Senator Jim Bunning's capriciousness -- skipping important Senate business this week to attend family events -- raises a real question about whether Kentucky Republicans can risk nominating him to seek reelection.
Bunning barely squeaked by six years ago; he won by one percent. He ran a weak campaign and only pulled out a win when Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell stepped in to campaign with Bunning, and by many accounts, took control of the campaign.
Six years ago, prominent Democrats spread rumors about Bunning's health, and even suggested that he was suffering from dementia. Given the effectiveness with which national Democrats played the age card against Sen. John McCain, we can count on rumors about Bunning's health to grow nastier and more frequent through the election. In part, this is because, at 77, Bunning is older than McCain.
Certainly, Bunning has a responsibility to be honest with the people of Kentucky if he has a serious health issue. Regardless, Democrats once again will suggest that Bunning is incapable of fulfilling the duties of office. And they will trot out actuarial tables to give us the odds that Bunning might not survive another term. God forbid that anything happens to Bunning. Democrats well know, however, that Kentucky's governor, Steve Beshear -- a Democrat -- would appoint a replacement in the event of Bunning's death or incapacity.
Bunning was hospitalized with pneumonia for a week before this past November's election. Pneumonia must be taken seriously, but in a 77 year-old, it's alarming.
Perhaps this recent hospitalization is why Bunning insisted that he would attend family events and skip Senate votes, hearings and Republican strategy meetings. It's understandable: a brush with a serious illness often forces people to re-prioritize.
While Democrats speculate on whether Bunning can serve, Republicans should ask ourselves whether he really wants to keep up the relentless pace that the Senate demands. We cannot afford to reelect a Senator who might decide to retire part-way through his term (like Trent Lott did, last session).
In addition to leaving Kentuckians unrepresented this past week while visiting family, Bunning left Republicans short a vote at a time when we don't have very many.
If Republicans lose Bunning's seat, we will no longer have the 40 seats necessary to filibuster the massive expansion of government that the left is preparing to unleash. If Bunning's seat changes parties, Democrats will have a filibuster-proof super majority. One seat -- Bunning's seat -- can make that difference. This fact is not lost upon the Democrats.
The Washington Post already has deemed Bunning one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the country. This race will draw massive amounts of money from the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and a variety of left-wing special interest groups. Look for a visit from President Barack Obama, no less, in support of whomever the Democrats nominate.
Yet Bunning has raised almost no money -- which further suggests that he is not serious or at best is ambivalent about whether he really wants to serve another term.
Bunnning has been the darling of conservative talk radio on the bailout and other issues. To be sure, the conservative movement needs his voice, but not necessarily in the Senate. He can influence public policy from the sidelines and still have plenty of time to enjoy his family. There is still time for Bunning to forgo a campaign that will be ugly and might be fruitless.
Showing posts with label filibusters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label filibusters. Show all posts
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Friday, November 21, 2008
Why Obama Made Nice to McCain
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting take on the real reason President-elect Barack Obama invited Sen. John McCain for a sit-down -- and it wasn't to heal the nation or show post-partisanship or any other such platitude. It was to begin the process of peeling away Republican votes needed for filibusters
In short, the Obama-McCain summit was a preemptive attack on Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's ability to hold his caucus together when confronted by Obama's policies.
As Kimberly Strassel writes for the Journal, Obama's meeting with McCain was
directed, pure and simple, at co-opting Mr. McCain's help against what Mr. Obama understands is now his biggest obstacle: Senate Minority Leader McConnell.
. . .
Standing in the way is Mr. McConnell, one of the shrewdest Senate operators in recent history, and a man who knows the institution inside-out. He also knows what his members want, and what he can demand in return.
The minority leader is already crafting ways to keep his caucus together to block Mr. Obama's more destructive proposals. If the new president wants 60 votes, he's going to have to fight for them, vote for vote.
Look for McCain to go all mavericky on us and sell out Republican principles. As time goes on, we may give thanks that he was not elected; it least now conservatives have an opportunity to regroup and develop candidates who actually believe in the party platform.
In the meantime, I give thanks that Kentucky voters were not duped by Bruce Lunsford's millions and returned McConnell to keep the firewall in the Senate.
In short, the Obama-McCain summit was a preemptive attack on Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's ability to hold his caucus together when confronted by Obama's policies.
As Kimberly Strassel writes for the Journal, Obama's meeting with McCain was
directed, pure and simple, at co-opting Mr. McCain's help against what Mr. Obama understands is now his biggest obstacle: Senate Minority Leader McConnell.
. . .
Standing in the way is Mr. McConnell, one of the shrewdest Senate operators in recent history, and a man who knows the institution inside-out. He also knows what his members want, and what he can demand in return.
The minority leader is already crafting ways to keep his caucus together to block Mr. Obama's more destructive proposals. If the new president wants 60 votes, he's going to have to fight for them, vote for vote.
Look for McCain to go all mavericky on us and sell out Republican principles. As time goes on, we may give thanks that he was not elected; it least now conservatives have an opportunity to regroup and develop candidates who actually believe in the party platform.
In the meantime, I give thanks that Kentucky voters were not duped by Bruce Lunsford's millions and returned McConnell to keep the firewall in the Senate.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
WSJ Features McConnell
The Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy interview with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell today. Just the amount of ink of the feature -- it covered nearly half a full page -- underscores his power. Here are a few excerpts:
On the legislation to address the housing crisis:
There's no way to repeal the laws of economics. Just like we had to work our way through the high-tech bubble, we're going to have to work our way through this. There have been a lot of housing speculators, and I worry that we might craft something that benefits people who were basically engaged in housing speculating.
Regarding the use of the cloture rules (requiring 60 votes to force the Senate to consider a bill), McConnell uses the Republicans 41 votes:
to do one of two things: either to stop things that are totally awful . . . or more frequently, to use the power of 41 to shape.
On the Democratic vision for the country, McConnell charges that
Democrats, led by candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are promoting the Herbert Hoover plan: tax increases plus trade restrictions.
Specifically, the Democrats have passed a budget that would include a tax increase three times larger than the biggest previous tax increase in U.S. history.
And the Nancy Pelosi's refusal to allow a vote on the Colombian free trade agreement hurts the U.S. economically, "because Colombian goods come into the United States now virtually duty-free", . . . but the U.S. has "not had the same kind of access to Colombia." The agreement would also support an important ally in the country next to Hugo Chavez.
Regarding the lapse of FISA (which granted immunity to telephone companies for assisting the government with wiretapping and is opposed by trial lawyers and Democrats):
It would make you believe that they'd rather see companies in court than terrorists in jail. . . . this is a private-sector activity. We're not in the phone business. There will be no terrorist-intercept program without the cooperation of the private sector."
Summing up McConnell's power, the Journal observes that "Across a range of issues, McConnell has lately been particularly influential."
The Journal notes in passing that McConell "is among those on the ballot next year," but makes no mention of W. Bruce Lunsford or the other seven Democrats seeking to challenge McConnell; the obvious inference is that the Journal views McConnell's reelection as a foregone conclusion.
On the legislation to address the housing crisis:
There's no way to repeal the laws of economics. Just like we had to work our way through the high-tech bubble, we're going to have to work our way through this. There have been a lot of housing speculators, and I worry that we might craft something that benefits people who were basically engaged in housing speculating.
Regarding the use of the cloture rules (requiring 60 votes to force the Senate to consider a bill), McConnell uses the Republicans 41 votes:
to do one of two things: either to stop things that are totally awful . . . or more frequently, to use the power of 41 to shape.
On the Democratic vision for the country, McConnell charges that
Democrats, led by candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are promoting the Herbert Hoover plan: tax increases plus trade restrictions.
Specifically, the Democrats have passed a budget that would include a tax increase three times larger than the biggest previous tax increase in U.S. history.
And the Nancy Pelosi's refusal to allow a vote on the Colombian free trade agreement hurts the U.S. economically, "because Colombian goods come into the United States now virtually duty-free", . . . but the U.S. has "not had the same kind of access to Colombia." The agreement would also support an important ally in the country next to Hugo Chavez.
Regarding the lapse of FISA (which granted immunity to telephone companies for assisting the government with wiretapping and is opposed by trial lawyers and Democrats):
It would make you believe that they'd rather see companies in court than terrorists in jail. . . . this is a private-sector activity. We're not in the phone business. There will be no terrorist-intercept program without the cooperation of the private sector."
Summing up McConnell's power, the Journal observes that "Across a range of issues, McConnell has lately been particularly influential."
The Journal notes in passing that McConell "is among those on the ballot next year," but makes no mention of W. Bruce Lunsford or the other seven Democrats seeking to challenge McConnell; the obvious inference is that the Journal views McConnell's reelection as a foregone conclusion.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
No Dem Left Behind
Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid's has miscalculated again -- literally. Reid demonstrated his need for remedial math help Tuesday on the Senate floor. Roll Call describes Reid,
accompanied by a large made-for-C-SPAN sign propped up on an easel declaring that Republicans have mounted 65 filibusters this year. But wait — wasn't it just a while back that Reid was complaining of 72 GOP-led filibusters? Yep, it was. Back on Feb. 29, Reid was on the floor with a similar sign decrying 72 Republican f-bombs.
Roll Call has an explanation for Reid's conflicting numbers: "in the past month and a half, Republicans have launched negative-seven filibusters."
Democrats are fuming that Republicans caught Reid padding the numbers. According to Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, "Republicans have found another way to waste valuable Senate time: semantics." Not "semantics," just plain old subtraction.
In any event, it was Reid who decided to strut around the Senate floor with his error-ridden poster. If Reid bothered to keep his numbers straight, there would be no need to correct him.
Meanwhile, Josh Holmes, a spokesman for Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell told Roll Call "we plan to consult the Senate historian to see if negative-seven filibusters is a record of some kind."
accompanied by a large made-for-C-SPAN sign propped up on an easel declaring that Republicans have mounted 65 filibusters this year. But wait — wasn't it just a while back that Reid was complaining of 72 GOP-led filibusters? Yep, it was. Back on Feb. 29, Reid was on the floor with a similar sign decrying 72 Republican f-bombs.
Roll Call has an explanation for Reid's conflicting numbers: "in the past month and a half, Republicans have launched negative-seven filibusters."
Democrats are fuming that Republicans caught Reid padding the numbers. According to Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, "Republicans have found another way to waste valuable Senate time: semantics." Not "semantics," just plain old subtraction.
In any event, it was Reid who decided to strut around the Senate floor with his error-ridden poster. If Reid bothered to keep his numbers straight, there would be no need to correct him.
Meanwhile, Josh Holmes, a spokesman for Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell told Roll Call "we plan to consult the Senate historian to see if negative-seven filibusters is a record of some kind."
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Fuzzy Filibuster Math
Democratic charges that Republicans "obstruct" progress on legislation use the sort of math that wouldn't pass muster under No Child Left Behind.
For example, the Democrats count 37 votes on cloture -- the procedure to end debate -- as a filibuster when it is just the opposite. And according to the Senatorial Committee, they count unanimous cloture votes as Republican filibusters, even though such votes are bipartisan. So much for the spirit of unity.
Even more bizarre, Democrats count Democratic filibusters as Republican filibusters. Who knew that Alice in Wonderland was the new Democratic whip?
If Democrats are so troubled about cloture motions, then they should really speak to Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid; his party has filed for cloture 80 times. That's a record. Congratulations, Harry, by your own definition, your Democratic majority is the most "obstructionist" majority in history.
For example, the Democrats count 37 votes on cloture -- the procedure to end debate -- as a filibuster when it is just the opposite. And according to the Senatorial Committee, they count unanimous cloture votes as Republican filibusters, even though such votes are bipartisan. So much for the spirit of unity.
Even more bizarre, Democrats count Democratic filibusters as Republican filibusters. Who knew that Alice in Wonderland was the new Democratic whip?
If Democrats are so troubled about cloture motions, then they should really speak to Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid; his party has filed for cloture 80 times. That's a record. Congratulations, Harry, by your own definition, your Democratic majority is the most "obstructionist" majority in history.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Dems Filibuster Themselves?
Check out the outrage on the far-left at the Daily Kos over the prospect of the Democrats filibustering a bill brought by Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid:
You couldn't ask for a better demonstration of the manifest failures of Democratic leadership in the Senate than the fact that Chris Dodd plans to lead a filibuster against a lousy bill that Harry Reid insists on bringing to the floor.
Yes, elections have consequences:
We watched and fumed for years as Democrats played dead on issue after issue under a corrupt Republican-led Senate, and now, at long last, they're giving us a filibuster? Against themselves?
Did voters oust Republicans last year in order to get this kind of Democratic leadership?
This is crazy.
This is why Republicans need to regain Congress.
So far, the Kentucky Demo-blogs limit their outrage to filibusters by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Contrary to their claim, McConnell has been consistent on the use of filibusters: they can be appropriate for blocking out-of-the-mainstream bills introduced by the opposing political party, but are inappropriate to stall the confirmation of federal judicial nominees.
Democrats, on the other hand, are all over the place. When in the minority, they thought it perfectly fine to filibuster any and everything they didn't like, including, for the first time in history, federal judicial nominees. Now in the majority, Senate Democrats complain about Republicans who filibuster, only to turn around and filibuster their own party's legislative proposals. Let the Demo-blogs try to explain that whirligig.
You couldn't ask for a better demonstration of the manifest failures of Democratic leadership in the Senate than the fact that Chris Dodd plans to lead a filibuster against a lousy bill that Harry Reid insists on bringing to the floor.
Yes, elections have consequences:
We watched and fumed for years as Democrats played dead on issue after issue under a corrupt Republican-led Senate, and now, at long last, they're giving us a filibuster? Against themselves?
Did voters oust Republicans last year in order to get this kind of Democratic leadership?
This is crazy.
This is why Republicans need to regain Congress.
So far, the Kentucky Demo-blogs limit their outrage to filibusters by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Contrary to their claim, McConnell has been consistent on the use of filibusters: they can be appropriate for blocking out-of-the-mainstream bills introduced by the opposing political party, but are inappropriate to stall the confirmation of federal judicial nominees.
Democrats, on the other hand, are all over the place. When in the minority, they thought it perfectly fine to filibuster any and everything they didn't like, including, for the first time in history, federal judicial nominees. Now in the majority, Senate Democrats complain about Republicans who filibuster, only to turn around and filibuster their own party's legislative proposals. Let the Demo-blogs try to explain that whirligig.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Let the Debate Begin!
To go unnoticed is a blogger's nightmare. So ambivalence was my initial reaction to certain angry readers' comments received yesterday concerning my blog on the announcement of Lt. Col. Andrew Horne's Democratic candidacy to challenge Senate Republic Leader Mitch McConnell.
The harshest note, from a reader named GUSTO, concluded (verbatim): "Joining the Boys Scouts to stisfy Mommys ego is not been as patriotic as serving voluntarily the ARMED FORCES AND IN COMBAT. "
Whew!
For the record, we do support mothers and the Boys Scouts, but before getting too far into substance, here are some rules of engagement:
This site welcomes any and all comments, regardless of political persuasion, other than words of profanity or libel. Unlike the Lexington Herald-Leader's chopping-block approach to McConnell's letters to the editor, this site prints the substance of reader's comments in their entirety within reason.
There are several reasons for this policy. For one thing, society generally gets better results if all sides have the opportunity to debate vigorously with each other before any action is taken.
That, for example, is why the filibuster is so important for the U.S. Senate: this legislative tool ensures that everyone's views are taken into account. As a result, when a bill is enacted into law, it has broad bipartisan support and does not reflect simply the narrow agenda of the party then in power. That is particularly relevant in today's Senate, in which Democrats hold only a razor-thin majority.
Another, more fundamental, reason why free and open dialogue is important is that it is consistent with the First Amendment. A canard of some of McConnell's critics has been that he is "unpatriotic" because he opposes legislation banning the burning of the American flag. McConnell was also criticized for challenging the constitutionality of so-called campaign finance "reform" legislation. In fact, McConnell's stands on these issues demonstrate that he is a highly principled defender of the First Amendment.
More than any other person on Capitol Hill, McConnell's record with respect to his left-wing critics comports with the statement attributed to Voltaire that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Apropos is McConnell's protection of the rights of free speech for those with whom he strongly disagrees -- whether it be flag burners or, more recently, the left-wing Demo-blogs and the MoveOn.org types who use unregulated, big money to spew forth their froth.
Finally, readers' comments are important because they may, of course, show me or another blogger to be wrong -- or they may prove the points of the blog. The latter outcome happened yesterday. I'll explain in another entry to be posted later.
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 harshest note, from a reader named GUSTO, concluded (verbatim): "Joining the Boys Scouts to stisfy Mommys ego is not been as patriotic as serving voluntarily the ARMED FORCES AND IN COMBAT. "
Whew!
For the record, we do support mothers and the Boys Scouts, but before getting too far into substance, here are some rules of engagement:
This site welcomes any and all comments, regardless of political persuasion, other than words of profanity or libel. Unlike the Lexington Herald-Leader's chopping-block approach to McConnell's letters to the editor, this site prints the substance of reader's comments in their entirety within reason.
There are several reasons for this policy. For one thing, society generally gets better results if all sides have the opportunity to debate vigorously with each other before any action is taken.
That, for example, is why the filibuster is so important for the U.S. Senate: this legislative tool ensures that everyone's views are taken into account. As a result, when a bill is enacted into law, it has broad bipartisan support and does not reflect simply the narrow agenda of the party then in power. That is particularly relevant in today's Senate, in which Democrats hold only a razor-thin majority.
Another, more fundamental, reason why free and open dialogue is important is that it is consistent with the First Amendment. A canard of some of McConnell's critics has been that he is "unpatriotic" because he opposes legislation banning the burning of the American flag. McConnell was also criticized for challenging the constitutionality of so-called campaign finance "reform" legislation. In fact, McConnell's stands on these issues demonstrate that he is a highly principled defender of the First Amendment.
More than any other person on Capitol Hill, McConnell's record with respect to his left-wing critics comports with the statement attributed to Voltaire that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Apropos is McConnell's protection of the rights of free speech for those with whom he strongly disagrees -- whether it be flag burners or, more recently, the left-wing Demo-blogs and the MoveOn.org types who use unregulated, big money to spew forth their froth.
Finally, readers' comments are important because they may, of course, show me or another blogger to be wrong -- or they may prove the points of the blog. The latter outcome happened yesterday. I'll explain in another entry to be posted later.
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.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Filibuster Flip-Flops
Here's a pop quiz (with answers) for left-wing blogger Joe Sonka, who rants at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today for the use of filibusters -- what Sonka calls "the most cynical and selfish of tactics within the Senate":
1. Who wrote the following?
"The filibuster is one of our democracy's oldest and most important checks on the power of the majority. It preserves two of our bedrock values: protecting the rights of the minority and promoting compromise."
Answer: People for the America Way. This organization (which even The New York Times acknowledges is "a liberal group") also wrote: "For two centuries, our leaders have supported the tradition of the filibuster in order to promote cooperation and compromise, and because they have recognized the dangers of one party control and the importance of protecting the rights of the minority."
2. Who wrote the following and on what on-line blog did he write it?
"Do I support a filibuster? The answer is yes."
Answer: Senator John Kerry (D-MA) at dailykos.com (where Sonka's blog is cross-posted today). Kerry and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) were all for the filibuster in a last-ditch effort to defeat the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
3. Who said the following?
"As matters stand now I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forth that would convince me differently."
Answer: Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Neither she nor Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) had any problem with a filibuster in October, when they both sought to block enactment of pending FISA legislation.
4. Who wrote the following?
"There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it."
Answer: The New York Times Editorial Board. The quote comes from an editorial in The New York Times opposing certain proposed anti-terrorism legislation when the Republicans held the majority in the Senate. Last Sunday, however, Times reporter David Herszenhorn bemoaned the filibuster and likely gave Sonka the idea for his piece, which quotes Herszenhorn's article.
Here's a recommendation for Sonka before taking on any new blogging assignments: study those "progressive" sources more.
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.
1. Who wrote the following?
"The filibuster is one of our democracy's oldest and most important checks on the power of the majority. It preserves two of our bedrock values: protecting the rights of the minority and promoting compromise."
Answer: People for the America Way. This organization (which even The New York Times acknowledges is "a liberal group") also wrote: "For two centuries, our leaders have supported the tradition of the filibuster in order to promote cooperation and compromise, and because they have recognized the dangers of one party control and the importance of protecting the rights of the minority."
2. Who wrote the following and on what on-line blog did he write it?
"Do I support a filibuster? The answer is yes."
Answer: Senator John Kerry (D-MA) at dailykos.com (where Sonka's blog is cross-posted today). Kerry and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) were all for the filibuster in a last-ditch effort to defeat the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
3. Who said the following?
"As matters stand now I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forth that would convince me differently."
Answer: Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Neither she nor Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) had any problem with a filibuster in October, when they both sought to block enactment of pending FISA legislation.
4. Who wrote the following?
"There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it."
Answer: The New York Times Editorial Board. The quote comes from an editorial in The New York Times opposing certain proposed anti-terrorism legislation when the Republicans held the majority in the Senate. Last Sunday, however, Times reporter David Herszenhorn bemoaned the filibuster and likely gave Sonka the idea for his piece, which quotes Herszenhorn's article.
Here's a recommendation for Sonka before taking on any new blogging assignments: study those "progressive" sources more.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)