We are off on vacation, so posting will be intermittent for the next week. Some people travel the country looking at baseball fields. We're going to show our kids America by driving from one Bruce Lunsford property to the next (we're especially looking forward to the Southwest). We won't be able to travel on a private jet, like Bruce, but hours upon hours in the car does have advantages. While the kids can't escape, we will complete their reeducation with countless hours of listening to conservative talk radio. It will take that long to desensitize them from the Courier-Journal.
Have a good week, everyone.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tucker Carlson & Donna Brazile Do Louisville
MSNBC anchor Tucker Carlson sparred with CNN's Donna Brazile over presidential politics last night in Louisville at the Chamber of Commerce's annual meeting.
When I asked Carlson afterwords for his thoughts on Mitch McConnell and Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, he responded, "I'm blinded by love." Noting that McConnell evokes strong reactions, both positive and negative, he observed that McConnell is "one of the smartest people ever to serve" in the U.S. Senate.
Carlson and Brazile each spoke for ten minutes --essentially stump speeches for John McCain and Barack Obama, respectively. Then Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald presiding partner Jeff McKenzie posed questions for the two and moderated their exchange. Although both Carlson and Brazile were smart, funny and engaging, Brazile, like Barack Obama, was thin on substance, and appeared to stall; she ran down the clock with myriad jokes about bourbon before addressing the subject of the election.
Carlson described the political climate "with great sadness" as subjecting Republicans to a "massive tail wind," reflected in fundraising results. He noted that Obama "is not just a candidate -- he's his own party," because Obama's campaign has raised more money than the Republican and Democratic parties combined. The media's coverage of Obama, moreover, is "a love that only 14 year old boys can understand."
The good news for Republicans, according to Carlson, is that Democrats "can still screw it up," which would cause a McCain victory "by default." He noted that Hillary Clinton would have been a stronger -- unbeatable -- candidate than Obama, because "she wins conservative Democrats. The rest follow."
Carlson praised Obama's political skills but suggested that his message of change is problematic. "Americans hate change. They flee from it." "We are a nation of merchants," Carlson said, and consequently recognize that most change -- unless it is incremental -- is destructive. Obama understands this and therefore has proposed policies that would make incremental improvements.
Obama's followers, however, do not want incremental change, according to Carlson. "They want French Revolution-style change." Obama's true believers (whom Carlson described as 20-something Starbuck's workers with backpacks covered with stickers) will scare the Clinton Democrats and independents. That is, the problem with the Obama campaign is not Obama; it's his movement. Carlson characterized Obama's challenge as more cultural than racial.
Brazile, in contrast to the nutroots, asserted that "there's nothing wrong with being a liberal." She never used the new nomenclature, "progressive." Brazile appeared to contradict herself by describing this as a"game changing election" that is not just about change but about "tackling old problems and rebuilding old alliances."
Her advice for the Obama campaign: return to the small gatherings he used in Iowa; listen more. She acknowledged that Obama's biggest weakness is what she described as a "stature gap" on national security. Carlson responded that Obama's biggest weakness is that "he has never done anything."
Carlson advised McCain to "remain a credible and responsible alternative" to Obama and hope that America wakes up in time. He joked that McCain's slogan should be "It could be worse." That's the difference between adults and children, and the heart of conservatism, according to Carlson. Grown-ups understand that it takes longer to build something than to tear it down.
When I asked Carlson afterwords for his thoughts on Mitch McConnell and Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, he responded, "I'm blinded by love." Noting that McConnell evokes strong reactions, both positive and negative, he observed that McConnell is "one of the smartest people ever to serve" in the U.S. Senate.
Carlson and Brazile each spoke for ten minutes --essentially stump speeches for John McCain and Barack Obama, respectively. Then Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald presiding partner Jeff McKenzie posed questions for the two and moderated their exchange. Although both Carlson and Brazile were smart, funny and engaging, Brazile, like Barack Obama, was thin on substance, and appeared to stall; she ran down the clock with myriad jokes about bourbon before addressing the subject of the election.
Carlson described the political climate "with great sadness" as subjecting Republicans to a "massive tail wind," reflected in fundraising results. He noted that Obama "is not just a candidate -- he's his own party," because Obama's campaign has raised more money than the Republican and Democratic parties combined. The media's coverage of Obama, moreover, is "a love that only 14 year old boys can understand."
The good news for Republicans, according to Carlson, is that Democrats "can still screw it up," which would cause a McCain victory "by default." He noted that Hillary Clinton would have been a stronger -- unbeatable -- candidate than Obama, because "she wins conservative Democrats. The rest follow."
Carlson praised Obama's political skills but suggested that his message of change is problematic. "Americans hate change. They flee from it." "We are a nation of merchants," Carlson said, and consequently recognize that most change -- unless it is incremental -- is destructive. Obama understands this and therefore has proposed policies that would make incremental improvements.
Obama's followers, however, do not want incremental change, according to Carlson. "They want French Revolution-style change." Obama's true believers (whom Carlson described as 20-something Starbuck's workers with backpacks covered with stickers) will scare the Clinton Democrats and independents. That is, the problem with the Obama campaign is not Obama; it's his movement. Carlson characterized Obama's challenge as more cultural than racial.
Brazile, in contrast to the nutroots, asserted that "there's nothing wrong with being a liberal." She never used the new nomenclature, "progressive." Brazile appeared to contradict herself by describing this as a"game changing election" that is not just about change but about "tackling old problems and rebuilding old alliances."
Her advice for the Obama campaign: return to the small gatherings he used in Iowa; listen more. She acknowledged that Obama's biggest weakness is what she described as a "stature gap" on national security. Carlson responded that Obama's biggest weakness is that "he has never done anything."
Carlson advised McCain to "remain a credible and responsible alternative" to Obama and hope that America wakes up in time. He joked that McCain's slogan should be "It could be worse." That's the difference between adults and children, and the heart of conservatism, according to Carlson. Grown-ups understand that it takes longer to build something than to tear it down.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
More DSCC Hypocrisy
The headline looks like typical Democratic agitprop, to those who don't recognize the byline. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's headline reads "McConnell Chooses Politics Over Bills To Stop Child Predators, Fight Disease."
The author, Matthew Miller, knows first-hand what it's like to place politics above the needs of children, including protecting children from predators. Miller sat on emails that suggested that that former Congressman Mark Foley was propositioning Congressional pages. Rather than report the matter to Congressional leadership, Miller shopped the story to three newspapers. Congressional pages remained in harm's way while Miller sought to advance his own career and his partisan agenda.
So Miller's headline -- "McConnell Chooses Politics Over Bill To Stop Child Predators, Fight Disease" -- reeks of hypocrisy.
As to the substance of Miller's piece, he ignores that the bills he waxes on about will get a vote -- and will probably pass with large bipartisan majorities -- just as soon as the Democrats stop blocking a vote on the McConnell energy bill.
Politico reports:
Republicans stuck together in blocking this bill not because they oppose all of the programs, but because they have decided to block everything small and large this week until they get votes on stalled energy legislation.
The vote sent [Senate Democratic Leader Harry] Reid into one of his trademark tirades on the Senate floor, as he basically accused Republicans of voting against people with strokes, people in wheelchairs and those suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. . . .
McConnell held his ground, saying the Republicans were launching blockade of everything not related to oil prices. The two sides are actually negotiating on energy amendments, but there was no breakthrough yet.
Democrats need to let the vote on domestic drilling take place now. Three-fourths of all Americans want to let our country drill off-shore; even one out of four environmentalists favor domestic drilling. Stalling the inevitable will just make voters madder at the Democrats who are trying to keep the price of gas as high as possible until Election Day.
"We know the American people are interested in seeing the Congress work together on the number one issue in the country, and that's the price at the pump," McConnell said.
The author, Matthew Miller, knows first-hand what it's like to place politics above the needs of children, including protecting children from predators. Miller sat on emails that suggested that that former Congressman Mark Foley was propositioning Congressional pages. Rather than report the matter to Congressional leadership, Miller shopped the story to three newspapers. Congressional pages remained in harm's way while Miller sought to advance his own career and his partisan agenda.
So Miller's headline -- "McConnell Chooses Politics Over Bill To Stop Child Predators, Fight Disease" -- reeks of hypocrisy.
As to the substance of Miller's piece, he ignores that the bills he waxes on about will get a vote -- and will probably pass with large bipartisan majorities -- just as soon as the Democrats stop blocking a vote on the McConnell energy bill.
Politico reports:
Republicans stuck together in blocking this bill not because they oppose all of the programs, but because they have decided to block everything small and large this week until they get votes on stalled energy legislation.
The vote sent [Senate Democratic Leader Harry] Reid into one of his trademark tirades on the Senate floor, as he basically accused Republicans of voting against people with strokes, people in wheelchairs and those suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. . . .
McConnell held his ground, saying the Republicans were launching blockade of everything not related to oil prices. The two sides are actually negotiating on energy amendments, but there was no breakthrough yet.
Democrats need to let the vote on domestic drilling take place now. Three-fourths of all Americans want to let our country drill off-shore; even one out of four environmentalists favor domestic drilling. Stalling the inevitable will just make voters madder at the Democrats who are trying to keep the price of gas as high as possible until Election Day.
"We know the American people are interested in seeing the Congress work together on the number one issue in the country, and that's the price at the pump," McConnell said.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Call PETA -- STAT!!
Moveon.org is struggling mightily to remain relevant, now that America is actually winning in Iraq as a result of the surge. The Moveon.org website conducted a national bake sale to raise money for Barack Obama a few weeks ago; no word on how much it raised.
And now we see the fruits of the bake sale: a new TV ad: "This is your brain on hope."
It reminds me of a favorite saying of Michelle Obama's contracts' professor, at Harvard Law, Duncan Kennedy -- paraphrasing Karl Marx: "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet."
I want to know if any animals were injured in the making of this ad. Let's "hope" not.
And now we see the fruits of the bake sale: a new TV ad: "This is your brain on hope."
It reminds me of a favorite saying of Michelle Obama's contracts' professor, at Harvard Law, Duncan Kennedy -- paraphrasing Karl Marx: "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet."
I want to know if any animals were injured in the making of this ad. Let's "hope" not.
While Obama Sampled The Foie Gras, McCain Took The Lead With American Voters
The verdict is in from likely American voters: Senator Barack Obama's European vacation was a bust. While he was out courting the foreign vote, Senator John McCain moved into the lead among Americans who will go to the polls in November, according to the latest Gallup/USA Today Poll, which shows McCain ahead 49%-45%. Realclearpolitics.com observes:
This is the first poll showing McCain with a lead over Obama since a May 1-3 Gallup/USA Today survey showed him with a slim 1 point lead. A Fox News poll at the end of April had McCain up 3.
Undoubtedly McCain's lead over Obama in Kentucky is even greater, and no wonder. It is more than a little strange that Obama has spent so much time campaigning in foreign countries and probably won't even set one foot in Kentucky between now and the election. That's a curious way for Obama to inspire Kentuckians to have confidence that he or his compatriot Bruce Lunsford would do anything to advance the Commonwealth's interests were they win in November. To think otherwise would be, as Obama perhaps learned to speak in French, "l'audace de faux espoirs."
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
This is the first poll showing McCain with a lead over Obama since a May 1-3 Gallup/USA Today survey showed him with a slim 1 point lead. A Fox News poll at the end of April had McCain up 3.
Undoubtedly McCain's lead over Obama in Kentucky is even greater, and no wonder. It is more than a little strange that Obama has spent so much time campaigning in foreign countries and probably won't even set one foot in Kentucky between now and the election. That's a curious way for Obama to inspire Kentuckians to have confidence that he or his compatriot Bruce Lunsford would do anything to advance the Commonwealth's interests were they win in November. To think otherwise would be, as Obama perhaps learned to speak in French, "l'audace de faux espoirs."
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Bruce Lunsford's Gas Tax Problem
While I'm on this kick of kicking The Courier-Journal, take a look at Joseph Gerth's column on page B1 of today's paper. Gerth claims that "the biggest problem with" Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's television advertisement attacking Bruce Lunsford's gasoline tax increase
is that McConnell blames Lunsford for a recent increase in the state gas tax but leaves out key points: 1) the hike was 1.5 cents a gallon, a small percentage of the skyrocketing prices lately, and 2) Lunsford worked on the law 30 years ago, though the ad makes it seem it was yesterday.
Let's address each of those points.
First, that Lunsford's tax increase is a small percentage of the price of gasoline doesn't change the fact that it is still a tax increase that brings in literally millions of dollars in tax revenue for the state government, which gives politicians the perverse incentive to do everything to keep gasoline prices high so that tax revenues go up. That might explain, for example, why Lunsford and other Democrats are against drilling for more oil: more supply would mean lower prices for gasoline, which in turn would translate into lower tax revenues. The gasoline tax is a regressive tax, hitting poor, rural Kentuckians the hardest because they are generally the people who have to drive the most. Multi-millionaires like Lunsford feel no pain in their pocketbooks from his gasoline tax increase, but regular people do.
Second, that Lunsford set the mechanism in place 30 years ago to raise gasoline taxes does not change the facts that (a) his bad policy decision is having a real impact today, and (b) rather than renounce the tax increase, Lunsford in recent days has actually boasted about it. Instead of admitting he was wrong and supporting legislation for more domestic drilling that would lower gasoline prices, Lunsford is proud that he has had a part (albeit a small one, Gerth says) in getting them to the sky-high level they are today and he refuses to support anything of substance to bring them down.
The "problem", as Gerth puts it, is not with McConnell's ad; the problem is that big-bucks Bruce is out of touch with the harsh impact of high gas prices on ordinary Kentuckians.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
is that McConnell blames Lunsford for a recent increase in the state gas tax but leaves out key points: 1) the hike was 1.5 cents a gallon, a small percentage of the skyrocketing prices lately, and 2) Lunsford worked on the law 30 years ago, though the ad makes it seem it was yesterday.
Let's address each of those points.
First, that Lunsford's tax increase is a small percentage of the price of gasoline doesn't change the fact that it is still a tax increase that brings in literally millions of dollars in tax revenue for the state government, which gives politicians the perverse incentive to do everything to keep gasoline prices high so that tax revenues go up. That might explain, for example, why Lunsford and other Democrats are against drilling for more oil: more supply would mean lower prices for gasoline, which in turn would translate into lower tax revenues. The gasoline tax is a regressive tax, hitting poor, rural Kentuckians the hardest because they are generally the people who have to drive the most. Multi-millionaires like Lunsford feel no pain in their pocketbooks from his gasoline tax increase, but regular people do.
Second, that Lunsford set the mechanism in place 30 years ago to raise gasoline taxes does not change the facts that (a) his bad policy decision is having a real impact today, and (b) rather than renounce the tax increase, Lunsford in recent days has actually boasted about it. Instead of admitting he was wrong and supporting legislation for more domestic drilling that would lower gasoline prices, Lunsford is proud that he has had a part (albeit a small one, Gerth says) in getting them to the sky-high level they are today and he refuses to support anything of substance to bring them down.
The "problem", as Gerth puts it, is not with McConnell's ad; the problem is that big-bucks Bruce is out of touch with the harsh impact of high gas prices on ordinary Kentuckians.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
The C-J's "Experts" on Oil Speculation Flunked Economics 101
The Courier-Journal's editorial writers come out today against the big bad oil speculators, and call Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell a "fraud" for not signing onto the Democrats' bill "to curb the rampant speculation that experts say is part of the reason gas prices are so high." The C-J's editors don't say who their "experts" are, but those "experts" appear to know more about dunking than principles of economics.
As Professor Craig Perron of the University of Houston wrote in The Wall Street Journal:
Commodity price shocks, like those currently rocking the oil market, inevitably lead to witch hunts. And speculators are typically among the first to be hunted down.
. . . .
The unprecedented run-up in oil prices is painful for consumers around the world. But the focus on speculation is misguided, and represents a convenient distraction from an understanding of the real, underlying causes of high oil prices -- most notably continuing demand growth in the face of stagnant production, supply disruptions and the weakening dollar.
More restrictions and regulations of energy markets, in the vain belief that such actions will bring price relief, are counterproductive. They will make the energy markets less efficient, rather than more so.
In other words, curbing speculation in oil won't lower the price of gasoline, but drilling for more oil (i.e., increasing supply) and conservation (i.e., decreasing demand) will. Oil speculation -- like speculation in any commodity -- is simply the mechanism through which an efficient market prices the commodity based upon anticipated supply and demand in the future. Oil speculators are, in a sense, the "messengers" of what the price of oil will be if more drilling and conservation do not occur.
Essentially the Democratic response to the reports of higher oil prices is to try to act in the counterproductive way that the Greeks handled bad news: by killing the messenger. Fortunately, we have leaders like McConnell who understand that the energy shortage can only be solved by addressing the root causes of the problem -- supply and demand for the commodity -- and not looking for imaginary scapegoats. As he writes today in a letter to C-J's editor: "The answer is simple: We need to find more energy and use less."
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
As Professor Craig Perron of the University of Houston wrote in The Wall Street Journal:
Commodity price shocks, like those currently rocking the oil market, inevitably lead to witch hunts. And speculators are typically among the first to be hunted down.
. . . .
The unprecedented run-up in oil prices is painful for consumers around the world. But the focus on speculation is misguided, and represents a convenient distraction from an understanding of the real, underlying causes of high oil prices -- most notably continuing demand growth in the face of stagnant production, supply disruptions and the weakening dollar.
More restrictions and regulations of energy markets, in the vain belief that such actions will bring price relief, are counterproductive. They will make the energy markets less efficient, rather than more so.
In other words, curbing speculation in oil won't lower the price of gasoline, but drilling for more oil (i.e., increasing supply) and conservation (i.e., decreasing demand) will. Oil speculation -- like speculation in any commodity -- is simply the mechanism through which an efficient market prices the commodity based upon anticipated supply and demand in the future. Oil speculators are, in a sense, the "messengers" of what the price of oil will be if more drilling and conservation do not occur.
Essentially the Democratic response to the reports of higher oil prices is to try to act in the counterproductive way that the Greeks handled bad news: by killing the messenger. Fortunately, we have leaders like McConnell who understand that the energy shortage can only be solved by addressing the root causes of the problem -- supply and demand for the commodity -- and not looking for imaginary scapegoats. As he writes today in a letter to C-J's editor: "The answer is simple: We need to find more energy and use less."
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
C-J Acknowledges U.S. Is Winning War in Iraq -- On The Next To Last Page Of Section A
The Courier-Journal never ceases to amaze with its biased placement of news articles. Today, the paper begins page A1 with the headline "GOP faces high odds on keeping Senate seats," pooh-poohing Republican chances of victory in the November election. This headline is followed by "Homeowners' relief awaits Bush's signature", as if the President's slowness in signing legislation was to blame for the mortgage crisis instead of the bad lending and borrowing practices of the people who lent and borrowed the money. (The latter headline is not surprising as Bush, of course, is blamed for every ill the C-J staff can think of.)
Readers must plow through most of Section A before coming upon the headline that should have been in big block letters on A1: "U.S. now winning war in Iraq that seemed lost," an Associated Press piece that flies directly in the face of Senator Barack Obama's refusal to acknowledge that the surge has worked. It's good to see that the C-J deemed the AP analysis at least newsworthy enough to print, even though it is buried at the end of the section in the apparent hope that few would actually read it.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Readers must plow through most of Section A before coming upon the headline that should have been in big block letters on A1: "U.S. now winning war in Iraq that seemed lost," an Associated Press piece that flies directly in the face of Senator Barack Obama's refusal to acknowledge that the surge has worked. It's good to see that the C-J deemed the AP analysis at least newsworthy enough to print, even though it is buried at the end of the section in the apparent hope that few would actually read it.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Dingey Harry & The Worried Scramblers
Democrats, according to the Paper of Record, are "worried" that some of their own members will vote in favor of off-shore drilling, a component of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's energy bill.
Democrats, worried about defections in the ranks, are scrambling to avoid votes on expanded drilling and this week canceled a series of Senate committee sessions that could have provided an opening for Republicans. In the House, Democrats are increasingly bringing legislation to the floor under rules that deny Republicans the chance to counter with a drilling proposal.
Harry Reid is doing all he can to prevent an actual vote regarding domestic drilling. McConnell continues to push for a vote on letting America drill its own energy reserves.
The Hill reports:
Senate Republicans have threatened to block nearly all other bills pending before the August recess if Democrats refuse to vote with them on expanding offshore drilling.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said bills that do not pertain to energy can wait until after the August recess, with gas prices now surpassing $4 per gallon. McConnell and top Republicans indicated Wednesday they would oppose any procedural votes to take up other legislation, which require 60 votes to succeed.
“We think there is nothing more important that we can do right now than to deal with the Number One issue of the country,” McConnell said. “This is the biggest issue since terrorism right after 9/11. People are pounding on their desks, saying, Why don’t these people get together and do something about this problem?”
Because of McConnell's steadfastness on drilling, "the GOP is positioning itself as the party willing to do whatever it takes to lower gas prices."
Democrats, worried about defections in the ranks, are scrambling to avoid votes on expanded drilling and this week canceled a series of Senate committee sessions that could have provided an opening for Republicans. In the House, Democrats are increasingly bringing legislation to the floor under rules that deny Republicans the chance to counter with a drilling proposal.
Harry Reid is doing all he can to prevent an actual vote regarding domestic drilling. McConnell continues to push for a vote on letting America drill its own energy reserves.
The Hill reports:
Senate Republicans have threatened to block nearly all other bills pending before the August recess if Democrats refuse to vote with them on expanding offshore drilling.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said bills that do not pertain to energy can wait until after the August recess, with gas prices now surpassing $4 per gallon. McConnell and top Republicans indicated Wednesday they would oppose any procedural votes to take up other legislation, which require 60 votes to succeed.
“We think there is nothing more important that we can do right now than to deal with the Number One issue of the country,” McConnell said. “This is the biggest issue since terrorism right after 9/11. People are pounding on their desks, saying, Why don’t these people get together and do something about this problem?”
Because of McConnell's steadfastness on drilling, "the GOP is positioning itself as the party willing to do whatever it takes to lower gas prices."
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Northup Gains Ground
In case you missed the latest SUSA poll -- Anne Northup is gaining ground on John Yarmuth. She has a way to go, but the polls are finally starting to move in her direction. Read here for more.
It's still a bad political environment for Republicans, but this race is one to watch.
It's still a bad political environment for Republicans, but this race is one to watch.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Lex. H-L, C-J Push Back on McConnell Ad
The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader have published editorials that purport to show the fallacy of the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's current ad. Predictably, both are illogical and biased.
The C-J editorial isn't even consistent with its previous own analysis of the ad. Just this week, the C-J confirmed the truth of the ad's main point:
Lunsford, as Brown's chief legislative liaison, did push for a change in the gas tax formula.
A few days later, the C-J reiterated the point:
The ad makes two claims: Lunsford was behind legislation in 1980 to index the state's gasoline tax to the price of gas and that he will raise taxes if elected to the Senate. In 1980 Lunsford was Gov. John Y. Brown Jr.'s chief legislative liaison on the issue and helped push the new gas tax formula through the General Assembly.
The Herald-Leader's editorial relies on a straw man argument. (Oh, wait, the H-L only uses straw-persons.) It compares the price of gas to the date of Bush's inauguration. How about comparing it to the date of FDR's inauguration? That would be just as relevant.
Voters understand that the price of gas has shot up in a matter of months. That's why Barack Obama said he preferred a more "gradual" increase in gas prices. And in those months, the Democrats have "led" Congress, most notably by the Pelosi-Reid plan to oppose any new drilling anywhere.
Unlike the C-J, the H-L pretends that Bruce Lunsford was somehow not the cause of the automatic Kentucky gas tax:
Furthermore, McConnell accuses his opponent, Bruce Lunsford, of being responsible because he was part of the John Y. Brown administration 28 years ago when the legislature approved the gas tax formula.
Most disturbing about both editorials is that they whine that the country needs a solution, and a coherent energy policy and yet ignore the bill that McConnell authored that would give consumers relief at the pump, with more drilling, while we develop long term solutions of conservation and alternative fuels.
The McConnell bill has 42 Republican sponsors; roughly a dozen Democrats have come round on domestic drilling. Even the New York Times noticed (see previous posts). And yet neither the C-J nor the H-L says a word about the bill.
That's downright dishonest, and a disservice to the (declining) readership of both papers.
The C-J editorial isn't even consistent with its previous own analysis of the ad. Just this week, the C-J confirmed the truth of the ad's main point:
Lunsford, as Brown's chief legislative liaison, did push for a change in the gas tax formula.
A few days later, the C-J reiterated the point:
The ad makes two claims: Lunsford was behind legislation in 1980 to index the state's gasoline tax to the price of gas and that he will raise taxes if elected to the Senate. In 1980 Lunsford was Gov. John Y. Brown Jr.'s chief legislative liaison on the issue and helped push the new gas tax formula through the General Assembly.
The Herald-Leader's editorial relies on a straw man argument. (Oh, wait, the H-L only uses straw-persons.) It compares the price of gas to the date of Bush's inauguration. How about comparing it to the date of FDR's inauguration? That would be just as relevant.
Voters understand that the price of gas has shot up in a matter of months. That's why Barack Obama said he preferred a more "gradual" increase in gas prices. And in those months, the Democrats have "led" Congress, most notably by the Pelosi-Reid plan to oppose any new drilling anywhere.
Unlike the C-J, the H-L pretends that Bruce Lunsford was somehow not the cause of the automatic Kentucky gas tax:
Furthermore, McConnell accuses his opponent, Bruce Lunsford, of being responsible because he was part of the John Y. Brown administration 28 years ago when the legislature approved the gas tax formula.
Most disturbing about both editorials is that they whine that the country needs a solution, and a coherent energy policy and yet ignore the bill that McConnell authored that would give consumers relief at the pump, with more drilling, while we develop long term solutions of conservation and alternative fuels.
The McConnell bill has 42 Republican sponsors; roughly a dozen Democrats have come round on domestic drilling. Even the New York Times noticed (see previous posts). And yet neither the C-J nor the H-L says a word about the bill.
That's downright dishonest, and a disservice to the (declining) readership of both papers.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Use It Or Lose It Nonsense
Democrats like John Yarmuth, and his mentor Nancy Pelosi, have stonewalled development of other sources of energy -- like drilling in shale -- by responding that the oil companies are not drilling on all the land they've leased from the federal government. But their snappy slogan -- "use it or lose it -- defies common sense.
At a time when oil prices are at a record high, it would be economically irrational for the oil companies to not pump every possible gallon of crude. It would be contrary to the oil companies' own self interest to hoard crude in federal lands, especially after having spent hundreds of million of dollars for a lease. Why would they do such a thing -- laziness? evilness? Given the Democrats' attempts to demonize everyone who works for an oil company, they probably assume evilness.
The "Use It Or Lose It" rhetoric makes even less sense, given how the federal lease program works:
"I think it gives you a good idea why our leases are arranged in 5-, 8- and 10-year terms," said Randall Luthi, director of the Minerals Management Service, the arm of the Interior Department charged with overseeing offshore drilling in federal waters.
"If a company gets to the end of those terms and they're not making significant progress — and I do mean significant progress toward actually producing — those leases come back and we sell them again," he said.
Leases also can get tied up in court, often over environmental concerns. Or companies can determine that developing a particular tract doesn't make economic sense. Either way, they're listed on the federal government's books as "non-producing."
So if the Friends of the Caribou bring suit to stop an oil company from drilling, that land is listed as "non-producing." Democrats therefore maintain that the government should be able to take it back, regardless of whether the suit was frivolous or the oil company was close to making the land productive. But note: even if the government can convince another oil company to lease the seize land, as long as the litigation to stop the drilling is still pending, the land remains listed as "non-producing,"
It's all a big charade that lets Democrats rant against Big Oil without producing a drop of oil.
No surprise on the regulatory and litigation delay; we've seen the same problem in developing nuclear energy. It takes longer to get to the end of the permit process for a nuclear plant than to build one, and that's assuming no one from the Green Party sues.
Despite the risk of an empty well and a lawsuit, the oil companies have still been willing to lease the land and attempt to extract oil and gas from it. Congress, and the market, have built in a guarantee that those companies will use their best efforts to develop the land in the short increments for which they lease it: it's called the lease price.
Any company, even a big oil company, that invests "$100 million or more" on and oil lease and doesn't do all it takes to get a return on the profit will have more to worry about than John Yarmuth asking for their lease back. They'll be worried about about a shareholder derivative suit.
At a time when oil prices are at a record high, it would be economically irrational for the oil companies to not pump every possible gallon of crude. It would be contrary to the oil companies' own self interest to hoard crude in federal lands, especially after having spent hundreds of million of dollars for a lease. Why would they do such a thing -- laziness? evilness? Given the Democrats' attempts to demonize everyone who works for an oil company, they probably assume evilness.
The "Use It Or Lose It" rhetoric makes even less sense, given how the federal lease program works:
"I think it gives you a good idea why our leases are arranged in 5-, 8- and 10-year terms," said Randall Luthi, director of the Minerals Management Service, the arm of the Interior Department charged with overseeing offshore drilling in federal waters.
"If a company gets to the end of those terms and they're not making significant progress — and I do mean significant progress toward actually producing — those leases come back and we sell them again," he said.
Leases also can get tied up in court, often over environmental concerns. Or companies can determine that developing a particular tract doesn't make economic sense. Either way, they're listed on the federal government's books as "non-producing."
So if the Friends of the Caribou bring suit to stop an oil company from drilling, that land is listed as "non-producing." Democrats therefore maintain that the government should be able to take it back, regardless of whether the suit was frivolous or the oil company was close to making the land productive. But note: even if the government can convince another oil company to lease the seize land, as long as the litigation to stop the drilling is still pending, the land remains listed as "non-producing,"
It's all a big charade that lets Democrats rant against Big Oil without producing a drop of oil.
No surprise on the regulatory and litigation delay; we've seen the same problem in developing nuclear energy. It takes longer to get to the end of the permit process for a nuclear plant than to build one, and that's assuming no one from the Green Party sues.
Despite the risk of an empty well and a lawsuit, the oil companies have still been willing to lease the land and attempt to extract oil and gas from it. Congress, and the market, have built in a guarantee that those companies will use their best efforts to develop the land in the short increments for which they lease it: it's called the lease price.
Any company, even a big oil company, that invests "$100 million or more" on and oil lease and doesn't do all it takes to get a return on the profit will have more to worry about than John Yarmuth asking for their lease back. They'll be worried about about a shareholder derivative suit.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Oil Prices
I find it interesting that after President Bush rescinds the Executive Order on off-coast drilling that oil prices have started to drop. You won’t read about this observation in the media.
Yet, it seems that if we send out signals to the “speculators” that we are even considering drilling that they get the message that speculating in oil may not always be profitable and they leave the market. This is another example of the “Free Market System” that has worked so well for the past two hundred plus years for our country. Alexander Hamilton was a very smart man for the vision he had on the Free Market System.
President Bush’s rescinding the Executive Order has no real power on allowing us to drill but it does send a signal to the speculators that the future of oil is changing and cause the effect of lower oil prices. So we see that the Free Market system does have power over the speculators. We don't need controls on the oil companies because the Free Market System works.
We have all heard that if we start drilling now it would take ten years to get it to the market. My thought is that if it is going to take ten years then we should have started drilling yesterday!
Yet, it seems that if we send out signals to the “speculators” that we are even considering drilling that they get the message that speculating in oil may not always be profitable and they leave the market. This is another example of the “Free Market System” that has worked so well for the past two hundred plus years for our country. Alexander Hamilton was a very smart man for the vision he had on the Free Market System.
President Bush’s rescinding the Executive Order has no real power on allowing us to drill but it does send a signal to the speculators that the future of oil is changing and cause the effect of lower oil prices. So we see that the Free Market system does have power over the speculators. We don't need controls on the oil companies because the Free Market System works.
We have all heard that if we start drilling now it would take ten years to get it to the market. My thought is that if it is going to take ten years then we should have started drilling yesterday!
Friday, July 18, 2008
Bruce's Tax Increase
Admittedly, I was riding on fumes, but that still didn't make me feel any better about the $100 it took to fill my car today. Then I found out that the Kentucky gas tax had gone up July 1. And I found out why -- when Bruce Lunsford lobbied for John Y. Brown, he engineered a state gas tax that is indexed to the price of gas. As gas goes up, the tax goes up as well. And it does so automatically, so politicians don't have to vote for a tax increase.
This is an absolute outrage, in and of itself. The man responsible for it, Bruce Lunsford, wants to go to Washington where he can raise taxes on an even grander scale.
Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, is getting all sorts of national press (like today's piece in the Wall Street Journal) for actually trying to help lower the price of gas by drafting legislation that will let America drill here, drill now, pay less.
The difference between these two candidates could not be clearer. Every time Kentuckians fill up their cars, they have yet another reason to reject the perennial candidate, Bruce Lunsford, for a third time.
This is an absolute outrage, in and of itself. The man responsible for it, Bruce Lunsford, wants to go to Washington where he can raise taxes on an even grander scale.
Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, is getting all sorts of national press (like today's piece in the Wall Street Journal) for actually trying to help lower the price of gas by drafting legislation that will let America drill here, drill now, pay less.
The difference between these two candidates could not be clearer. Every time Kentuckians fill up their cars, they have yet another reason to reject the perennial candidate, Bruce Lunsford, for a third time.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Michelle Obama Should Be Fair Game For Critics
It is downright disingenuous for Senator Barack Obama to claim that his wife, Michelle Obama, should be off-limits to criticism. According to ABC News:
Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said conservative criticism of his wife, Michelle, infuriates him.
"I don't have a thick skin when it comes to criticism of my wife," Obama told the women's magazine Glamour in an interview to run in the magazine's October issue. "And you know, the problem is that rarely do these folks have the guts to say it to your face."
Obama, who is vying for the support of women voters who flocked to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign during the primaries, argued his wife and Clinton have been the target of similar conservative attacks.
"Hillary Clinton was subject to this, others have been subject to this in the past," Obama told Glamour editor -in-chief Cindi Leive Wednesday, "It is part of our political environment that I'd like to change."
As ABC's John Stossel likes to say, give me a break! Michelle Obama will most assuredly not be a to-be-seen-but-not-heard First Lady if Barack is elected. The fact of the matter is that Michelle graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School and was a practicing attorney at a major law firm while Barack was still learning his way to class. Michelle was Barack's mentor attorney when he was a summer associate. Michelle is no doubt smarter than Barack and will be an integral part of Barack's administration if that comes to pass -- indeed, perhaps even more so than Hillary Clinton was in Bill's.
Barack's feigned chivalry for Michelle is nothing more than an attempt to deflect criticism that has been rightly directed at his wife for her inflammatory comments. Michelle should simply avoid making statements that are destructive to Barack's campaign and stop relying on the chauvinist crutch that she is "only" Barack's wife.
When a Harvard Law School graduate is married to another HLS graduate running for president, the public should treat them both as candidates because, simply put, it is reasonable to expect a married couple of such credentials to rely on each other as close political advisers. And as Barack should heed from his experience in the Democratic primaries, a First Lady of such pedigree (though Yale isn't quite Harvard) likely will someday run for President herself and can even be elected provided her husband doesn't muck things up.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said conservative criticism of his wife, Michelle, infuriates him.
"I don't have a thick skin when it comes to criticism of my wife," Obama told the women's magazine Glamour in an interview to run in the magazine's October issue. "And you know, the problem is that rarely do these folks have the guts to say it to your face."
Obama, who is vying for the support of women voters who flocked to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign during the primaries, argued his wife and Clinton have been the target of similar conservative attacks.
"Hillary Clinton was subject to this, others have been subject to this in the past," Obama told Glamour editor -in-chief Cindi Leive Wednesday, "It is part of our political environment that I'd like to change."
As ABC's John Stossel likes to say, give me a break! Michelle Obama will most assuredly not be a to-be-seen-but-not-heard First Lady if Barack is elected. The fact of the matter is that Michelle graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School and was a practicing attorney at a major law firm while Barack was still learning his way to class. Michelle was Barack's mentor attorney when he was a summer associate. Michelle is no doubt smarter than Barack and will be an integral part of Barack's administration if that comes to pass -- indeed, perhaps even more so than Hillary Clinton was in Bill's.
Barack's feigned chivalry for Michelle is nothing more than an attempt to deflect criticism that has been rightly directed at his wife for her inflammatory comments. Michelle should simply avoid making statements that are destructive to Barack's campaign and stop relying on the chauvinist crutch that she is "only" Barack's wife.
When a Harvard Law School graduate is married to another HLS graduate running for president, the public should treat them both as candidates because, simply put, it is reasonable to expect a married couple of such credentials to rely on each other as close political advisers. And as Barack should heed from his experience in the Democratic primaries, a First Lady of such pedigree (though Yale isn't quite Harvard) likely will someday run for President herself and can even be elected provided her husband doesn't muck things up.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Estrich on Obama's Underperformance
Former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich says she's nervous that Barack Obama is not further ahead, given the political environment:
Barack Obama should be ahead right now. Way ahead. Not even close is how it should look, even though I wouldn’t for a minute tell you that if it were that would seal the deal. But the fact that my old candidate Mike Dukakis was running better 20 years ago against George Bush than Obama is today against John McCain makes me nervous.
It should be a Democratic year, but as Estrich notes, it may not be.
Barack Obama should be ahead right now. Way ahead. Not even close is how it should look, even though I wouldn’t for a minute tell you that if it were that would seal the deal. But the fact that my old candidate Mike Dukakis was running better 20 years ago against George Bush than Obama is today against John McCain makes me nervous.
It should be a Democratic year, but as Estrich notes, it may not be.
McConnell's Fox Interview
Here's the link to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's interview on Fox and Friends, in which he makes a strong argument for Republican legislation to "find more and use less" oil.
McConnell pointed out the absurdity of some of the Democratic proposals. Their proposed ban on America exporting oil, for instance, would only free up enough oil to run our country for half a day (and the oil is exported to Puerto Rico, in any event).
More than 1.3 million Americans have signed the petition to drill here, drill now and pay less. As McConnell has said repeatedly, electric cars, wind mills and whatever other alternative sources that American ingenuity can produce are the long term solution. In the meantime, however, we need to tap our own resources.
McConnell pointed out the absurdity of some of the Democratic proposals. Their proposed ban on America exporting oil, for instance, would only free up enough oil to run our country for half a day (and the oil is exported to Puerto Rico, in any event).
More than 1.3 million Americans have signed the petition to drill here, drill now and pay less. As McConnell has said repeatedly, electric cars, wind mills and whatever other alternative sources that American ingenuity can produce are the long term solution. In the meantime, however, we need to tap our own resources.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Freudian Slip?
How to explain Andrew Horne's supposed endorsement of Bruce Lunsford on the DailyKos?
I like Jake's take:
Andrew Horne makes it clear why he’s supporting Andrew Horne
These Democrats really know how to back each other up.
Update: Andrew Horne now supports "Bruce", according to Jake.
I like Jake's take:
Andrew Horne makes it clear why he’s supporting Andrew Horne
These Democrats really know how to back each other up.
Update: Andrew Horne now supports "Bruce", according to Jake.
McCain and School Choice
Clint Bolick, who has championed school choice for decades, has a terrific piece in the Wall Street Journal on the electoral implications of school choice among Hispanics.
Polls -- from both parties -- show that Hispanics want school choice and will vote for the candidate who champions it:
But where the poll really gets interesting is on school choice as an electoral issue: 65% of those surveyed reported that they would be more likely to support a candidate for office who supports school choice, including 35% who said they would be "much more likely." Only 19% said they would be less likely to vote for a pro-school choice candidate.
These numbers were high regardless of whether the person was of Mexican, Puerto Rican or Cuban descent. They also transcended party affiliation: 67% of Republicans, 70% of independents and 63% of Democrats preferring pro-school choice candidates. And 70% of those who prefer pro-school choice candidates -- including 66% of Democrats -- said they would cross party lines to vote for a candidate who supports school choice over one who opposes it.
John McCain has consistently advocated school choice, including vouchers, for years. And now he needs to incorporate the issue into his campaign. Candidates down ticket should do likewise.
School choice exemplifies Republican philosophy: we trust parents to make the best choice for their children, absent proof to the contrary. So let parents spend their educational dollars as they see fit.
Update: McCain wants to win after all. He's hitting the school choice issue hard. That brings hope not just to his campaign, but to families who are stuck in failing schools.
Polls -- from both parties -- show that Hispanics want school choice and will vote for the candidate who champions it:
But where the poll really gets interesting is on school choice as an electoral issue: 65% of those surveyed reported that they would be more likely to support a candidate for office who supports school choice, including 35% who said they would be "much more likely." Only 19% said they would be less likely to vote for a pro-school choice candidate.
These numbers were high regardless of whether the person was of Mexican, Puerto Rican or Cuban descent. They also transcended party affiliation: 67% of Republicans, 70% of independents and 63% of Democrats preferring pro-school choice candidates. And 70% of those who prefer pro-school choice candidates -- including 66% of Democrats -- said they would cross party lines to vote for a candidate who supports school choice over one who opposes it.
John McCain has consistently advocated school choice, including vouchers, for years. And now he needs to incorporate the issue into his campaign. Candidates down ticket should do likewise.
School choice exemplifies Republican philosophy: we trust parents to make the best choice for their children, absent proof to the contrary. So let parents spend their educational dollars as they see fit.
Update: McCain wants to win after all. He's hitting the school choice issue hard. That brings hope not just to his campaign, but to families who are stuck in failing schools.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Arbchbishop of Canterbury Proposes Islamic Alliance
It would be easy to laugh, or cry in response to remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that does not do credit to Romans 8:28-- that "all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose." (NRSV).
The Archbishop made headlines for calling for religious plurality, and criticizing:
Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles.
His comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for 'the common good'.
His remarks attempt to respond to criticism for his suggestion a few months back that British common law (upon which American law is based) should give equal treatment to Sharia law. His central thesis is not so different from Barack Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who believes that American brought on the attacks of 9/11 with our own "terrorism."
Sounding like a flack from the Obama campaign, Williams hinted that there is room under the bus for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit:
He [Williams] also said the Christian belief in the Trinity - that God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time - 'is difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims'.
Trinitarian doctrine conflicts with the Islamic view that there is just one all-powerful God.
In the face of such doctrinal conflict, according to the Archbishop, we should remember that truth is relative. Unfortunatley, that implies that there is no such thing as truth:
Lambeth Palace hinted that Christians as well as Muslims should listen to Dr Williams' message.
Officials pointed to the Archbishop's call for 'religious plurality' to turn to serving the common good and added: 'This is true even where truth claims may seem irreconcilable.'
For those who cannot comprehend why one of the most powerful leaders of Christ's Church so easily jettisons its fundamental tenets, read how Tony Snow addressed the philosophical and theological question of why he had cancer. I was reminded of his essay when the Anchoress linked it up at the time of Snow's passing.
Bottom line: whether it is the Archbishop of Canterbury's apostasy, or Tony Snow's cancer, or even Barack Obama's newly articulated brand of socialism: God will be glorified, and His will remains sovereign. We may pin election cycles to four year increments, but we did not start the calendar -- even if it's hereafter called "B.O."
Why must we suffer under the supposed leadership of someone, like the Archbishop, who is so lost? That's like Tony Snow asking, "why do I have cancer?", when the better question is, "Why not me?"
I can't improve upon Snow's words:
It is what it is—a plain and indisputable fact. Yet even while staring into a mirror darkly, great and stunning truths begin to take shape. Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out.
But despite this—because of it—God offers the possibility of salvation and grace. We don't know how the narrative of our lives will end, but we get to choose.
So there you have it: in a fallen world, all things work to the good, despite the best efforts of disease, Rowan Williams and Barack Obama.
The Archbishop made headlines for calling for religious plurality, and criticizing:
Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles.
His comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for 'the common good'.
His remarks attempt to respond to criticism for his suggestion a few months back that British common law (upon which American law is based) should give equal treatment to Sharia law. His central thesis is not so different from Barack Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who believes that American brought on the attacks of 9/11 with our own "terrorism."
Sounding like a flack from the Obama campaign, Williams hinted that there is room under the bus for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit:
He [Williams] also said the Christian belief in the Trinity - that God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time - 'is difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims'.
Trinitarian doctrine conflicts with the Islamic view that there is just one all-powerful God.
In the face of such doctrinal conflict, according to the Archbishop, we should remember that truth is relative. Unfortunatley, that implies that there is no such thing as truth:
Lambeth Palace hinted that Christians as well as Muslims should listen to Dr Williams' message.
Officials pointed to the Archbishop's call for 'religious plurality' to turn to serving the common good and added: 'This is true even where truth claims may seem irreconcilable.'
For those who cannot comprehend why one of the most powerful leaders of Christ's Church so easily jettisons its fundamental tenets, read how Tony Snow addressed the philosophical and theological question of why he had cancer. I was reminded of his essay when the Anchoress linked it up at the time of Snow's passing.
Bottom line: whether it is the Archbishop of Canterbury's apostasy, or Tony Snow's cancer, or even Barack Obama's newly articulated brand of socialism: God will be glorified, and His will remains sovereign. We may pin election cycles to four year increments, but we did not start the calendar -- even if it's hereafter called "B.O."
Why must we suffer under the supposed leadership of someone, like the Archbishop, who is so lost? That's like Tony Snow asking, "why do I have cancer?", when the better question is, "Why not me?"
I can't improve upon Snow's words:
It is what it is—a plain and indisputable fact. Yet even while staring into a mirror darkly, great and stunning truths begin to take shape. Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out.
But despite this—because of it—God offers the possibility of salvation and grace. We don't know how the narrative of our lives will end, but we get to choose.
So there you have it: in a fallen world, all things work to the good, despite the best efforts of disease, Rowan Williams and Barack Obama.
Bruce Brown-noses Nut Roots
Bruce Lunsford, trying hard to bolster his street cred with the far left, answered questions for half an hour on the DailyKos. (Hat tip: Page One).
The DailyKos is one of the most influential, and most anti-Semitic, Demo-blogs in the nation.
Although Bruce's appearance on the DailyKos may help "progressives" forgive him for donating -- and even endorsing-- Republicans, he will lose votes from the center for having embraced the far left fringe.
The DailyKos is one of the most influential, and most anti-Semitic, Demo-blogs in the nation.
Although Bruce's appearance on the DailyKos may help "progressives" forgive him for donating -- and even endorsing-- Republicans, he will lose votes from the center for having embraced the far left fringe.
Bruce Should Run For Congress
Bruce Lunsford raised less money last quarter than Anne Northup, even though Lunsford is running for a statewide office (U.S. Senate) and Northup is running for the Congress.
Not counting his $2.5 million dollar donation to himself thus far, Lunsford raised $600,000 last quarter. Northup raised $625,000 for the quarter, and only donated $2,300 to herself. That is, Lunford has funded his campaign more than one thousand dollars for every dollar Northup donated to her campaign.
Anne Northup appeals to enough voters to enough extent that they will donate to her campaign. Lunsford, in contrast, not so much. As the McConnell campaign said, "Bruce Lunsford’s biggest fan is Bruce Lunsford,"
Not counting his $2.5 million dollar donation to himself thus far, Lunsford raised $600,000 last quarter. Northup raised $625,000 for the quarter, and only donated $2,300 to herself. That is, Lunford has funded his campaign more than one thousand dollars for every dollar Northup donated to her campaign.
Anne Northup appeals to enough voters to enough extent that they will donate to her campaign. Lunsford, in contrast, not so much. As the McConnell campaign said, "Bruce Lunsford’s biggest fan is Bruce Lunsford,"
Barry, It's Time To Flip On Energy
Voters, who also happen to be consumers of oil, aren't buying the canard that domestic drilling is a Republican conspiracy to enrich Big Oil. Even the New York Times sees Democrats waking up to the fact that consumers understand supply and demand and want domestic drilling. Now.
Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, faces an increasing uneasiness among his colleagues, who have signaled receptiveness to allowing more drilling.
President Bush lifted 20 years worth of executive orders that ban domestic drilling, but Congressional prohibitions remain in effect; the president called on Congress to end the ban.
Ten Democrats have made statements indicating that they will support some form of domestic drilling; how long before Barry flips?
Here's how he'll do it. Today, he takes the position that:
If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks,” the Obama campaign’s spokesman, Bill Burton, said in a statement.
He'll announce that some new study (translate: an internal poll) shows that domestic drilling is "worthy of consideration," that he has "considered" it, and agrees to support the McConnell bill so long as it contains provisions for conservation and alternative energy. (It does.) Then Flipper will swim on to the next issue.
Update: Two more Democrats have embraced domestic drilling: Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-MN) and Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND). Given that the McConnell bill included 43 Republican co-sponsors at the outset, this legislation is quickly moving to passage.
Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, faces an increasing uneasiness among his colleagues, who have signaled receptiveness to allowing more drilling.
President Bush lifted 20 years worth of executive orders that ban domestic drilling, but Congressional prohibitions remain in effect; the president called on Congress to end the ban.
Ten Democrats have made statements indicating that they will support some form of domestic drilling; how long before Barry flips?
Here's how he'll do it. Today, he takes the position that:
If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks,” the Obama campaign’s spokesman, Bill Burton, said in a statement.
He'll announce that some new study (translate: an internal poll) shows that domestic drilling is "worthy of consideration," that he has "considered" it, and agrees to support the McConnell bill so long as it contains provisions for conservation and alternative energy. (It does.) Then Flipper will swim on to the next issue.
Update: Two more Democrats have embraced domestic drilling: Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-MN) and Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND). Given that the McConnell bill included 43 Republican co-sponsors at the outset, this legislation is quickly moving to passage.
Obama Discovers His Military Backbone
The lefties must be going ballistic at Senator Barack Obama. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee likes to claim that a McCain presidency would be a third term for Bush administration policies, but lately Obama has been hard at work trying to outdo McCain as a Bush wannabe. Obama is flipping to conservative positions on foreign policy issues faster than pancakes could be made for President Bill Clinton at the International House of Pancakes during his triangulating years.
The latest "change" in Obama came today in his remarks at the International Trade Center in Washington, D.C. The Associated Press reports Obama as saying that the war in Afghanistan "is a war that we have to win." That Bush-like rhetoric will drive the peace-at-any-cost liberals batty. It's amazing how Obama is suddenly preaching military action rather than kumbaya diplomacy now that the national polls show him and McCain tied.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
The latest "change" in Obama came today in his remarks at the International Trade Center in Washington, D.C. The Associated Press reports Obama as saying that the war in Afghanistan "is a war that we have to win." That Bush-like rhetoric will drive the peace-at-any-cost liberals batty. It's amazing how Obama is suddenly preaching military action rather than kumbaya diplomacy now that the national polls show him and McCain tied.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Replace B.C. With B.O.
The politically correct, in recent years, have refused to use the standard time abbreviations B.C. and A.D. because of their reference to Christ, and the Latin for Lord. Instead, they argue that we should designate a year as either C.E. (common era) or B.C.E. (before common era).
Spike Lee has an alternative:
Lee predicted Obama would be elected in November.
"When that happens, it will change everything. ... You'll have to measure time by `Before Obama' and `After Obama,'" Lee said during the panel. "It's an exciting time to be alive now."
2008, B.O.
Spike Lee has an alternative:
Lee predicted Obama would be elected in November.
"When that happens, it will change everything. ... You'll have to measure time by `Before Obama' and `After Obama,'" Lee said during the panel. "It's an exciting time to be alive now."
2008, B.O.
He Only Plays One On TV
Pat Crowley is correct: Bruce Lunsford's janitor for the day act epitomizes the "silly season."
WAVE 3 showed Bruce waxing the floors at Butler High School, as he researches what it's like to be a working stiff. And unlike his mentor -- the real janitor -- Bruce had a wireless mike transmitter sticking out the back of his pants.
We may never know how many times Bruce stopped waxing to answer his phone; his buddy Chuck Schumer might have called to tell him to pull any money from IndyMac before Schumer's bank run caused the Feds to close the place.
Bruce's stint as a janitor fell at roughly the same time that he wrote a million dollar check to himself for his campaign. This, of course, is not the first time that Bruce has engaged in that ritual of financial narcissism. In his last two failed attempts to get elected, Bruce gave his campaigns $14 million.
Given the repetive nature of Bruce's cash injections to his campaigns, he must have developed some sort of ritual to commemorate the event. After all, writing a one million dollar check to your own campaign isn't exactly like paying the phone bill.
Does Bruce use a special pen for the signing ceremony? Or did he borrow one from the real janitor?
WAVE 3 showed Bruce waxing the floors at Butler High School, as he researches what it's like to be a working stiff. And unlike his mentor -- the real janitor -- Bruce had a wireless mike transmitter sticking out the back of his pants.
We may never know how many times Bruce stopped waxing to answer his phone; his buddy Chuck Schumer might have called to tell him to pull any money from IndyMac before Schumer's bank run caused the Feds to close the place.
Bruce's stint as a janitor fell at roughly the same time that he wrote a million dollar check to himself for his campaign. This, of course, is not the first time that Bruce has engaged in that ritual of financial narcissism. In his last two failed attempts to get elected, Bruce gave his campaigns $14 million.
Given the repetive nature of Bruce's cash injections to his campaigns, he must have developed some sort of ritual to commemorate the event. After all, writing a one million dollar check to your own campaign isn't exactly like paying the phone bill.
Does Bruce use a special pen for the signing ceremony? Or did he borrow one from the real janitor?
Way to Start a Bank Run
Federal Banking Regulators have cited Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) for causing a run on the IndyMac bank. Schumer wrote a letter to the regulators -- which he made public -- and depositors withdrew $ 1.3 billion dollars over eleven days.
As the Los Angeles Times online notes, Schumer's publication of his letter was the proximate cause of the run:
The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York.
Schumer has a nasty habit of interfering. As head of the Democrats' fundraising wing for Senate races, he overrode the preferences of Kentucky progressives by telling Andrew Horne to drop out of the Democratic primary. Schumer replaced Horne with millionaire Bruce Lunsford to run a (self-funded) campaign against Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
You want a bank run, or a perennial candidate with deep pockets? Talk to Chuck.
As the Los Angeles Times online notes, Schumer's publication of his letter was the proximate cause of the run:
The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York.
Schumer has a nasty habit of interfering. As head of the Democrats' fundraising wing for Senate races, he overrode the preferences of Kentucky progressives by telling Andrew Horne to drop out of the Democratic primary. Schumer replaced Horne with millionaire Bruce Lunsford to run a (self-funded) campaign against Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
You want a bank run, or a perennial candidate with deep pockets? Talk to Chuck.
McConnell's Energy Bill Gets Moving
The Washington Post today published an informative article addressing legislation introduced by Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell to allow for off-shore oil drilling:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has introduced an energy bill with 43 Republican co-sponsors that would, among other things, open up the outer continental shelf starting 50 miles from shore for oil and gas exploration. McConnell says 85 percent of the outer continental shelf is currently off limits.
Although the drilling would be in federal waters, state governments would have to give approval for exploration and production off their shores. McConnell's legislation would give states an incentive to allow drilling by giving them a 37.5 percent share of federal royalties.
Republicans have tried to link offshore drilling to the surge in gasoline prices.
"The American people are saying loud and clear -- there is no ambiguity about it -- they want us to do something about it, and they understand the laws of supply and demand," McConnell said last week. He said he was negotiating with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) in an effort to find common ground.
. . . .
Drilling proponents say that drilling today is much more sophisticated than it was in 1969. Oil companies and their supporters boast about how their platforms and pipelines withstood the hurricanes of 2005. "I think people are reassured that not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina or Rita," McConnell said. "Those rigs in the Gulf, there was not a single incident of spillage that anyone reported."
It is encouraging to see that, while his multi-millionaire opponent wastes jet fuel flying to meaningless photo ops to pump gasoline for the common folk, Senator McConnell is actually doing something to try to reduce the price Kentuckians have to pay at the pumps.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has introduced an energy bill with 43 Republican co-sponsors that would, among other things, open up the outer continental shelf starting 50 miles from shore for oil and gas exploration. McConnell says 85 percent of the outer continental shelf is currently off limits.
Although the drilling would be in federal waters, state governments would have to give approval for exploration and production off their shores. McConnell's legislation would give states an incentive to allow drilling by giving them a 37.5 percent share of federal royalties.
Republicans have tried to link offshore drilling to the surge in gasoline prices.
"The American people are saying loud and clear -- there is no ambiguity about it -- they want us to do something about it, and they understand the laws of supply and demand," McConnell said last week. He said he was negotiating with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) in an effort to find common ground.
. . . .
Drilling proponents say that drilling today is much more sophisticated than it was in 1969. Oil companies and their supporters boast about how their platforms and pipelines withstood the hurricanes of 2005. "I think people are reassured that not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina or Rita," McConnell said. "Those rigs in the Gulf, there was not a single incident of spillage that anyone reported."
It is encouraging to see that, while his multi-millionaire opponent wastes jet fuel flying to meaningless photo ops to pump gasoline for the common folk, Senator McConnell is actually doing something to try to reduce the price Kentuckians have to pay at the pumps.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Pelosi's Money Talks For Yarmuth
The Democrats apparently are worried about Congressman John Yarmuth's losing his seat to challenger Anne Northup. According to the Associated Press, Yarmuth is one of only 31 members of Congress who are receiving funds from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for television advertising. No doubt this is payback for Yarmuth's "messaging" the far left agenda of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
The Cost of Shape Shifting
Barack Obama's "progressive" supporters do not like his "change" on issues like FISA, the death penalty, gun rights and abortion. Even the New York Times has picked up on their angst:
“I’m disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can’t even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this ‘audacity of hope’ stuff, it’s blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he’s going to gain, he’s going to lose a lot of progressives.”
Shade is so disgusted with Obama that she is "changing" her voter registration back to the Green Party, from whence she came.
“I’m disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can’t even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this ‘audacity of hope’ stuff, it’s blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he’s going to gain, he’s going to lose a lot of progressives.”
Shade is so disgusted with Obama that she is "changing" her voter registration back to the Green Party, from whence she came.
If Only Barry Could Talk to Them
The poor, misunderstood country of Iran has pulled its swimmer from the Olympic trials because he was assigned to swim the same heat as an Israeli, according to Gateway Pundit (quoting Irananian News).
The Iranian swimmer, Mohammad Bidarian, has refused to compete with his Israeli rival in the 100-meter freestyle event in Croatia.
Bidarian advanced to the semifinal in the 100-meter breaststroke event after he clocked a time of 52.25 seconds on Thursday morning. (Emphasis added.)
This sort of ant-Semitism should get the Iranians tossed from the Olympics, but it won't. It will earn Iran a visit from Barack Obama, if he gets elected. Maybe Barry can invite Mohammad for a swim in the hotel pool. Then again, if Mohammad won't swim with a Jew he probably won't swim with a Black.
Aside from Iran's bigotry, however, there's another problem. The world record for the men's 100 meter breaststroke is held by an American, Brendan Hansan, who went a 59.13.
Yet we are told that the Iranian -- who scratched the Olympics rather than swim in the same water as a Jew -- swam the 100 meter breaststroke in 52.25.
Either the Iranians can't tell the difference between freestyle and breaststroke, or they're photoshopping their results -- just like they did with their missile test this week. Perhaps Iran, not a country known for personal liberty, objects to the word "free" in "freestyle." Time for the Olympic Committee to "change" back to the old name, the Australian Crawl.
The Iranian swimmer, Mohammad Bidarian, has refused to compete with his Israeli rival in the 100-meter freestyle event in Croatia.
Bidarian advanced to the semifinal in the 100-meter breaststroke event after he clocked a time of 52.25 seconds on Thursday morning. (Emphasis added.)
This sort of ant-Semitism should get the Iranians tossed from the Olympics, but it won't. It will earn Iran a visit from Barack Obama, if he gets elected. Maybe Barry can invite Mohammad for a swim in the hotel pool. Then again, if Mohammad won't swim with a Jew he probably won't swim with a Black.
Aside from Iran's bigotry, however, there's another problem. The world record for the men's 100 meter breaststroke is held by an American, Brendan Hansan, who went a 59.13.
Yet we are told that the Iranian -- who scratched the Olympics rather than swim in the same water as a Jew -- swam the 100 meter breaststroke in 52.25.
Either the Iranians can't tell the difference between freestyle and breaststroke, or they're photoshopping their results -- just like they did with their missile test this week. Perhaps Iran, not a country known for personal liberty, objects to the word "free" in "freestyle." Time for the Olympic Committee to "change" back to the old name, the Australian Crawl.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Are Democrats the party of the KKK?
Before you Dems go into an apoplectic rage, this question was not posed by me, a Right Wing White Guy, but by Dr. Alveda C. King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dr. King writes in the most current issue of Black Republican magazine about how the Republican party has championed the cause of blacks. From the Civil War, up through the civil rights legislation of the 50s and 60s, to desegregation, to the present, it has been Republicans that have fought for the rights of blacks against Democrat opposition.
It was an unfortunate gaffe by Nixon in the election of 1960 that started the black switch to the Democrat party. You can read the full history in Dr. King's article which is available at the website for the National Black Republican Association (www.NBRA.info), but the bottom line is that blacks basically jettisoned 100 years of favorable history with the Republican party when they began switching to the Democrat party during the 60's.
Dr. King cites example after example of legislation that was favorable to blacks that has been resisted by Democrats. A portion of her article is worth quoting and asks a powerful rhetorical question:
"To their eternal shame, the chief opponents of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former Klansman. All of the racist Democrats that Dr. King was fighting remained Democrats until the day they died. How can anyone today think that Dr. King, my uncle, would have joined the party of the KKK?"
Democrats like to portray themselves as the champions of blacks, but the facts (oh those pesky facts!) are that Republicans have always been, and continue to be, the strongest supporters of traditional black values and interests. It is only through an unfortunate turn of events that the Democrats have been able to successfully fool the black electorate into thinking that they really represent their best interests.
Dr. King concludes by issuing a clarion call for blacks to reclaim her uncle's legacy and to return to the Republican party.
Dr. King writes in the most current issue of Black Republican magazine about how the Republican party has championed the cause of blacks. From the Civil War, up through the civil rights legislation of the 50s and 60s, to desegregation, to the present, it has been Republicans that have fought for the rights of blacks against Democrat opposition.
It was an unfortunate gaffe by Nixon in the election of 1960 that started the black switch to the Democrat party. You can read the full history in Dr. King's article which is available at the website for the National Black Republican Association (www.NBRA.info), but the bottom line is that blacks basically jettisoned 100 years of favorable history with the Republican party when they began switching to the Democrat party during the 60's.
Dr. King cites example after example of legislation that was favorable to blacks that has been resisted by Democrats. A portion of her article is worth quoting and asks a powerful rhetorical question:
"To their eternal shame, the chief opponents of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former Klansman. All of the racist Democrats that Dr. King was fighting remained Democrats until the day they died. How can anyone today think that Dr. King, my uncle, would have joined the party of the KKK?"
Democrats like to portray themselves as the champions of blacks, but the facts (oh those pesky facts!) are that Republicans have always been, and continue to be, the strongest supporters of traditional black values and interests. It is only through an unfortunate turn of events that the Democrats have been able to successfully fool the black electorate into thinking that they really represent their best interests.
Dr. King concludes by issuing a clarion call for blacks to reclaim her uncle's legacy and to return to the Republican party.
An Admirable Kentuckian, Former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, Passes Away
Former White House Press Secretary, media columnist and commentator and Kentucky native Tony Snow died of cancer earlier today at the age of 53. The New York Times has published a great tribute based upon comments of, among others, Ann Compton of ABC News and Dana Perino, who was Snow's successor at the White House:
Ms. Compton, who had been in touch with Mr. Snow in recent months, said his condition took a turn for the worse after the White House correspondents’ dinner in April. “He had a front-row seat and he looked wonderful,” at the event, she said.
But he later e-mailed her to say that he had been suffering intestinal problems — “a bump in the road,” she said he called it — and was having a harder time than expected recovering. On June 13, while traveling in Paris with Mr. Bush, Ms. Compton received another unexpected electronic missive from Mr. Snow, who by then was quite sick, she said.
He had heard that Helen Thomas, the 87-year-old veteran White House correspondent with whom he had had some of his most pointed exchanges, was ill. “If in touch, would you please pass on my love,” Mr. Snow wrote.
Ms. Perino said Mr. Snow was the inspiration for her 2008 New Year’s resolution, which was always to take her husband’s telephone calls, no matter how busy she was at work. “We learned a lot from him — most importantly how we should love our families and treat one another,” she said. “The White House has lost a great friend.”
Update: Another piece worth reading about Tony Snow, this one penned by Susan Estrich, is here.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Ms. Compton, who had been in touch with Mr. Snow in recent months, said his condition took a turn for the worse after the White House correspondents’ dinner in April. “He had a front-row seat and he looked wonderful,” at the event, she said.
But he later e-mailed her to say that he had been suffering intestinal problems — “a bump in the road,” she said he called it — and was having a harder time than expected recovering. On June 13, while traveling in Paris with Mr. Bush, Ms. Compton received another unexpected electronic missive from Mr. Snow, who by then was quite sick, she said.
He had heard that Helen Thomas, the 87-year-old veteran White House correspondent with whom he had had some of his most pointed exchanges, was ill. “If in touch, would you please pass on my love,” Mr. Snow wrote.
Ms. Perino said Mr. Snow was the inspiration for her 2008 New Year’s resolution, which was always to take her husband’s telephone calls, no matter how busy she was at work. “We learned a lot from him — most importantly how we should love our families and treat one another,” she said. “The White House has lost a great friend.”
Update: Another piece worth reading about Tony Snow, this one penned by Susan Estrich, is here.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
More Dems Ready to Drill
The steady stream of Democrats who understand that they must agree to more domestic drilling continues. From Politico:
In the stages of grief, denial gives way to anger and then to bargaining.
It may be an apt metaphor this week, as Democrats’ long-held opposition to expanded offshore oil drilling succumbs to the political realities of $4-per-gallon gasoline.
Democrats are so desperate to deprive Republicans of an issue to run on that they may actually do the right thing and pass legislation that leads to lower gas prices; the price of oil dropped $8 a barrel in two days this week, perhaps in anticipation of Congressional action.
Even Dingy Harry is coming around:
"I’m not knee-jerk opposed to anything,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “We’re willing to work. We haven’t shut our minds to anything.”
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he sensed there were enough votes from his Democratic colleagues to expand offshore drilling into new areas — and that the eastern Gulf of Mexico “should be one of the first places we should look.”
In the stages of grief, denial gives way to anger and then to bargaining.
It may be an apt metaphor this week, as Democrats’ long-held opposition to expanded offshore oil drilling succumbs to the political realities of $4-per-gallon gasoline.
Democrats are so desperate to deprive Republicans of an issue to run on that they may actually do the right thing and pass legislation that leads to lower gas prices; the price of oil dropped $8 a barrel in two days this week, perhaps in anticipation of Congressional action.
Even Dingy Harry is coming around:
"I’m not knee-jerk opposed to anything,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “We’re willing to work. We haven’t shut our minds to anything.”
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he sensed there were enough votes from his Democratic colleagues to expand offshore drilling into new areas — and that the eastern Gulf of Mexico “should be one of the first places we should look.”
Best Dressed A.G.?
The Voice-Tribune has nominated Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway as one of the best dressed men of Louisville, whether he likes it or not.
Congratulations and best of luck!
Congratulations and best of luck!
Lunsford Eclipsed by Porn Star
"The Predator's" Sonny Landham's attempt to run against Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell continues to generate stories around the country. But like this piece in the Los Angeles Times, Bruce Lunsford does not even get listed as an extra:
Landham, who also appeared in "48 Hours" (starring Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte), should qualify for the ballot. His chances of actually winning, of course, are about as good as were his prospects when he went up against that cinematic alien more than 20 years ago.
Really, the Hollywood press should be more respectful of a candidate who is a genuine movie producer.
Landham, who also appeared in "48 Hours" (starring Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte), should qualify for the ballot. His chances of actually winning, of course, are about as good as were his prospects when he went up against that cinematic alien more than 20 years ago.
Really, the Hollywood press should be more respectful of a candidate who is a genuine movie producer.
FISA Finally Passes as Obama Flips
That giant clicking sound heard round the world late yesterday -- that was the sound of Al-Qaeda hanging up the party line as the Senate passed FISA.
The House had previously passed the bill, which gives immunity to telecommunications that help the government eavesdrop on conversations with terrorists. The president indicated that he will sign the bill quickly. All that is great, but long overdue. Too long.
We cannot recover the five months for which Congressional Democrats stripped our government of this most basic tool of intelligence gathering. All those conversations that occurred between Islamofascists who want to kill us have concluded. We have no way of knowing what was said. Their plans are made, and are that much more likely to succeed due to the five months it took the Democrats to finally reenact FISA.
When the Senate called its final vote on FISA, only 28 opposed. Barack Obama voted with Republicans to reenact FISA with telecom immunity; Hillary did not.
Obama has infuriated the Demo-blogs, like the DailyKos, for this flip. By the same token, Hillary has improved her standing with the "nutroots" whom originally pushed the Obama candidacy. It's hard to know whether Hillary cast her vote with a view to enlivening the upcoming Democratic convention, or positioning herself for 2012.
As for Obama's "change" on FISA, it is an improvement. If there was a chance that his vote aligned with his beliefs, it would be an epiphany. It did not. Obama arrived at his opposition to FISA long ago, before he won the nomination, when he needed the support of the nutroots. All this latest flip underscores is that Obama will say anything, do anything to get elected.
The House had previously passed the bill, which gives immunity to telecommunications that help the government eavesdrop on conversations with terrorists. The president indicated that he will sign the bill quickly. All that is great, but long overdue. Too long.
We cannot recover the five months for which Congressional Democrats stripped our government of this most basic tool of intelligence gathering. All those conversations that occurred between Islamofascists who want to kill us have concluded. We have no way of knowing what was said. Their plans are made, and are that much more likely to succeed due to the five months it took the Democrats to finally reenact FISA.
When the Senate called its final vote on FISA, only 28 opposed. Barack Obama voted with Republicans to reenact FISA with telecom immunity; Hillary did not.
Obama has infuriated the Demo-blogs, like the DailyKos, for this flip. By the same token, Hillary has improved her standing with the "nutroots" whom originally pushed the Obama candidacy. It's hard to know whether Hillary cast her vote with a view to enlivening the upcoming Democratic convention, or positioning herself for 2012.
As for Obama's "change" on FISA, it is an improvement. If there was a chance that his vote aligned with his beliefs, it would be an epiphany. It did not. Obama arrived at his opposition to FISA long ago, before he won the nomination, when he needed the support of the nutroots. All this latest flip underscores is that Obama will say anything, do anything to get elected.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Obama Fist Bumps McConnell In Tribute to Jesse Helms
Senator Barack Obama gave, in effect, a "me too" to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's tribute to the late Senator Jesse Helms. As The American Spectator reports, Obama "not only voted for a resolution commemorating Helms's achievements, but he also co-sponsored it." However, "Obama's campaign refused to make a statement about the death of Jesse Helms according to the Wall Street Journal." If and when Obama does make a statement about Helms, we will be sure to quote it -- with a few ellipses, of course.
How does Obama explain his latest "change"? Perhaps he caught a glimpse of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan who sits on Obama's side of the aisle as a daily reminder that racist views can change.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
How does Obama explain his latest "change"? Perhaps he caught a glimpse of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan who sits on Obama's side of the aisle as a daily reminder that racist views can change.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
What we really need is compassionate liberalism...
NEWSFLASH! Conservatives are more charitable than liberals. In his book Who Really Cares, Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks provides detailed data and statistical analysis which shows that conservatives give away much more, in terms of money and volunteer time, than liberals.
Liberals will hate this book because it relies on their arch enemy, namely, facts.
Brooks details how, in study after study, the numbers show that conservatives, as a whole, are very generous, and that liberals, as a whole, are very selfish. Significantly, income is not the issue. Even poorer conservatives give more as a percentage of their incomes than rich liberals.
The term "compassionate conservative" is an unfortunate one because it infers that somehow compassion is a term not normally associated with conservatism. Brooks proves that this is absolutely not true. It is compassion that is foreign to liberalism, at least as measured by generosity and volunteerism.
Are there conservatives that are selfish? Of course there are. Are there liberals that are generous? Of course there are. But on the whole, taken as groups, conservatives are much more generous than liberals. They are more willing to give money to charity and they are more willing to volunteer their time to organizations that benefit the disadvantaged or society as a whole.
Liberals want the world to think they care; conservatives actually do.
Liberals will hate this book because it relies on their arch enemy, namely, facts.
Brooks details how, in study after study, the numbers show that conservatives, as a whole, are very generous, and that liberals, as a whole, are very selfish. Significantly, income is not the issue. Even poorer conservatives give more as a percentage of their incomes than rich liberals.
The term "compassionate conservative" is an unfortunate one because it infers that somehow compassion is a term not normally associated with conservatism. Brooks proves that this is absolutely not true. It is compassion that is foreign to liberalism, at least as measured by generosity and volunteerism.
Are there conservatives that are selfish? Of course there are. Are there liberals that are generous? Of course there are. But on the whole, taken as groups, conservatives are much more generous than liberals. They are more willing to give money to charity and they are more willing to volunteer their time to organizations that benefit the disadvantaged or society as a whole.
Liberals want the world to think they care; conservatives actually do.
Jesse Jackson Offers to Castrate Obama
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, unaware that a microphone was on, offered to cut off a portion of Barack Obama's anatomy, using a slang term that is popular with squirrels and adolescents.
Fox has the tape and will air it tonight on O'Reilly and Hannity.
Jackson took umbrage at a series of speeches that Obama has given recently in African-American churches.
Fox has the tape and will air it tonight on O'Reilly and Hannity.
Jackson took umbrage at a series of speeches that Obama has given recently in African-American churches.
Durbin Warms Toward Drilling
Senator Dick Durbin, the Democrats' whip, told the Wall Street Journal today that he might support off-shore drilling. This Congress may yet enact an energy bill that gives consumers some relief at the gas pump.
No, the off-shore oil and gas won't be immediately available, but the futures market, by definition will reflect that it's coming. That will cause today's prices to drop.
No, the off-shore oil and gas won't be immediately available, but the futures market, by definition will reflect that it's coming. That will cause today's prices to drop.
Demo-Blog: Voters are Stupid
How to explain that voters will not only tolerate drilling off America's shores and in our shale, but actually demand it?
According to Demo-blog What's Required, the reason is that voters are (a) wrong because they are (b) stupid:
First: while the public does indeed favor expanded domestic drilling, there are two forces at work here that can’t be discounted before the GOP uses a new data point as an excuse to keep the economy thriving for the top half of 1% of us. First: we have an angry electorate. That means they’re more ready to lie to pollsters than ever before, act completely out of character in the voting booth, and generally be as hard to govern as a sack of cats. They’re not telling you that you have to drill, really–they’re telling you that the percentage of their income that is spent getting from point a to point b has to go down. Do it with drilling, do it with electric cars, do it with flying carpets, but get it done, and now (and we will point out that electric cars would get it done BEFORE drilling). Second: the American public, even if they’re not being overspecific like they are here, can be really, really [expletive deleted] wrong.
Good thing we have enlightened, progressive intellectuals to set us straight.
More is at play than our differences on energy policy. It is an axiom of liberalism that the common man is stupid. This is especially true of poor people; it's why liberals think they are poor. This sense of elitism causes "progressives" to tie all sorts of strings to government entitlement, because they don't trust the poor dumb people to make wise choices as to how to spend the taxpayers' money without guidance from bureaucrats. (The bureaucrats, in turn need guidance from the Demo-blogs.)
Conservatives, in contrast, believe that most people are smart enough to act in their self-interest and make good decisions. (And to the extent they don't, they should not be rewarded with even more government entitlements.) That's why we believe that American inventors and entrepreneurs can make our country energy independent in the long run -- but only if government gets out of the way.
According to Demo-blog What's Required, the reason is that voters are (a) wrong because they are (b) stupid:
First: while the public does indeed favor expanded domestic drilling, there are two forces at work here that can’t be discounted before the GOP uses a new data point as an excuse to keep the economy thriving for the top half of 1% of us. First: we have an angry electorate. That means they’re more ready to lie to pollsters than ever before, act completely out of character in the voting booth, and generally be as hard to govern as a sack of cats. They’re not telling you that you have to drill, really–they’re telling you that the percentage of their income that is spent getting from point a to point b has to go down. Do it with drilling, do it with electric cars, do it with flying carpets, but get it done, and now (and we will point out that electric cars would get it done BEFORE drilling). Second: the American public, even if they’re not being overspecific like they are here, can be really, really [expletive deleted] wrong.
Good thing we have enlightened, progressive intellectuals to set us straight.
More is at play than our differences on energy policy. It is an axiom of liberalism that the common man is stupid. This is especially true of poor people; it's why liberals think they are poor. This sense of elitism causes "progressives" to tie all sorts of strings to government entitlement, because they don't trust the poor dumb people to make wise choices as to how to spend the taxpayers' money without guidance from bureaucrats. (The bureaucrats, in turn need guidance from the Demo-blogs.)
Conservatives, in contrast, believe that most people are smart enough to act in their self-interest and make good decisions. (And to the extent they don't, they should not be rewarded with even more government entitlements.) That's why we believe that American inventors and entrepreneurs can make our country energy independent in the long run -- but only if government gets out of the way.
Congressional Dems Love Censorship
Democratic members of the House and the Senate have advocated rules that would censor Congressmen and Senators from using certain websites to communicate with constitutents, according to Hot Air.
Even worse, in the Senate, Diane Feinstein proposes that the Senate Rules Committee must approve any intertnet cite that does not end in "Senate.gov":
Under their scheme, the Senate Rules Committee would become the Internet speech police for everyone in the Senate.
It will be up to the committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate.
The Rules Committee thus gets to pick winners and losers among various websites in terms of which are appropriate for use.
(Note to Feinstein: please blacklist my site! It would be an honor.)
The rules would prohibit a Senator from posting on his own campaign web site. It means that a Senator could not write a letter to editor in the online edition of a newspaper. And it means that he or she could not write guest posts -- or even post a comment -- on the millions of citizen-run web sites from which voters increasingly get their news.
This is why many conservatives make the deliberate grammatical error of referring to the opposition as Democrat, rather than Democratic. There is nothing Democratic about censorship.
In the Democrats' topsy-turvy view of the constitution, there is no right to bear arms (though the second amendment, and now the Supreme Court, say otherwise). There is a right to an abortion (though the constitution says no such thing). And now the first amendment right to free speech and press allows Democrats -- the majority -- to silence colleagues who dare express themselves on the internet, unless the site is preapproved by the majority.
The same buffoons who warned us that the Patriot Act heralded the end of our rights were right -- just for the wrong reason.
Nancy Feinstein, who is leading this exercise in black-listing, is also trying to bring back the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine, to require conservative talk radio to give equal time to "progressives" whose own radio stations bombed for lack of listeners.
This is what tyrrany of the majority looks like. As a clear-cut violation of the first amendment, it's the perfect case for the ACLU.
Even worse, in the Senate, Diane Feinstein proposes that the Senate Rules Committee must approve any intertnet cite that does not end in "Senate.gov":
Under their scheme, the Senate Rules Committee would become the Internet speech police for everyone in the Senate.
It will be up to the committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate.
The Rules Committee thus gets to pick winners and losers among various websites in terms of which are appropriate for use.
(Note to Feinstein: please blacklist my site! It would be an honor.)
The rules would prohibit a Senator from posting on his own campaign web site. It means that a Senator could not write a letter to editor in the online edition of a newspaper. And it means that he or she could not write guest posts -- or even post a comment -- on the millions of citizen-run web sites from which voters increasingly get their news.
This is why many conservatives make the deliberate grammatical error of referring to the opposition as Democrat, rather than Democratic. There is nothing Democratic about censorship.
In the Democrats' topsy-turvy view of the constitution, there is no right to bear arms (though the second amendment, and now the Supreme Court, say otherwise). There is a right to an abortion (though the constitution says no such thing). And now the first amendment right to free speech and press allows Democrats -- the majority -- to silence colleagues who dare express themselves on the internet, unless the site is preapproved by the majority.
The same buffoons who warned us that the Patriot Act heralded the end of our rights were right -- just for the wrong reason.
Nancy Feinstein, who is leading this exercise in black-listing, is also trying to bring back the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine, to require conservative talk radio to give equal time to "progressives" whose own radio stations bombed for lack of listeners.
This is what tyrrany of the majority looks like. As a clear-cut violation of the first amendment, it's the perfect case for the ACLU.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Out of the Mouths of Minions
“Right now, our strategy on gas prices is ‘Drive small cars and wait for the wind,’” said a Democratic aide," according to The Hill.
Democrats in Congress are starting to panic, as the realization sets in that the overwhelming majority of voters want America to drill in America, including off-shore, in shale, and in that minuscule part of Alaska that only 800 people visited last year.
And every time a Democrat like Bruce Lunsford does a photo-op at a gas station, he simply underscores the difference between the two parties on the issue.
Republicans have proposed legislation (drafted by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell) that would allow us to increase domestic drilling, but takes off the table those issues that make Democrats hyperventilate, like Alaska and nuclear energy. That is, the Republicans are reaching out, extending the bipartisan olive branch Democrats -- and the Courier-Journal -- always demand.
Given that Republicans made the overture, this opportunity to actually accomplish something is causing chaos in the Democratic caucus:
Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said energy activity this week is taking place at the committee level, noting that there are four hearings planned on the issue of speculation in oil trading.
“Different members have different ideas,” Elshami said. “We’ll bring forward the best piece of legislation based on the recommendations and hearings we are having this week.”
Republicans pounced, saying Democrats were backtracking after realizing they would be unable to defeat a Republican vote on increased domestic oil drilling in new areas.
Even Democrats (probably the ones up for reelection) have begun to realize that they are on the wrong side of the issue:
Further complicating matters for Democrats is the growing number of pro-drilling Democrats who are becoming increasingly worried that voters might throw them in with their anti-drilling leadership.
One pro-drilling Democrat predicted that the backlash against Congress for gas prices could rival the outrage voters felt about the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
Miracle of miracles, John McCain seems to understand that he has an issue he can pound the Democrats on.
Democrats in Congress are starting to panic, as the realization sets in that the overwhelming majority of voters want America to drill in America, including off-shore, in shale, and in that minuscule part of Alaska that only 800 people visited last year.
And every time a Democrat like Bruce Lunsford does a photo-op at a gas station, he simply underscores the difference between the two parties on the issue.
Republicans have proposed legislation (drafted by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell) that would allow us to increase domestic drilling, but takes off the table those issues that make Democrats hyperventilate, like Alaska and nuclear energy. That is, the Republicans are reaching out, extending the bipartisan olive branch Democrats -- and the Courier-Journal -- always demand.
Given that Republicans made the overture, this opportunity to actually accomplish something is causing chaos in the Democratic caucus:
Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said energy activity this week is taking place at the committee level, noting that there are four hearings planned on the issue of speculation in oil trading.
“Different members have different ideas,” Elshami said. “We’ll bring forward the best piece of legislation based on the recommendations and hearings we are having this week.”
Republicans pounced, saying Democrats were backtracking after realizing they would be unable to defeat a Republican vote on increased domestic oil drilling in new areas.
Even Democrats (probably the ones up for reelection) have begun to realize that they are on the wrong side of the issue:
Further complicating matters for Democrats is the growing number of pro-drilling Democrats who are becoming increasingly worried that voters might throw them in with their anti-drilling leadership.
One pro-drilling Democrat predicted that the backlash against Congress for gas prices could rival the outrage voters felt about the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
Miracle of miracles, John McCain seems to understand that he has an issue he can pound the Democrats on.
Man's Best Friend Is No Friend Of Obama
Senator John McCain is leading in the latest poll . . . of pet owners. According to an AP-Yahoo! News survey, voters with furry friends prefer McCain over Obama 42%-37%. Dog owners are most likely to favor McCain. The explanation? McCain "has a veritable menagerie, including Sam the English springer spaniel, Coco the mutt, turtles Cuff and Link, Oreo the black and white cat, a ferret, three parakeets and a bunch of saltwater fish." Obama, in contrast, owns no pet. But once his campaign reads the polling data, his views on pets (like capital punishment, the Second Amendment, etc.) will undoubtedly change. After all, isn't change what the Obama campaign is all about?
Update: The American Kennel Club is conducting a poll on the best breed for the Obama family (What, you thought they'd make an actual decision without a poll?) Click here to vote. Hat tip: Laura Ingraham.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Update: The American Kennel Club is conducting a poll on the best breed for the Obama family (What, you thought they'd make an actual decision without a poll?) Click here to vote. Hat tip: Laura Ingraham.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Leaving On a Jet Plane
While most of us are figuring out how to strap our kids to the roof of a Prius, Bruce Lunsford has leg room to spare. Check out Bruce's sweet ride.
Does he buy carbon credits to assuage his liberal guilt about the size of his carbon foot print?
Does he buy carbon credits to assuage his liberal guilt about the size of his carbon foot print?
Senator McConnell To Speak At Funeral For Former Senator Jesse Helms
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is scheduled to speak at tomorrow's funeral service for the late Senator Jesse Helms, according to North Carolina's WRAL.com. On Friday, McConnell had this to say about his colorful former colleague:
"Senator Helms . . . was a man . . . not into subtlety. You know what he thought about a particular issue. You certainly knew because he was not into the kind of nuance and subtlety that so often divides American politicians."
One may not have always agreed with Helms' positions, but his forthrightness was refreshing -- such a stark contrast to the vague vacuousness that Senator Obama tries to pass off as policy. Unlike the Democrats (e.g., at Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone's funeral), Republicans don't hijack eulogies for political purposes. One hopes McConnell will use tomorrow's memorial as an occasion to celebrate Senator Helms' candor as a model for an honest political debater.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
"Senator Helms . . . was a man . . . not into subtlety. You know what he thought about a particular issue. You certainly knew because he was not into the kind of nuance and subtlety that so often divides American politicians."
One may not have always agreed with Helms' positions, but his forthrightness was refreshing -- such a stark contrast to the vague vacuousness that Senator Obama tries to pass off as policy. Unlike the Democrats (e.g., at Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone's funeral), Republicans don't hijack eulogies for political purposes. One hopes McConnell will use tomorrow's memorial as an occasion to celebrate Senator Helms' candor as a model for an honest political debater.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Kentucky Isn't Buying Obama, And His Media Buys Confirm That The Feeling Is Mutual
Jay Cost at Realclearpolitics.com provides a fascinating analysis of the television advertising of the Obama campaign that, among other things, confirms Obama's having completely written off winning in Kentucky. Cost observes that Obama has made no media buy in Kentucky for the general campaign, despite the Commonwealth having a better track record for voting Democratic than certain other states where Obama has chosen to advertise. Indeed, Obama is advertising in places like North Dakota, Alaska, Montana and Indiana, but not Kentucky, even though in 1996 President Clinton won Kentucky but not those states and in 2004 President George W. Bush carried Kentucky by a lower percentage than he did those other states. Obama's camp must really be spooked by his dismal showing in the Kentucky Democratic primary.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Caroline Burckle Makes U.S. Olympic Team!
Louisville native Caroline Burckle has qualified for a spot on the U.S. Olympics team! Congratulations! We'll update her time and events in the a.m.
Obama's Jewish Problem
The Jerusalem Post, in a column, suggests that at least some Jews have noticed that Barack Obama is no friend to Israel. And that's without taking into account the amount of anti-Semitism on his official website.
The column includes a description of Richard Nixon's response to Israel's request for help during the 1973 war that I have never heard before. If George McGovern had been elected president instead of Nixon, it is not only possible but probable that Israel would no longer exist.
The Israelis went to president Richard Nixon with a request for a massive infusion of arms. The Defense and State Departments squabbled. Our European allies, who feared an oil embargo (and would refuse us bases to refuel our planes), inveighed against it, and the Soviets blustered. Many on Nixon's staff wanted to deny the request, or offer only token assistance. Don't antagonize the Arab states, they counseled.
Nixon persisted and, according to some accounts, doubled the amount of aid Israel had requested. Riding herd on the bureaucrats, Nixon repeatedly intervened to push the transports along. Informed about a dispute regarding the type of air transportation, Nixon at one point exclaimed in frustration: "Tell them to send everything that can fly." Over the course of a month US airplanes conducted 815 sorties with over 27,900 tons of materiel.
Israel was saved due to this massive infusion of military aid.
Anyone who cares about the continued existence of Israel ought to think long and hard about how Obama would react to a plea for help, say if Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran attacked Israel.
As the Jerusalem Post puts it,
The Obama skeptics do not for a moment believe that Obama, in the face of domestic and international pressure similar to what Nixon faced, would rise to the occasion at a critical moment in Israel's history and "tell them to send everything that can fly."
In every significant interaction in Obama's adult life with those who distain and vilify Israel - from Rashid Khalidi to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to Louis Farrakhan - Obama has demonstrated passive resignation and indifference.
We can survive the inevitable tax increases that an Obama presidency guarantees. It is unclear, however, that Israel can survive an Obama presidency. His election will embolden the people who want to destroy Israel -- the same people who want to destroy America.
The column includes a description of Richard Nixon's response to Israel's request for help during the 1973 war that I have never heard before. If George McGovern had been elected president instead of Nixon, it is not only possible but probable that Israel would no longer exist.
The Israelis went to president Richard Nixon with a request for a massive infusion of arms. The Defense and State Departments squabbled. Our European allies, who feared an oil embargo (and would refuse us bases to refuel our planes), inveighed against it, and the Soviets blustered. Many on Nixon's staff wanted to deny the request, or offer only token assistance. Don't antagonize the Arab states, they counseled.
Nixon persisted and, according to some accounts, doubled the amount of aid Israel had requested. Riding herd on the bureaucrats, Nixon repeatedly intervened to push the transports along. Informed about a dispute regarding the type of air transportation, Nixon at one point exclaimed in frustration: "Tell them to send everything that can fly." Over the course of a month US airplanes conducted 815 sorties with over 27,900 tons of materiel.
Israel was saved due to this massive infusion of military aid.
Anyone who cares about the continued existence of Israel ought to think long and hard about how Obama would react to a plea for help, say if Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran attacked Israel.
As the Jerusalem Post puts it,
The Obama skeptics do not for a moment believe that Obama, in the face of domestic and international pressure similar to what Nixon faced, would rise to the occasion at a critical moment in Israel's history and "tell them to send everything that can fly."
In every significant interaction in Obama's adult life with those who distain and vilify Israel - from Rashid Khalidi to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to Louis Farrakhan - Obama has demonstrated passive resignation and indifference.
We can survive the inevitable tax increases that an Obama presidency guarantees. It is unclear, however, that Israel can survive an Obama presidency. His election will embolden the people who want to destroy Israel -- the same people who want to destroy America.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Quick Olympic Trials Update
At this morning's session, Caroline Burckle placed 3rd in the women's 200 free (1:59:09). Abbie Fish was 53rd (2:02:18). Rachel Komisarz did not swim. The semi-finals are tonight; Caroline will be swimming in the lane next to world record-holder Katie Hoff.
Caroline's brother, Clark Burckle, placed 18th in the men's 200 fly (2:00:20).
In the women's 200 IM, Amanda Faulkner (who is interning for Anne Northup this summer) finished 77th (2:20:66).
Elizabeth Tinnon is seeded seventh in tonight's finals of the women's 200 breast.
Caroline's brother, Clark Burckle, placed 18th in the men's 200 fly (2:00:20).
In the women's 200 IM, Amanda Faulkner (who is interning for Anne Northup this summer) finished 77th (2:20:66).
Elizabeth Tinnon is seeded seventh in tonight's finals of the women's 200 breast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)