For every 20 gallons of gas we buy, New York Senator Chuck Schumer is complicit in raising the price ten dollars, according to George Will.
When President George Bush travelled to Saudi Arabia last month, Schumer imperiously demanded that we halt all arms sales to Saudi Arabia until that country increases oil production by one million barrels a day. Such an increase, Schumer said, would cause the price of gas to drop by fifty cents a gallon almost immediately.
Although it's reassuring that Schumer understands that prices drop when supply increases, his choice of how to increase supply is misguided. Schumer (and many other Democrats) continue to oppose drilling in Alaska and off America's coasts -- even though China and Cuba drill closer to U.S. shores than our government allows our own companies.
That one million barrels daily of increased oil production that Schumer wants from the Saudis could be flowing from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, had Bill Clinton not vetoed production there in 1995. Now Democrats like Schumer have the nerve to complain that even drilling in Alaska won't help matters because of the time lag between sinking the first drill and refining the first gallon of gas.
We are the third largest oil producer in the world, behind the Saudis and the Russians; why aren't we tapping those resources with which we've been so abundantly blessed?
Schumer makes demands of other countries to increase production, and yet he prevents us from buying American under the guise of environmentalism. This, even though foreign countries drill 60 miles from the Florida coast. Schumer's underlying assumption appears to be that the Chinese will be better stewards of our coastlines than will American companies.
Will tells those New Yorkers who elected Schumer that they are getting the gas prices they deserve, as a direct result of his voting record. "Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling," according to Will.
Kentuckians, in contrast, have elected U.S. Senators who understand that we must explore, extract and refine as much of our own energy as possible. That includes converting coal to clean liquid fuels -- an industry that can increase energy independence, and provide jobs and tax revenue for Kentucky. This is an area in which Kentucky can lead not only our country but the world.
Democrats like to talk about conservation, and decreasing demand is certainly part of the equation. Here's the beauty of the marketplace: consumers are smart enough to change their buying habits when prices increase sufficiently. As a result, last month the sales for SUVs plummeted 34 percent -- about the same amount that sales for small, fuel-efficient cars increased. Consumers don't need the incentives of tax breaks or the threat of regulation to do what is in their own self-interest. Schumer forgets that the American consumer is smart enough to make a wise choice without him dictating the result.
Americans are also creative and tenacious enough to solve the technological problems that we confront as we seek to become energy independent. Our country pioneered the auto industry; we can lead the way in clean and efficient energy technology as well. The research and development that is required, however, won't happen if we punish companies for doing well by slapping them with "windfall taxes." It's in the oil companies' interest to invest in R&D; they don't need an edict from Chuck Schumer any more than the American consumer does.
The Chuck Schumer effect: a ten dollar surcharge for every 20 gallons of gas we buy. We could honk or give a one-finger salute when we fill up, but it would be more productive to just sign Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's petition that Congress address all three legs of the stool with an energy policy that encourages not only conservation but exploration and innovation.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Ding, dong the witch is dead...
....the wicked witch is dead. Well, for now anyway. The Dems have done it. They have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They have jettisoned the candidate who could best face John McCain and chosen the candidate who is least prepared to face him.
The more the American people get to know of and about Barack Obama, the more likely is a McCain victory in November.
As a Republican, it is a joyful day, but I just cannot figure out how Democrats think. Why would anyone chose an unknown, weak and inexperienced candidate over a well known, tough, and relatively experienced candidate? It is an absolute puzzlement to me.
The more the American people get to know of and about Barack Obama, the more likely is a McCain victory in November.
As a Republican, it is a joyful day, but I just cannot figure out how Democrats think. Why would anyone chose an unknown, weak and inexperienced candidate over a well known, tough, and relatively experienced candidate? It is an absolute puzzlement to me.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
McConnell Wields Justice for Judicial Nominees
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is not tolerating the Democrats' refusal to confirm judicial nominees who have been waiting for months -- or years.
McConnell used his mastery of Senate procedural rules to catch the Democrats' attention regarding the judicial nominees in limbo. Rather than consenting to routine Senate business -- for which unanimous consent was required -- McConnell forced the Clerk of the Senate read every word of a 491 page global warming bill. This was retribution for Senate Democrat Harry Reid breaking his pledge to confirm three judicial nominees by Memorial Day, as well as the slow pace of confirmation throughout this session.
The Washington Times quotes McConnell:
It is important that judicial emergencies are filled with qualified judges, and we will use the various tools at our disposal to ensure that those nominees and the Republican Conference are treated fairly, and that the Majority takes its commitments seriously.
McConnell is right about "judicial emergencies." The failure to fill vacancies has created backlogs of cases for which justice delayed may well be justice denied.
Litigants are not the only people hurt by the Democrats' failure to confirm nominees for courts with vacancies. Reid has forced the judicial nominees to put their lives on hold while he takes his sweet time determining when -- or whether -- they will ever get an up or down vote on the merits of their confirmation.
In light of the lives that Reid has disrupted, listening to a few hours of global warming legislation is a small but nonetheless just retribution. Indeed, McConnell was merciful in letting the Democrats immerse themselves on one of their favorite topics.
McConnell used his mastery of Senate procedural rules to catch the Democrats' attention regarding the judicial nominees in limbo. Rather than consenting to routine Senate business -- for which unanimous consent was required -- McConnell forced the Clerk of the Senate read every word of a 491 page global warming bill. This was retribution for Senate Democrat Harry Reid breaking his pledge to confirm three judicial nominees by Memorial Day, as well as the slow pace of confirmation throughout this session.
The Washington Times quotes McConnell:
It is important that judicial emergencies are filled with qualified judges, and we will use the various tools at our disposal to ensure that those nominees and the Republican Conference are treated fairly, and that the Majority takes its commitments seriously.
McConnell is right about "judicial emergencies." The failure to fill vacancies has created backlogs of cases for which justice delayed may well be justice denied.
Litigants are not the only people hurt by the Democrats' failure to confirm nominees for courts with vacancies. Reid has forced the judicial nominees to put their lives on hold while he takes his sweet time determining when -- or whether -- they will ever get an up or down vote on the merits of their confirmation.
In light of the lives that Reid has disrupted, listening to a few hours of global warming legislation is a small but nonetheless just retribution. Indeed, McConnell was merciful in letting the Democrats immerse themselves on one of their favorite topics.
Obama's Great Uncle -- Details from B.O.; $ for Israel
Barack Obama was mocked last week for telling a sad tale about his uncle who liberated Auschwitz. Then Obama was reminded that the Russians rather than the Americans liberated that camp. And that he had no uncle of an age to have participated in that liberation.
Addressing AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Council, Obama gives us the corrected version of the story. The uncle was actually a great uncle, and the camp was Ohrudruf, part of Buchenwald, which Americans did liberate.
Attempting to shore up his support among Jewish voters who have preferred Hillary Clinton, Obama promised to work to "eliminate" the threat that Iran poses to Israel and the rest of the world. No details as to how he would do this.
Obama attempted to clarify previous comments that he would meet with the president of Iran without precondition -- comments for which he was criticized as naive.
"As president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing -- if, and only if -- it can advance the interests of the United States."
Obama also promised that he'd given Israel millions of dollars for new weapons. The theory seems to be that if he gives the money to a foreign country, it doesn't count as an earmark. It's unclear whether this thinly-veiled bribe will assuage the concerns of Jewish voters about rhetoric from the Rev. Wright, Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and his solicitude for those Palestinians who keep lobbing rockets at Israel.
Addressing AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Council, Obama gives us the corrected version of the story. The uncle was actually a great uncle, and the camp was Ohrudruf, part of Buchenwald, which Americans did liberate.
Attempting to shore up his support among Jewish voters who have preferred Hillary Clinton, Obama promised to work to "eliminate" the threat that Iran poses to Israel and the rest of the world. No details as to how he would do this.
Obama attempted to clarify previous comments that he would meet with the president of Iran without precondition -- comments for which he was criticized as naive.
"As president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing -- if, and only if -- it can advance the interests of the United States."
Obama also promised that he'd given Israel millions of dollars for new weapons. The theory seems to be that if he gives the money to a foreign country, it doesn't count as an earmark. It's unclear whether this thinly-veiled bribe will assuage the concerns of Jewish voters about rhetoric from the Rev. Wright, Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and his solicitude for those Palestinians who keep lobbing rockets at Israel.
So Much for the Great Commission
The Church of England confronted the Great Commission (to make disciples of all the nations) and not only took a pass -- it decided to promote church tourism, instead.
The Telegraph reports:
A meeting of the Church's "parliament" was due to discuss whether clergy should be doing more to convert British Muslims to Christianity.
The sensitive issue was highlighted last week by a senior bishop who accused Church leaders of failing to reach out to other faiths, and warned that radical Islam is filling a gap in society caused by the decline of traditional Christian values.
But now the Church has put off the debate on recruiting Muslims until next February at the earliest and will discuss the promotion of churches as tourist attractions instead. . . .
That's an idea --let's just turn the churches into museums! So much neater than dealing with parishioners who actually believe in the divinity of Christ.
The debate would have taken place just 12 days before the once-a-decade summit of Anglican bishops, the Lambeth Conference. It would have piled more pressure on the embattled Archbishop of Canterbury, who earlier this year sparked a storm by claiming some parts of Islamic law would be adopted in Britain.
The Church of England has positioned itself for a new Reformation. The debate will be between those dark and scary Orthodox Anglicans from the Africa and the old-school Anglicans who just want to sip tea with the Queen at Lambeth Palace. On the sidelines, radical jihadists will just laugh as England slips further and further into the complacency of moral relativism.
Update: Instead of turning the chuches into museums, how about using them for brothels? The Italians lead the way on this new use for the confessional.
H/t: hotair.com.
The Telegraph reports:
A meeting of the Church's "parliament" was due to discuss whether clergy should be doing more to convert British Muslims to Christianity.
The sensitive issue was highlighted last week by a senior bishop who accused Church leaders of failing to reach out to other faiths, and warned that radical Islam is filling a gap in society caused by the decline of traditional Christian values.
But now the Church has put off the debate on recruiting Muslims until next February at the earliest and will discuss the promotion of churches as tourist attractions instead. . . .
That's an idea --let's just turn the churches into museums! So much neater than dealing with parishioners who actually believe in the divinity of Christ.
The debate would have taken place just 12 days before the once-a-decade summit of Anglican bishops, the Lambeth Conference. It would have piled more pressure on the embattled Archbishop of Canterbury, who earlier this year sparked a storm by claiming some parts of Islamic law would be adopted in Britain.
The Church of England has positioned itself for a new Reformation. The debate will be between those dark and scary Orthodox Anglicans from the Africa and the old-school Anglicans who just want to sip tea with the Queen at Lambeth Palace. On the sidelines, radical jihadists will just laugh as England slips further and further into the complacency of moral relativism.
Update: Instead of turning the chuches into museums, how about using them for brothels? The Italians lead the way on this new use for the confessional.
H/t: hotair.com.
NRO Praises McConnell on Judges
It's understandable that the Democrats would want to run down the clock on confirming judges in the last months of the Bush administration. But for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to make and then break a promise to confirm three judges before Memorial Day is just dishonorable.
National Review Online praises Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell for holding Reid accountable, quoting McConnell's blunt criticism:
At the beginning of this Congress, the Majority said it would meet or exceed the average of 17 circuit court nominees that have been confirmed in prior Congresses; yet it has only confirmed eight circuit court judges thus far. More disturbing, the Chairman of the Committee recently threatened to shut down the confirmation process completely, an action that would break yet another historical precedent.
The Majority said it would treat Republican senate delegations fairly; yet for months, the Democratic Majority has only worked on circuit court nominees from states with a Democratic senator.
The Majority said it would do its ‘utmost,’ said it would do ‘everything’ possible, said it would do ‘everything within its power’ to confirm three more circuit court nominees by the Memorial Day recess; yet it only confirmed one nominee. Moreover, it appears the Majority did not seriously attempt to honor its commitment. Indeed, since that deadline passed almost two weeks ago, the Democratic Majority has still failed to confirm more circuit court nominees.
The Democratic Majority has refused to honor its commitments. It apparently believes that commitments do not matter in the United States Senate, and that actions do not have consequences.
McConnell is absolutely right; these nominees deserve an up or down vote. If the Democrats want to vote against confirming them, then at least have the courage and the decency to let their names come to the floor for a vote. These nominees are not legal abstractions. They're people who have put their professional lives on hold and subjected themselves to all sorts of investigations and vetting -- all because they believe in the rule of law and calling of public service.
Reid and his cohorts can vote down every single Bush judicial nominee, if they like. But they won't -- they'll just let these nominees languish in committee, because they lack the guts to actually vote on the record. What a bunch of sissies.
National Review Online praises Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell for holding Reid accountable, quoting McConnell's blunt criticism:
At the beginning of this Congress, the Majority said it would meet or exceed the average of 17 circuit court nominees that have been confirmed in prior Congresses; yet it has only confirmed eight circuit court judges thus far. More disturbing, the Chairman of the Committee recently threatened to shut down the confirmation process completely, an action that would break yet another historical precedent.
The Majority said it would treat Republican senate delegations fairly; yet for months, the Democratic Majority has only worked on circuit court nominees from states with a Democratic senator.
The Majority said it would do its ‘utmost,’ said it would do ‘everything’ possible, said it would do ‘everything within its power’ to confirm three more circuit court nominees by the Memorial Day recess; yet it only confirmed one nominee. Moreover, it appears the Majority did not seriously attempt to honor its commitment. Indeed, since that deadline passed almost two weeks ago, the Democratic Majority has still failed to confirm more circuit court nominees.
The Democratic Majority has refused to honor its commitments. It apparently believes that commitments do not matter in the United States Senate, and that actions do not have consequences.
McConnell is absolutely right; these nominees deserve an up or down vote. If the Democrats want to vote against confirming them, then at least have the courage and the decency to let their names come to the floor for a vote. These nominees are not legal abstractions. They're people who have put their professional lives on hold and subjected themselves to all sorts of investigations and vetting -- all because they believe in the rule of law and calling of public service.
Reid and his cohorts can vote down every single Bush judicial nominee, if they like. But they won't -- they'll just let these nominees languish in committee, because they lack the guts to actually vote on the record. What a bunch of sissies.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
AP Proclaims Obama The Nominee
Who needs to wait until the roll call at the Democratic convention when there is the Associated Press to do the counting now? According to the AP:
Barack Obama has effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates.
The tally put Obama over the top Tuesday, ahead of the results from the day's final primaries in Montana and South Dakota. The Illinois senator becomes the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House. Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic contest and now faces Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona for the presidency.
Those AP reporters covering the Democratic primaries must be tired and ready to go home.
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.
Barack Obama has effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates.
The tally put Obama over the top Tuesday, ahead of the results from the day's final primaries in Montana and South Dakota. The Illinois senator becomes the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House. Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic contest and now faces Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona for the presidency.
Those AP reporters covering the Democratic primaries must be tired and ready to go home.
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.
'Tis the season.....
...for all good Republicans to give generously in support of our candidates. If you have never given, give now. If you give regularly, give more. Republican candidates need our support now more than they have in many, many years.
We have Anne Northup running for her old seat, and it would be GREAT if you could unseat the playboy liberal currently occupying her old office. It is going to be an uphill battle for her and she really needs our support.
Senator McConnell is facing his first real challenge in years. It is a real challenge not because of the quality of his opponent, but because of the bank account of his opponent. Word on the street has it that Lunsford is prepared to spend $10 to $15 million of his own money on the race! Lunsford may be a man of low character, but it is amazing what a few million dollars of TV and radio advertising can do to fool the electorate. Mitch is great at raising money, but Lunsford is going to push him to his limits.
In the presidential race, we have a socialist running against our man. Many true conservatives are unhappy with McCain's pedigree, but he is wonderful candidate compared to the alternative. Obama is a racist and a radical who will be a disaster for this country.
For those of you who are tightfisted and unwilling to let go of your money for political candidates, keep this in mind:
If democrats gain more power, the increase in your taxes will dwarf any amount of money that you could reasonably contribute to a Republican candidate.
So, GIVE!
We have Anne Northup running for her old seat, and it would be GREAT if you could unseat the playboy liberal currently occupying her old office. It is going to be an uphill battle for her and she really needs our support.
Senator McConnell is facing his first real challenge in years. It is a real challenge not because of the quality of his opponent, but because of the bank account of his opponent. Word on the street has it that Lunsford is prepared to spend $10 to $15 million of his own money on the race! Lunsford may be a man of low character, but it is amazing what a few million dollars of TV and radio advertising can do to fool the electorate. Mitch is great at raising money, but Lunsford is going to push him to his limits.
In the presidential race, we have a socialist running against our man. Many true conservatives are unhappy with McCain's pedigree, but he is wonderful candidate compared to the alternative. Obama is a racist and a radical who will be a disaster for this country.
For those of you who are tightfisted and unwilling to let go of your money for political candidates, keep this in mind:
If democrats gain more power, the increase in your taxes will dwarf any amount of money that you could reasonably contribute to a Republican candidate.
So, GIVE!
Monday, June 2, 2008
New Rantings From Mad Mahmoud
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that the end is near for Israel. Ahmadinejad has made headlines in the past for denying that the Holocaust ever occurred, and for threatening to wipe Israel off the map (with those nukes he's developing, no doubt).
In this most recent outburst, however, Ahmadinejad seems to envision a more imminent timetable:
I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," he said. (Emphasis added.)
This is the man with whom Barack Obama wants to sit down and negotiate -- without precondition. We don't have to wonder if Obama would throw Israel under the bus; look what he did to his own grandmother.
As for the U.S., Ahmadinejad predicts:
Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.
If he's referring to the inauguration of Obama, Ahdmadinejad should note that we survived the Carter administration, and likewise can survive Obama, if it comes to that.
Like an Obama groupie, moreover, Ahmadinejad has been seized with messianic fever:
With the appearance of the promised saviour... and his companions such as Jesus Christ, tyranny will be soon be eradicated in the world. (Emphasis added.)
Ahmadinejad has always been a devotee of the Mahdi, who Shiites believe disappeared more than a thousand years ago and who will return one day to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.
Maybe that's why Obama thinks that he can persuade Ahmadinejad to be reasonable if only the two can meet -- maybe Obama's secret plan is to convince Ahmadinejad that he, Obama, is the Mahdi!
In this most recent outburst, however, Ahmadinejad seems to envision a more imminent timetable:
I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," he said. (Emphasis added.)
This is the man with whom Barack Obama wants to sit down and negotiate -- without precondition. We don't have to wonder if Obama would throw Israel under the bus; look what he did to his own grandmother.
As for the U.S., Ahmadinejad predicts:
Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.
If he's referring to the inauguration of Obama, Ahdmadinejad should note that we survived the Carter administration, and likewise can survive Obama, if it comes to that.
Like an Obama groupie, moreover, Ahmadinejad has been seized with messianic fever:
With the appearance of the promised saviour... and his companions such as Jesus Christ, tyranny will be soon be eradicated in the world. (Emphasis added.)
Ahmadinejad has always been a devotee of the Mahdi, who Shiites believe disappeared more than a thousand years ago and who will return one day to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.
Maybe that's why Obama thinks that he can persuade Ahmadinejad to be reasonable if only the two can meet -- maybe Obama's secret plan is to convince Ahmadinejad that he, Obama, is the Mahdi!
Obama Loses Again
Senator Hillary Clinton whalloped Senator Barack Obama again yesterday, this time in the Puerto Rico primary. According to CBS News, "[w]ith 85 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton was leading Obama 68 percent to 32 percent." We're waiting for the Obama apologists to issue a press release explaining that the Puerto Ricans are as "racist" as Kentuckians, West Virginians, etc.
Prayers for Teddy
Ted Kennedy goes under the knife today for removal of a brain tumor. Let us pray for a successful surgery and then a happy retirement!
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Elephant Gone Wild
I refuse to read any symbolism into this news account, but given the name of this blog, it must be reported:
PATNA, India (Reuters) - An elephant named "Osama bin Laden" that has killed more than 11 people and injured dozens over the past few months was shot dead in Jharkhand, officials said on Saturday.
The wild male elephant, had been terrorising villagers in two states, destroying their crops and homes.
Forest officials and a police team tracked down the rogue jumbo in Jharkhand late on Friday, where it was shot dead, Ravi Ranjan, a senior government official said.
"Yes, Osama has finally been killed and it took us 20 bullets to silence him," Ranjan told Reuters from Jharkhand on Saturday.
Hundreds of villagers gathered on Saturday to catch a glimpse of the dead elephant.
That's right. If you want to catch a glimpse of a dead elephant, you will have to go to India. Reports of our demise in this country are premature.
h/t: Freerepublic
PATNA, India (Reuters) - An elephant named "Osama bin Laden" that has killed more than 11 people and injured dozens over the past few months was shot dead in Jharkhand, officials said on Saturday.
The wild male elephant, had been terrorising villagers in two states, destroying their crops and homes.
Forest officials and a police team tracked down the rogue jumbo in Jharkhand late on Friday, where it was shot dead, Ravi Ranjan, a senior government official said.
"Yes, Osama has finally been killed and it took us 20 bullets to silence him," Ranjan told Reuters from Jharkhand on Saturday.
Hundreds of villagers gathered on Saturday to catch a glimpse of the dead elephant.
That's right. If you want to catch a glimpse of a dead elephant, you will have to go to India. Reports of our demise in this country are premature.
h/t: Freerepublic
Friday, May 30, 2008
Mystery Solved
Bruce Lunsford's press secretary, Allison Haley, this week dismissed internal polling numbers from the McConnell campaign that showed the Senate Republican Leader enjoys a comfortable job approval rating. Said Haley, "It's certainly mysterious that this poll shows McConnell's job approval so much higher than several independent polls in the past few weeks.”
Haley's "mystery" was solved today when a new independent poll showed confirmed the accuracy of McConnell's internal poll. (See post below.)
The difference in how the two campaigns reacted to the polling data -- it's a classic example of projection. Lunsford's staffers assume that McConnell would commission a bogus poll, to trot out at cocktail parties and cook-outs because that is what they expect from their boss, the perennial candidate. McConnell, unlike Lunsford, does not view public service as an escalator for social climbing. McConnell, unlike Lunsford, understands that a small state like Kentucky needs as much seniority in its Congressional delegation as possible in order to fight for our interests.
Haley's "mystery" was solved today when a new independent poll showed confirmed the accuracy of McConnell's internal poll. (See post below.)
The difference in how the two campaigns reacted to the polling data -- it's a classic example of projection. Lunsford's staffers assume that McConnell would commission a bogus poll, to trot out at cocktail parties and cook-outs because that is what they expect from their boss, the perennial candidate. McConnell, unlike Lunsford, does not view public service as an escalator for social climbing. McConnell, unlike Lunsford, understands that a small state like Kentucky needs as much seniority in its Congressional delegation as possible in order to fight for our interests.
Hebert: "McConnell's Job Approval Soars in May"
Mark Hebert is reporting that the new Survey USA/WHAS 11 poll shows that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's job approval "jumped a whopping 11 points this month," up to 57 percent.
These numbers have to be extremely good news for the Senate Minority Leader, who saw one pollster (Rasmussen) release numbers earlier this week showing McConnell trailing Bruce Lunsford in this year's senate race. Survey USA has not done any polling yet on the McConnell-Lunsford race but a Lexington Herald-Leader poll showed McConnell with a 12 point lead over Lunsford.
The breakdown on McConnell's Survey USA job approval numbers shows his biggest support coming from eastern Kentucky (62%-32%) and among men (65%-33%). McConnell is even polling fairly well among democrats (45%-50%) and African-Americans (57%-40%).
The SUSA poll therefore reconfirms findings from McConnell's internal poll and the Lexington-Herald Leader poll that show McConnell leading Lunsford.
These numbers have to be extremely good news for the Senate Minority Leader, who saw one pollster (Rasmussen) release numbers earlier this week showing McConnell trailing Bruce Lunsford in this year's senate race. Survey USA has not done any polling yet on the McConnell-Lunsford race but a Lexington Herald-Leader poll showed McConnell with a 12 point lead over Lunsford.
The breakdown on McConnell's Survey USA job approval numbers shows his biggest support coming from eastern Kentucky (62%-32%) and among men (65%-33%). McConnell is even polling fairly well among democrats (45%-50%) and African-Americans (57%-40%).
The SUSA poll therefore reconfirms findings from McConnell's internal poll and the Lexington-Herald Leader poll that show McConnell leading Lunsford.
Squirrel Alert
Just when Senator Barack Obama thought he had finally buried the Reverend Wright's rantings, now comes word that even more problematic friends from Obama's past have been dug up: ACORN. As Riehl World View explains,
There's a lot of buzz being generated about Obama, ACORN and Obama's first political party - The New Party. How did the Oba-messiah get this far without anyone reporting he was a member of a fringe Leftist political party?
Relying on Sol Stern’s 2003 City Journal article, “ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities”, Stanley Kurz of National Review Online provides a good synopsis of ACORN's history:
Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s “New Left,” with a “1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism” to match. Acorn, says Stern, grew out of “one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.” In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force “a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy.” Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities — until welfare reform began to turn the tide.
While Acorn holds to NWRO’s radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. Acorn prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas — where, Stern observes, local legislators and reporters are often “slow to grasp how radical Acorn’s positions really are.” Acorn’s new goals are municipal “living wage” laws targeting “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks — efforts styled as combating “predatory lending.” Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. Acorn’s opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive “donations” that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.
According to Stern, Acorn’s radical agenda sometimes shifts toward “undisguised authoritarian socialism.” Fully aware of its living-wage campaign’s tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain “exit visas.” “How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?” asks Stern, adding, “This is the road to serfdom indeed.”
Kurtz also details Obama's close association with ACORN's activities in Chicago and concludes:
Obama’s ties to Acorn — arguably the most politically radical large-scale activist group in the country — are wide, deep, and longstanding. If Acorn is adept at creating a non-partisan, inside-game veneer for what is in fact an intensely radical, leftist, and politically partisan reality, so is Obama himself. This is hardly a coincidence: Obama helped train Acorn’s leaders in how to play this game. For the most part, Obama seems to have favored the political-insider strategy, yet it’s clear that he knew how to play the in-your-face “direct action” game as well. And surely during his many years of close association with Acorn, Obama had to know what the group was all about.
So why hasn't Senator Hillary Clinton said anything to criticize Obama's ties to ACORN? To answer that question requires understanding a little history of the group. ACORN -- which stands for Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now -- began in Little Rock in the early 1970s with the original name of "Arkansas Community Organization for Reform Now", as a puff piece explains. With the word Arkansas in the group's name, need we say more? Of course, the Clintons were involved.
At ACORN's 2006 National Convention, Senator Clinton confessed:
You know, I am one of those who remembers the beginnings of ACORN in Arkansas all of those years ago. The headquarters for ACORN was near the Governor’s mansion. And I started a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and we worked on a lot of important issues . . .
Unlike Clinton, McCain won't have that inconvenient piece of the past deterring his asking tough questions of Obama regarding his left-wing nuttery.
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.
There's a lot of buzz being generated about Obama, ACORN and Obama's first political party - The New Party. How did the Oba-messiah get this far without anyone reporting he was a member of a fringe Leftist political party?
Relying on Sol Stern’s 2003 City Journal article, “ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities”, Stanley Kurz of National Review Online provides a good synopsis of ACORN's history:
Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s “New Left,” with a “1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism” to match. Acorn, says Stern, grew out of “one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.” In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force “a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy.” Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities — until welfare reform began to turn the tide.
While Acorn holds to NWRO’s radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. Acorn prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas — where, Stern observes, local legislators and reporters are often “slow to grasp how radical Acorn’s positions really are.” Acorn’s new goals are municipal “living wage” laws targeting “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks — efforts styled as combating “predatory lending.” Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. Acorn’s opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive “donations” that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.
According to Stern, Acorn’s radical agenda sometimes shifts toward “undisguised authoritarian socialism.” Fully aware of its living-wage campaign’s tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain “exit visas.” “How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?” asks Stern, adding, “This is the road to serfdom indeed.”
Kurtz also details Obama's close association with ACORN's activities in Chicago and concludes:
Obama’s ties to Acorn — arguably the most politically radical large-scale activist group in the country — are wide, deep, and longstanding. If Acorn is adept at creating a non-partisan, inside-game veneer for what is in fact an intensely radical, leftist, and politically partisan reality, so is Obama himself. This is hardly a coincidence: Obama helped train Acorn’s leaders in how to play this game. For the most part, Obama seems to have favored the political-insider strategy, yet it’s clear that he knew how to play the in-your-face “direct action” game as well. And surely during his many years of close association with Acorn, Obama had to know what the group was all about.
So why hasn't Senator Hillary Clinton said anything to criticize Obama's ties to ACORN? To answer that question requires understanding a little history of the group. ACORN -- which stands for Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now -- began in Little Rock in the early 1970s with the original name of "Arkansas Community Organization for Reform Now", as a puff piece explains. With the word Arkansas in the group's name, need we say more? Of course, the Clintons were involved.
At ACORN's 2006 National Convention, Senator Clinton confessed:
You know, I am one of those who remembers the beginnings of ACORN in Arkansas all of those years ago. The headquarters for ACORN was near the Governor’s mansion. And I started a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and we worked on a lot of important issues . . .
Unlike Clinton, McCain won't have that inconvenient piece of the past deterring his asking tough questions of Obama regarding his left-wing nuttery.
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.
Obama Reprises Jimmy Carter
The parallels between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter continue to multiply. Obama recently said "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
It was as if Jimmy Carter was once again lecturing America to turn down the thermostat, don a cardigan and turn off the Christmas lights.
There are many other similarities, some of which appear in a recent Time article, "In Carter's Shadow."
Of the two likely nominees this year, Obama is closest to Carter in background and policy leanings. The parallels between his campaign so far and the one Carter ran in 1976 are striking. Like Carter, Obama had little national experience when he started to run. Neither was given much chance of winning the nomination. Instead of running on a detailed platform, Carter told crowds that what Washington needed was "a government as good as its people"—just as Obama promises "change we can believe in." Carter's message sold well after Richard Nixon's disgrace, and press accounts from the time suggest that people found the born-again Carter to be charismatic. That parallel is a promising one for Obama.
But his Carterish echoes come with two potential dangers. The first is that running as the embodiment of hope can lend itself to a certain self-righteousness—what critics have already started to call �litism. The second danger is that the public will come to see Obama as naive about America's enemies abroad, as it eventually concluded Carter was. Ever since Obama said he was willing to negotiate with those enemies directly and "without precondition," Republicans have been trying to tag him as the son of the Georgia governor.
That addresses the scariest aspect of an Obama presidency: the specter of Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez toying with Obama like he is their personal plaything. We saw this when the Ayatollah played Carter, and it was one of the most humiliating and dangerous chapters in American history.
It was, however, a ratings field day for the media. If there had been no President Carter, there would have been no hostage crises; there would have been no need for ABC to launch "America Held Hostage: Day (take your pick). Carter's inability to respond to the hostage crisis dragged on so long that ABC even managed to make its "special report" a regularly scheduled program: Nightline. So it's no wonder that the media gravitate to Obama and promote his candidacy.
Update: Bob Tyrrell notes that Obama shares Jimmy Carter's susceptibility to bizarre gaffes, including Obama's non-existent uncle not liberating Auschwitz, fairy tales about his conception and his seeing dead people on Memorial Day:
There was a fundamental weirdness in these episodes that reminded me of a condition President Jimmy Carter found himself in not long into his presidency. He was suffering some sort of diabolical infestation. Supernatural pranksters had made their way from heaven or hell to trip him up. What was happening to Jimmy when he claimed to be attacked by a huge amphibious bunny rabbit or during numerous jogging mishaps was not normal. Now the paranormal has settled upon the Obama campaign.
Along with the bad luck of eating a waffle while waffling and of having his elitist prejudices exposed to public scrutiny, there is an accumulating junk pile of gaffes that seem to be beyond Mr. Obama's control.
It was as if Jimmy Carter was once again lecturing America to turn down the thermostat, don a cardigan and turn off the Christmas lights.
There are many other similarities, some of which appear in a recent Time article, "In Carter's Shadow."
Of the two likely nominees this year, Obama is closest to Carter in background and policy leanings. The parallels between his campaign so far and the one Carter ran in 1976 are striking. Like Carter, Obama had little national experience when he started to run. Neither was given much chance of winning the nomination. Instead of running on a detailed platform, Carter told crowds that what Washington needed was "a government as good as its people"—just as Obama promises "change we can believe in." Carter's message sold well after Richard Nixon's disgrace, and press accounts from the time suggest that people found the born-again Carter to be charismatic. That parallel is a promising one for Obama.
But his Carterish echoes come with two potential dangers. The first is that running as the embodiment of hope can lend itself to a certain self-righteousness—what critics have already started to call �litism. The second danger is that the public will come to see Obama as naive about America's enemies abroad, as it eventually concluded Carter was. Ever since Obama said he was willing to negotiate with those enemies directly and "without precondition," Republicans have been trying to tag him as the son of the Georgia governor.
That addresses the scariest aspect of an Obama presidency: the specter of Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez toying with Obama like he is their personal plaything. We saw this when the Ayatollah played Carter, and it was one of the most humiliating and dangerous chapters in American history.
It was, however, a ratings field day for the media. If there had been no President Carter, there would have been no hostage crises; there would have been no need for ABC to launch "America Held Hostage: Day (take your pick). Carter's inability to respond to the hostage crisis dragged on so long that ABC even managed to make its "special report" a regularly scheduled program: Nightline. So it's no wonder that the media gravitate to Obama and promote his candidacy.
Update: Bob Tyrrell notes that Obama shares Jimmy Carter's susceptibility to bizarre gaffes, including Obama's non-existent uncle not liberating Auschwitz, fairy tales about his conception and his seeing dead people on Memorial Day:
There was a fundamental weirdness in these episodes that reminded me of a condition President Jimmy Carter found himself in not long into his presidency. He was suffering some sort of diabolical infestation. Supernatural pranksters had made their way from heaven or hell to trip him up. What was happening to Jimmy when he claimed to be attacked by a huge amphibious bunny rabbit or during numerous jogging mishaps was not normal. Now the paranormal has settled upon the Obama campaign.
Along with the bad luck of eating a waffle while waffling and of having his elitist prejudices exposed to public scrutiny, there is an accumulating junk pile of gaffes that seem to be beyond Mr. Obama's control.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Realclearpolitics Weighs in on McConnell Poll
Realclearpolitics analyzes the dueling polls on Kentucky's U.S. Senate race and concludes that McConnell looks safe:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been advertising since late last year in advance of this November's vote, and he is determined not to find himself in dire straits come the Fall. While former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle fell victim to the rival party a few years ago, McConnell looks like he's in much better position than his erstwhile colleague, a new poll for the incumbent's campaign shows.
The Voter/Consumer Research poll, conducted for McConnell, surveyed 600 likely voters between 5/21-22 for a margin of error of +/- 4%. McConnell and two-time gubernatorial candidate and businessman Bruce Lunsford, the Democratic nominee, were tested.
General Election MatchupMcConnell....50 (-2 from last, 1/9)Lunsford......39 (+2)
While it is a partisan poll, VCR is a well-respected firm, and McConnell's lead shouldn't be surprising. A robo-poll company released a survey last week showing the two virtually tied, and to be fair, an 11-point lead is not a huge one for the top Senate Republican to have. But McConnell is well-liked; 55% of state voters have a favorable opinion of him, compared with just 32% who see him unfavorably, and 57% approve of his job performance.
Both the favorable rating and job performance rating are down slightly since January, but one would expect that given Democrats' slamming him throughout the primary season. Lunsford has shown some growth, as 34% of the state has a favorable image of him, up eleven points since January. Just 20% have an unfavorable view.
With 46% of voters undecided about Lunsford, McConnell has a big opening through which to define his new rival. While Lunsford will have plenty of money to spend given his own deep pockets and willingness to use them, McConnell could further dip into the $7.7 million war chest he had on hand at the end of April to run Lunsford's negatives through the roof.
National Democrats could use some of their financial advantage to cut McConnell's money advantage, and Lunsford will likely be well-funded himself. But causing the incumbent serious heartburn may take a lot more work.
I don't see national Democrats pouring money into a state that has rejected Barack Obama as decisively as Kentucky. The whole reason DSCC chair Chuck Schumer recruited Bruce Lunsford, after all, is because national Dems did not want to spend money in Kentucky and therefore needed a self-funder like millionaire Lunsford.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been advertising since late last year in advance of this November's vote, and he is determined not to find himself in dire straits come the Fall. While former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle fell victim to the rival party a few years ago, McConnell looks like he's in much better position than his erstwhile colleague, a new poll for the incumbent's campaign shows.
The Voter/Consumer Research poll, conducted for McConnell, surveyed 600 likely voters between 5/21-22 for a margin of error of +/- 4%. McConnell and two-time gubernatorial candidate and businessman Bruce Lunsford, the Democratic nominee, were tested.
General Election MatchupMcConnell....50 (-2 from last, 1/9)Lunsford......39 (+2)
While it is a partisan poll, VCR is a well-respected firm, and McConnell's lead shouldn't be surprising. A robo-poll company released a survey last week showing the two virtually tied, and to be fair, an 11-point lead is not a huge one for the top Senate Republican to have. But McConnell is well-liked; 55% of state voters have a favorable opinion of him, compared with just 32% who see him unfavorably, and 57% approve of his job performance.
Both the favorable rating and job performance rating are down slightly since January, but one would expect that given Democrats' slamming him throughout the primary season. Lunsford has shown some growth, as 34% of the state has a favorable image of him, up eleven points since January. Just 20% have an unfavorable view.
With 46% of voters undecided about Lunsford, McConnell has a big opening through which to define his new rival. While Lunsford will have plenty of money to spend given his own deep pockets and willingness to use them, McConnell could further dip into the $7.7 million war chest he had on hand at the end of April to run Lunsford's negatives through the roof.
National Democrats could use some of their financial advantage to cut McConnell's money advantage, and Lunsford will likely be well-funded himself. But causing the incumbent serious heartburn may take a lot more work.
I don't see national Democrats pouring money into a state that has rejected Barack Obama as decisively as Kentucky. The whole reason DSCC chair Chuck Schumer recruited Bruce Lunsford, after all, is because national Dems did not want to spend money in Kentucky and therefore needed a self-funder like millionaire Lunsford.
Scott McClellan: The David Stockman of the Bush White House?
Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary from 2003 through 2006, is splashing around in the media waves these days, holding out his new book for the sharks who think they smell blood spilling from the Bush White House. Undoubtedly McClellan is counting on sales of his turncoat "confession" to bring in enough cash to make up for his years on a government salary.
McClellan, who just turned forty, reminds me of another youngster who served in the White House and thought himself wiser than his elder President and decided to tell the world about it: David Stockman, President Reagan's first budget director. Beginning with the now-infamous Atlantic Monthly article, "The Education of David Stockman", the liberal media touted the thirty-something Stockman as the ultimate Reagan White House insider who supposedly came clean on everything that was wrong with Reagan's economic policies.
But we all know how the Stockman v. Reagan match-up ended. Reagan is now viewed as one of the nation's greatest presidents and the architect of one of the longest eras of economic expansion in the country's history and Stockman, well . . . After suffering in obscurity for many years (a risk when one gains fame early, then burns bridges to friends who helped get you there), Stockman made the news again last year when he was indicted in a $1.6 billion fraud case involving his company. The now sixty-something Stockman was accused by the U.S. Attorney of having "resorted to lies, tricks, and fraud."
This is not to say Scott McClellan will meet a like fate, or will be accused of similar activities as David Stockman, but the Stockman saga suggests skepticism should be in order for a tell-all memoir from a sanctimonious former White House whippersnapper. It may not be the end of the story for the subject being discussed or the young writer.
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.
McClellan, who just turned forty, reminds me of another youngster who served in the White House and thought himself wiser than his elder President and decided to tell the world about it: David Stockman, President Reagan's first budget director. Beginning with the now-infamous Atlantic Monthly article, "The Education of David Stockman", the liberal media touted the thirty-something Stockman as the ultimate Reagan White House insider who supposedly came clean on everything that was wrong with Reagan's economic policies.
But we all know how the Stockman v. Reagan match-up ended. Reagan is now viewed as one of the nation's greatest presidents and the architect of one of the longest eras of economic expansion in the country's history and Stockman, well . . . After suffering in obscurity for many years (a risk when one gains fame early, then burns bridges to friends who helped get you there), Stockman made the news again last year when he was indicted in a $1.6 billion fraud case involving his company. The now sixty-something Stockman was accused by the U.S. Attorney of having "resorted to lies, tricks, and fraud."
This is not to say Scott McClellan will meet a like fate, or will be accused of similar activities as David Stockman, but the Stockman saga suggests skepticism should be in order for a tell-all memoir from a sanctimonious former White House whippersnapper. It may not be the end of the story for the subject being discussed or the young writer.
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, May 28, 2008
Dubious About Lunsford's "Lead"
Pol Watchers notes Washington political writers were skeptical about a Rasmussen poll that showed Bruce Lunsford leading Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell:
"It's delusional. It's not only silly, it's stupid," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report.
"Rasmussen has been preparing wrong polls. There is no reason to believe that Lunsford is leading McConnell in that race."
Rothenberg said it's "realistic" to believe that McConnell holds an 11-point lead.
"That's not a blowout," he said. "The Republican brand is damaged and he is leader of the Republicans in the Senate. But there is no way he is trailing in the race."
Jennifer Duffy, with the Cook Political Report, said, "I pay almost no attention to Rasmussen polls. The methodology is really flawed and they have a terrible track record."
"It's delusional. It's not only silly, it's stupid," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report.
"Rasmussen has been preparing wrong polls. There is no reason to believe that Lunsford is leading McConnell in that race."
Rothenberg said it's "realistic" to believe that McConnell holds an 11-point lead.
"That's not a blowout," he said. "The Republican brand is damaged and he is leader of the Republicans in the Senate. But there is no way he is trailing in the race."
Jennifer Duffy, with the Cook Political Report, said, "I pay almost no attention to Rasmussen polls. The methodology is really flawed and they have a terrible track record."
The Chinese, or Koreans, or Swedes, or Mexicans, or Turks Are Coming!
According to Reuters, General Electric's CEO, Jeff Immelt, earlier today "named five non-U.S. appliance manufacturers, including China's Haier, South Korea's LG Electronics, Sweden's Electrolux, Mexico's Controladora Mabe and Turkey's Arcelik, as potential bidders for the company's century-old appliances business" in Louisville. Hopefully any international buyer will invest in retaining jobs in Kentucky instead of exporting them overseas. Query whether the local and state governments can do anything productive to influence that effort. Message to Mayor Jerry: Adding more languages to the "Welcome to Louisville" sign at the airport looks good, but will be little consolation to unemployed workers left behind if the new foreign owners move the business.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)