Democratic charges that Republicans "obstruct" progress on legislation use the sort of math that wouldn't pass muster under No Child Left Behind.
For example, the Democrats count 37 votes on cloture -- the procedure to end debate -- as a filibuster when it is just the opposite. And according to the Senatorial Committee, they count unanimous cloture votes as Republican filibusters, even though such votes are bipartisan. So much for the spirit of unity.
Even more bizarre, Democrats count Democratic filibusters as Republican filibusters. Who knew that Alice in Wonderland was the new Democratic whip?
If Democrats are so troubled about cloture motions, then they should really speak to Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid; his party has filed for cloture 80 times. That's a record. Congratulations, Harry, by your own definition, your Democratic majority is the most "obstructionist" majority in history.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
Federalist Society & Religious Liberty
The Federalist Society is holding a seminar Friday, March 14 at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. It's called "The Things That Are Not Caesar's: Religious Organizations as a Check on the Authoritarian Pretensions of the State." Rsvp here.
Thankfully, the excellent panel does not include the Archbishop of Canterbury. This seminar would be particularly helpful to those readers interested in intra-church disputes and the ensuing litigation over church property.
Thankfully, the excellent panel does not include the Archbishop of Canterbury. This seminar would be particularly helpful to those readers interested in intra-church disputes and the ensuing litigation over church property.
National Dems Tell Fischer to Play Nice
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's spokesman, Matt Miller, warned Greg Fischer to stop attacking other Democratic candidates, such as Bruce Lunsford.
Fischer's campaign confirmed remarks that Fischer made Saturday at the Kentucky Democratic State Central Executive Committee in Frankfort, as reported on Kypolitics.org.
Fischer took a shot at Senator Chuck Schumer and the DSCC for interfering in the Kentucky primary for U.S. Senate --interference on behalf of Lunsford, that is. Suffice to say that in the unlikely event that Fischer is elected, he will not be known as one of the Senate's best orators:
"Because there’s powers in Washington D.C. - you know, led by Chuck Schumer, and you all are hearing this just as well as I am – that he’s trying to manipulate this election in Kentucky.”
Then Fischer attacked Lunsford, stating at least three times that the Democrats should nominate someone with a "clean record."
“It’s clear to anyone who follows politics in the state Kentucky that the Senator from New York and his folks are trying to force upon the voters of Kentucky a failed candidate who has more baggage than Samsonite. We need a fresh candidate with a clean record who offers bold ideas and new solutions.”
"More baggage than Samsonite" -- this is Fischer, the bored rich guy who wants to be Senator, attempting to sound like a man of the people by pretending that he uses Samsonite instead of Louis Vuitton or whatever.
His point that Lunsford has a dirty record, however, is correct. Indeed it's starting to look like Lunsford engaged in some legal gymnastics to buy his two million dollar Phoenix mansion by using his Chicago address -- and now substituting his Kentucky address. The poor rich guy has so many properties he doesn't know where he lives.
Since he has the property in Illinois and Arizona, Lunsford might as well try to run for either John McCain's or Barack Obama's Senate seat. Then maybe he could dupe voters who have not heard the name Vencor. If elected, Lunsford could contribute a unique perspective on the housing market, given all that he has done to stimulate it.
Update: Lunsford's loan documents contain a rider that allows him to use the Phoenix mansion as a second home.
Fischer's campaign confirmed remarks that Fischer made Saturday at the Kentucky Democratic State Central Executive Committee in Frankfort, as reported on Kypolitics.org.
Fischer took a shot at Senator Chuck Schumer and the DSCC for interfering in the Kentucky primary for U.S. Senate --interference on behalf of Lunsford, that is. Suffice to say that in the unlikely event that Fischer is elected, he will not be known as one of the Senate's best orators:
"Because there’s powers in Washington D.C. - you know, led by Chuck Schumer, and you all are hearing this just as well as I am – that he’s trying to manipulate this election in Kentucky.”
Then Fischer attacked Lunsford, stating at least three times that the Democrats should nominate someone with a "clean record."
“It’s clear to anyone who follows politics in the state Kentucky that the Senator from New York and his folks are trying to force upon the voters of Kentucky a failed candidate who has more baggage than Samsonite. We need a fresh candidate with a clean record who offers bold ideas and new solutions.”
"More baggage than Samsonite" -- this is Fischer, the bored rich guy who wants to be Senator, attempting to sound like a man of the people by pretending that he uses Samsonite instead of Louis Vuitton or whatever.
His point that Lunsford has a dirty record, however, is correct. Indeed it's starting to look like Lunsford engaged in some legal gymnastics to buy his two million dollar Phoenix mansion by using his Chicago address -- and now substituting his Kentucky address. The poor rich guy has so many properties he doesn't know where he lives.
Since he has the property in Illinois and Arizona, Lunsford might as well try to run for either John McCain's or Barack Obama's Senate seat. Then maybe he could dupe voters who have not heard the name Vencor. If elected, Lunsford could contribute a unique perspective on the housing market, given all that he has done to stimulate it.
Update: Lunsford's loan documents contain a rider that allows him to use the Phoenix mansion as a second home.
Hillobama Become Virtual Paper Dolls
Yes, the youth have become fixated on this presidential election in new and bizarre ways. Take my kids. Like many parents, I peek over their shoulders to see what Internet sites they're visiting -- only to find out they were playing games called "Dress Up Hillary" and "Dress Up Barack."
These computer games -- like old-fashioned paper dolls -- start out with Hillary or Barack in their undies. (Barack wears tightie whities; Hillary wears Grandma underwear.) The gamer then dresses the candidate from head to toe.
Hillary's options hearken back to her Gloria Steinem stage, and also include a poodle skirt, and an I Heart NY shirt. There is an ugly yellow blouse, but no black pant suit to complete the bumble bee look. As the game creators describe the choices,
Will Hillary have bare feet, or bear feet? You decide what she wears for her next big speech. Are you going to make her a voice to be reckoned with, or a complete idiot?
Barack's game includes the prediction, "Today he's a game, tomorrow he's a trivia question." Men's clothing doesn't lend itself to caricature to the same extent as women's, so in Barack's game, the emphasis is on hair and accessories: cornrows; an Afro; dreadlocks; some bling and a Black Panther hat. His white tribal outfit and turban are not among the options.
Like the candidates themselves, the games come with approval ratings. The 2.7 million people who have played Dress Up Hillary give her a 27 percent approval rating; a whopping 73 percent of players disapprove. The 1.4 million people who have played Dress Up Barack give him a 57 percent approval rating. It's unclear to whether the gamer is rating the game or the candidate.
The gamers can post comments, and some of them are harsh with respect to Hillary. The most recent comment said, "ok this was funny because Hilary looked fat and I don't like her!!!!!!" The chubbiness of the Hillary doll is a recurring theme in the comments.
Barack's comments generally digressed from the candidate; most of the players complained about a seemingly unrelated chain mail about a girl name Sarah, whose ghost comes up your bathroom drain if you don't forward the email.
In a year when the professionals look foolish every time they make a prediction, the youth who play the Dress Up games seem to have identified new ventures for the Democratic candidates, if they don't make it to the White House. Hillary can become a spokesperson for Jenny Craig and Barack can star in a remake of Ghost Busters.
These computer games -- like old-fashioned paper dolls -- start out with Hillary or Barack in their undies. (Barack wears tightie whities; Hillary wears Grandma underwear.) The gamer then dresses the candidate from head to toe.
Hillary's options hearken back to her Gloria Steinem stage, and also include a poodle skirt, and an I Heart NY shirt. There is an ugly yellow blouse, but no black pant suit to complete the bumble bee look. As the game creators describe the choices,
Will Hillary have bare feet, or bear feet? You decide what she wears for her next big speech. Are you going to make her a voice to be reckoned with, or a complete idiot?
Barack's game includes the prediction, "Today he's a game, tomorrow he's a trivia question." Men's clothing doesn't lend itself to caricature to the same extent as women's, so in Barack's game, the emphasis is on hair and accessories: cornrows; an Afro; dreadlocks; some bling and a Black Panther hat. His white tribal outfit and turban are not among the options.
Like the candidates themselves, the games come with approval ratings. The 2.7 million people who have played Dress Up Hillary give her a 27 percent approval rating; a whopping 73 percent of players disapprove. The 1.4 million people who have played Dress Up Barack give him a 57 percent approval rating. It's unclear to whether the gamer is rating the game or the candidate.
The gamers can post comments, and some of them are harsh with respect to Hillary. The most recent comment said, "ok this was funny because Hilary looked fat and I don't like her!!!!!!" The chubbiness of the Hillary doll is a recurring theme in the comments.
Barack's comments generally digressed from the candidate; most of the players complained about a seemingly unrelated chain mail about a girl name Sarah, whose ghost comes up your bathroom drain if you don't forward the email.
In a year when the professionals look foolish every time they make a prediction, the youth who play the Dress Up games seem to have identified new ventures for the Democratic candidates, if they don't make it to the White House. Hillary can become a spokesperson for Jenny Craig and Barack can star in a remake of Ghost Busters.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Lunsford Rated As Only A "Tier II" Challenger To McConnell
Bruinkid of Swing State Project has announced new Senate race rankings, and by the looks of it, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell doesn't have much to worry about, at least not yet.
With Bruce Lunsford listed as McConnell's likely opponent, the match-up is listed in "Tier II", which consists of "races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point." "Tier I", in contrast, "are the races where there is a serious challenger to the incumbent (or at least the incumbent's party, in cases of retirement), where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching."
Bruinkid notes that "the Democratic establishment seems to have coalesced around wealthy businessman Bruce Lunsford, who's lost several primaries before, and ticked off a lot of Democrats by endorsing Fletcher over Ben Chandler (D) for Governor back in 2003 after losing the primary to Chandler." Bruinkid adds that "[t]he blogs" -- that, is the Demo-blogs -- "are, ah, less than pleased."
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.
With Bruce Lunsford listed as McConnell's likely opponent, the match-up is listed in "Tier II", which consists of "races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point." "Tier I", in contrast, "are the races where there is a serious challenger to the incumbent (or at least the incumbent's party, in cases of retirement), where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching."
Bruinkid notes that "the Democratic establishment seems to have coalesced around wealthy businessman Bruce Lunsford, who's lost several primaries before, and ticked off a lot of Democrats by endorsing Fletcher over Ben Chandler (D) for Governor back in 2003 after losing the primary to Chandler." Bruinkid adds that "[t]he blogs" -- that, is the Demo-blogs -- "are, ah, less than pleased."
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.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
C-J Speaks Ill Of The Dead, Who Had Better Manners
Today's Courier-Journal gives us a display of what can be charitably described as the editor's ill-bred manners. The C-J shows a picture of William F. Buckley, Jr. wearing a black mask "in 1966 at Truman Capote's famous black and white ball," accompanied by a letter to the editor calling Mr. Buckley a "monster" with "the legacy of pretentious snobbery, bigotry, homophobia and nastiness." Another letter writer asserts that Mr. Buckley
did nothing but expound hedonistic self- gratification, with a political agenda for maintaining the status quo at the expense of less fortunate fellow human beings.
He did this with clever tongue-in-cheek hypocrisy, which was sickening to all idealistic folk who care about fairness and justice.
There is such a sharp contrast in style between the C-J and Mr. Buckley, and clearly the latter comes out looking better. A piece by Eric Konigsberg of the New York Times provides insight:
Mr. Buckley’s manners were classy, if not perfect. He insisted on addressing his guests as “Mr.” Or “Mrs.,” though he once accidentally called Mrs. Thatcher “Margaret” because he thought she’d called him “Bill.” (When, upon reading a transcript of the episode, he realized she had been referring to a bill of legislation, he was extremely embarrassed, said Richard Brookhiser, a conservative writer and a frequent guest on the program.)
Mr. [Michael] Kinsley said, “He was extremely charming and kind; he never took his ideological battles into the personal realm.”
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.
did nothing but expound hedonistic self- gratification, with a political agenda for maintaining the status quo at the expense of less fortunate fellow human beings.
He did this with clever tongue-in-cheek hypocrisy, which was sickening to all idealistic folk who care about fairness and justice.
There is such a sharp contrast in style between the C-J and Mr. Buckley, and clearly the latter comes out looking better. A piece by Eric Konigsberg of the New York Times provides insight:
Mr. Buckley’s manners were classy, if not perfect. He insisted on addressing his guests as “Mr.” Or “Mrs.,” though he once accidentally called Mrs. Thatcher “Margaret” because he thought she’d called him “Bill.” (When, upon reading a transcript of the episode, he realized she had been referring to a bill of legislation, he was extremely embarrassed, said Richard Brookhiser, a conservative writer and a frequent guest on the program.)
Mr. [Michael] Kinsley said, “He was extremely charming and kind; he never took his ideological battles into the personal realm.”
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.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Sticks or Carrots?
Who would have thought Massachusetts would be more genteel than Kentucky? Judging by their respective Democratic politicians, that appears to be the case, at least with respect to gambling issues.
Whereas in Kentucky, the Democratic "leadership" instills loyalty on their side of the aisle by revoking committee assignments from Democrats who do not toe the party line, in Massachusetts, the Democratic bosses deal with their dissenters by giving them job promotions.
That's how SouthCoastToday.com sees it:
The politics of casinos seems to be dominating all thought on Beacon Hill.
On Wednesday, House Speaker Sal DiMasi announced the appointments of eight Democrats to leadership positions, raising their profiles and inflating their paychecks.
Of those eight, five have been proponents of expanded gaming, a position DiMasi has fought with all his being. So immediately there was speculation that the speaker was seeking to cut into support for Gov. Deval Patrick’s plan for three commercial resort casinos, which is expected to be considered by the House this spring.
Whether you believe DiMasi’s latest moves smack of political gamesmanship or not, the secrets and subterfuge going on here can’t match what’s happening in Kentucky.
Only time will tell whether sticks or carrots are better at keeping a herd of donkeys moving together in a straight line.
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.
Whereas in Kentucky, the Democratic "leadership" instills loyalty on their side of the aisle by revoking committee assignments from Democrats who do not toe the party line, in Massachusetts, the Democratic bosses deal with their dissenters by giving them job promotions.
That's how SouthCoastToday.com sees it:
The politics of casinos seems to be dominating all thought on Beacon Hill.
On Wednesday, House Speaker Sal DiMasi announced the appointments of eight Democrats to leadership positions, raising their profiles and inflating their paychecks.
Of those eight, five have been proponents of expanded gaming, a position DiMasi has fought with all his being. So immediately there was speculation that the speaker was seeking to cut into support for Gov. Deval Patrick’s plan for three commercial resort casinos, which is expected to be considered by the House this spring.
Whether you believe DiMasi’s latest moves smack of political gamesmanship or not, the secrets and subterfuge going on here can’t match what’s happening in Kentucky.
Only time will tell whether sticks or carrots are better at keeping a herd of donkeys moving together in a straight line.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
McConnell Approval Rating Rises Again
SurveyUSA, a poll known for underestimating support of Republicans, shows that Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell's already strong level of support increased last month.
WHAS reported that the poll (which it commissioned) shows that 52 percent of those adults surveyed approve of McConnell's job performance as U.S. Senator. Only 39 percent of those surveyed disapproved of the job McConnell is doing; that number is down from 44 percent last month. Like last month's poll, McConnell continues to show no gender gap.
WHAS reported that the poll (which it commissioned) shows that 52 percent of those adults surveyed approve of McConnell's job performance as U.S. Senator. Only 39 percent of those surveyed disapproved of the job McConnell is doing; that number is down from 44 percent last month. Like last month's poll, McConnell continues to show no gender gap.
Bill Proposes Collective Bargaining -- Just for Schools
It's bad enough that the Beshear administration has proposed cutting school funding for such frivolities as teacher training and text books. Now, a proposed bill would force schools -- and only schools -- to enter into collective bargaining.
The proposed bill that Joni Jenkins and Rick Nelson (both Democrats) introduced in the General Assembly differs from other collective bargaining bills in that this one only applies to schools rather than all public employees. As if Kentucky school districts have extra money to spread around to the teachers' unions.
Perhaps the most offensive aspect of House Bill 650 is its utter contempt for local school boards. The bill would gut the ability of those community members who sit on school boards -- whose children attend the school -- to make fundamental decisions about the cost of labor, even though that constitutes nearly 75 percent of a typical school district's budget.
Specifically, the Bill would destroy a local school board's right to decide whether it wants to enter into contract negotiations with employee unions. At present, according to the Kentucky School Board Association, fewer than a dozen of Kentucky's 174 school boards have chosen that option. If House Bill 650 is enacted, collective bargaining for schools will no longer be optional.
The bill suffers from numerous other flaws. It fails to define what constitutes an illegal strike. It forces any contract negotiations that cannot be resolved within 30 days to be mediated by the Department of Labor. That's a pretty short fuse, given that school boards meet monthly. It allows teachers to strike over non-contract issues, such as sick leave and refusal to perform assigned duties.
Given that our state government, for all practical purposes, has ceased to function, this is not the time to take away local control. House bill 650 is poorly written and poorly reasoned. It is a disservice to our students and an insult to local decision-making. Republicans need to ensure that it does not become law.
The proposed bill that Joni Jenkins and Rick Nelson (both Democrats) introduced in the General Assembly differs from other collective bargaining bills in that this one only applies to schools rather than all public employees. As if Kentucky school districts have extra money to spread around to the teachers' unions.
Perhaps the most offensive aspect of House Bill 650 is its utter contempt for local school boards. The bill would gut the ability of those community members who sit on school boards -- whose children attend the school -- to make fundamental decisions about the cost of labor, even though that constitutes nearly 75 percent of a typical school district's budget.
Specifically, the Bill would destroy a local school board's right to decide whether it wants to enter into contract negotiations with employee unions. At present, according to the Kentucky School Board Association, fewer than a dozen of Kentucky's 174 school boards have chosen that option. If House Bill 650 is enacted, collective bargaining for schools will no longer be optional.
The bill suffers from numerous other flaws. It fails to define what constitutes an illegal strike. It forces any contract negotiations that cannot be resolved within 30 days to be mediated by the Department of Labor. That's a pretty short fuse, given that school boards meet monthly. It allows teachers to strike over non-contract issues, such as sick leave and refusal to perform assigned duties.
Given that our state government, for all practical purposes, has ceased to function, this is not the time to take away local control. House bill 650 is poorly written and poorly reasoned. It is a disservice to our students and an insult to local decision-making. Republicans need to ensure that it does not become law.
"Leadership" That Frankfort Doesn't Need
Today's lead editorial in the Courier-Journal, entitled "Flash of leadership", weighs in on the Democrats' casino amendment maneuvering in predictable fashion. Not surprisingly, the C-J's editorial says nothing critical of the "pay to play" politics behind Governor Beshear's gambling agenda. In fact, the editorial notes that "[o]f course, the ractracks, gambling corporations, horse breeders and owners were also bound to enter the fray."
Nor is it suprising that the C-J praises the heavy-handed tactics of House Speaker Jody Richards, who canned his Democratic colleague Rep. Dottie Sims from the House committee considering various casino amendments, "to make room for two others whose votes he could count on."
The C-J pooh-poohs Sims' remark that Richards acted like a "communist" for dismissing Sims because she did not vote his way. Instead, the C-J calls it "democracy in action" for Richards to stack the committee with yes-men.
But aren't Richards' actions exactly the kind of legislative shenanigans in which communists engage? How else was Raul Castro elected President of Cuba unanimously last week? By making every member of the Cuban National Assembly that elected him toe the party line -- the same message Richards apparently is trying to send in Frankfort these days.
What the C-J calls a "Flash of leadership" looks more like a straight flush of something else.
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.
Nor is it suprising that the C-J praises the heavy-handed tactics of House Speaker Jody Richards, who canned his Democratic colleague Rep. Dottie Sims from the House committee considering various casino amendments, "to make room for two others whose votes he could count on."
The C-J pooh-poohs Sims' remark that Richards acted like a "communist" for dismissing Sims because she did not vote his way. Instead, the C-J calls it "democracy in action" for Richards to stack the committee with yes-men.
But aren't Richards' actions exactly the kind of legislative shenanigans in which communists engage? How else was Raul Castro elected President of Cuba unanimously last week? By making every member of the Cuban National Assembly that elected him toe the party line -- the same message Richards apparently is trying to send in Frankfort these days.
What the C-J calls a "Flash of leadership" looks more like a straight flush of something else.
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, February 27, 2008
Reid Flips His "Obstructionist" Theme
Democrats are flummoxed by yesterday's vote by Republicans to proceed with debate on Senator Feingold's amendment to cut and run from Iraq. That is clear from the statements of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, as reported by the Christian Science Monitor:
Democratic leaders had planned to use this week's floor time to debate high-profile legislation on relief for Americans facing home foreclosures. "It is obvious to me what the game plan is: They want us to slow the Senate down from getting things done," Senator Reid said, after the 70-to-24 vote to take up the Iraq bill. "It is very clear that they are going to do everything they can to stop us from getting to the housing legislation, which the American people badly need."
So to try and salvage what is likely to be another resounding legislative defeat for far-left Democrats on Iraq, Reid audaciously flips their "obstructionism" theme. Earlier they had complained that Republicans are hurting the American people by preventing the Senate from voting on proposed Democratic legislation. Now, they complain that Republicans are hurting the American people by allowing the Senate to vote on proposed Democratic legislation. Call it the "d**mned if they do, d**mned if they don't" election-year strategy.
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.
Democratic leaders had planned to use this week's floor time to debate high-profile legislation on relief for Americans facing home foreclosures. "It is obvious to me what the game plan is: They want us to slow the Senate down from getting things done," Senator Reid said, after the 70-to-24 vote to take up the Iraq bill. "It is very clear that they are going to do everything they can to stop us from getting to the housing legislation, which the American people badly need."
So to try and salvage what is likely to be another resounding legislative defeat for far-left Democrats on Iraq, Reid audaciously flips their "obstructionism" theme. Earlier they had complained that Republicans are hurting the American people by preventing the Senate from voting on proposed Democratic legislation. Now, they complain that Republicans are hurting the American people by allowing the Senate to vote on proposed Democratic legislation. Call it the "d**mned if they do, d**mned if they don't" election-year strategy.
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.
William F. Buckley Dies
William F. Buckley has died. It is a sad day for conservatives, who will miss his intellect, humor and eloquence. Read the National Review Online tributes here.
Buckley's passing makes me wonder: who is his equivalent on the left? I cannot thing of anyone who comes close; is there one? And if not, why not?
Update: Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell comments on to Buckley's life and legacy.
Buckley's passing makes me wonder: who is his equivalent on the left? I cannot thing of anyone who comes close; is there one? And if not, why not?
Update: Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell comments on to Buckley's life and legacy.
Lunsford the Carpetbagger?
U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford just bought a two million dollar home on a golf course, and it wasn't Valhalla. Page One reports that Lunsford's new crib is located in Scottsdale, Arizona.
There hasn't been much activity from the Lunsford campaign, and perhaps this explains why. Given that Senator John McCain has now effectively secured the Republican nomination for president, there is a possibility -- if McCain wins -- that Arizona may need a new senator.
Granted, it's a slim possiblity. But even slimmer are the odds that Lunsford will beat Mitch McConnell. If Kentucky won't elect Lunsford as its senator, maybe he'll have better luck in Arizona.
It appears that Arizona only requires its federal candidate to be an "Inhabitant of Arizona when elected."
Speculating on a possible successor to McCain, the Phoenix Business Journal reported that there are "a number of deep-pocketed business executives who might be recruited for the short election campaign in which personal wealth would be an advantage." That could describe Lunsford. And it sounds like the invisible hand of DSCC head Chuck Schumer.
Now we wait and see if Lunsford buys any real estate in Illinois.
Update: Lunsford already owns property in Chicago, Illinois, and used that address to buy the Arizona home. Moreover, as Kentucky Politics points out, Lunsford's residency in Kentucky -- a requirement of his candidacy -- is now open to question.
There hasn't been much activity from the Lunsford campaign, and perhaps this explains why. Given that Senator John McCain has now effectively secured the Republican nomination for president, there is a possibility -- if McCain wins -- that Arizona may need a new senator.
Granted, it's a slim possiblity. But even slimmer are the odds that Lunsford will beat Mitch McConnell. If Kentucky won't elect Lunsford as its senator, maybe he'll have better luck in Arizona.
It appears that Arizona only requires its federal candidate to be an "Inhabitant of Arizona when elected."
Speculating on a possible successor to McCain, the Phoenix Business Journal reported that there are "a number of deep-pocketed business executives who might be recruited for the short election campaign in which personal wealth would be an advantage." That could describe Lunsford. And it sounds like the invisible hand of DSCC head Chuck Schumer.
Now we wait and see if Lunsford buys any real estate in Illinois.
Update: Lunsford already owns property in Chicago, Illinois, and used that address to buy the Arizona home. Moreover, as Kentucky Politics points out, Lunsford's residency in Kentucky -- a requirement of his candidacy -- is now open to question.
Color My Burkha Crimson
Harvard University has given in to requests of Muslim women to close its gym to men for six hours a week to "accomodate" women who feel "uncomfortable" or "awkward" exercising in the presence of men.
Harvard Islamic Society's Islamic Knowledge Committee officer, junior Ola Aljawhary, concedes that the policy was in part initiated by the school's Islamic group. Nonetheless. she maintains that women-only hours are not a case of "minority rights trumping majority preference." She notes that women of different faiths have showed interest in the hours.
"These hours are necessary because there is a segment of the Harvard female population that is not found in gyms not because they don't want to work out, but because for them working out in a co-ed gym is uncomfortable, awkward or problematic in some way," she said.
That rationale proves too much. If all it takes to close down the gym is the assertion that a woman feels "uncomfortable or awkward," then fat women might similarly claim the right to exercise without men. Likewise slender and attractive women, who don't want to be hit on while they work out. That's why some women join Curves for Women and others go to Wellesely. Muslim women, of course, have the same options.
And so we get to the real rationale:
"We live together in one community, it only makes sense for everyone to compromise slightly in order for everyone to live happily," she said. "This matter is simple: Can't we just display basic decency and show tolerance and inclusion for people not a part of the mainstream majority?"
"Tolerance and inclusion" : those are code words to warn white men that they are about to get discriminated against, and better like it.
There are aspects to Harvard banning the men from the gym that are just surreal. First, Harvard was founded as a men's institution. Women asked to be included. And that has to imply that women will suffer the presence of men, even during exercise. If anything, the men have stronger precedent to demand the right to exercise without women.
Here's the deal, ladies. When you graduate, you will be forced to work with men, no matter what field you pursue. It's better to learn to accept that now. Indeed, you should take advantage of the opportunity to play squash with your male class mates; it will improve your game.
Ironically, Harvard's first benefactor, John Harvard, was a Puritan minister, though the school's focus became secular. Harvard prides itself on the broad range of backgrounds of its students, and correctly so. It is therefore appropriate for Harvard to welcome the Muslim women, if they meet the academic requirements.
But these women chose to go to there; they applied and matriculated to a school that includes men and did not ban men from the gym, prior to their arrival. And to demand the institution to bend to accomodate their sensibilites -- whether or not they are based on religion -- is the height of arrogance.
The Muslim women really are asking for more than an accomodation: they are asking for an imposition on everyone else. It would be like Orthodox Jews demanding that all students eat Kosher foods. Or an Evangelical Christian forcing all other students to only read texts that do not discuss evolution.
Colleges teach more than academics; they provide life lessons, too. And the Muslim women of Harvard need to learn that it's not all about them.
H/T: Instapundit.
Harvard Islamic Society's Islamic Knowledge Committee officer, junior Ola Aljawhary, concedes that the policy was in part initiated by the school's Islamic group. Nonetheless. she maintains that women-only hours are not a case of "minority rights trumping majority preference." She notes that women of different faiths have showed interest in the hours.
"These hours are necessary because there is a segment of the Harvard female population that is not found in gyms not because they don't want to work out, but because for them working out in a co-ed gym is uncomfortable, awkward or problematic in some way," she said.
That rationale proves too much. If all it takes to close down the gym is the assertion that a woman feels "uncomfortable or awkward," then fat women might similarly claim the right to exercise without men. Likewise slender and attractive women, who don't want to be hit on while they work out. That's why some women join Curves for Women and others go to Wellesely. Muslim women, of course, have the same options.
And so we get to the real rationale:
"We live together in one community, it only makes sense for everyone to compromise slightly in order for everyone to live happily," she said. "This matter is simple: Can't we just display basic decency and show tolerance and inclusion for people not a part of the mainstream majority?"
"Tolerance and inclusion" : those are code words to warn white men that they are about to get discriminated against, and better like it.
There are aspects to Harvard banning the men from the gym that are just surreal. First, Harvard was founded as a men's institution. Women asked to be included. And that has to imply that women will suffer the presence of men, even during exercise. If anything, the men have stronger precedent to demand the right to exercise without women.
Here's the deal, ladies. When you graduate, you will be forced to work with men, no matter what field you pursue. It's better to learn to accept that now. Indeed, you should take advantage of the opportunity to play squash with your male class mates; it will improve your game.
Ironically, Harvard's first benefactor, John Harvard, was a Puritan minister, though the school's focus became secular. Harvard prides itself on the broad range of backgrounds of its students, and correctly so. It is therefore appropriate for Harvard to welcome the Muslim women, if they meet the academic requirements.
But these women chose to go to there; they applied and matriculated to a school that includes men and did not ban men from the gym, prior to their arrival. And to demand the institution to bend to accomodate their sensibilites -- whether or not they are based on religion -- is the height of arrogance.
The Muslim women really are asking for more than an accomodation: they are asking for an imposition on everyone else. It would be like Orthodox Jews demanding that all students eat Kosher foods. Or an Evangelical Christian forcing all other students to only read texts that do not discuss evolution.
Colleges teach more than academics; they provide life lessons, too. And the Muslim women of Harvard need to learn that it's not all about them.
H/T: Instapundit.
You're Welcome Barack...
Last night in the debate with Mrs. Clinton, Barack thanked the Jewish community by saying that he would not be where he was were it not for the efforts of many courageous Jews in the civil rights struggle. He is correct. Too bad he forgot to say the same thing about Republicans. Were it not for Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation and Republicans taking on Southern Democrats to support the Civil Rights Act, he wouldn't be where he is either. I guess he missed that day in history class....
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Cut-and-Run Amendment To Be Put Up For Senate Vote
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans sent a loud and clear message to defeatist Democrats today: it's time for them to put up or shut up on legislation to cut and run in Iraq.
The Washington Post reports that "[i]n a surprise move, the Senate voted overwhelmingly today to begin debating a bill that would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 120 days and cut funding for battlefield deployments." Why are the Republicans now wanting to open debate and vote on troop withdrawal legislation?
For at least two reasons.
First, there is good news to tell the American people about progress in Iraq. As the Post reports:
"There's been so much improvement in the situation in Iraq. Since they are the ones who want to turn back to the subject, we'd like to spend the time talking about the dramatic improvements in Iraq," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters moments before a preliminary vote on the withdrawal amendment offered by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).
The Associated Press further elaborated:
The debate, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said, "would give us a chance to talk about the extraordinary progress that's been made in Iraq over the last six months, not only on the military side, but also with civilian reconciliation beginning to finally take hold in the country."
The second reason Republicans want to bring Senator Feingold's amendment to a vote is that they know not even many Democrats support it. While most Democrats are good at trash talking the Iraq war to appease their far-left friends at Moveon.org, VoteVets.org, etc., in the final analysis, most U.S. Senators -- including Democrats -- understand that immediate withdrawal from Iraq will be handing the country over to Al Qaida on a silver platter. Level-headed lawmakers know, as Senator Joe Lieberman explained, that Feingold's "resolution . . . offers the same familiar prescription for retreat and surrender."
Indeed, as Reuters reports, "[s]ome Democrats, speaking anonymously, said there could be fewer than 30 votes for the measure in the 100-member Senate."
That's why Republicans are more than happy to allow a vote on Feingold's bill. It will be "a good chance for the Senate to go on record again as refusing to cut off money for the war," according to MSNBC's report of McConnell's remarks.
"All the more so will we oppose it when the fight in Iraq, by all accounts, is showing clear-cut tactical progress, and now, at last, some important political progress is also being made," McConnell said.
Republicans are willing to fight vigorously for victory in Iraq. We shall soon see how much of a fight, and for what cause, the Democrats are prepared to mount in response.
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 Washington Post reports that "[i]n a surprise move, the Senate voted overwhelmingly today to begin debating a bill that would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 120 days and cut funding for battlefield deployments." Why are the Republicans now wanting to open debate and vote on troop withdrawal legislation?
For at least two reasons.
First, there is good news to tell the American people about progress in Iraq. As the Post reports:
"There's been so much improvement in the situation in Iraq. Since they are the ones who want to turn back to the subject, we'd like to spend the time talking about the dramatic improvements in Iraq," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters moments before a preliminary vote on the withdrawal amendment offered by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).
The Associated Press further elaborated:
The debate, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said, "would give us a chance to talk about the extraordinary progress that's been made in Iraq over the last six months, not only on the military side, but also with civilian reconciliation beginning to finally take hold in the country."
The second reason Republicans want to bring Senator Feingold's amendment to a vote is that they know not even many Democrats support it. While most Democrats are good at trash talking the Iraq war to appease their far-left friends at Moveon.org, VoteVets.org, etc., in the final analysis, most U.S. Senators -- including Democrats -- understand that immediate withdrawal from Iraq will be handing the country over to Al Qaida on a silver platter. Level-headed lawmakers know, as Senator Joe Lieberman explained, that Feingold's "resolution . . . offers the same familiar prescription for retreat and surrender."
Indeed, as Reuters reports, "[s]ome Democrats, speaking anonymously, said there could be fewer than 30 votes for the measure in the 100-member Senate."
That's why Republicans are more than happy to allow a vote on Feingold's bill. It will be "a good chance for the Senate to go on record again as refusing to cut off money for the war," according to MSNBC's report of McConnell's remarks.
"All the more so will we oppose it when the fight in Iraq, by all accounts, is showing clear-cut tactical progress, and now, at last, some important political progress is also being made," McConnell said.
Republicans are willing to fight vigorously for victory in Iraq. We shall soon see how much of a fight, and for what cause, the Democrats are prepared to mount in response.
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.
Republican Senate Doesn't Even Have To Vote To Win In Frankfort
Here's a question Governor Beshear must be asking himself in light of today's casino amendment fiasco at a House Committee Meeting: Who needs Republican enemies with Democratic "friends" like these?
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Beshear: Send Us More Earmarks!
Governor Steve Beshear took time out from shmoozing Washington to note that the Ohio River bridges cannot be built without federal money. For most of us, that's beyond dispute.
But for Beshear (and Democrats running for U.S. Senate), it's an epiphany: earmarks benefit the district lucky enough to receive them.
Not surprisingly, the Courier-Journal spins Beshear'`s comments into an indictment of the Bush administration rather than an acknowledgment that we need earmarks. Indeed, the C-J headline -- "Beshear criticizes Bush transportation spending"-- suggests just the opposite, that Beshear thinks Bush has spent too much.
In fact, Beshear reiterated that Kentucky requires federal money to build the Ohio River bridges:
"The states don't have the resources to build these mega-projects," Beshear said. "And it is going to require the federal government to be part of that solution. They may not be the whole solution, but they've got to be part of that solution. Otherwise, none of these projects can move forward, whether that's in Kentucky or in any other state in the Union."
Besehear might protest that he doesn't want earmarks -- he simply wants a "national transportation policy" in which the "federal government needs to be a real partner in that policy with state and local governments."
Granted, this is Beshear's first meeting in the Natinal Governor's Association. But even a newbie should understand that the faceless bureaucrats in th`e Department of Transportation do not drive Kentucky roads; they don't know whether we need a bridge and don't care if we get one. Members of the Kentucky delegation, in contrast, drive our roads and know our needs first-hand.
That's why it's so important that our delegation includes as much seniority as possible, and why Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has been so effective at making sure that Kentucky's requests for infrastructure funding don't get buried in some minion's cubicle in Washington.
To be sure, there have been members of Congress who have abused earmarks, which is why McConnell has called for more trasparency. But as Beshear and every resident of the Commonwealth knows, Kentucky hasn't asked for a "Bridge to Nowhere." Just a bridge (or two) to Indiana.
But for Beshear (and Democrats running for U.S. Senate), it's an epiphany: earmarks benefit the district lucky enough to receive them.
Not surprisingly, the Courier-Journal spins Beshear'`s comments into an indictment of the Bush administration rather than an acknowledgment that we need earmarks. Indeed, the C-J headline -- "Beshear criticizes Bush transportation spending"-- suggests just the opposite, that Beshear thinks Bush has spent too much.
In fact, Beshear reiterated that Kentucky requires federal money to build the Ohio River bridges:
"The states don't have the resources to build these mega-projects," Beshear said. "And it is going to require the federal government to be part of that solution. They may not be the whole solution, but they've got to be part of that solution. Otherwise, none of these projects can move forward, whether that's in Kentucky or in any other state in the Union."
Besehear might protest that he doesn't want earmarks -- he simply wants a "national transportation policy" in which the "federal government needs to be a real partner in that policy with state and local governments."
Granted, this is Beshear's first meeting in the Natinal Governor's Association. But even a newbie should understand that the faceless bureaucrats in th`e Department of Transportation do not drive Kentucky roads; they don't know whether we need a bridge and don't care if we get one. Members of the Kentucky delegation, in contrast, drive our roads and know our needs first-hand.
That's why it's so important that our delegation includes as much seniority as possible, and why Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has been so effective at making sure that Kentucky's requests for infrastructure funding don't get buried in some minion's cubicle in Washington.
To be sure, there have been members of Congress who have abused earmarks, which is why McConnell has called for more trasparency. But as Beshear and every resident of the Commonwealth knows, Kentucky hasn't asked for a "Bridge to Nowhere." Just a bridge (or two) to Indiana.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Andrew Moveon.Horne Retreats Back To Vote Vets
Having laid down his rifle in the Kentucky Senate race, the Paradoxical Colonel has apparently resumed "carrying the water," as he might put it, for Vote Vets. The Park Avenue group's web site reports "Lt. Col. Andrew Horne, USMC (ret.)" as back on its roster of "Senior Advisers", after having deserted the post during his short-lived candidacy.
The retreating troops apparently are attempting to regroup and stage a last stand that would make General Custer proud. MSNBC reports that Vote Vets is "part of a larger effort by a consortium of liberal groups, joined today in a conference call with reporters by John and Elizabeth Edwards, against not just McCain but also targeted Republicans."
And guess who one of those targeted Republicans is? Of course, it is the Senator against whom Horne was "not afraid to lose." As the head of Moveon.org -- the commander-in-chief of Vote Vets -- disclosed:
The group’s "top-tier" targets . . . are four senators -- Maine’s Susan Collins, New Hampshire John Sununu, Minnesota’s Norm Coleman, and Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell.
Funny, given that Vote Vets claims to be "non-partisan", there's not a single Democrat in the group.
John Solz, the president of Vote Vets, "gave a preview of what the group’s tactics against McCain will be in the fall":
We’re going to continue to target Sen. McCain between now and the election,” Soltz said, adding. “We’re not going to disparage his service…. He served with honor, but when it comes to his policy on Iraq, he is no different than George W. Bush.”
So does that mean the verminous veterans will now accuse of McCain "aiding the enemy" and being a "coward" and "chickenhawk"? Those are, after all, Vote Vets' favorite rants against people who do not agree with their cut and run strategy in Iraq.
When it comes to the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, Horne knows a little something about cutting and running. Now we know the DemoBlogs take the position that Horne is the victim of a vast Left-Wing conspiracy to force him out from the race. Chuck Schumer, however, takes no prisoners.
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 retreating troops apparently are attempting to regroup and stage a last stand that would make General Custer proud. MSNBC reports that Vote Vets is "part of a larger effort by a consortium of liberal groups, joined today in a conference call with reporters by John and Elizabeth Edwards, against not just McCain but also targeted Republicans."
And guess who one of those targeted Republicans is? Of course, it is the Senator against whom Horne was "not afraid to lose." As the head of Moveon.org -- the commander-in-chief of Vote Vets -- disclosed:
The group’s "top-tier" targets . . . are four senators -- Maine’s Susan Collins, New Hampshire John Sununu, Minnesota’s Norm Coleman, and Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell.
Funny, given that Vote Vets claims to be "non-partisan", there's not a single Democrat in the group.
John Solz, the president of Vote Vets, "gave a preview of what the group’s tactics against McCain will be in the fall":
We’re going to continue to target Sen. McCain between now and the election,” Soltz said, adding. “We’re not going to disparage his service…. He served with honor, but when it comes to his policy on Iraq, he is no different than George W. Bush.”
So does that mean the verminous veterans will now accuse of McCain "aiding the enemy" and being a "coward" and "chickenhawk"? Those are, after all, Vote Vets' favorite rants against people who do not agree with their cut and run strategy in Iraq.
When it comes to the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, Horne knows a little something about cutting and running. Now we know the DemoBlogs take the position that Horne is the victim of a vast Left-Wing conspiracy to force him out from the race. Chuck Schumer, however, takes no prisoners.
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.
We Thought Clinton Supporters Stabbed People in the Back
This takes political divisiveness to a whole new level. A Hillary Clinton supporter stabbed his brother-in-law, a Barrack Obama supporter, in the stomach.
Jose Antonio Ortiz, a 41 year old resident of Pennsylvania, was debating Democratic politics with his 28 year old brother-in-law, Sean Shurelds, in the kitchen. Shurelds complained that Obama has been "trashing" Clinton.
The Smoking Gun (via Drudge) reports that:
Ortiz, a Clinton supporter, replied that "Obama was not a realist." While not exactly fighting words, the verbal political tiff led to some mutual choking and punching. And, allegedly, a stabbing in the abdomen.
This explains why Democrats are always so anxious to ban handguns; they just make primaries too dangerous. The Super Delegates are now super scared.
Jose Antonio Ortiz, a 41 year old resident of Pennsylvania, was debating Democratic politics with his 28 year old brother-in-law, Sean Shurelds, in the kitchen. Shurelds complained that Obama has been "trashing" Clinton.
The Smoking Gun (via Drudge) reports that:
Ortiz, a Clinton supporter, replied that "Obama was not a realist." While not exactly fighting words, the verbal political tiff led to some mutual choking and punching. And, allegedly, a stabbing in the abdomen.
This explains why Democrats are always so anxious to ban handguns; they just make primaries too dangerous. The Super Delegates are now super scared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)