I was recently listening to an interview with a young marine and I was particularly struck by something he said. He was talking about why he had volunteered to serve in Iraq and one of the reasons was that he felt that it was America's job, and therefore his, to help spread freedom to the rest of the world.
That set me to thinking about the parallel between the characteristics of a successful individual and a successful nation. Truly successful individuals are those who looks beyond themselves to help others. Not until we put aside our selfishness and self centeredness can we truly be whole human beings.
This characteristic is also one that has been key reason for the success of our country. We have spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to spread freedom throughout the world. Freedom is America's distinctive competency. If we as a nation horde that freedom and cease the willingness to make those sacrifices necessary to guarantee it for others, we do so to our own detriment.
Friday, January 11, 2008
The Story the C-J Refuses to Cover
Somebody correct me if I've missed it. A few days ago, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell's campaign released new poll numbers that showed him with a 61 percent approval rating and double-digit leads over every conceivable candidate, with the exception of David Hawpe.
Yet I have not seen that story covered in the Courier-Journal, or the Lexington Herald-Leader, or on local television news. National journalists covered it. But the Kentucky dinosaur media ignore it. Sometimes, media bias becomes most evident by the absence of coverage.
Yet I have not seen that story covered in the Courier-Journal, or the Lexington Herald-Leader, or on local television news. National journalists covered it. But the Kentucky dinosaur media ignore it. Sometimes, media bias becomes most evident by the absence of coverage.
Hillary Would Exempt Illegal Aliens With Ovaries
The heat of the Nevada sun is starting to impact Hillary. No, she hasn't cried, but she's advocating an immigration policy that guts the rule of law.
Take this exchange, as reported by a Nevada paper and linked by Drudge:
A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.
"No woman is illegal," Clinton said, to cheers.
This is absolute nonsense. It suggests that in addition to letting illegal aliens -- who happen to be women -- bear their "anchor" babies, we're going to give these women immunity for breaking the law.
It's hard to square Hillary's assertion that "No woman is illegal" with her supposed commitment to "strict but fair enforcement of our laws." Exempting a segment of the population from our immigration laws, based solely on their gender, does not sound fair. It sounds like sex discrimination.
Imagine if a male candidate promised to exempt men from the immigration laws. No secret service agent could protect that man from the wrath of Hillary and her feminist gal-pals.
Take this exchange, as reported by a Nevada paper and linked by Drudge:
A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.
"No woman is illegal," Clinton said, to cheers.
This is absolute nonsense. It suggests that in addition to letting illegal aliens -- who happen to be women -- bear their "anchor" babies, we're going to give these women immunity for breaking the law.
It's hard to square Hillary's assertion that "No woman is illegal" with her supposed commitment to "strict but fair enforcement of our laws." Exempting a segment of the population from our immigration laws, based solely on their gender, does not sound fair. It sounds like sex discrimination.
Imagine if a male candidate promised to exempt men from the immigration laws. No secret service agent could protect that man from the wrath of Hillary and her feminist gal-pals.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Horne Puts Cart Before Horse
Andrew Moveon.Horne has announced that the grand opening of his campaign headquarters will be next Tuesday. But he has yet to file his candidacy with Kentucky's Secretary of State.
The official site for the Secretary of State indicates that the only candidates to file for U.S. Senate thus far are Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, David L. Williams and Michael Cassarao. Williams might be an "embarrassment," and Cassaro might be an "impossibility," as Page One described them, but at least they know how to get on the ballot.
Horne, and any of the rich-guy wannabe senators, have until January 29th to file. Oh, the suspense is just killing me.
The official site for the Secretary of State indicates that the only candidates to file for U.S. Senate thus far are Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, David L. Williams and Michael Cassarao. Williams might be an "embarrassment," and Cassaro might be an "impossibility," as Page One described them, but at least they know how to get on the ballot.
Horne, and any of the rich-guy wannabe senators, have until January 29th to file. Oh, the suspense is just killing me.
Two Ugly Step-candidates Left Out
Page One reports that Andrew Moveon.Horne will appear in Northern Kentucky tonight -- without any of his primary opponents. The Kenton County Democratic Party, which is hosting the meet and greet, thinks that "Mr. Horne is currently the only Democrat who has officially filed to challenge Republican Senator Mitch McConnell in this fall’s general election."
In fact, as the post above shows, the Kenton County Democratic Party has it exactly backwards.
No doubt the ommission hurt the feelings of the other two actual candidates, whom Page One described as "perennial embarrassment David Lynn Williams and impossibility Michael Cassaro." This is what is known as adding insult onto injury.
In fact, as the post above shows, the Kenton County Democratic Party has it exactly backwards.
No doubt the ommission hurt the feelings of the other two actual candidates, whom Page One described as "perennial embarrassment David Lynn Williams and impossibility Michael Cassaro." This is what is known as adding insult onto injury.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
McConnell's Lead Increases to Double Digits
Both parties' presidential primaries continue to shock and amaze us. In Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, however, the trajectory continues upward for Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.
McConnell's campaign released the results of a new poll conducted January 6th through January 8th by Voter/Consumer Research. The results show McConnell beating all candidates -- declared and rumored -- by double digits.
Check out McConnell's approval ratings: 61% approve of McConnell's job performance, and only 29% disapprove. Those are numbers that President Bush and the Congress as a whole must envy.
Here's how a McConnell match-up would look: if the election were held today, McConnell would win 52% to 37% over Bruce Lunsford -- a 15% margin; 53% to 35% over Charlie Owen -- an 18% margin; 54% to 32% over Greg Fischer -- a 22% margin; and 55% to 32% over Andrew Horne -- a 23% margin.
To reiterate for those Demo-blogs so besotted with Andrew Horne that they can't see straight: McConnell would beat Andrew Horne by 23 percent. To be sure, those numbers will narrow if Horne ever runs a real campaign. Nonetheless, that's a formidable gap to overcome.
In addition, Lunsford's numbers show that even though he has thrown good money after bad (more than $ 14 million) in his quest for higher office, his personal fortune can't buy him name ID; 64% still either do not know of Lunsford or have no opinion of him. Those are numbers that should give Charlie Owen and Greg Fischer pause as each contemplates running as the latest rich-guy wannabe senator.
McConnell's campaign released the results of a new poll conducted January 6th through January 8th by Voter/Consumer Research. The results show McConnell beating all candidates -- declared and rumored -- by double digits.
Check out McConnell's approval ratings: 61% approve of McConnell's job performance, and only 29% disapprove. Those are numbers that President Bush and the Congress as a whole must envy.
Here's how a McConnell match-up would look: if the election were held today, McConnell would win 52% to 37% over Bruce Lunsford -- a 15% margin; 53% to 35% over Charlie Owen -- an 18% margin; 54% to 32% over Greg Fischer -- a 22% margin; and 55% to 32% over Andrew Horne -- a 23% margin.
To reiterate for those Demo-blogs so besotted with Andrew Horne that they can't see straight: McConnell would beat Andrew Horne by 23 percent. To be sure, those numbers will narrow if Horne ever runs a real campaign. Nonetheless, that's a formidable gap to overcome.
In addition, Lunsford's numbers show that even though he has thrown good money after bad (more than $ 14 million) in his quest for higher office, his personal fortune can't buy him name ID; 64% still either do not know of Lunsford or have no opinion of him. Those are numbers that should give Charlie Owen and Greg Fischer pause as each contemplates running as the latest rich-guy wannabe senator.
The Crying Game
Nobody channels the Clintons like Maureen Dowd:
There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.
As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”
What's peculiar is how well the tactic worked on those women voters over 65. (I can think of a number of ways to characterize that group, but resist the temptation with the fear that if I do, I won't live to join them.) This group has been driving for roughly half a century. They know first hand that the fastest, easiest way to get out of a speeding ticket is to grow misty-eyed. The prospect of tears intimidates more than the actual crying. Consequently, this group of voters should have been the quickest to spot Hillary's manipulation.
Perhaps the mature women voters sympathized with the Hillary tears that we never saw: those that must have flown every time Hillary learned that the Boy President had cheated on her.
There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.
As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”
What's peculiar is how well the tactic worked on those women voters over 65. (I can think of a number of ways to characterize that group, but resist the temptation with the fear that if I do, I won't live to join them.) This group has been driving for roughly half a century. They know first hand that the fastest, easiest way to get out of a speeding ticket is to grow misty-eyed. The prospect of tears intimidates more than the actual crying. Consequently, this group of voters should have been the quickest to spot Hillary's manipulation.
Perhaps the mature women voters sympathized with the Hillary tears that we never saw: those that must have flown every time Hillary learned that the Boy President had cheated on her.
The More Things Change . . .
Elendil's Journal includes a piece on the Beshear administration's "firing" practices, and notes Democrats get a pass on alleged violations of the law. I'm not holding my breath for Attorney General Jack Conway to investigate. It just reconfirms that Ernie Fletcher's mistakes were endemic to Frankfort; his biggest mistake was promising voters that he could change the culture there.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Feminist Blowhard for Clinton
I wonder if they issued a "stop the presses" order at the New York Times -- not to inform us that Gloria Steinem is supporting Hillary Clinton, but rather to correct Steinem's mistake in her op-ed. (The Grand Dame of Feminism erroneously wrote that Senator Ted Kennedy had endorsed Hillary.)
The Times should have redacted the entire Steinem op-ed, entitled "Women Are Never Frontrunners." But then we would have missed Steinem's explanation of why Barack Obama can overcome racism but Hillary can't overcome feminism:
because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
In sum, Steinem gives us the particular blend of psycho-babble and victimization that epitomizes Old School Feminism.
Steinem's influence on Hillary has been longstanding and not just limited to feminist issues. Indeed, photos of Hillary at Yale and in the years following showed that Hillary aped not only Steinem's rhetoric but also her hair, glasses and style of dress. So it's no surprise that Steinem would support her protege, though her reasoning is startling:
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule.
Oddly, Steinem's only logical point -- that Hillary has more Senate experience than Obama -- is exactly what sunk her in Iowa. And the notion that she obtained "on-the-job training in the White House," as an unelected co-president is beyond "unprecedented": it's undemocratic. But Steinem's most curious rationale for picking Hillary over Obama is her "courage to break the no-tears rule." That point confirms what most suspected: Hillary's weeping was no spontaneous show of heart; it was calculated manipulation.
Steinem correctly concludes that at the end of the day, Obama and Hillary will steer the country in the same direction -- left. They will change government in the same way -- make it bigger and more expensive. "Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time." They may not look alike, but intellectually, Hillary and Obama are twins.
The Times should have redacted the entire Steinem op-ed, entitled "Women Are Never Frontrunners." But then we would have missed Steinem's explanation of why Barack Obama can overcome racism but Hillary can't overcome feminism:
because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
In sum, Steinem gives us the particular blend of psycho-babble and victimization that epitomizes Old School Feminism.
Steinem's influence on Hillary has been longstanding and not just limited to feminist issues. Indeed, photos of Hillary at Yale and in the years following showed that Hillary aped not only Steinem's rhetoric but also her hair, glasses and style of dress. So it's no surprise that Steinem would support her protege, though her reasoning is startling:
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule.
Oddly, Steinem's only logical point -- that Hillary has more Senate experience than Obama -- is exactly what sunk her in Iowa. And the notion that she obtained "on-the-job training in the White House," as an unelected co-president is beyond "unprecedented": it's undemocratic. But Steinem's most curious rationale for picking Hillary over Obama is her "courage to break the no-tears rule." That point confirms what most suspected: Hillary's weeping was no spontaneous show of heart; it was calculated manipulation.
Steinem correctly concludes that at the end of the day, Obama and Hillary will steer the country in the same direction -- left. They will change government in the same way -- make it bigger and more expensive. "Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time." They may not look alike, but intellectually, Hillary and Obama are twins.
Go Obama!
I do not think that there has ever been a time when so many Republicans have been rooting for a Democrat. They are rooting for Obama not because they want him to be President (yikes!), but because they want him to beat Hillary. Hillary's politics may be more palatable than Obama's for many Republicans, but her personality is so repugnant that it transcends philosophical considerations. She is the most arrogant, mean spirited, power hungry, egocentric, patronizing, condescending politician that has come on the scene in sometime. Obama, on the other hand, for all his kooky and ill formed political ideas, seems like a genuine, affable, warm and approachable human being. I hope and pray that we elect a Republican as our next President, but if it has to be a Democrat, many of us will take a human over a Hillary!
Monday, January 7, 2008
Heffalumps and Woozles in the Bluegrass
Despite its being "librul," as Page One Kentucky spells the word, we find that site to be worth checking occasionally, certainly in comparison to the other Kentucky Demo-blogs. Take Page One's literary allusion today (please), when that blog referred to us as "Heffalumps." For those who haven't read A.A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh in a few years, the heffalumps and woozles were phantom animals that gave Pooh nightmares. We can understand why the prospect of conservatives taking to the blogosphere -- as we did with talk radio -- might give the "libruls" nightmares. But if we are the Heffalumps, then who are the "Woozles"?
Not that we mind the link by whatever word pops into their minds. Okay, some words we would mind, but expletives are more the style of the bad boys at DitchMitch & Co. than Page One.
Perhaps we may be attributing too much cleverness to Page One. But as Wikipedia explains, a "heffalump trap" is a term of art in political journalism whereby the person who sets the trap ends up getting caught by it (as happened to Pooh). If the Page One Poohs want to trap the "heffalumps," they should beware.
We like Pooh. We would have a bowl of honey with Pooh. But he shouldn't be running the country. Same for Eyeore and other donkeys.
Not that we mind the link by whatever word pops into their minds. Okay, some words we would mind, but expletives are more the style of the bad boys at DitchMitch & Co. than Page One.
Perhaps we may be attributing too much cleverness to Page One. But as Wikipedia explains, a "heffalump trap" is a term of art in political journalism whereby the person who sets the trap ends up getting caught by it (as happened to Pooh). If the Page One Poohs want to trap the "heffalumps," they should beware.
We like Pooh. We would have a bowl of honey with Pooh. But he shouldn't be running the country. Same for Eyeore and other donkeys.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Opposite Day At The C-J
If we needed another example to show the liberal bias of The Courier-Journal's news reporting, we got it today. The headline of an article written by James R. Carroll was neutral enough ("Campaign-finance watchdog agency in limbo"), but the subheading ("McConnell faulted for obstructionism") and substance of the piece were blatantly slanted against Republicans in general and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in particular.
The story Carroll was covering is that the U.S. Senate has not confirmed four of President Bush's nominees to the six-member Federal Election Commission. National media have correctly reported that the Democratic majority is at fault for the impasse. The Washington Post, for example, noted that the nominations have been "hamstrung for months" by Democrats, and quoted former FEC chairman Bradley Smith, who supports the confirmation of Hans A. von Spakovsky, a recess Republican appointee that draws the ire of critic Fred Wertheimer in Carroll's piece:
"The fact is, in the 21 months that Commissioner von Spakovsky has already served, he has consistently enforced the law while respecting the First Amendment -- something that cannot be said for all his critics," Smith said.
The Democrats have insisted upon confirmation of the President's two Democratic nominees, Robert Lenhard and Steven Walther, who were recommended by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. But the Democrats won't afford reciprocity to both von Spakovsky and David Mason, the Republican nominees, by confirming them also, even though traditionally each political party has deferred to the other party's picks for its own designated commissioner slots.
Essentially, the Democrats want to change the rules and stack the FEC's deck in their favor during this election year. The Republicans, led by McConnell, have rightly resisted this obvious power play and have insisted that all four nominees be confirmed together.
In a remarkable piece of reporting, however, Carroll flips the story. Instead of leading with McConnell's point that the Democrats seek to exercise inordinate control over the FEC, Carroll buries McConnell's position towards the end of the article. Carroll begins the article and devotes his focus to extensive discussion of the views of Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, which Carroll claims is a "non-partisan campaign finance watch-dog."
So just how "non-partisan" is Democracy 21?
According to The Lonely Centrist, Democracy 21 "relies on large donations from," among others, "George Soros's Open Society Institute." We all know how "non-partisan" billionaire George Soros, the patron of the Democratic Left, is.
According to Sourcewatch.org, the chairman of Democracy 21's board of directors is former U.S. Senator Dick Clark, a Democrat. Also on the board are Susan Estrich, who was Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis's campaign manager; and Nick Ucci, who is chief operating officer of People For the American Way, the group formed by Hollywood producer Norman Lear to promote the leftist way. Fred Wertheimer shows no conservative Republican proclivities either, and he is the husband of Linda Wertheimer of National Public Radio, not exactly a conservative talk show, to say the least.
As far as we can tell, Democracy 21 does not have a single conservative Republican on its board or as part of its management. But this group is cited by the C-J as a supposedly unbiased source for the spin that Republicans are engaging in "obstructionism." It's as if the C-J is taking its cue from the Demo-blogs, who appear to be constipated with the word, they mutter it so much when Republicans prevent Democrats from running roughshod.
The lead editorial of the C-J on December 28th called McConnell "The Obstructer"; that was the headline for the editorial. Now the newspaper is spinning its news coverage to give a post hoc justification for its editorial. At least The Washington Post had the integrity to report the story in a way that resembled reality, and nobody has ever accused the Post of being part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy."
The story Carroll was covering is that the U.S. Senate has not confirmed four of President Bush's nominees to the six-member Federal Election Commission. National media have correctly reported that the Democratic majority is at fault for the impasse. The Washington Post, for example, noted that the nominations have been "hamstrung for months" by Democrats, and quoted former FEC chairman Bradley Smith, who supports the confirmation of Hans A. von Spakovsky, a recess Republican appointee that draws the ire of critic Fred Wertheimer in Carroll's piece:
"The fact is, in the 21 months that Commissioner von Spakovsky has already served, he has consistently enforced the law while respecting the First Amendment -- something that cannot be said for all his critics," Smith said.
The Democrats have insisted upon confirmation of the President's two Democratic nominees, Robert Lenhard and Steven Walther, who were recommended by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. But the Democrats won't afford reciprocity to both von Spakovsky and David Mason, the Republican nominees, by confirming them also, even though traditionally each political party has deferred to the other party's picks for its own designated commissioner slots.
Essentially, the Democrats want to change the rules and stack the FEC's deck in their favor during this election year. The Republicans, led by McConnell, have rightly resisted this obvious power play and have insisted that all four nominees be confirmed together.
In a remarkable piece of reporting, however, Carroll flips the story. Instead of leading with McConnell's point that the Democrats seek to exercise inordinate control over the FEC, Carroll buries McConnell's position towards the end of the article. Carroll begins the article and devotes his focus to extensive discussion of the views of Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, which Carroll claims is a "non-partisan campaign finance watch-dog."
So just how "non-partisan" is Democracy 21?
According to The Lonely Centrist, Democracy 21 "relies on large donations from," among others, "George Soros's Open Society Institute." We all know how "non-partisan" billionaire George Soros, the patron of the Democratic Left, is.
According to Sourcewatch.org, the chairman of Democracy 21's board of directors is former U.S. Senator Dick Clark, a Democrat. Also on the board are Susan Estrich, who was Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis's campaign manager; and Nick Ucci, who is chief operating officer of People For the American Way, the group formed by Hollywood producer Norman Lear to promote the leftist way. Fred Wertheimer shows no conservative Republican proclivities either, and he is the husband of Linda Wertheimer of National Public Radio, not exactly a conservative talk show, to say the least.
As far as we can tell, Democracy 21 does not have a single conservative Republican on its board or as part of its management. But this group is cited by the C-J as a supposedly unbiased source for the spin that Republicans are engaging in "obstructionism." It's as if the C-J is taking its cue from the Demo-blogs, who appear to be constipated with the word, they mutter it so much when Republicans prevent Democrats from running roughshod.
The lead editorial of the C-J on December 28th called McConnell "The Obstructer"; that was the headline for the editorial. Now the newspaper is spinning its news coverage to give a post hoc justification for its editorial. At least The Washington Post had the integrity to report the story in a way that resembled reality, and nobody has ever accused the Post of being part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy."
Saturday, January 5, 2008
C-J's "Forum Flashes" Give Me The Vapors
The other "Forum Flashes" in today's Courier Journal were even more annoying than the attack on Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, discussed below. First, the C-J praised Gov. Steve Beshear for appointing former state Rep. Eleanor Jordan executive director of the Commission on Women, then in the second "Flash" characterized as "[b]one-headed" the comments of Bill Stone that "the Commission on Women is another wasteful government department." On the contrary, Stone's remark was right on the (taxpayers') money.
It is ridiculous to be wasting tax dollars on a commission to represent women in Kentucky. The C-J claims that having such a commission will be the panacea for all sorts of so-called feminine ills in the Commonwealth: that "Kentucky women rank 49th in the percentage who have had four years or more of college, 46th in the number of businesses that are women-owned, and 50th in health and well-being."
Here's a thought. How about abolishing this commission and using the money saved to help deal with the budget deficit, or even, return it to the taxpayers of Kentucky, both women and men, so we can use it to, for example, pay for college, start a business, or pay for health care. We surely don't need Eleanor Jordan telling us how to run our lives.
The fallacy of a women's commission is that it assumes that there is a difference between women's issues and men's issues. Women benefit just as much as men from low taxes, a vibrant economy, educational choice, strong national security and the rule of law. To pander to women simply to win their vote is a waste of scarce resources that we cannot afford at a time when Gov. Beshear tells us that we are in such dire straits.
The implicit assumption of a women's commission is that women are too stupid to do the right thing -- apply for jobs, get the training, go to college, get child care -- without having a government commission to spell it out and direct the way. We fundamentally dispute that. We think women are smart enough to know that: give them the money! Give it to them in direct grants without agencies.
Perpetuating state bureaucracy is surely not the answer for Kentucky's women, and contrary to what the C-J asserts, it is not "slightly Stone Age" to suggest abolition of a silly government program for women that appears only to benefit the woman given a job to head it.
It is ridiculous to be wasting tax dollars on a commission to represent women in Kentucky. The C-J claims that having such a commission will be the panacea for all sorts of so-called feminine ills in the Commonwealth: that "Kentucky women rank 49th in the percentage who have had four years or more of college, 46th in the number of businesses that are women-owned, and 50th in health and well-being."
Here's a thought. How about abolishing this commission and using the money saved to help deal with the budget deficit, or even, return it to the taxpayers of Kentucky, both women and men, so we can use it to, for example, pay for college, start a business, or pay for health care. We surely don't need Eleanor Jordan telling us how to run our lives.
The fallacy of a women's commission is that it assumes that there is a difference between women's issues and men's issues. Women benefit just as much as men from low taxes, a vibrant economy, educational choice, strong national security and the rule of law. To pander to women simply to win their vote is a waste of scarce resources that we cannot afford at a time when Gov. Beshear tells us that we are in such dire straits.
The implicit assumption of a women's commission is that women are too stupid to do the right thing -- apply for jobs, get the training, go to college, get child care -- without having a government commission to spell it out and direct the way. We fundamentally dispute that. We think women are smart enough to know that: give them the money! Give it to them in direct grants without agencies.
Perpetuating state bureaucracy is surely not the answer for Kentucky's women, and contrary to what the C-J asserts, it is not "slightly Stone Age" to suggest abolition of a silly government program for women that appears only to benefit the woman given a job to head it.
C-J Engages in "Big-Money, Pay-to-Play Politics"
The Courier-Journal makes a snotty remark about Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in today's "Forum Flashes," at the bottom of its editorial page. The C-J bemoans that McConnell "has raised a 'record-smashing' $11 million for his U.S. Senate re-election effort," calling it "big-money, pay-to-play politics."
It's odd that the C-J would get so worked up about $11 million, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money collected in the coffers of its owner, Gannett Co., Inc. According to Morningstar, Gannett earns revenue of more than $8 billion a year, and gross annual profits of more than $3.5 billion. The New York Times reports that "Gannett's profit margins are among the highest in the industry, at about 30 percent," and although "[i]t is not possible to break out the profits of The Courier-Journal, . . .many regional papers this size are flush with ads and are thriving, particularly compared to the bigger metro dailies."
Compared to profit margins like Gannett's, McConnell's fundraising looks downright paltry.
Coupled with all this big money and profit is the C-J's monopoly status as the only daily newspaper in Louisville. It is likely the only print medium from which most of its approximately 235,000 daily and 321,000 Sunday subscribers get their news and editorials.
The C-J is notoriously liberal and pro-Democratic Party on its editorial pages -- and its news coverage. (Case in point, its pro-library tax series.) Nor is the only other daily newspaper that competes with the C-J, The Lexington Herald-Leader, exactly a bastion of conservatism. Although both newspapers give token space to right-of-center columnists and letters to the editor, they reserve the most ink for their left-wing views.
Consequently, McConnell and other conservatives must raise money just to inform the electorate of their true positions on the issues, because the C-J's coverage is so slanted. And the amount of money that McConnell and other Republicans must raise is directly attributable to the advertising rates set by the C-J and the rest of the liberal media.
If the C-J finds a problem with "big-money, pay-to-play politics," then here's a proposition for it and other liberal media: give up your editorials financed by your billion-dollar corporations first before squawking about $11 million being raised by McConnell to get out his side of the political debate -- through ads that, ironically enough, will ultimately pad the profits of those big media companies that attack him. Or give McConnell free advertising to offset the biased coverage that he has to pay to rebut.
It's odd that the C-J would get so worked up about $11 million, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money collected in the coffers of its owner, Gannett Co., Inc. According to Morningstar, Gannett earns revenue of more than $8 billion a year, and gross annual profits of more than $3.5 billion. The New York Times reports that "Gannett's profit margins are among the highest in the industry, at about 30 percent," and although "[i]t is not possible to break out the profits of The Courier-Journal, . . .many regional papers this size are flush with ads and are thriving, particularly compared to the bigger metro dailies."
Compared to profit margins like Gannett's, McConnell's fundraising looks downright paltry.
Coupled with all this big money and profit is the C-J's monopoly status as the only daily newspaper in Louisville. It is likely the only print medium from which most of its approximately 235,000 daily and 321,000 Sunday subscribers get their news and editorials.
The C-J is notoriously liberal and pro-Democratic Party on its editorial pages -- and its news coverage. (Case in point, its pro-library tax series.) Nor is the only other daily newspaper that competes with the C-J, The Lexington Herald-Leader, exactly a bastion of conservatism. Although both newspapers give token space to right-of-center columnists and letters to the editor, they reserve the most ink for their left-wing views.
Consequently, McConnell and other conservatives must raise money just to inform the electorate of their true positions on the issues, because the C-J's coverage is so slanted. And the amount of money that McConnell and other Republicans must raise is directly attributable to the advertising rates set by the C-J and the rest of the liberal media.
If the C-J finds a problem with "big-money, pay-to-play politics," then here's a proposition for it and other liberal media: give up your editorials financed by your billion-dollar corporations first before squawking about $11 million being raised by McConnell to get out his side of the political debate -- through ads that, ironically enough, will ultimately pad the profits of those big media companies that attack him. Or give McConnell free advertising to offset the biased coverage that he has to pay to rebut.
Friday, January 4, 2008
No, McConnell Doesn't Hate Kids
Undaunted by the facts, John Cheves and the Lexington Herald-Leader have once again taken Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell to task regarding SCHIP, the state child health insurance program. One would think, from reading the piece, that our senior senator grinds the bones of children to make his bread.
First, Cheves asserts that "Bush and congressional Republicans -- led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky -- have blocked expansion of the SCHIP program."
That is not the case. McConnell (unlike Wendell Ford) voted in favor of the original SCHIP bill in 1997. And McConnell has authored legislation, the Kids First Act, to expand SCHIP to cover additional poor children. In fact, the McConnell bill would insure more poor children than the bill supported by the Lexington-Herald and vetoed by the president.
But McConnell and the President correctly recognize that any expansion of SCHIP must be carefully drafted, because not all states use the program to fund insurance for poor children. To the contrary, New York sought to insure families with annual incomes of $82,000. New Jersey, likewise, wants to insure families with incomes of $70,000. And though the program was intended to protect children -- thus the "c" in "SCHIP" -- New Jersey spends half of its SCHIP funds on adults.
As a consequence of abuses by states like New York and New Jersey, the President vetoed legislation that failed to close a number of loopholes.
A point on the numbers: Cheves states that "[i]n 2006, Kentucky's SCHIP program spent $90 million to cover 51,000 children."
McConnell's Kids First Act would provide $161 million to Kentucky children in the SCHIP program (K-CHIP), according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill which the president vetoed, in contrast, would have provided $158 million. So the McConnell bill is actually more generous to Kentucky children than the bill that the Herald-Leader supported.
But the McConnell bill stays true to the original intent of SCHIP -- to provide health insurance for children from families too poor to buy private insurance, but with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid -- and still closes the loopholes exploited by middle-class adults in other states.
Cheves' fallacy is that he confused the intent of SCHIP, which McConnell supports, with the program's actual consequences, particularly the way in which it has been abused. McConnell and the President simply wanted to end the abuse and give the savings to the poor children who legitimately need the insurance.
McConnell's Kids First Act shows that he cares about and wants to help the poor children of Kentucky, but as for those middle-class adults in New Jersey trying to scam the tax-payers, not so much.
First, Cheves asserts that "Bush and congressional Republicans -- led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky -- have blocked expansion of the SCHIP program."
That is not the case. McConnell (unlike Wendell Ford) voted in favor of the original SCHIP bill in 1997. And McConnell has authored legislation, the Kids First Act, to expand SCHIP to cover additional poor children. In fact, the McConnell bill would insure more poor children than the bill supported by the Lexington-Herald and vetoed by the president.
But McConnell and the President correctly recognize that any expansion of SCHIP must be carefully drafted, because not all states use the program to fund insurance for poor children. To the contrary, New York sought to insure families with annual incomes of $82,000. New Jersey, likewise, wants to insure families with incomes of $70,000. And though the program was intended to protect children -- thus the "c" in "SCHIP" -- New Jersey spends half of its SCHIP funds on adults.
As a consequence of abuses by states like New York and New Jersey, the President vetoed legislation that failed to close a number of loopholes.
A point on the numbers: Cheves states that "[i]n 2006, Kentucky's SCHIP program spent $90 million to cover 51,000 children."
McConnell's Kids First Act would provide $161 million to Kentucky children in the SCHIP program (K-CHIP), according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill which the president vetoed, in contrast, would have provided $158 million. So the McConnell bill is actually more generous to Kentucky children than the bill that the Herald-Leader supported.
But the McConnell bill stays true to the original intent of SCHIP -- to provide health insurance for children from families too poor to buy private insurance, but with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid -- and still closes the loopholes exploited by middle-class adults in other states.
Cheves' fallacy is that he confused the intent of SCHIP, which McConnell supports, with the program's actual consequences, particularly the way in which it has been abused. McConnell and the President simply wanted to end the abuse and give the savings to the poor children who legitimately need the insurance.
McConnell's Kids First Act shows that he cares about and wants to help the poor children of Kentucky, but as for those middle-class adults in New Jersey trying to scam the tax-payers, not so much.
Iowa Wrap-up
Peggy Noonan has the best analysis of the Iowa caucuses.
I was disappointed, frankly. Huckabee only brings one leg of the Reagan coalition's three-legged stool. He is not a fiscal conservative. His ignorance of foreign policy would threaten our national security. Yes, evangelicals like this Baptist preacher, but even that puzzles me: he displays a recurring viciousness that undermines his witness, to say the least.
On the Democratic side, it was fun to watch Hillary get schooled. I just wish it had been in the general election.
I was disappointed, frankly. Huckabee only brings one leg of the Reagan coalition's three-legged stool. He is not a fiscal conservative. His ignorance of foreign policy would threaten our national security. Yes, evangelicals like this Baptist preacher, but even that puzzles me: he displays a recurring viciousness that undermines his witness, to say the least.
On the Democratic side, it was fun to watch Hillary get schooled. I just wish it had been in the general election.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Fischer's FEC Blunder
Page One recounts that Greg Fischer, the latest rich-guy who wants to take on Mitch McConnell, has already run afoul of federal campaign laws.
On Christmas Eve, Fischer sent out an email -- on his Dant Clayton corporate email account -- requesting resumes to serve as campaign finance staff. Here's the problem:
conducting campaign business via a corporate email account on corporate equipment is a violation of campaign finance law. That sort of activity? It’s considered a corporate contribution and doesn’t fly with the FEC.
Candidates for the finance positions, moreover, were directed to send their resumes to an employee of Fischer's corporation at its offices.
It brings back memories of Greg Stumbo failing to comply with federal election law when he flirted with running for McConnell's seat.
Here's Page One's clincher:
Not exactly a great way to get a campaign off the ground, is it? Being a wealthy, Republican-light self-funder trying his level best to alienate the core of the Democratic Party just doesn’t seem to be enough for Fischer.
Ouch!
On Christmas Eve, Fischer sent out an email -- on his Dant Clayton corporate email account -- requesting resumes to serve as campaign finance staff. Here's the problem:
conducting campaign business via a corporate email account on corporate equipment is a violation of campaign finance law. That sort of activity? It’s considered a corporate contribution and doesn’t fly with the FEC.
Candidates for the finance positions, moreover, were directed to send their resumes to an employee of Fischer's corporation at its offices.
It brings back memories of Greg Stumbo failing to comply with federal election law when he flirted with running for McConnell's seat.
Here's Page One's clincher:
Not exactly a great way to get a campaign off the ground, is it? Being a wealthy, Republican-light self-funder trying his level best to alienate the core of the Democratic Party just doesn’t seem to be enough for Fischer.
Ouch!
Rambo and the Comeback Congress
Check out the Washington Times' piece on how all the Democrats' predictions of doom -- on the economy and Iraq, in particular -- came to naught.
As David Lambro writes, "rarely has a minority party shown so much unity or beaten an incoming majority so soundly, or a lame-duck president shown more resilience on so many big showdown battles."
Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell deserves considerable credit for the GOP's strategy and unity, and for keeping the party focused despite a slew of ugly TV ads.
It was a remarkable record of achievement by a president who was all but written off by the pundits as an irrelevant chief executive in the twilight of his last term. But Mr. Bush reinvented himself as a veto-happy gunslinger who was not going to be pushed around by Congress — mounting a nonstop counteroffensive that kept the Democrats in retreat.
Based on their inability to govern, and relentless attempts to increase taxes and nationalize health care, Democrats' prospects for '08 look increasingly bleak.
As David Lambro writes, "rarely has a minority party shown so much unity or beaten an incoming majority so soundly, or a lame-duck president shown more resilience on so many big showdown battles."
Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell deserves considerable credit for the GOP's strategy and unity, and for keeping the party focused despite a slew of ugly TV ads.
It was a remarkable record of achievement by a president who was all but written off by the pundits as an irrelevant chief executive in the twilight of his last term. But Mr. Bush reinvented himself as a veto-happy gunslinger who was not going to be pushed around by Congress — mounting a nonstop counteroffensive that kept the Democrats in retreat.
Based on their inability to govern, and relentless attempts to increase taxes and nationalize health care, Democrats' prospects for '08 look increasingly bleak.
Who Needs Screenwriters With Talent Like This Running For President?
Baptist theology thrives on giving a person a second chance, and Mike Huckabee may have garnered one yesterday evening on the Tonight Show. Also, Jay Leno proved himself to be funnier writing the jokes himself without the Writers Guild of America. (So funny that, after the broadcast, the union said it "was withholding comment until it spoke to Leno about his show.")
Except for one quick pot shot about Mitt Romney needing a bath (which drew zilcho laughs), Huckabee repositioned himself (with Leno, at least) as a likable, affable candidate who can play the electric bass (better than Bill Clinton plays the saxophone, we might add) and talk tax policy with a non-expert as well as anyone. (Huck must have thanked the heavens that Leno asked him no foreign policy questions.)
Huckabee preached effectively what should separate Republicans from Democrats: taxes. He reminded America that the former want to lower them, while the latter want them to go the other direction -- even if in practice, with all due respect to the Bluegrass Warriors, it didn't always work out that way when he was Governor of Arkansas.
Huck also made a convincing case against fried food that would make the Colonel (as in Sanders, not Andrew Horne) roll in his grave. The fit-and-trim candidate rested his case when Leno showed a clip from a few years back when Huckabee was on the show wearing 110 pounds more and a bright yellow shirt that, with Huck's grin, made him look like the Wal-Mart smiley face about to roll back prices. It was yet another reminder of why Hillary made sure she had resigned from the Wal-Mart board of directors before she ran for President.
Whether the performance was enough to stem the blood loss in Iowa (alluded to by Huckabee on the show) will be known later today. It will be fascinating to learn whether Jay Leno has more influence on Iowa Republicans than does Rush Limbaugh, who yesterday excoriated the non-conservative aspects of Huckabee's tenure in Arkansas. My bet is that Limbaugh beats Leno in those ratings, but Huckabee may have more talent as an entertainer than both of them combined.
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.
Except for one quick pot shot about Mitt Romney needing a bath (which drew zilcho laughs), Huckabee repositioned himself (with Leno, at least) as a likable, affable candidate who can play the electric bass (better than Bill Clinton plays the saxophone, we might add) and talk tax policy with a non-expert as well as anyone. (Huck must have thanked the heavens that Leno asked him no foreign policy questions.)
Huckabee preached effectively what should separate Republicans from Democrats: taxes. He reminded America that the former want to lower them, while the latter want them to go the other direction -- even if in practice, with all due respect to the Bluegrass Warriors, it didn't always work out that way when he was Governor of Arkansas.
Huck also made a convincing case against fried food that would make the Colonel (as in Sanders, not Andrew Horne) roll in his grave. The fit-and-trim candidate rested his case when Leno showed a clip from a few years back when Huckabee was on the show wearing 110 pounds more and a bright yellow shirt that, with Huck's grin, made him look like the Wal-Mart smiley face about to roll back prices. It was yet another reminder of why Hillary made sure she had resigned from the Wal-Mart board of directors before she ran for President.
Whether the performance was enough to stem the blood loss in Iowa (alluded to by Huckabee on the show) will be known later today. It will be fascinating to learn whether Jay Leno has more influence on Iowa Republicans than does Rush Limbaugh, who yesterday excoriated the non-conservative aspects of Huckabee's tenure in Arkansas. My bet is that Limbaugh beats Leno in those ratings, but Huckabee may have more talent as an entertainer than both of them combined.
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, January 2, 2008
Huckabee Walks (Across) The Line
Maybe on his plane trip to California, Mike Huckabee has been listening to another famous Arkie, Johnny Cash, singing "I Walk The Line." Hillary surely has not.
The New York Times reports that Huckabee had no idea that he will be crossing a picket line to appear on the Tonight Show. Hugh Hewitt's radio show just speculated that news of the screenwriters' strike must have been reported on the same day as the National Intelligence Estimate of Iran's nuclear capabilities -- the day when Huckabee apparently didn't read the paper.
Hillary is guilty of many things (see the post immediately below, for example), but leaving The New York Times unread is not one of them. So she obviously knew about the strike and has done the politically correct thing, Politico.com reports: tape a cameo appearance for the beginning of the David Letterman show. Hillary's late-night pitch for votes (unlike Huckabee's) will involve no crossing of union lines because Letterman (unlike Jay Leno) has struck a deal with his screenwriters.
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 New York Times reports that Huckabee had no idea that he will be crossing a picket line to appear on the Tonight Show. Hugh Hewitt's radio show just speculated that news of the screenwriters' strike must have been reported on the same day as the National Intelligence Estimate of Iran's nuclear capabilities -- the day when Huckabee apparently didn't read the paper.
Hillary is guilty of many things (see the post immediately below, for example), but leaving The New York Times unread is not one of them. So she obviously knew about the strike and has done the politically correct thing, Politico.com reports: tape a cameo appearance for the beginning of the David Letterman show. Hillary's late-night pitch for votes (unlike Huckabee's) will involve no crossing of union lines because Letterman (unlike Jay Leno) has struck a deal with his screenwriters.
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)