of the nation was being gambled on the President's wager that he could convince people our problems would be solved if we just all agreed to take it out on the guy in the fancy house down the street. And I’m proud of the fact that Republicans refused to play along.”

“They asked us to join them in another Washington effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. They offered us the opportunity to participate in the kind of deliberate deception of the public that has given public service such a bad name in recent years. We all saw how it worked. The Administration carefully leaked to the media, without any details, the idea that it was willing to go along with trillions of dollars in spending cuts. “. . .

The hope here was that the budget gimmicks and deferred decision-making they actually supported would have the appearance of serious belt-tightening. But the practical effect would have been at most about a couple of billion dollars in cuts up front with empty promises of more to follow. We've seen this kind of thing before. It’s just this kind of sleight of hand governing that’s put our nation more than $14 trillion in debt. And I will not associate myself with it. I refuse to join in an effort to fool the American people.”

“We will not pretend that a bad deal is a good one,” McConnell said, “The truth is, the Democrats saw this debate as a unique opportunity to impose the type of tax hikes they want so badly but couldn’t pass even in a Democrat-controlled Senate last year.”

McConnell goes to the White House for his third straight day of meetings at 4:45 p.m.

Mike Huckabee, Leave Me Alone

2011-07-11T12:35:00.000-04:00

Mike Huckabee just called (again). He seems like a good guy so one part of me feels bad hanging up on him. But he is driving my family crazy. He keeps calling us with pre-recorded solicitations to sign a petition or give money. We keep hanging up, so I no longer recall what the issue is for which he urgently needs our help to defeat the Libruls.

This has been happening for weeks; maybe he's moved on to a new issue. All I know is that the phone rings, someone in our family answers it and quickly hangs up. When I ask who called, I'm told, "It's Mike Huckabee again with an important message."

It would seem that technology has advanced to the point where the company working for Huckabee might infer, after the 30th, hang-up, that the people at that phone number are not interested in hearing his important message.

Perhaps I would agree with him on the issue. He method of communication, however, has become so annoying that I am willing to risk missing out on the chance to advance whatever the cause is.

Rand Paul Attacks Dems on Debt

2011-07-07T13:55:00.002-04:00

Sen. Rand Paul has issued a statement condemning Democrats' refusal to allow a vote this week on the debt:

When I joined my fellow concerned Republican Senators last week and demanded the Senate stay in session to discuss the dire threat of our national debt crisis, I wanted the opportunity for a transparent debate on the Senate floor about how to best deal with this situation. Instead, the Senate Democrat leadership offered unrelated legislation, wasted precious time, and now have declared no more votes for the remainder of the week.

“This lack of leadership is why Americans are demanding change in Washington. My colleagues and I have a plan and we are ready to move forward. Senate Democrat leadership does not.”

Sen. Coats Delivers Republican Address

2011-07-02T10:32:00.000-04:00

Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) delivers this week's Republican address. Click here for the video. Not surprisingly, it is about the national debt. Sadly, by comparing Indiana's fiscal policies with those of the Obama administration, Coats implicitly makes the case for what a great president Mitch Daniels would have made.

She's In!

2011-06-27T22:01:00.000-04:00

Almost Time for the McConnell - Obama Debt Chat

2011-06-27T15:58:00.000-04:00

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell will meet with President Barack Obama at 5:00 today to discuss raising the nation's debt ceiling. We won't have to wonder what McConnell's position is: he spells it for CNN. My favorite line: "The obvious solution is for Washington to make the kind of tough choices in its own budget that millions of Americans have been forced to impose on themselves over the past two years."

Later today, I will sit down with President Barack Obama to discuss his request to increase the nation's debt ceiling, and I will make a request of my own: What, Mr. President, are you prepared to do about the massive deficits and debt that have grown dramatically on your watch?

What Republicans want is simple: We want to cut spending now, we want to cap runaway spending in the future and we want to save our entitlements and our country from bankruptcy by requiring the nation to balance its budget. We want to finally get our economy growing again at a pace that will lead to significant job growth.

The Democrats' response has been a mystifying call for more stimulus spending and huge tax hikes on American job creators. That's not serious, and it is my hope that the president will take those off the table today so that we can have a serious discussion about our country's economic future.

The president claimed last week at a New York fundraiser that he is prepared to bring down the nation's staggeringly high deficit and debt by trillions of dollars, but rather than provide any details, he only listed the things he refuses to cut. This is a problem I hope to raise with him today.

At some point, Democrats need to realize that the reason our nation's debt has skyrocketed 35% over the past two years is that government spending is out of control.

America does not face a debt crisis because we tax too little, but because Washington spends too much. And tax hikes can't pass the Congress. Not only is there bipartisan opposition, the consequences of massive new tax hikes would be fewer jobs.

The president spoke in his weekly address Saturday about wanting to help manufacturers create jobs. But we know that raising taxes on these same manufacturers, particularly in this economy, will have the opposite effect.

The obvious solution is for Washington to make the kind of tough choices in its own budget that millions of Americans have been forced to impose on themselves over the past two years. Yet President Obama and his allies in Congress remain unwilling to concede the point. Once they get their hands on taxpayer dollars, they seem incapable of letting go.

The $830 billion stimulus bill is just one example. When Democrats passed it, they made two predictions: first, that it would keep unemployment below 8%, and second, that it was a one-time cash infusion meant to prevent a wider crisis. Two years later, unemployment hovers above 9%, and Democrats now demand that we add new stimulus funding. Their commitment to spending and tax hikes is so deeply held, it seems, that they don't even recognize what terrible shape our economy is in and the fact that tax and spend policies of the past two years have made it worse.

Nor do they seem to recognize that the voters are asking for a different approach. Americans didn't elect dozens of additional Republicans to the House of Representatives last November because they wanted their taxes raised. They sent them here to reverse the runaway spending policies that failed.

Since the day the stimulus was signed, Washington has added $3.5 trillion to the national debt and roughly 2 million Americans have lost their jobs. More recently, a slew of troubling economic indicators and dire warnings from credit agencies about the dangers of our debt show that the time for serious action is now.

We have seen the consequences of giving Washington a blank check -- and we think it's time Washington make some of the hard choices that the average American has made over the past two and a half years.

McConnell Demands Gitmo Trial for Bowling Green Terrorists

2011-06-22T09:58:00.000-04:00

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell presses his demand that the Bowling Green terrorists be tried at Gitmo. Here is his op-ed in this morning's Washington Post:

Speaking to a crowd of lawyers in Washington last week, Attorney General Eric Holder made an audacious claim about the war on terrorism. Overlooking the all-volunteer military force that has heroically battled terrorists and insurgents for nearly a decade, our outstanding intelligence and counterterrorism experts, and many others, Holder asserted that America’s “most effective terror-fighting weapon” is its civilian court system.

These comments insult those who have served on the front lines, but Holder’s clear intent was to justify the Obama administration’s two-year misadventure in treating captured terrorists like common criminals. This is evident most recently in Bowling Green, Ky., where two Iraqi nationals who have admitted to targeting American troops in Iraq were arrested last month.

Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi made their way to the United States from Iraq in 2009 through what appears to be a bureaucratic mistake. Expert intelligence and police work led to the discovery of their violent past and their plans to support their terrorist comrades from the safety of their new home. When they were arrested, they were plotting to equip foreign fighters in Iraq with missile launchers, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, sniper rifles, machine guns and cases of C4 explosives.

The Justice Department says Alwan and Hammadi should be tried in a civilian setting because they were caught here. This is ludicrous. The fact that bureaucrats mistakenly allowed two foreign fighters into the United States does not entitle them to all the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens. If it did, we’d have to grant the same rights and privileges to any foreign fighters who had escaped from the battlefield and illegally entered the United States. Once we knew who they were, our top priority should have been to capture, detain and interrogate them to ensure they could no longer harm Americans.

Outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta recently estimated that there are 1,000 members of al-Qaeda in Iraq operating in that country. Kentuckians, including the state’s Democratic governor, want to know why two of them are sitting in a Kentucky jail cell instead of the military facility we built for such men at Guantanamo. I called on the Obama administration last week to transfer them. I have not yet received an answer, nor have I heard a good argument as to why Guantanamo is not a superior alternative.

Aside from the propriety of housing and, if necessary, trying enemy combatants such as Alwan and Hammadi in a military setting, the costs and burdens of trying them in a civilian setting are significant. My constituents do not think that civilian judges and jurors in their community should be subjected to the risk of reprisal for participating in a terrorist trial. Nor should the broader community have to shoulder the security costs or inconvenience of such trials.

Consider the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in Alexandria, before the military commissions legislation was passed. Alexandria’s Democratic mayor summed up residents’ reaction: “We’ve had this experience and it was unpleasant,” he said. “Let someone else have it.” Last year, New Yorkers rejected Holder’s plan to try Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court in Manhattan, with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) calling the proposal to hold terror trials in New York a “wrongheaded idea.” In April, Holder reversed course and said the trial would be held at Guantanamo.

Like Bowling Green residents, New Yorkers knew that while it may be possible to try terrorists in civilian courtrooms, our overriding goal in such cases should be to prevail in the war against terrorism, not to make a point about the flexibility of our justice system.

Early on, the administration signaled its intent to use conventional law enforcement and courts to deal with unconventional enemies. The problem with this is that the civilian system was never intended to deal with foreign fighters or to gather intelligence in the pursuit of additional terrorists. The confusion surrounding the interrogation of the would-be Christmas Day bomber underscores this. Moreover, the criminal justice system is oriented toward prosecution, while our top priority in battling terrorism should be to find, capture and detain or kill those who would do us harm.

The administration has shown admirable flexibility in making decisions concerning national security and has shown that it is willing, on occasion, to put safety over ideology. President Obama launched a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, ignored calls to hastily withdraw from Iraq and recently agreed to extend the Patriot Act without weakening its provisions or making them harder to use. He should make the right decision about the treatment of captured enemy combatants.

Guantanamo is uniquely suited to the unconventional threat posed by foreign terrorists. By sending Alwan and Hammadi to Guantanamo, the president could again show his flexibility, make us safer and let Holder know that our civilian courts are off-limits to foreign fighters captured in the war on terrorism.