Trey Grayson On Israel

Recently I raised the issue of how the candidates for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate view America's relationship with Israel. Both Dr. Rand Paul and Secretary of State Trey Grayson favor low taxes, limited government and an end to the profligate spending that fuels our deficits. That economic conservatism is necessary to win the GOP primary, but it is not, in my view sufficient. As voters, we must understand how the candidates view foreign policy, including our alliance with Israel as Iran develops its nuclear weapons.

Dr. Rand Paul's campaign responded by stating that he supports Israel: "Israel is a friend of America, he supports all allies with the United States." His statement was unequivocal but bereft of nuance or details. It's early in the campaign, and we look forward to hearing more from him on this and other issues.

Trey Grayson responded by noting that he has been to Israel twice and has written extensively about his travels. Grayson's "Face Book" friends received a contemporaneous diary of his 2008 trip to Israel with AIPAC. Plainly, Grayson has spent considerable time researching and reflecting on the Mid-East. The diary is 20 pages and makes for fascinating reading; his campaign should include it on his website.

Below is an excerpt of his 2008 diary, unedited for typos and grammatical errors -- just his raw reaction to what he saw in Gaza:

This part of the country (or at least the part closer to Gaza) reminds me of Kentucky. It has

rolling hills and is very agricultural. . . .Like many of the small towns in Kentucky, they are struggling with a lack of industry. Of course, there is one big difference. In Kentucky, our farmers and factory workers don't need to be on the look out for rocket and mortar fire from their neighbors.

I want to give you some background on Gaza itself. Gaza is a heavily populated area with 1.5 million residents squeezed into a small urban area on the Mediterranean Sea. We visited a lookout point near a

reservoir. We were outside of sniper range but inside of rocket range. In fact, there was scarring along the wall of the reservoir from a Qassam rocket that landed only a few hundred feet from where we

were. There was an older outlook closer to Gaza, but some Canadian visitors were shot at by snipers. As a result, no one goes to that lookout anymore.

From the lookout, you can see Israeli spy balloons. There also unmanned drones that fly around point cameras into Gaza. Quite often, Israel cameras will see terrorists using children as human shields

near the rocket launcher, or shooting the rockets from civilian areas, or both, to deter Israel from retaliating.

Prior to Israel's 2005 unilateral disengagement from Gaza (more on that in a second) 6,000 Israelis lived in settlements on Gaza. There were also 20-30,000 IDF troops in and around Gaza. After

disengagement, all of the settlers were moved out and their homes were bulldozed by Israel (so the Palestinians could build what they wanted on the land), and all troops withdrew to the borders. Israel still

sells power and fuel to the area, and it controls the borders tightly. This is called "disengagement". (Of course, the terrorists use the electricity to build rockets that they then fire at the Israeli power

plant that produces the electricity for Gaza residents as well as the southern third of Israel, but I am getting ahead of myself.)

Originally, the area was controlled by the Palestinian Authority, and this was viewed as a test for the unilateralism theory championed by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The idea was that, absent a strong

Palestinian government or authority with which to negotiate, Israel would set its own borders and hope that the Palestinians would be able to govern themselves and that this was the best way to achieve peace.

The hope was that this would help to reduce the suicide bombers and rocket attacks by removing Israeli control over the area. After all, this was rationale the Palestinians cited for such attacks.

Five days after disengagement, the first Qassam rockets fell on Israeli soil, even before Hamas forcibly took control of Gaza in 2006. When Hamas took control, it has only worsened. In fact, until last week's cease-fire, rockets were fired almost daily. When a rocket is fired, bomb sirens start to sound, giving you about 20 second at most to get to seek shelter

Qassam rockets are more or less hand made using agricultural products that everyone has as explosive materials. They have essentially no accuracy, which isn't a big deal for someone wanting to inflict terror

and have about a ten-mile range.

Israel erected a fence-only security barrier (no solid walls) along the border in 1994 to little protests. It worked well, with almost no penetration by suicide bombers. But the barrier doesn't stop snipers or rockets.

Grayson described meeting a young Israeli mother who had lived in Gaza. What she told him so disturbed him that it kept him awake at night:

At the lookout, we met with a woman named Tamar. She has a PhD and used to live in a settlement with her husband two children (both boys). She liked the settlement. It had good schools, was quite safe
and a good quiet place to live. The Israelis and Palestinians usually lived in harmony and had joint festivals. After disengagement, she and her family moved to Kibbutz Carmia, just a few miles outside of
Gaza. In theory, unlike most residents in the areas around Gaza, she and her family could move because they are professionals. They choose not to (more below).

Here are a few of Tamar's stories:

While in Gaza, before disengagement but after the Second Intifada started, the daughter of her next door neighbor daughter was murdered by terrorist. She and her boyfriend where shot while walking down a
street. The girl tried to hide behind a bush, but the terrorists tracked her down and shot her several more times until they were sure she was dead.

Also, while in Gaza, her husband slept with rifle next to bed, and they had a room with all concrete rooms, a "safe place". When the moved to Carmia, they moved to a trailer provided by the Israeli
government. Once they moved in, her son started patting down the walls, Tamar was wondering what he was doing. Once he had patted all the walls, he turned to her and said Mom, there is no safe place here.
The walls are too thin.

Even though she moved out of Gaza, because of the fear of rocket attacks, Tamar can't go to bathroom when the kids are home. She won't be able to get out in time and get the kids to the bomb shelter. She
has to give her children baths, so she will be near them if the bomb sirens go off. She has to shut off the faucet when soaping so she can hear the alarms. Her older son's epilepsy has gotten worse since
disengagement.

One day, she was driving with her two children and the bomb sirens started sounding. Knowing she didn't have enough time to get out of the car, unbuckle the kids and get to a shelter in the twenty or so
seconds that you have once the siren sounds, she instead put her car in park, unbuckled her own belt and covered up her kids to shield them, thus exposing herself. Her younger son, who might have been four at the time, asked her why she did that. She tried to deflect by saying she loved her sons and just wanted to give them a hug. He wouldn't buy it, and said, "I know why you did that. Don't lay over
me next time."

When she and her husband were deciding whether to move away from Qassam range, her younger son (age seven) urged them to stay. He said, Mom, when we moved out of Gaza they moved in. If we moved out the kibbutz, they will move there. If we move to Jerusalem, they will try to force us out. So let's stay and fight. That's what they did.

After speaking with Tamar, we drove through the town of Sderot, which has been the victim of thousands of rocket attacks over the past few years. Several bus stops had concrete bomb shelters. The town looked
pretty much like any other small town in Kentucky, but the residents have a very different life. The residents are growing more and more angry with the Israeli government for not doing more to help their
plight. They feel like the government doesn't care about the folks in the rural areas as much anyway, and if rockets were falling closer to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, more would be done.

Most Israelis know that military action is imminent. The status quo cannot be maintained. They know that many IDF soldiers will die. And while many Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists will die, so will
many civilians. And the international community will be blame Israel for those deaths. If only those "experts" could talk to Tamar.

Grayson's travels included visits to the Knesset, meetings with people who briefed President Barack Obama on his trip to Israel and tours of ancient archaeological sites. When Grayson describes his visits to the Gethsemane and other places pivotal to Christianity, he conveys the spiritual significance to him personally.

It is therefore fitting that Grayson ends his travelogue to Israel by quoting Psalm 122: "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem."

Senate Poll Looks Good For Grayson

The Daily Kos (via Page One) has a new poll on Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, and Secretary of State Trey Grayson must be pleased:

In the Democratic primary, Dan Mongiardo beats Jack Conway 37 -30; "other" polls 15. For the life of me, I do not understand why Democrats prefer Mongiardo; I can only attribute this to hostility to Conway's hometown, Louisville.

For Republicans, Grayson beats Dr. Rand Paul 40 -25; "other" polls 18. This is a weaker showing for Paul than the last SUSA poll. This race may well tighten when Paul starts to spend some of the proceeds from his "money bomb."

In a general election race between Mongiardo and Grayson, Grayson wins 45 - 41. If Grayson opposes Conway, Grayson's lead improves to 46-40.

If Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination, Mongiardo wins 42 - 37 and Conway wins 41 - 37.

Therefore, at this point, Grayson looks like the GOP's best candidate for keeping this seat.

The poll has a four percent margin of error and was taken August 31-September 2.

Meet Charlie's Newest Angel: Ben Chandler

CBS News has dubbed Congressman Ben Chandler as one of "Charlie's Angels" -- as in Charlie Rangel. It seems that Chandler accepted campaign contributions from Rangel, who is being investigated by the House Ethics Committee. Chandler sits on the Ethics Committee that is investigating Rangel for failing to report $ 4 million in outside income.

The conflict of interest could not be clearer: Chandler needs to return Rangel's donation, or resign from the committee.

MR. YARMUTH MEETS HIS CONSTITUENTS

Last night Congressman Yarmuth finally met with his constituents at Central High School.

Cindy and I arrived about 5:05 and pulled in front of Central High School. We were greeted by a line going all the way down Chestnut Street to the next street east. The line was rather disappointing in as I thought we were already too late to gain entrance for the 6:30pm meeting. We both decided to see this through. I dropped Cindy off to hold our place at the end of the line and I parked two blocks away. Really no big deal.

I walked back with a man that was from Chicago and his brother was a good friend of “Barry” Obama and he had some interesting stories so I invited him to stand in line with us and we shared nice conversations. The line took about a half hour to get to security where we emptied our pockets and some were scanned while others were told to proceed on. At the next station we were told we could fill out forms to ask questions and then we could proceed to the auditorium. Filling out forms to ask questions before I had heard the Congressman speak seemed a little strange. In any case I passed since I had the chance of having one of my questions asked at another venue.

Once in the auditorium we were left to observe the people filing in. Above the stage was a banner “Working for Louisville by Listening to You”. I found this laughable after the several weeks of calling Yarmuth’s office, writing letters, calling his office, standing in protest in front of his office, calling his office, and inviting myself into meetings he held that I only caught whispers of their existence.

Interestingly enough there were a lot of union groups, in their appropriate tee shirts. Most of them were in the front of the auditorium and had good seats. Three members of SEIU were sitting behind me. Dressed in their appropriate tee shirts I heard them talking union talk and at one point one got up to take a picture of them and then stated “well now we have proof that we were here”. This implied to me that they were mandated to attend but I am accused of being a skeptic so form your own opinion.

There must have been many with my same experience since at 6:35 the crowd started clapping in unison calling for the meeting to start. They realized that not having a chance to meet with the Congressman they did not want to lose any valuable time and demanding their chance to meet with their Congressman.

John walks out on the stage to a round of applause but an equal amount of boos and people expressing their dissatisfaction. Now I don’t approve of booing a person or even a visiting team but it certainly set a mood for the evening.

Francene, the moderator, laid out the ground rules and asked the audience to hold their boos and yelling and to be respectful.

John starts out with an impromptu survey asking several questions that lead to a positive or yes response. Questions like should insurance companies cancel people once the come down with major problems. Of course everyone answered with positive responses but he did not ask the question “do you think the government can take care of this?”

I think John thinks he did a good job of “herding the audience” with his survey but the first question asked enforced the opinion that many in the audience were not in favor of this proposed bill. The first question was cheered by the audience and John’s response was booed. Now I need to mention that at this point I think booing is OK. In fact it was necessary to let the Congressman know how dissatisfied his constituents are. If we all sat very quietly and only applauded the items we agreed with and then sat silently while the others applauded the responses they liked then all the Congressman would hear is the applause and not any dissatisfaction. So this was an appropriate time for the American people from both sides to speak up and exercise their rights.

I actually witnessed one man get upset at a person that was being vocal and he confronted him. This is sad since in this venue you are bound to hear things that you don’t agree with but you can’t try to suppress others just because you don’t agree. If it aggravates you too much then you can either sit and steam or leave but not confront.

All in all it was an invigorating meeting, I left comfortable that those opposed to the Congressman’s view were heard. John had a very rough night. One that he had not experienced at the three prior meetings I had attended. I left the Town Hall meeting feeling that I have done everything possible to try to prevent this bill from happening. If it still passes and is a mess I can honestly say I did my best.

At the Democratic Club John basically stated that he is going to vote for this in one form or the other no matter how his constituents feel. (He stated they were misinformed by the media), we need to remember that American is a Republic, not a full democracy. We vote our representative in office to vote for us as they see fit. John is certainly doing this. He has every right to vote his heart instead of the opinion of his constituents. The only thing we can do now is to put someone forward that will beat John Yarmuth in the next run for the 3rd Congressional District of Kentucky.

Lets Roll!

An Honest Politician

When politicians are honest, they should be commended. Congressman John Yarmuth deserves a kudo for one of his answers at last night's townhall meeting at Central High School.

When asked how we were going to pay for healthcare reform, he answered: "I don't know".

Mr. Yarmuth, the truth will set you free....

Here's the YouTube clip.

Quick Reaction to Yarmuth's Town Hall

Congressman John Yarmuth has to be commended for entering the lion's den that was 1,400 people at Central High School -- roughly 70 percent of whom oppose the Democrats' plan to nationalize health care.

He had a few gaffes (more on that in the a.m.), but all in all, Yarmuth handled himself with humor, humility and patience with a crowd that I really wish had not booed (seriously, can't we show our displeasure with stony silence or something other than booing?) With the exception of a few hecklers (on both sides) and the booing (again, on both sides) the crowd was generally courteous.

Francene Cucinello did a superb job as moderator. She kept the pace moving, which allowed more people to ask questions, and she followed up when Yarmuth failed to answer.

The biggest story for Republicans was the reaction to a question about the need for the federal government to obey the Constitution. The point, in essence, is that we are a government of enumerated and hence limited powers. The crowd's reaction shows that there is a growing demand for limited government that obeys the Constitution as written, rather than as fantasized by those who see it as a "living document." The implication is the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul and his ideological compatriots is no fluke. Establishment Republicans need to understand that there is a burgeoning segment of voters who will no longer tolerate using the Commerce Clause and the like as a jumping off point for all sorts of legislation.

Yarmuth is still wrong on health care and many other issues; more on that later. But I do commend him for showing up. It's too bad that Yarmuth's initial fear of town halls kept him from hosting one earlier. And it's too bad that he was worried enough about how it would all turn out that he wouldn't let ordinary citizens video tape the event -- just fancy media types.

Oh, Dear

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has hired only one law clerk instead of the usual four clerks allowed to active justices. That almost certainly means that the 89-year old justice has decided to retire -- giving the Obama administration the opportunity to nominate another Wise [fill in the blank of your favorite identity group].

Marilyn Parker Will Run Against Yarmuth

Congressman John Yarmuth has a Republican opponent -- already. Marilyn Parker has announced she will challenge Yarmuth for the 3rd Congressional District. Mrs. Parker is a nurse and has been active in the "tea party" movement. She pledges on her website to serve no more than four terms.

You can meet her at this Saturday's "tea party," September 5th at 3:30 at Old Louisville's Central Park (4th and Ormsby).

H/t: Page One

Talking Points From Moveon.org For Tonight's Town Hall

Moveon.org apparently has given up on protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now that they are the Democrats' problem. In a last gasp effort to remain relevant, therefore, Moveon.org has turned to the health care debate.

But Moveon.org does not trust that it's members are smart enough to know what to say at the town halls: they might get out-Foxed by those birthers! So Moveon.org has helpfully formulated a script. In fact, Moveon.org does not even trust its members to know how to write a protest sign, so it has three on its website that the lazy protester can print out. Look for these tonight at Congressman John Yarmuth's town hall at Central High School (doors open at 5:00):

Here are some signs to print out and bring to a town hall:

"Public Option = Affordable Health Care" sign

"Public Option: Increases Choice, Reduces Cost sign

"83% Support the Public Option" sign

There's also a script of suggested questions:

Here are a few ideas you can use to ask a question at the town hall:

1. I'm here to urge you to push for passage of a health care reform plan with a real public health insurance option as soon as you head back to Washington. It's critical for controlling skyrocketing costs and guaranteeing security for all of us.


2. Our health care system is broken—costs are skyrocketing and too many people can't afford coverage. The heart of President Obama's health care plan—the public health insurance option—is the key to fixing those problems.


3. We need action now. The cost of inaction is too high—every day that we delay, 14,000 Americans lose their insurance¹and nearly 2,500 file for bankruptcy because of medical costs². And costs continue to spiral out of control: average family premiums will hit $22,000 a year in the next decade.³


4. With a real public option, costs will start to go down and millions of individuals, families, and small businesses will have access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. And no matter what happens to our jobs or our health, a public option will always be there for us. Will you fight to make sure a real public health insurance option is included in health care reform this year?

Note that numbers one-three are not even questions -- more like a slobbering kiss for a liberal Congressperson.

I am not including any fake signs for your to print out. Nor am I giving you any fake non-questions to ask. Unlike the Democrats, I have faith that Americans are smart; you know what to say.

Say Cheese for Yarmuth

Congressman John Yarmuth's office will require those who want to attend tonight's town hall meeting at Central High School to show identification to prove that they live in this Congressional district.

It is understandable that Yarmuth wants to make sure that his constituents aren't turned away because Cindy Sheehan and her friends (assuming she has some) have taken all the seats.

Now that Yarmuth has awakened to the utility of identification, it is time for him to support legislation that requires voters to show photo IDs before voting in federal elections. Democrats have stonewalled such legislation for years under the guise that it suppresses the vote of legitimate, qualified voters. To the contrary, Republicans don't want to prevent any legitimate voters from exercising their constitutional rights. We just don't want the poll workers to see dead people voting (over and over).

If showing ID is an appropriate safeguard for Yarmuth's town hall meeting, surely it is also appropriate for the even more important exercise of democray: casting a ballot.

Yarmuth meets the Doctors

Last night I was invited by Dr. Brooks Jackson, a local urologist, to attend a meeting with Congressman John Yarmuth and invited doctors at Baptist East Hospital’s auditorium. Dr. Jackson invited me and a mutual friend to attend. Unfortunately my mutual friend whom I won’t name at this time gave me a start time of 6:00 when the meeting actually started at 5:00pm. Now Stuart Haseker is generally a really nice guy so we can’t begrudge him too much for his intentions are always honorable and that is why I won’t mention his name.

So always being prompt, I arrived at 5:30pm for the meeting expecting to be early. I found the auditorium doors closed and the hallways empty so I knew I had made it on time. I pushed on the door to be greeted by one of Congressman Yarmuth’s staff and John speaking to the “good doctors”. At this time I am totally confused but realize the meeting has started so I to find a seat in the back.

In the two previous meetings, John has mentioned that he is not holding a lot of town hall meetings since they seem to be disruptive and antagonizing. He mentioned at the Democratic Club meeting held last week held at the American Legion that he can generally tell if the audience is receptive or not and they obviously were receptive at the Democratic Club. At the GLI meeting Friday, I could not tell how most of the crowd felt.

Last night was a different crowd John had to contend with. My First Impression was John was not in the presence of a friendly crowd.

As I sat down I could almost feel the tension in the room. There was a screen behind John with the slide America’s Affordability Health Choices Act. Quality Affordable Health Care with the bullet points:

. Provides funding to help, recruit, train, and retain
. Creates and expand new scholarships and loan repayment programs
. Doubles the National Health Service Corps
. Graduate Medical Education Act of 2007

But none of these items were in the discussion.

To be honest the Doctors were grilling him. I can’t say that this was the typical scene that you see at town hall meetings on TV but I can attest that most of the Doctors did not like what they were hearing. (Quite frankly I think Yarmuth didn’t like what he was hearing) Most of the doctors were stating their individual problems as examples of what they did not like about the bill and they were even making suggestions for the bill. At this point a frustrated Yarmuth asked “What would you like us to do?”

I bet the reader will have a hard time guessing the doctor’s most important suggestion. Well it was Tort Reform. When this was brought up John said, “Well we can look at that too”. I found this remark rather disingenuous since in 1100 pages of this bill there is no mention of Tort Reform. One doctor actually started quoting the problems by page number and paragraph items he had problems with. Yarmuth basically said “he is reading from a sheet of paper” which at this point the doctor raised up a stack of paper which was the whole bill. To say this doctor had not done his homework would be foolish. To be honest I think John was out of his league at this meeting. Several times after suggestions to change the bill John kept saying, “Well, we can do that too or we can look into that too”

One doctor actually brought up the point that this bill would override the many years of education that she had and the many years of experience she had and put the decisions in the hands of the likes of government bureaucrats and insurance companies. Who truly do not know the implications of the medical field. I believe it was the same doctor that suggested that they just do a little bit at a time and see how that works before revamping the whole bill. Like taking on catastrophic care first and watch that for a while and then trying something else etc. Again John mentioned “We can look into that too.”

John also brought up the support of the AMA (American Medical Association) and received an overall reaction from the audience which seemed to me to be laughable. John responded by saying he knew that the AMA only represented about 20% of the doctors population to which several calls from the audience stated more like 18 % and then 16%. One doctor also asked from the audience, by a show of hands, how many were currently actively involved or had been involved with membership to the AMA. Three doctors out of the 150-200 that I estimated to be there raised their hands.

I realize I am bias and I try to paint an unbiased report as I attend these meetings but I must say this meeting was the most negative meeting against the current Health Care Bill as proposed by Congress that John has attended. It is important to note that the doctors were very civil but were also demonstrative in their negative opinion of the bill.

See you tomorrow at Central High School. Arrive early and make sure you bring an ID.

C-J Disses Its Token Conservative

One would think that the Courier-Journal would be proud of the praise that John David Dyche has received for his new book, Republican Leader, A Political Biography of Senator Mitch McConnell. Dyche, after all, is a C-J columnist; his success reflects back on the paper for having the good sense to run his column.

Yet the C-J has failed to review the book, even though stores have been selling it for months. Perhaps the C-J is boycotting mention of the book because Dyche's biography flatters McConnell; the paper would no doubt give glowing reviews if the book skewered McConnell.

The C-J also failed to report that Dyche appeared on the Sean Hannity show. A native son gets flattering coverage on one of the highest rated television programs in the nation, and the C-J writes . . . nothing.

For years, Dyche's brilliant column has allowed the Courier-Journal editorial staff to feign an openness to opposing viewpoints. Conservatives knew it was a sham, of course. Still, Dyche has given the paper cover, and for the paper to not cover him shows that its hatred of all things conservative transcends even common courtesy and Kentucky pride.

Rand Won't Take $ From TARP Senators

Dr. Rand Paul's campaign announced today that he will not accept campaign donations from any senator who voted for the TARP bailouts. He called on his opponents to do likewise. Paul's press release states:

U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul on Monday pledged not to accept campaign contributions from any U.S. Senator who voted for the bank bailout and challenged his opponents to follow suit.

Dr. Paul issued this challenge after learning that Trey Grayson has scheduled a Washington D.C. fundraiser co-sponsored by several U.S. Senators, seventeen of whom voted for the so-called TARP bailout in 2008, which was then used to fund an auto industry bailout Congress rejected.

“This isn’t about holding politicians to an impossibly high standard of agreeing with everything one’s supporters say or do,” Paul said. “But a primary focus of my campaign is that we need Republicans in office who will have the courage to say no to federal bailouts of big business.”

“There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to pick winners and losers in the private sector and the Republican party platform specifically condemns bailouts,” Paul said. “I’m running for the U.S. Senate to stand up for true Republican principles and the Republicans I’ve talked to agree that is what we need.”

Paul's s primary opponent Secretary of State Trey Grayson will benefit from a fundraiser hosted by 23 Republican Senators, including Mitch McConnell, at the NRSC. In the unlikely event that Grayson accepts Paul's challenge to decline the money, he still has six Senators who opposed TARP on his host list.

Paul's response is a clever way to remind voters that he would have opposed the bailouts. Nonetheless, it's a somewhat hollow gesture given that (a) Paul doesn't need the contributions due to his "money bomb" and (b) the GOP establishment, as represented by the 23 Senators, probably wouldn't give him any.

Will Paul return "money bomb" contributions from anyone who collected their $4500 from "cash for clunkers"?

Tortured Logic

Eric Holder, the Attorney General, wants to investigate certain individuals for potential violations of law in the use of techniques that were used for getting information out of our enemies. Waterboarding is one of the techniques, amongst others, which many have labeled as torture.

It is fascinating that the supreme lawyer of the land is more concerned about prosecuting those who were trying to protect us than prosecuting those who want to hurt us, but that is another story.

There is much emotional outrage over the use of torture and we have seen the bumper stickers which say "Torture is UnAmerican".

Here is a hypothetical situation and question for those who oppose torture. Let us suppose that your child was kidnapped and that one of his or her captors were apprehended. Let us further suppose that by torturing that individual, the authorities could determine the location of you child and save them. In such a case, would you still oppose torture?

If one answers yes to this question, I suppose that you would have to respect the strength of their conviction. On the other hand, one would have to question the sensibility of someone who potentially sacrifices the life of an innocent person to prevent the pain and suffering of a criminal.

Grayson Kicks Off Senate Campaign

I could not attend Secretary of State Trey Grayson's campaign event yesterday, but Joe Arnold reports, quoting Grayson:

"We are in uncharted territory when it comes to our nation's fiscal health, and there is no end in sight," he said. "That's why we must enforce tough limits on our national debt, create a realistic plan for a balanced budget, reign in wasteful spending and end the unprecedented government takeover of the private sector."

"Our tax dollars are bailing out big banks and paying multimillion-dollar bonuses to people who ran their companies and our economy into the ground, and that's wrong," Grayson said, drawing applause from his northern Kentucky supporters. "The government has already taken over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors and Chrysler. Now this administration is intent on the government taking over health care and your doctor's office."

Grayson's appeal for limited government sounds pretty much the same as Dr. Rand Paul. Arnold notes, however, that Grayson is running as the GOP insider:

As Roll Call reported on Tuesday, twenty-three GOP Senators -- including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Bluegrass State's senior Senator -- are hosting a $500 per person fundraiser for Grayson at National Republican Senatorial Committee headquarters Sept. 23.

The NRSC has not officially endorsed Grayson but the location of the event and the fact that NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) is one of the hosts of the fundraiser is a good indication of where the committee's loyalties lie in the race.

According to Arnold, Dr. Dan Mongiardo's campaign responded by making fun of Trey Grayson's given name and attempting to tie Grayson to former President George W. Bush:

"Charles Merwin Grayson, III has been anointed by the same Washington Republican leadership whose failed economic policies have plunged us into the worst recession since the Great Depression. Fortunately for Kentucky's working families struggling during these tough economic times, Daniel Mongiardo is the one candidate in this race who they can count on to stand up and fight for them."

As Arnold notes, Mongiardo's strategy of running against Bush might look pretty stale by November 2010; voters will be assessing the Obama administration by then.

Rand Paul's Campaign Responds

Dr. Rand Paul's campaign has responded to my inquiry regarding Paul's position on U.S. support of Israel and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Christopher Hightower writes:

Our site received thousands of emails on August 20th, please forgive me for not quickly responding to yours. Dr. Paul looks forward to articulating his positions as the campaign develops.

Question number 1:

What is Dr. Paul's view on American support for Israel?

Answer:

Israel is a friend of America, he supports all allies with the United States.

Question number 2:

How about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Dr. Paul supports and would have voted for war against those responsible for the attacks on 9-11. The Taliban would not cooperate with us and turn over those responsible. Actions were taken that Dr. Paul would have supported. Looking back Dr. Paul feels we should have taken smaller strike forces in much faster to deal with the terrorist camps. It took so long to amass our forces many had time to escape.

Dr. Paul supports all troops serving in our Armed Forces, however, he would not have voted for the war in Iraq.

Hightower states that the campaign is in the process of developing the issues section of its website and asserts that it is more informative than other candidates' websites.

He is correct with respect to Grayson, who does not have an issues section on his website. However, Grayson just kicked off his campaign yesterday. We will check back to see Grayson's position on foreign policy and if the website does not so state or is unclear, we will ask, as we did for Paul.

Dr. Dan Mongiardo, who has been running for U.S. Senate for quite a while, has an issues section on his website but it only includes a video of Mongiardo talking about how his family's poverty inspired him to bring health care to Eastern Kentucky. There are a few platitudes about coal and economic development, but no specifics, and nothing about foreign policy.

Likewise, the campaign website of Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway includes an issues section that at this point is limited to a video of Conway. His video has its own share of platitudes: now is the time for "a belief that a brighter tomorrow is just over the horizon." (Seriously, yick.) Conway's video at least attempts to list what he sees as the issues, though with little or no detail on how he would solve the problems he identifies. For example, Conway calls for a foreign policy that shows that "strength and wisdom are not opposing values." I'm not sure what that means; perhaps it translates into something along the lines of appeasement is not wimpy.

The Paul campaign therefore is correct that at this juncture its campaign website offers the most specificity on where its candidate stands on the issues. The Paul campaign's format of listing the issues and Paul's position works much better than a video of the candidate. It allowed me to focus on the positions without the distractions of Hair and Eyebrows.

The election is 14 months away. Lots of time to fine tune these websites so they do not insult the voters of Kentucky with cliches but rather give us an informed basis to choose our next U.S. Senator.

McConnell Condemns Deficit

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell comments on the Congressional Budget Office's new numbers on the deficit. The newest numbers from the non-partisan CBO are the scariest yet.

“The alarm bells on our nation’s fiscal condition have now become a siren. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reports the deficit for this year alone is already nearly as high as the last five years—combined—and is only getting bigger. And, if anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they’re gone. Spending, borrowing and debt are out of control. Even the President’s own advisors acknowledge that the deficit in the coming years will be trillions more than projected just a few months ago.

“The massive national debt threatens long term fiscal health as a nation, our national security and our ability to meet our commitments to seniors, veterans and working families. There are two immediate steps we should take. We should review the trillion dollars in borrowed stimulus money with an eye towards applying it to paying off the federal credit card. And we must take the bipartisan step of reforming entitlements to strengthen the fiscal state of our existing commitments.”

McConnell is right about the stimulus money: the sum was too vast for the Obama administration to spend quickly enough to actually stimulate the economy. Therefore, it's time to play Indian-giver and take the unspent money back.

Where Does Rand Paul Stand On Foreign Policy?

I wrote Dr. Rand Paul last week via his website to ask his position on U.S. support for Israel and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So far, no reply.

Perhaps he is too busy counting dollars from his "money bomb." Still, for a campaign geared to fundraising from the Internet, it seems odd that he would not respond to an inquiry to his campaign website. That's my punishment for not including a credit card number.

Paul has energized a group of Americans who are outraged -- and frightened -- about government spending and its effect of ballooning the deficit and diminishing our liberty. He's passionate and articulate about the cause of limited government, and I agree with him on that issue.

What is less clear is where Paul stands on foreign policy. Is he an extreme isolationist from the Pat Buchanan wing of the party? His campaign website says he opposes surrendering U.S. sovereignty:

Rand Paul proposes that America can engage the world in free trade, develop lucrative commercial relationships with other nations, and defend its national interests without funding or joining international organizations.

To the extent that he means that U.S. courts should not apply foreign law and the like, I agree. Americans should only subject themselves to laws written by those whom we have elected.

But Paul doesn't go into great detail, and that worries me because I wonder if he is speaking in code. I agree that the U.N. has soaked America for every dollar we will give it. The U.N.'s lack of accountabilty has allowed it to use our taxdollars to fund corrupt schemes, like the oil-for-food scandal. I don't want to surrender sovereignty to the United Nations, but I am not at this point prepared to withdraw from it either, given the good work it does on disaster relief. Is he actually proposing that we stop funding the U.N. altogether?

Paul does indicate on his website that he supports free trade, which distinguishes him from Buchanan on at least that issue. It will be interesting to see if Paul hits the issue hard. He should -- free trade is a vital component of prosperity not just for America but for the world's poor.

Paul's position on foreign policy is of the utmost importance for a candidate who aspires to serve in the U.S. Senate, where he would be called upon to ratify treaties with foreign countries, confirm the appointments of ambassadors and maybe even declare war. So it is not enough for him to rest on his domestic platform.

Moreover, Paul's outlook on foreign policy may be the factor that distinguishes him in the Republican primary from Secretary of State Trey Grayson. I don't doubt that Grayson opposes government spending every bit as much as Paul, though he has been much less forceful in so stating. (Trey, you need to kick it up a notch here).

Grayson needs to watch how Paul discusses international relations and look for a way to distinguish himself. To that end, Grayson needs to make clear his unequivocal support for Israel and his opposition to appeasing an Iran bent on acquiring nuclear war heads to go with those missiles it has pointed at Israel. And he needs to opposes protectionism forcefully.

Grayson needs to state that Islamofascism is dangerous and immoral. Gitmo should remain open. Defense attorneys who "out" CIA operatives should be prosecuted, not the CIA agents who did the job they were instructed to do.

Grayson's website doesn't give any more guidance on where he stands on foreign policy than does Paul's. Nonetheless, I don't wonder if a Senator Grayson would introduce legislation to stop funding the U.N.

Because Grayson has a track record of elected service and has campaigned around the state, he is known and liked by many. For Grayson, the good news is that no one expects him to take any positions that will shock us. The bad news is that he probably won't take any positions that will awe us. For Paul, the expectations may be just the opposite.

That's why Paul must be explicit about where he stands on all issues including foreign policy, not just the issues that captivate him.

Ad Hominem, Ad Nauseum

Ad Hominem: adj. Directed at or appealing to one's hearer's or reader's personal feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect or reason (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)

In this era of political rancor and strife, the ad hominem attack seems to reign supreme. Idiot. Bigot. Nazi. Leftwing nutjob. Rightwing wacko. Fascist. Homophobe. Fatso. Fool. Jerk. Neanderthal. Racist. Whore. Communist....the list goes on and on. The problem with these attacks is that they get us nowhere. Even if a word accurately describes someone, if it is incendiary and confrontational, it is inappropriate to use it.

Let us suppose that we were to call someone a pathetic, incompetent fool. For many, this would be an accurate description of George W. Bush. For many, it would be an accurate description of Barack Obama. In neither case is the label productive or positive for the public discourse.

We would all do well to heed grandma's age old advice that if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all.

When you launch a personal attack against someone that has ideological differences, it is proof that you either lack the ability, or as is more often the case, the information or facts, to confront your opponent on a rational, objective basis. The ad hominem argument is the last refuge of those who are not up to a rational debate, for whatever reason.

In these tumultuous times, those on both sides of the aisle would do well to keep the debate civil. Attack ideas, not people.

Krauthammer Deconstructs End of Life Counseling

Charles Krauthammer has turned down the rhetoric and increased the clarity on the Democrats' proposal for end of life counseling in H.R. 3200:

We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in the Democratic health care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate.

We also have to tell the defenders of the notorious Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 that it is not quite as benign as they pretend. To offer government reimbursement to any doctor who gives end-of-life counseling -- whether or not the patient asked for it -- is to create an incentive for such a chat.

. . .

So why get Medicare to pay the doctor to do the counseling? Because we know that if this white-coated authority whose chosen vocation is curing and healing is the one opening your mind to hospice and palliative care, we've nudged you ever so slightly toward letting go.

It's not an outrage. It's surely not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor. And when you include it in a health care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it's intended to gently point you in a certain direction, toward the corner of the sick room where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release.

Liberals win elections and then govern with the premise that people like it when the government gives them free stuff. There is a cost to these goodies beyond the taxes needed to pay for them: the cost is a loss of personal autonomy. I don't want the government to pay for my end of life counseling. If I need it, I'll pay for it myself or pass a hat to my loved ones.

Money Bomb Update

Dr. Rand Paul's "money bomb" has brought in $100,000 in the last two hours; he's raised $455,000.

Republicans are going to have a real primary. Let's keep it civil and remember the 11th Commandment.

Bombs Away

Dr. Rand Paul's campaign for the GOP Senate nomination has designated today as a "money bomb" day. The campaign will try to raise a blast of cash (one million dollars in 24 hours) from the Internet, using the model that Paul's father Ron Paul perfected in his presidential campaign. Today was chosen because it is Ron Paul's birthday.

It seems to be working. The site brought in $3000 in the time it took me to type the preceding two sentences. A meter on the campaign web site lets you watch the money pour in. A YouTube video viewed by nearly 5,000 as of 11:00 a.m. also promotes the money bomb.

Today's "money bomb" is getting plugged around the country from web sites all over the Internet. As a result, much of the money that Paul raises likely will come from out of state.

The fundraising got a boost from the most recent SUSA poll, which showed that Paul is a much stronger candidate than many had anticipated. The odds-on favorite, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, leads Paul but only 36 to 27.

It would be a mistake for anyone to dismiss Paul as a nuisance candidate. He taps into voter anger and disgust over profligate government spending -- the emotion that has fueled recent town halls about health care and tea parties to protest bailouts. To be sure, Democrats like to portray the town hall and tea party attendees as activists bussed in from the RNC. But these are the libertarians and independents who were sickened by the Bush administration's spending -- regular people who value limited government, low taxes and liberty.

If Grayson can maintain his front runner status and win the primary, he would do well to remember the energy that Paul as tapped and the demand for an end to reckless spending. The Republican Party cannot survive (let alone win) unless we return to that core principle.

Sorting Out the Dem's "Advance Care Planning Consultation"

Congressman John Yarmuth asserted last night in his "tele town hall" that there is "no mandatory aspect" in the end of life consultation included in the House's draft health care legislation. According to Yarmuth, the new law merely would amend the Social Security Act to allow Medicare recipients to get reimbursed for such end of life consultations.

I am not convinced.

Yarmuth is correct that under the Democrats' plan, such consultations would be covered by Medicare.

However, there is language in H.R. 3200, Section 1233 "Advance Care Planning Consultation," that could be construed to mandate such consultations.

Take section (F) (i) (III) (ii), which provides that the "Secretary [of H.H.S.] shall limit the requirement for explanation" of advance care planning in certain circumstances depending on state law for advance directives. (Emphasis added.)

"Requirement for explanation"? A fair reading would be that an "explanation" is required. That explanation is the end of life talk.

Many of us have durable powers of attorney, health proxies and so forth. Personally, I think it's a good idea to have an end of life conversation. But many of us want that to be a private decision that we make after consulting not just with our physician but with our family and clergy. Some people may prefer never thinking about, talking about, or planning the end of life; that should be their right, even if it's not very wise. To the extent that the "explanation" is required, it infringes upon our liberty. Government compulsion always does.

Even assuming the end of life counseling is not mandatory, another problem with the section on "Advance Care Planning Consultation" is that it puts words in the mouths of our physicians.

Section 1233, (F) (i) provides that an "explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include [emphasis added] (I) the reason why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reason why such order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes."

Again, many of us may think that a "Do Not Resuscitate Order" -- or its opposite -- is a good idea in certain circumstances. That's not the issue.

The problem is the government compelling health care providers to "provide the reason why" such orders are a good idea. That's compulsory speech for the doctor and compulsory listening for the patient.

Liberals don't want physicians to "provide the reason why" an abortion might not be a good idea. Pro-abortion advocates argue that such "counseling" is an undue burden on the right to have an abortion. That's why liberals in Congress opposed legislation that would make physicians offer to show pregnant women sonograms of their unborn fetus before performing an abortion.

Yet when the person who might die is alive and breathing, as opposed to a fetus in the womb, the Democrats have no qualms about compelling doctors to give "reasons why" that person should agree to a health order about the end of his or her life.

The left fears that abortion counseling is an attempt to coerce women into forgoing the abortion and bearing the child. Depending upon who does the counseling, that fear may be well-founded. The same fear of coercion applies to "Advance Care Planning Consultation." Except that the debate is not about when life begins, but rather when it should end.

Cudos to Yarmuth

Congressman John Yarmuth has scheduled a real, live town hall on September 2 at Central High School, and he should be commended for his willingness to meet with his constituents rather than run and hide like many of his colleagues, including Ben Chandler.

Last night Yarmuth held a "tele-town hall." This conflicted with a school board meeting I had to attend, so I only heard the first part of the conference call. One aspect of the "tele-town hall" that I really appreciated was that it gave senior citizens who might be home bound the opportunity to participate. In the portion of the call that I heard, Yarmuth handled himself well. I do not agree with his political philosophy, but he was gracious and knowledgeable -- as were the questioners.

Trojan Horse of a Different Color

Due to unprecedented public outrage, there are now reports that Barack may be backing away from the nationalized, single payer concept. The idea of non-governmental insurance co-ops to compete with private insurers has been floated. Make no mistake, this is just a Trojan Horse of a different color.

Here is how it will go. These co-ops will be set up and while they will be independent entities, they will be heavily supported by government dollars (your money!). Unfortunately, they won't work. The cooperative healthcare model has not been very successful where it has been tried. After three or five or ten years, and after billions more wasted, there will be another "crisis". And guess what the solution will be: government controlled nationalized single payer healthcare. Surprise, surprise!

Don't fall for it folks.

GOP Weekly Address

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) gives the Republican weekly address. Unfortunately, the link won't paste so let me quote the portion that struck me as most insightful. Hatch focuses on those areas of agreement for which there is bipartisan support to reform health care now, rather than jettisoning the whole system:

1. Reforming the health insurance market for every American by making sure that no American is denied coverage simply based on a pre-existing condition

2. Protecting the coverage for almost 85 percent of Americans who already have coverage – coverage they like – by making it more affordable. This means reducing costs by rewarding quality and coordinated care, giving families more information on the cost and choices of their coverage and treatment options, discouraging junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals and promoting prevention and wellness measures like quitting smoking and living a healthier lifestyle

3. Giving states flexibility to design their own unique approaches to reduce uninsured

4. Empowering small businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs – the job-creating engines and lifeblood of our economy – to buy affordable coverage for their employees.

Take point number one. Everyone agrees that excluding people for preexisting conditiion is a bad idea. Some view it as simply immoral. Others see it as a handcuff that keeps people from switching to jobs that might improve their standard of living and our economy's growth. All of us, if we're honest, worry that someday we or one of our one of our loved ones could fall into that "preexisting condition" category.

Given the widespread support for outlawing the practice, Congress should pass a one page bill that prohibits denial of coverage for preexisting conditions. The beauty of that simplicity is that (1) our elected officials -- and citizens -- could actually read the bill and (2) if it is not tarted up with controversial (and extraneous) measures, it can pass quickly.

Some would say that we should not reform health care on an incremental basis. But given the passionate disagreement on so many provisions now floating around the Hill, why hold up improving the one item upon which we all agree?

If one member of Congress can introduce a bill that makes this one discrete change, that member can change the lives of many Americans, reduce anxiety for all of us, and transform the tenor of the health care debate in Washington.

Cliff Notes

We know that none of our legislators have read HR 3200 "America's Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009", but there are actually Americans that have read all 1017 mind numbing pages. One of them is John David Lewis, a professor of political science at Duke University. He has written a piece that includes actual language from the bill with his evaluation of its meaning. His analysis is concise and this is a good resource for those who have an interest in learning about some important things in the source document without reading all 1017 pages. His article can be found at:

One thing is for sure, the words "Affordable" and "Choices" have no place in the bill's title!

Who's Been Sleeping In My Bed?

This woman is definitely not Goldilocks.

A Shively couple came home to find "a ransacked house and a naked stranger sleeping in their bed," according to WHAS 11.

Police say 29-year-old Brooke Basham was heavily intoxicated on oxycodones, crack cocaine, heroin and alcohol.

They say she broke in and ransacked the house throwing food on furniture and the floor before she passed out naked.

No word yet on whether the woman is a Birther. Clearly, she was not wearing either a Swastika or a Brooks Bros. suit.

This is why Members of Congress should hold town halls: people need a place to go at night, sort of like Midnight Basketball.

NRO On "Virtual Town Halls"

Congressman John Yarmuth may have started a trend with his "tele-town halls." The phenomenon of Members of Congress hiding from their constituents by conducting "virtual town halls" is spreading. National Review Online deconstructs the concept:

Staffers can screen the callsand messages. If a tough question does get through, the staffers can supply their boss with facts, figures, and snappy comebacks. (When the virtual town hall employs video instead of text, the aides need only stay out of camera range in order to preserve the illusion that the member is performing without assistance.) With all this help, even the laziest pols can look like überwonks. Call them “virtual members.”

Obviously, the congressional workload requires lawmakers to delegate. But it’s reasonable for voters to expect them to know their stuff, especially on health care and other issues that affect people directly. In an old-fashioned town hall, the member’s body language and off-the-cuff answers help voters to tell whether he or she meets this standard.

Virtual town halls are a lot like Oz: The members are the little men and women behind the curtain. And they don’t even need a heart, a brain, or courage.

Don't forget Yarmuth's upcoming "tele-town halls" on Aug. 17, 24 and 25. The number is (502)582-5129.

Tigers and Rocks Get More Respect Than Cards

And now for a little sports relief: RivalsHigh.com just published its preseason ranking of the nation's high school teams. Two Louisville powerhouses made the list: St. Xavier, ranked 39th, and Trinity, ranked 68th. It's nice to see at least some form of football played in Louisville that is nationally ranked.
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.

Where's John?

Attended a rally today at John Yarmuth's office (well, not quite, it was in the park in front of the building that John's office is in. That was as close as we could get). The rally was organized by the American Small Business Partnership, a new grassroots organization of concerned business owners and citizens that are deeply concerned about certain proposed legislation, specifically Healthcare Reform and Cap & Trade legislation.

There were at least 100 people there, with many creative posters and signs. I did not see a single swastika and there were no Brooks Brothers suits (well, maybe one, but it looked more like a Jos. Banks to me) The crowd seemed like a fairly good cross section of America, men and women, children to grandmothers and grandfathers. Various folks voiced their concerns to the several media types present and it was a very civil and disciplined crowd.

Of course, no one expected to see John Yarmuth. He has caught considerable flak for not having any public, in person meetings, but we can really blame him? Did you ever have one of those nightmares where you showed up for a final exam and you suddenly realized that you had never attended the class or done any of the homework? John must feel that way. Like most of his peers, he has not read HR 3200 and has no idea what is really in it. If he did, he would be happy to meet with his constituents to answer their questions and to show off his deep and detailed knowledge of the plan.

This ill-conceived and disastrous Healthcare Reform plan was cobbled together in the hope that it could be foisted on the American people before they could figure out what the real agenda was, i.e. another Big Government power and pocketbook grab. Well, the American people are figuring it out. In rallies like this, and in many others like it across the country, people are making it known that they think it stinks. The only stimulus the current bill will provide is to undertakers and bankruptcy attorneys!

Ben Chandler Afraid of Town Halls

Congressman Ben Chandler will not hold any town hall meetings on health care due to the incivility of the debate. He is too busy eating chicken in an undisclosed location.

At least Congressman John "Tele-tubby" Yarmuth is holding "tele-town halls."

I would prefer that those who oppose the government takeover of health care express themselves with decorum. But look who has anointed themselves the Etiquette Police: The party that brought us the flag burning, bomb throwing "protests" of the 1960's now demonize constituents as "un-American" for shouting.

The party that waxes poetic about the anniversary of Woodstock (and even wanted federal funds to locate a museum there) cannot stand the heat of senior citizens who have raised their voices in opposition to a plan that in reality, Chandler and Yarumth will never read.

Rand Paul Catches Democrats AstroTurfing

Dr. Rand Paul notes on his campaign web site that Obama Administration's grassroots outreach machine is recruiting activists to deluge the offices of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell:

Sunday afternoon, Organizing for America, Obama’s political arm, sent out an email to central Kentucky supporters urging them to join “Office Visits for Health Reform” this week. Their goal is to bombard Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Lexington office with a constant stream of agitators during office hours. From the Obama email:

“Choose a day and time to sign up this week — we want to have someone at each office throughout the day all throughout the week.”

Dr. Paul condemns the abuse of public resources certain to result from this week-long stunt and wishes the President would instead turn his focus to improving the functioning of Medicare and Medicaid before the failing entitlements bankrupt the country.

It is no surprise that a president who served as a "community organizer" would inspire his followers to go out and organize their communities. Moreover,Democrats have a free speech right to tell McConnell how much they want the government to take over health care, though Dr. Paul is right: they should express their opinion without disrupting business.

Still, the hypocrisy is breathtaking. The same people who have been sputtering about supposed Birthers, mobsters, and AstroTurfers now want to mob McConnell's office.

Yarmuth Will Hold "Tele-Town Hall" Meetings

Congressman John Yarmuth has discovered a way to avoid phony protesters: hold phony town halls. Yarmuth will hold three "tele-town hall" meetings to discuss health care. Rather than dealing with an angry mob, Yarmuth will take questions by telephone. According to the Courier-Journal,

Yarmuth's representative, Marty Meyer, said Yarmuth will hold three “tele-town hall” meetings on health care reform by conference call on Aug. 17, 24 and 25. Anyone who wants to participate may contact Yarmuth's Louisville office at 582-5129, he said.

Non-Louisvillians who would like to join in the merriment should know that our area code is (502). No word on the time the "tele-town hall" will take place on those dates, so dial early and often.

Some might think that Yarmuth saw how his Democratic colleagues were grilled and fried in their town halls and turned Kentucky Chicken. However, there are other explanations for his phone-a-thon.

The left can bill these "tele-town halls" as a way to cut emissions, since we won't have to drive anywhere. It's the green way to question the government takeover of health care.

In addition, Yarmuth's "tele-town halls" resolve the dilemma of how to dress for the event -- whether to wear the rent-a-mob Brooks Bros. suit or the wife beater and overalls. Attendants at Yarmuth's "tele-town halls" can wear anything. Or nothing at all. It's the left's worst nightmare Birthers in their birthday suits!

Finally, thanks to Yarmuth, we can protest from the comfort and privacy of our own homes. Only a Democrat could have conceived of this innovation in democracy. Though Yarmuth doesn't charge for romancing his constituents over the phone, it still isn't good as the real thing.

American Small Business Partnership

A group of local concerned small business people has started a new grassroots (no Nancy, it is not astroturf!) organization to specifically fight the currently proposed Healthcare Reform and Cap and Trade legislation, which will both be disasters for the American economy, jobs and freedom.

The name of the organization is the American Small Business Partnership. Go to //americansmallbusinesspartnership.blogspot.com/ to find out what it is all about and to also find useful links to information and articles on the key issues of Healthcare Reform (read: nationalized, single payer bureaucratic bankrupting disaster) and Cap and Trade (read: control and tax job creation and productivity into oblivion).

Also, the organization's first public event is going to be this Monday, August 10th from 11:45 to 1:00 pm at John Yarmuth's office at 600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr Place (on 6th street between Chestnut and Broadway).

The purpose of the rally is to raise community awareness of the fact that John has not been responsive to his constituents and seems afraid to meet with us to discuss the specifics of the currently proposed healthcare reform legislation.

John will probably not be there, and that is the point. All respectful, civil and concerned citizens are invited. Many of us are not used to these kind of rallies, but we have to stand up to this insanity in Washington. This legislation, if passed in anything near its current form, would be the most destructive legislation in the history of our country. Our children's futures are literally on the line here and it is so important that we fight for them.

Where's Our Town Hall?

I emailed Congressman John Yarmuth a few days ago to find out when he will hold his town hall on health care. Surely he doesn't want to miss out on all the fun. He has not responded. No reply. Don't constituents deserve the courtesy of a reply?

Perhaps Yarmuth's staff deemed my question fishy. Report all fishy questions to flag@whitehouse.gov. It is well known among the intelligentsia that anyone who opposes the government take over of health care is a racist mobster. And a birther!

The Demo-blogs assert that Yarmuth need not show up to some of the town hall meetings to which he's been invited. Fair enough. No need to sandbag the guy. He can organize his own meeting. But to not have one at all, while he trots around the networks as Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "spokesman" just seems cowardly.

The Democrats insist that the outrage in town hall meetings across the nation is fake, phony, AstroTurf. They can continue to think that until the first Wednesday in November 2010.

Meanwhile, even RINOs like Peggy Noonan have woken up:

And so the shock on the faces of Congressmen who’ve faced the grillings back home. And really, their shock is the first thing you see in the videos. They had no idea how people were feeling. . . .

What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a “no” slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they’re Americans. Some of them looked like they’d actually spent some time fighting Nazis.

Then came the Democratic Party charge that the people at the meetings were suspiciously well-dressed, in jackets and ties from Brooks Brothers. They must be Republican rent-a-mobs. Sen. Barbara Boxer said on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that people are “storming these town hall meetings,” that they were “well dressed”, that “this is all organized,” “all planned,” to “hurt our president.” Here she was projecting. For normal people, it’s not all about Barack Obama.

If Yarmuth does deign to hold a town hall, Republicans face a fashion dilemma. If we dress neatly and professionally, say out of self-respect and respect for our elected officials, then we are told that we look like AstroTurfers. Anyone who wears a sport coat made of natural fibers is suspect.

Apparently legitimate opponents of a government take over of health care should dress like slovenly rubes, clinging to our guns and our Bibles and our insurance cards. Once again, the Democrats reveal their utter contempt for those little people known as voters.

McConnell Was Right About Bunning

The Hill has praised Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell for not endorsing Sen. Jim Bunning for reelection -- the catalyst that eventually led Bunning to withdraw from the race.

It would have been easier for McConnell to simply endorse Bunning -- no confrontation, no hurt feelings. But McConnell knew that Bunning could not win reelection, so McConnell put the interests of the party and ultimately the country above Bunning's vanity.

As difficult and politically awkward as it was, McConnell showed leadership in pushing Bunning out of the race. Democrats wanted to face Bunning next year, and while they are not conceding the race, their effort to nab the seat has become much more challenging.

As The Hill notes, no matter how many times Bunning attacked McConnell for not helping him, McConnell never responded in kind:

Throughout 2009, Bunning lashed out at McConnell, who never publicly fired back.

When Bunning announced he was not going to seek a third term, he said, “Over the past year, some of the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate have done everything in their power to dry up my fundraising.”

How did McConnell respond? He simply issued a statement saying he was honored to work by Bunning’s side.

Well said, Sen. McConnell.