Jefferson Poole suffered through Andrew Horne's live bloggging on Firedoglake, and provides us this Horne quote:
Who would Daniel Boone vote for? Daniel Boone would kick Mitch McConnell’s ass. But hell, Colonel Sanders could kick his ass.
Is it really asking too much for a would-be candidate for U.S. Senate to use language that doesn't sound like he copied it down from the stall of a middle school boys' room? Is this how Horne speaks to his Sunday School class?
As to the merits, given a chance, Daniel Boone wouldn't want to fight Mitch McConnell. To the contrary, Daniel Boone likely would thank McConnell for getting federal funds for the park that honors Boone's legacy, the Daniel Boone National Forest.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Archbishop of Canterbury: Sharia Law Rocks!
From the country that gave us the Magna Carta and C.S. Lewis, the Archbishop of Canterbury has called for sharia law to be given equal treatment with the English common law (upon which American law is based).
The Evening Standard, via Drudge reports that Dr. Rowan Williams:
declared that sharia and Parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives.
This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorce for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest.
This is just an extension of the moral relativism that has metastasized within the Episcopal Church (which still reports to the Archbishop, at least until the Anglican Communion kicks out its U.S. branch).
Moreover, the Archbishop has been seduced by the radical calls for equality, tolerance and multiculturalism -- platitudes that taken to their illogical extremes compel the conclusion that it is intolerant and judgmental to submit that English law, based on Judeo-Christian precepts, is superior to sharia law.
The Archbishop's view that sharia law is just as valid in England as English law flows from another trend within the modern church and liberalism: a refusal to acknowledge that words have plain meaning. That's an important premise, because it supports interpretations of scripture -- or constitutions -- that allow the words to "evolve" to satisfy the latest whim. God help us.
The Evening Standard, via Drudge reports that Dr. Rowan Williams:
declared that sharia and Parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives.
This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorce for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest.
This is just an extension of the moral relativism that has metastasized within the Episcopal Church (which still reports to the Archbishop, at least until the Anglican Communion kicks out its U.S. branch).
Moreover, the Archbishop has been seduced by the radical calls for equality, tolerance and multiculturalism -- platitudes that taken to their illogical extremes compel the conclusion that it is intolerant and judgmental to submit that English law, based on Judeo-Christian precepts, is superior to sharia law.
The Archbishop's view that sharia law is just as valid in England as English law flows from another trend within the modern church and liberalism: a refusal to acknowledge that words have plain meaning. That's an important premise, because it supports interpretations of scripture -- or constitutions -- that allow the words to "evolve" to satisfy the latest whim. God help us.
Beshear Is Special Election's Real Loser
Lost amidst the chaos of Super Tuesday was a Republican victory in a special election for the Kentucky Senate's 30th district, vacated by Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo. Republican Brandon Smith beat Democrat Scott Alexander 52.3 to 47.7 percent.
That increases GOP control of the Senate -- notwithstanding Gov. Steve Beshear's and Mongiardo's continual campaigning for Alexander. Look to this race as bellweather for this November and beyond. The implications of this victory, in both the short and long term, cannot be overstated.
How the Beshear machine ran the race in the 30th reveals that at a critical juncture at the very start of his administration, Beshear took the wrong road. And it wasn't the high road.
The Demo-blogs, to their credit, did not try to spin the results, and were very pointed in their assessment of where the blame lies.
From Page One:
Eastern Kentucky is pissed. Way to go, KDP. Let’s tout the merits of Democrats in a press release now that we’ve had our rears handed to us on a silver gubernatorial airplane platter.
That's an allusion to the scandal that Beshear caused by campaigning for the special election in the state plane.
Blue Grass Roots blamed Beshear and KDP:
Well, the KDP officially choked in the 30th Dist. special election for state senate. What should have been a win instead turned into an embarrassing loss.
And what brought about this loss? Well, it was Steve Beshear and the KDP butting in to install their favored candidate, all the while pissing off Democrats in the 30th to the point that they were divided enough to give the race to Republicans.
Mongiardo's assertion that the loss was not a setback for the Beshear administration is belied by the facts, as Elendil's Journal noted:
Remember this is a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1. Even with party registration and the full power of the sitting governor, Beshear's hand picked candidate lost the race. I would have to think the results of such a race is a big deal. The consequences of which will probably derail his casino plans. The pressure on senators to vote against gaming has been relieved.
And as for Beshear's skill at hand-picking a candidate like an old-time party boss, turns out he's not so good at that either. (Take note, Bruce Lunsford.)
Mark Hebert and Elendil are clearly correct that casinos are a dead-letter, at least for now. But more important are the implications for this November. In a year that's supposed to usher in a tsunami of Democrats, they lost a district where they outregistered Republicans two to one -- notwithstanding high turnout.
Beshear's endorsement meant nothing; all his campaigning bore no fruit, and in fact, may have hurt his candidate, particularly given the controversy about the use of the state plane. Mongiardo stumped his old district every day for two weeks leading up to the election, but to no avail. By making the special election about their new administration, Beshear and Mongiardo are the real losers. The inescapable implication is that Beshear's election last November was solely a repudiation of Ernie Fletcher, and in no way an endorsement of or mandate for Beshear and Mongiardo.
The win also assures that Williams will have a Republican majority in the State Senate for the next three years. That, in turn, gives Williams a platform to raise funds for districts that Republicans would have written off but a week ago before the special election.
This election reveals a major strategic misstep by Beshear. He had a choice to make, and he chose badly. Having ran an upbeat campaign to represent all Kentuckians, he refused to meet with David Williams -- who was more than happy to work with the Governor-elect -- until people started discussing the snub.
Instead of working with Williams to actually get things done, Beshear and his minions ran a negative ad about Williams in the 30th district. As an election strategy, it didn't even make any sense. The 30th district residents don't know Williams from Adam. And as a way to develop good will and bipartisan cooperation, it was meanspirited and unproductive.
The Beshear administration really looks no different than the Fletcher administration. For all his talk about being a candidate of change, Beshear reverted to the old-style way of running Frankfort; botched hirings and firings; threats of cancelled contracts; appointments of recycled pols; freezing out the media; and lots of bravado. Voters repudiated this style of governance when they ousted Fletcher, and by replicating it, Beshear has set himself on the path to replicate Fletcher's defeat, as well.
That increases GOP control of the Senate -- notwithstanding Gov. Steve Beshear's and Mongiardo's continual campaigning for Alexander. Look to this race as bellweather for this November and beyond. The implications of this victory, in both the short and long term, cannot be overstated.
How the Beshear machine ran the race in the 30th reveals that at a critical juncture at the very start of his administration, Beshear took the wrong road. And it wasn't the high road.
The Demo-blogs, to their credit, did not try to spin the results, and were very pointed in their assessment of where the blame lies.
From Page One:
Eastern Kentucky is pissed. Way to go, KDP. Let’s tout the merits of Democrats in a press release now that we’ve had our rears handed to us on a silver gubernatorial airplane platter.
That's an allusion to the scandal that Beshear caused by campaigning for the special election in the state plane.
Blue Grass Roots blamed Beshear and KDP:
Well, the KDP officially choked in the 30th Dist. special election for state senate. What should have been a win instead turned into an embarrassing loss.
And what brought about this loss? Well, it was Steve Beshear and the KDP butting in to install their favored candidate, all the while pissing off Democrats in the 30th to the point that they were divided enough to give the race to Republicans.
Mongiardo's assertion that the loss was not a setback for the Beshear administration is belied by the facts, as Elendil's Journal noted:
Remember this is a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1. Even with party registration and the full power of the sitting governor, Beshear's hand picked candidate lost the race. I would have to think the results of such a race is a big deal. The consequences of which will probably derail his casino plans. The pressure on senators to vote against gaming has been relieved.
And as for Beshear's skill at hand-picking a candidate like an old-time party boss, turns out he's not so good at that either. (Take note, Bruce Lunsford.)
Mark Hebert and Elendil are clearly correct that casinos are a dead-letter, at least for now. But more important are the implications for this November. In a year that's supposed to usher in a tsunami of Democrats, they lost a district where they outregistered Republicans two to one -- notwithstanding high turnout.
Beshear's endorsement meant nothing; all his campaigning bore no fruit, and in fact, may have hurt his candidate, particularly given the controversy about the use of the state plane. Mongiardo stumped his old district every day for two weeks leading up to the election, but to no avail. By making the special election about their new administration, Beshear and Mongiardo are the real losers. The inescapable implication is that Beshear's election last November was solely a repudiation of Ernie Fletcher, and in no way an endorsement of or mandate for Beshear and Mongiardo.
The win also assures that Williams will have a Republican majority in the State Senate for the next three years. That, in turn, gives Williams a platform to raise funds for districts that Republicans would have written off but a week ago before the special election.
This election reveals a major strategic misstep by Beshear. He had a choice to make, and he chose badly. Having ran an upbeat campaign to represent all Kentuckians, he refused to meet with David Williams -- who was more than happy to work with the Governor-elect -- until people started discussing the snub.
Instead of working with Williams to actually get things done, Beshear and his minions ran a negative ad about Williams in the 30th district. As an election strategy, it didn't even make any sense. The 30th district residents don't know Williams from Adam. And as a way to develop good will and bipartisan cooperation, it was meanspirited and unproductive.
The Beshear administration really looks no different than the Fletcher administration. For all his talk about being a candidate of change, Beshear reverted to the old-style way of running Frankfort; botched hirings and firings; threats of cancelled contracts; appointments of recycled pols; freezing out the media; and lots of bravado. Voters repudiated this style of governance when they ousted Fletcher, and by replicating it, Beshear has set himself on the path to replicate Fletcher's defeat, as well.
Message to all Romniacs
"John McCain?....that maverick no good, backslidin', Liberal lovin', son-of-a......excuse me sir, but Mitt Romney just quit the race...What? Huh? Er...John McCain?...why he is a great patriot, a fine conservative and he will make a GREAT President!"
Message to all Romniacs: grieve for 15 seconds and then get over it! You may hate McCain, but as of today he became the Republican nominee for President. All conservatives now need to put their differences aside and get behind him 100%. If you are hesitant to do this, just close your eyes for a moment and imagine the alternative, i.e. Mrs. Bill Clinton or Barack. When you do this, your hate should turn to love fairly quickly!
Message to all Romniacs: grieve for 15 seconds and then get over it! You may hate McCain, but as of today he became the Republican nominee for President. All conservatives now need to put their differences aside and get behind him 100%. If you are hesitant to do this, just close your eyes for a moment and imagine the alternative, i.e. Mrs. Bill Clinton or Barack. When you do this, your hate should turn to love fairly quickly!
McConnell Wins on Stimulus Package
The Senate Democrats have folded -- again. Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has out-maneuvered Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid to pass the stimulus package that the House previously had passed with bipartisan support. That means that Americans will get the help they need without all the goodies for illegal aliens and the like that the Senate Democrats had tried to add.
Nor can McConnell be blamed for "obstructing" anything. After all, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed McConnell's approach to the stimulus package, which would add rebates for disabled veterans, widows and the elderly, but not illegal immigrants. Pelosi, however, was silent on all the add-ons that Reid proposed. Notwithstanding Reid's attempt to play Santa, bipartisan cooperation prevailed as a direct result of McConnell's and Pelosi's leadership, and now Americans can get their rebate checks in a timely manner.
Nor can McConnell be blamed for "obstructing" anything. After all, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed McConnell's approach to the stimulus package, which would add rebates for disabled veterans, widows and the elderly, but not illegal immigrants. Pelosi, however, was silent on all the add-ons that Reid proposed. Notwithstanding Reid's attempt to play Santa, bipartisan cooperation prevailed as a direct result of McConnell's and Pelosi's leadership, and now Americans can get their rebate checks in a timely manner.
Romney's Out
Mitt Romney is reportedly going to suspend his campaign, for the good of the party. Two days ago, WHAS 11 had trouble finding anyone who would admit to being a McCain supporter. Now we're all McCain supporters.
We've just lost the only candidate who is even close to being a conservative. What a sad state of affairs when a candidate can't win because he is too handsome, too articulate, too successful, too decent and too rich. It seems that the politically correct movement to bolster our self-esteem didn't work.
We've just lost the only candidate who is even close to being a conservative. What a sad state of affairs when a candidate can't win because he is too handsome, too articulate, too successful, too decent and too rich. It seems that the politically correct movement to bolster our self-esteem didn't work.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The Right To Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
In an op-ed in today's Courier-Journal, Edward T. "Ned" Bonnie makes an impassioned plea for adoption of "The Fair Elections Now Act", which is sponsored by Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). No doubt Bonnie truly believes, as he contends, that public financing of elections "would create a level playing field for all candidates and give ordinary people a stake in the financing of elections." But good intentions do not always make for good public policy and constitutional laws.
One of the central problems with Bonnie's argument is that the Specter and Durbin bill, if enacted, would indeed give us "ordinary people a stake in the financing of elections", but it is a stake we shouldn't want: namely, being coerced by the government to pay with our tax dollars for the campaign speech of candidates with whom we disagree.
Nor should we want the "level playing field for all candidates" that Bonnie apparently envisions: namely, government bureaucrats determining which candidates have too much financial support and redistributing taxpayer money to "worthy" candidates who haven't been able to attract sufficient campaign contributions the old-fashioned way.
Bonnie says he "fundamentally disagree[s], as a lawyer and a citizen, with the notion that how much money one has or can raise determines their political worth." But how is that we, in a capitalist system, usually determine the value of something? By how much we are willing to pay for it, of course. And there is nothing wrong with that. How much voters are willing to contribute to a candidate is a direct reflection of how strongly they support that candidate, just as how much we are willing to pay for an automobile shows how badly we want to drive that automobile.
Indeed, the fact that Senator Barack Obama is raising record amounts of money for his campaign while Senator Hillary Clinton is having to loan $5 million to hers speaks volumes as to where the momentum has swung in the Democratic presidential nomination process. The money count for those respective candidates sends a loud and clear message as to their level of support by the electorate. It tells us the extent to which voters are willing to put their money where their candidate's mouth is. Surely that counts for speech as much as does Bonnie's op-ed piece, for example.
Furthermore, Bonnie's contention that too much is spent on political campaigns simply doesn't square with the facts put in proper perspective. We just witnessed the most-watched Super Bowl in history, during which companies shelled out millions of dollars per advertisement to hawk everything from beer to laundry detergent. The amount of money spent on such commercial speech dwarfs the relatively paltry amounts spent on political speech by candidates running for office. For instance, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's $9 million-plus campaign war chest would buy maybe 3-4 Super Bowl ads.
We all should agree that political campaigns are more important than the Super Bowl -- even darn good games like the one played Sunday night. Shouldn't we pay more attention to who we elect to political office than which beer we buy? So why shouldn't more money, not less, be spent on political speech, given how much is spent by advertisers on commercial speech?
And what's wrong with having political speech financed entirely through private voluntary contributions, so long as there is transparency in the process through full disclosure of donors? It surely beats forcing taxpayers to pay for it. Moreover, the knowledge of who financially supports whom and for how much gives a voter insight as to whether his or her interests are aligned with a particular candidate.
Wealth is scattered so broadly in this country, and held by so many different people of diverse political viewpoints, that there is no danger of one mainstream political ideology unfairly having an upper hand in the raising of funds for political campaigns. And a moneyed candidate devoid of many good ideas cannot "buy" an election: just ask Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who flopped as a presidential candidate despite having raised tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
In the end, the "ordinary people" whom Bonnie seeks to protect have constitutional rights to contribute to political campaigns and run for political office through funds collected from other "ordinary people". I, for one, don't want to lose those rights through legislation passed by incumbent politicians that would seriously undermine the ability of "ordinary people" to challenge those incumbents in future elections, and force "ordinary people" like me to pay for other people's speech.
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.
One of the central problems with Bonnie's argument is that the Specter and Durbin bill, if enacted, would indeed give us "ordinary people a stake in the financing of elections", but it is a stake we shouldn't want: namely, being coerced by the government to pay with our tax dollars for the campaign speech of candidates with whom we disagree.
Nor should we want the "level playing field for all candidates" that Bonnie apparently envisions: namely, government bureaucrats determining which candidates have too much financial support and redistributing taxpayer money to "worthy" candidates who haven't been able to attract sufficient campaign contributions the old-fashioned way.
Bonnie says he "fundamentally disagree[s], as a lawyer and a citizen, with the notion that how much money one has or can raise determines their political worth." But how is that we, in a capitalist system, usually determine the value of something? By how much we are willing to pay for it, of course. And there is nothing wrong with that. How much voters are willing to contribute to a candidate is a direct reflection of how strongly they support that candidate, just as how much we are willing to pay for an automobile shows how badly we want to drive that automobile.
Indeed, the fact that Senator Barack Obama is raising record amounts of money for his campaign while Senator Hillary Clinton is having to loan $5 million to hers speaks volumes as to where the momentum has swung in the Democratic presidential nomination process. The money count for those respective candidates sends a loud and clear message as to their level of support by the electorate. It tells us the extent to which voters are willing to put their money where their candidate's mouth is. Surely that counts for speech as much as does Bonnie's op-ed piece, for example.
Furthermore, Bonnie's contention that too much is spent on political campaigns simply doesn't square with the facts put in proper perspective. We just witnessed the most-watched Super Bowl in history, during which companies shelled out millions of dollars per advertisement to hawk everything from beer to laundry detergent. The amount of money spent on such commercial speech dwarfs the relatively paltry amounts spent on political speech by candidates running for office. For instance, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's $9 million-plus campaign war chest would buy maybe 3-4 Super Bowl ads.
We all should agree that political campaigns are more important than the Super Bowl -- even darn good games like the one played Sunday night. Shouldn't we pay more attention to who we elect to political office than which beer we buy? So why shouldn't more money, not less, be spent on political speech, given how much is spent by advertisers on commercial speech?
And what's wrong with having political speech financed entirely through private voluntary contributions, so long as there is transparency in the process through full disclosure of donors? It surely beats forcing taxpayers to pay for it. Moreover, the knowledge of who financially supports whom and for how much gives a voter insight as to whether his or her interests are aligned with a particular candidate.
Wealth is scattered so broadly in this country, and held by so many different people of diverse political viewpoints, that there is no danger of one mainstream political ideology unfairly having an upper hand in the raising of funds for political campaigns. And a moneyed candidate devoid of many good ideas cannot "buy" an election: just ask Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who flopped as a presidential candidate despite having raised tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
In the end, the "ordinary people" whom Bonnie seeks to protect have constitutional rights to contribute to political campaigns and run for political office through funds collected from other "ordinary people". I, for one, don't want to lose those rights through legislation passed by incumbent politicians that would seriously undermine the ability of "ordinary people" to challenge those incumbents in future elections, and force "ordinary people" like me to pay for other people's speech.
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.
Ditch Mitch Goes Global
Ditch Mitch has conceded that it is facing an "uphill battle" to defeat Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. It is simply too big a task for this fringe of the "progressive movement" in Kentucky.
So it is has sent out an international distress signal. Specifically, the Demo-bloggers have launched a "Global McConnellism Awareness Initiative (GMAI)":
Towards that end, we have gone about recruiting and enlisting a small army of young and emerging scholars from around the world. They come from China, France, Germany, Iran, South Africa, Brazil, Greece, India, and Russia. They are all accomplished, highly educated, and well-connected.
Wow! That sounds even scarier than the Trilateral Commission. This is the danger of buying your kid a Eurail pass.
Who knew Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who has his own blog -- is a Ditch Mitch fan?
Here's the plan:
The first phase we’ll be launching will center on inserting McConnell and themes of McConnellism into the comments of high-traffic blogs and websites across the globe and all that conversation will take place in the vernacular.
So the net result will be that left-wing loons will now curse McConnell in a variety of foreign tongues -- sort of like the "Welcome" sign at Standiford "International" Airport. With any luck, Ditch Mitch may qualify for a United Nations grant.
Too bad for the Ditch-Mitch folks that their "young and emerging scholars" are not Kentucky voters. We may give the vote to ex-felons, but we are not giving it to the Chinese, French and Iranians -- at least until the dawn of the one-world government.
So it is has sent out an international distress signal. Specifically, the Demo-bloggers have launched a "Global McConnellism Awareness Initiative (GMAI)":
Towards that end, we have gone about recruiting and enlisting a small army of young and emerging scholars from around the world. They come from China, France, Germany, Iran, South Africa, Brazil, Greece, India, and Russia. They are all accomplished, highly educated, and well-connected.
Wow! That sounds even scarier than the Trilateral Commission. This is the danger of buying your kid a Eurail pass.
Who knew Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who has his own blog -- is a Ditch Mitch fan?
Here's the plan:
The first phase we’ll be launching will center on inserting McConnell and themes of McConnellism into the comments of high-traffic blogs and websites across the globe and all that conversation will take place in the vernacular.
So the net result will be that left-wing loons will now curse McConnell in a variety of foreign tongues -- sort of like the "Welcome" sign at Standiford "International" Airport. With any luck, Ditch Mitch may qualify for a United Nations grant.
Too bad for the Ditch-Mitch folks that their "young and emerging scholars" are not Kentucky voters. We may give the vote to ex-felons, but we are not giving it to the Chinese, French and Iranians -- at least until the dawn of the one-world government.
Republicans Do The Right Thing; Democrats Do Not
When one considers Super Tuesday's results in light of the latest poll numbers for head-to-head match-ups of potential Republican nominees versus Democratic nominees, it appears that (at least judging by ability to win in November) Republicans are voting like smart individuals and Democrats are voting like, well, Democrats.
Setting aside discussion of the substantive positions of the respective candidates, an objective observer would say based on current polling that (1) of the three remaining major candidates on the Republican side, Sen. John McCain has the best chance of beating a Democrat in the general election; and (2) of the two remaining major Democratic candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton has the least chance of beating the Republican nominee.
So, if the goal for each party is to increase the probability of its nominating a candidate who, based on poll numbers, has the best chance of winning the White House, then the Republicans did the right thing yesterday and the Democrats did not.
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.
Setting aside discussion of the substantive positions of the respective candidates, an objective observer would say based on current polling that (1) of the three remaining major candidates on the Republican side, Sen. John McCain has the best chance of beating a Democrat in the general election; and (2) of the two remaining major Democratic candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton has the least chance of beating the Republican nominee.
So, if the goal for each party is to increase the probability of its nominating a candidate who, based on poll numbers, has the best chance of winning the White House, then the Republicans did the right thing yesterday and the Democrats did not.
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, February 5, 2008
Demo-blogs Misquote McConnell
Several of the Demo-blogs have been claiming this week that Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell described Anne Northup and Ernie Fletcher as "casualties of the Iraq war" because they lost elections last year.
The McConnell website released the audio from the event at which the senator supposedly made the statement, and it confirms that he said no such thing. Listen to the audio and verify this for yourself.
What's fascinating is how the story "evolved" once the Demo-blogs got hold of it. Bob White, a reporter at the News-Enterprise wrote:
Describing the party’s 2006 loss of Congressional District Rep. Anne Northup and last year’s loss of Republican Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher as casualties of the Iraq war, McConnell said he’s optimistic Republicans will hold the 2nd congressional district seat left up for grabs with the announcement of Rep. Ron Lewis’, R-Cecilia, retirement.
Note that White purports to paraphrase McConnell (albeit erroneously). He does not quote McConnell as characterizing Northup and Fletcher as casualties of the Iraq war.
But when Demo-blogs Bluegrass Roots and DitchMitch report the story, they give the impression that the supposed remark about the war was a direct quote from McConnell. Note in particular the headline:
McConnell: Northup, Fletcher are "casualties of the Iraq War"
by: MediaCzech
Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:56:31 AM EST
McConnell's done it again.
In an appearance at Elizabethtown this weekend, Mitch McConnell showed how deeply out of touch he is with the sacrifice our armed forces have given in Bush's folly of the Iraq War. Who are the real victims and "casualties" of the Iraq War? His poor little Republican friends who lost their office.
Describing the party’s 2006 loss of Congressional District Rep. Anne Northup and last year’s loss of Republican Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher as casualties of the Iraq war, McConnell said he’s optimistic Republicans will hold the 2nd congressional district seat left up for grabs with the announcement of Rep. Ron Lewis’, R-Cecilia, retirement.
Yes, poor Anne Northup, one of Bush's biggest enablers in the House, is a casualty of the Iraq War.
It is possible, maybe even probable, that Bob White simply made a mistake in good faith in his piece for the News-Enterprise. But as the very headlines on DitchMitch and Bluegrass Roots make clear, these sites are so desperate to send a liberal -- excuse me, "progressive" -- senator to D.C. that they will lie to do so.
The McConnell website released the audio from the event at which the senator supposedly made the statement, and it confirms that he said no such thing. Listen to the audio and verify this for yourself.
What's fascinating is how the story "evolved" once the Demo-blogs got hold of it. Bob White, a reporter at the News-Enterprise wrote:
Describing the party’s 2006 loss of Congressional District Rep. Anne Northup and last year’s loss of Republican Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher as casualties of the Iraq war, McConnell said he’s optimistic Republicans will hold the 2nd congressional district seat left up for grabs with the announcement of Rep. Ron Lewis’, R-Cecilia, retirement.
Note that White purports to paraphrase McConnell (albeit erroneously). He does not quote McConnell as characterizing Northup and Fletcher as casualties of the Iraq war.
But when Demo-blogs Bluegrass Roots and DitchMitch report the story, they give the impression that the supposed remark about the war was a direct quote from McConnell. Note in particular the headline:
McConnell: Northup, Fletcher are "casualties of the Iraq War"
by: MediaCzech
Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:56:31 AM EST
McConnell's done it again.
In an appearance at Elizabethtown this weekend, Mitch McConnell showed how deeply out of touch he is with the sacrifice our armed forces have given in Bush's folly of the Iraq War. Who are the real victims and "casualties" of the Iraq War? His poor little Republican friends who lost their office.
Describing the party’s 2006 loss of Congressional District Rep. Anne Northup and last year’s loss of Republican Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher as casualties of the Iraq war, McConnell said he’s optimistic Republicans will hold the 2nd congressional district seat left up for grabs with the announcement of Rep. Ron Lewis’, R-Cecilia, retirement.
Yes, poor Anne Northup, one of Bush's biggest enablers in the House, is a casualty of the Iraq War.
It is possible, maybe even probable, that Bob White simply made a mistake in good faith in his piece for the News-Enterprise. But as the very headlines on DitchMitch and Bluegrass Roots make clear, these sites are so desperate to send a liberal -- excuse me, "progressive" -- senator to D.C. that they will lie to do so.
McCain Supporters: WHAS 11 Needs You
WHAS 11 has invited local supporters of the presidential candidates to join its Super Tuesday coverage. If you aren't too busy celebrating Mardi Gras or Shrove Tuesday, and would like to speak up for McCain, please contact Joe Arnold at WHAS 11. (Come on McCain supporters -- even Ron Paul is represented!)
Serving as analysts, Former Bush White House aide Scott Jennings and former U.S. Representative Mike Ward (D).
The other candidates will be represented by the following:
Obama: Metro Council Member David Tandy
Clinton: Team Hillary Kentucky Moderator Olivia Anne Morris Fuchs
Romney: KY Sec. of State Trey Grayson
Huckabee: Metro Council aide Leah Pepper
Paul: Ron Paul Meetup's Chris Hall
McCain: TBA - still looking for a McCain supporter!
Serving as analysts, Former Bush White House aide Scott Jennings and former U.S. Representative Mike Ward (D).
The other candidates will be represented by the following:
Obama: Metro Council Member David Tandy
Clinton: Team Hillary Kentucky Moderator Olivia Anne Morris Fuchs
Romney: KY Sec. of State Trey Grayson
Huckabee: Metro Council aide Leah Pepper
Paul: Ron Paul Meetup's Chris Hall
McCain: TBA - still looking for a McCain supporter!
Monday, February 4, 2008
McCain and Judges
Federalist Society founder Steven Calabresi co-authored a column for the Wall Street Journal in which he opines that John McCain would do a better job picking strict constructionist judges than Mitt Romney. This is an important endorsement from someone with a long record of promoting the rule of law and opposing judicial activism; it should reasssure the conservative base if McCain gets the nomination.
Like many conservatives, I was troubled about McCain's role in the "Gang of 14." That did not seem to bode well for the type of judges he might appoint. So I was particularly interested in Calabresi's take on that issue:
Others are concerned that Mr. McCain was a member of the "Gang of 14," opposing the attempt to end filibusters of judicial nominations. We believe that Mr. McCain's views about the institutional dynamics of the Senate are a poor guide to his performance as president. In any event, the agreement of the Gang of 14 had its costs, but it played an important role in ensuring that Samuel Alito faced no Senate filibuster. It also led to the confirmation of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor, three of President George W. Bush's best judicial appointees to the lower federal courts.
Conservative complaints about Mr. McCain's role as a member of the Gang of 14 seem to encapsulate all that is wrong in general with conservative carping over his candidacy. It makes the perfect the enemy of the very good results that have been achieved, thanks in no small part to Mr. McCain, and to the very likely prospect of further good results that might come from his election as president.
The Federalist Society web site asked the candidates to state their philosophy on judicial selection. McCain's response likewise reassured me that he will appoint strict constructionist judges:
I believe that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.
McCain's voting record reveals that he is not a recent convert to the ideals of the Federalist Society; he voted to confirm Judge Robert Bork. In arguing that he would only appoint judges who respected federalism and seperation of powers, McCain noted:
This is not a new position. I have long held it. It is reflected in my consistent opposition to the agenda of liberal judicial activists who have usurped the role of state legislatures in such matters as dealing with abortion and the definition of marriage. It is reflected in my longstanding opposition to liberal opinions that have adopted a stance of active hostility toward religion, rather than neutrality. It is reflected in my firm support for the personal rights secured in the Second Amendment.
When the next president is sworn in, six members of the Supreme Court will be older than 70 years of age. As Sloane writes (below), conservatives need to suck it up and vote Republican -- regardless of the name of the nominee.
McCain makes a convincing case that he would be a superb Commander-in-Chief, and that he will appoint judges who understand that their job is to interpret the law, not invent it. To be sure, these are not the only tasks of a president, but they are two of the most important.
Like many conservatives, I was troubled about McCain's role in the "Gang of 14." That did not seem to bode well for the type of judges he might appoint. So I was particularly interested in Calabresi's take on that issue:
Others are concerned that Mr. McCain was a member of the "Gang of 14," opposing the attempt to end filibusters of judicial nominations. We believe that Mr. McCain's views about the institutional dynamics of the Senate are a poor guide to his performance as president. In any event, the agreement of the Gang of 14 had its costs, but it played an important role in ensuring that Samuel Alito faced no Senate filibuster. It also led to the confirmation of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor, three of President George W. Bush's best judicial appointees to the lower federal courts.
Conservative complaints about Mr. McCain's role as a member of the Gang of 14 seem to encapsulate all that is wrong in general with conservative carping over his candidacy. It makes the perfect the enemy of the very good results that have been achieved, thanks in no small part to Mr. McCain, and to the very likely prospect of further good results that might come from his election as president.
The Federalist Society web site asked the candidates to state their philosophy on judicial selection. McCain's response likewise reassured me that he will appoint strict constructionist judges:
I believe that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.
McCain's voting record reveals that he is not a recent convert to the ideals of the Federalist Society; he voted to confirm Judge Robert Bork. In arguing that he would only appoint judges who respected federalism and seperation of powers, McCain noted:
This is not a new position. I have long held it. It is reflected in my consistent opposition to the agenda of liberal judicial activists who have usurped the role of state legislatures in such matters as dealing with abortion and the definition of marriage. It is reflected in my longstanding opposition to liberal opinions that have adopted a stance of active hostility toward religion, rather than neutrality. It is reflected in my firm support for the personal rights secured in the Second Amendment.
When the next president is sworn in, six members of the Supreme Court will be older than 70 years of age. As Sloane writes (below), conservatives need to suck it up and vote Republican -- regardless of the name of the nominee.
McCain makes a convincing case that he would be a superb Commander-in-Chief, and that he will appoint judges who understand that their job is to interpret the law, not invent it. To be sure, these are not the only tasks of a president, but they are two of the most important.
Pizza Politics
The presidential races will not be the only contests going on during the Super Tuesday primaries. Louisville-based Papa John's issued its own campaign announcement a few minutes ago:
Voting for candidates during the primary election won't be the last decision many Americans will make on Super Tuesday. The other? Deciding what Papa John's pizza to enjoy while watching the results roll in that night.
Domino's Pizza has also jumped into the race. Indeed, this out-of-state pizzaria chain appears ready to buy votes:
Just as the largest, simultaneous number of U.S. presidential primary elections are being held across the country, Domino's Pizza (NYSE: DPZ - News) will be e-mailing one million lucky customers an offer for a free pizza in the largest, synchronized e-mail blast in the company's history.
No word yet on whether Yum! -- another Louisville-based purveyor of fast food -- will announce a Pizza Hut platform for tomorrow.
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.
Voting for candidates during the primary election won't be the last decision many Americans will make on Super Tuesday. The other? Deciding what Papa John's pizza to enjoy while watching the results roll in that night.
Domino's Pizza has also jumped into the race. Indeed, this out-of-state pizzaria chain appears ready to buy votes:
Just as the largest, simultaneous number of U.S. presidential primary elections are being held across the country, Domino's Pizza (NYSE: DPZ - News) will be e-mailing one million lucky customers an offer for a free pizza in the largest, synchronized e-mail blast in the company's history.
No word yet on whether Yum! -- another Louisville-based purveyor of fast food -- will announce a Pizza Hut platform for tomorrow.
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 importance of your vote
Super Tuesday may well establish the Republican nominee for President. Whether it happens then or at the convention, it is absolutely imperative that when it happens, that ALL Republicans get behind the candidate. There has been legitimate criticism of the candidates, but once the nominee is chosen, all criticism needs to stop completely. Conservatives need to get behind that candidate 100% with our resources, energy and enthusiasm. Even if you do not like the candidate, they will be a far cry better than the alternative (ie. Mrs. William Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama). The worst thing that could happen is for dissatisfied conservatives to stay home and not vote in November. A conservative's vote not cast is a vote for the Democrat. So, as they say, vote early and vote often!
Smeller's the Feller
Drudge is reporting that a Camden, New Jersey middle school is imposing detention for intentional farting. Seriously.
What I want to know is, how do you prove intent? How do you even establish the identity of the perpetrator?
And how do they determine which teacher gets to supervise the detention? The teachers' unions need to investigate. And then the ACLU can bring suit for this egregious violation of the "right to privacy."
In the meantime, Congress needs to rename No Child Left Behind.
What I want to know is, how do you prove intent? How do you even establish the identity of the perpetrator?
And how do they determine which teacher gets to supervise the detention? The teachers' unions need to investigate. And then the ACLU can bring suit for this egregious violation of the "right to privacy."
In the meantime, Congress needs to rename No Child Left Behind.
There She Goes Again
Just when it looked like Hillary was done for, she pulled out her ace in the tear duct. That's right, Hillary has cried again. Unlike her last display of emotion in New Hampshire -- which turned around the election for her -- this time her eyes not only filled up, she actually had to wipe a tear.
Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.
A doctor, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, the doctor was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.
"Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.
Misery loves company. And if Hillary is elected, there will be lots of workers crying real, not crocodile tears when Hillary garnishes their wages. (See post below).
Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.
A doctor, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, the doctor was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.
"Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.
Misery loves company. And if Hillary is elected, there will be lots of workers crying real, not crocodile tears when Hillary garnishes their wages. (See post below).
What Was She Thinking?
Hillary Clinton has explained how she would get everyone to sign up for universal healthcare: she'd garnish their wages.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
It's not so surprising that Hillary would use the Nanny State to garnish wages; she assumes that her constituents aren't very smart and she has little regard for personal liberty. What is surprising is her timing -- that Hillary would admit that she would have to garnish wages on the eve of Super Tuesday. I can't wait to see what Barack Obama does with that gem.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
It's not so surprising that Hillary would use the Nanny State to garnish wages; she assumes that her constituents aren't very smart and she has little regard for personal liberty. What is surprising is her timing -- that Hillary would admit that she would have to garnish wages on the eve of Super Tuesday. I can't wait to see what Barack Obama does with that gem.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Crybaby
Can you believe Chris Thieneman's meltdown? He files to run for Congress in the 3rd district, then, claiming that party bosses have pressured him to drop out because of Anne's announcement, he quits and says that he is throwing his support behind Yarmuth! Wow, there's maturity. Can you spell C-R-Y-B-A-B-Y!
Media Bias at the Lexington Herald-Leader (No!!)
Headlines reveal so much more than the news. Take this one from the Lexington Herald-Leader: "Aide: State will be reimbursed." Then note the subheading: "BESHEAR USED STATE PLANE TO ATTEND POLITICAL RALLIES."
Now imagine that we were still under a Fletcher administration. There is absolutely no way that the first headline would have mentioned that the state will be reimbursed -- thereby preventing a potential scandal from blowing up. At the very least, the sub-heading -- listing the impropriety -- would have been the main headline. In fact, what the Herald-Leader used for a headline here probably would have appeared as the last sentence, requiring the reader to jump from A-1 to D-37.
Now imagine that we were still under a Fletcher administration. There is absolutely no way that the first headline would have mentioned that the state will be reimbursed -- thereby preventing a potential scandal from blowing up. At the very least, the sub-heading -- listing the impropriety -- would have been the main headline. In fact, what the Herald-Leader used for a headline here probably would have appeared as the last sentence, requiring the reader to jump from A-1 to D-37.
I've Got the Power (Back On) !
It took the weather gurus a day to figure out that our neighborhood was hit by a tornado, though it was obvious to me at first glance. Our street was rendered impassable in both directions by fallen trees and power lines. This was particularly exciting because I had my book club over at the time and everyone was stranded. We just pressed on by candlelight. (Great read: River of Doubt by Candace Millard.) Eventually everyone got out by walking over to the next street, where my husband John and the boys had had to park, and John ferried them home. The sirens never went off. So much for Doppler Radar; I'm going back to the Farmer's Almanac. We never heard any sound like a freight train. I guess that proves that a Girls' Night Out is stronger (or at least, louder) than any tornado.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)