WaPo Gives Obama Four Pinnochios For "Whopper" About Sherman Minton Bridge

The Washington Post has given President Barack Obama four Pinnochios for remarks about the Sherman Minton Bridge that bore no resemblance to the truth. This is not Obama's first truthiness problem with an Ohio River bridge.

Recall that last September, the Post gave Obama three Pinnochios for his remarks about the Brent Spence Bridge in Northern Kentucky. Obama made a big show for standing on a bridge that connects the home state of House Majority Leader John Boehner to that of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Obama tried to blame the crumbling bridge on Republican obstruction of his job bill - even though there is bipartisan support to fix the bridge and construction is scheduled to start in 2015, regardless of the jobs bill.

Yesterday Obama blamed Republican obstructionism for preventing the Sherman Minton from being repaired.  According to Obama,

There are bridges between Kentucky and Ohio where some of the key Republican leadership come from, where folks are having to do detours an extra hour, hour-and-a-half drive every day on their commute because these bridges don’t work. They still said no.”

As the Post points out -- and as most everyone in Kentucky and Indiana knows -- the Sherman Minton is open; it has been for months.  It was finished ahead of schedule. And without a dime from Obama's jobs bill.

It is embarrassing, really, that Obama's staff does such a bad job fact-checking that they make the man look look like he's dissembling about something that the citizenry can verify first hand, every time they commute to and from work.  This sloppiness with basic facts reflects either incompetence on the part of the administration or an indifference to the truth. Or both.


H/T:  HotAir

Justice Kagan Charms 6th Circuit

Justice Elana Kagan spoke to lawyers and judges in Lexington yesterday at the Sixth Circuit's judicial conference. Even conservatives who disagree with her jurisprudence found her comments engaging. Kagan displayed humor, warmth and humility.

Kagan, who is the Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit (which encompasses Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) used her speech as an opportunity to let us get to know her on a more personal level. She goes to the opera with Justice Ginsburg and -- get this -- hunts with Justice Scalia!

 The hunting with Scalia came about as a joke she made with a conservative Senator during her confirmation. The senator was trying to discern her position on the second amendment but knew he could not ask directly. So he asked how she felt about guns and whether she had ever hunted. She had never hunted or held a gun, she told the senator, but offered to go hunting with him if confirmed. The senator looked horrified, so Kagan clarified that she was joking.

 After she was confirmed, she told Scalia the story and asked if he would take her hunting. Scalia thought that was hilarious and said yes. First he took Kagan to shoot clay pigeons to learn about gun safety. Then he took her to hunt quail and pheasant. Kagan and Scalia have hunted together four times, and Scalia has pronounced her ready for "big game." Their next hunting trip will be to Montana for elk, she said.

 Regarding the operation of the Court, Kagan expressed surprise that the justices do not email each other. Instead, they communicate by hand-delivered memos on heavy-stock paper. At first Kagan thought the practice was absurd, but she has come to value it as a means to promote deliberative decision-making.

 She described relations among the justices as quite cordial. They have lunch together frequently and have a rule that cases will not be discussed at lunch. They talk sports, according to Kagan. She roots for the mets and Justice Sotomayor is a Yankees fan.

Dems Unfair to the Fairer Sex

This woman has courage, but you won't see any feminists coming to her side.  Kristine Svinicki is a Commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the only female Commissioner. Here's where she strayed from the National Organization for Women's reservation:  Svinicki is also a Republican and a whistle blower.  Svinicki -- joined with other NRC Commissioners, including Democrats -- has called out the unconscionable conduct of NRC  Chair Gregory Jaczko, who actually is waging a war on women at the NRC.  And now Harry Reid and company are trying to retaliate against Svinick by stonewalling her renomination.

Kimmberly Strassel has must-read, The Democratic War on One Woman, in today's Wall Street Journal:

By the fall of last year, all four of the NRC's Republican and Democratic commissioners had revolted. With unprecedented unity, they sent a letter to the White House relating their "grave concerns" that the "erratic" Mr. Jaczko was running the place like a despot. He'd ordered staff to withhold information from them, intimidated personnel into altering recommendations, and overridden the will of the majority.

If that weren't enough, at a December House hearing the four commissioners went on to describe a man with a vicious management style. Ms. Svinicki told of Mr. Jaczko's "continued outbursts of abusive rage, directed at subordinates." Democratic Commissioner George Apostolakis described Mr. Jaczko's "bullying and intimidating behavior toward NRC's career staff."

But it was William Magwood, Mr. Jaczko's other fellow Democrat, who related the chairman's penchant for going after women. He spoke of women staffers who had been "reduced to tears" by "the chairman's extreme behavior" and of his "raging verbal assaults."  . . . .

Here's how Harry Reid has treated Svninicki for having the temerity to speak up for herself

Mr. Reid has been trashing the only female NRC commissioner, falsely accusing Ms. Svinicki of being soft on safety and having "lied" to Congress in past testimony. The White House, having looked initially to back Mr. Reid, has since sniffed political danger and late this week said it would send up her nomination papers.

If only she'd been a Democrat talking about birth control.

Romney Visits Kentucky

Mitt Romney grows on you. That was apparent from the enthusiasm for his visit to Kentucky. He just wrapped up a fundraiser at the Anchorage home of John and Annette Schnatter. Even though the ticket price was steep -- $1000 a head minimum -- the turnout looked quite high.

More interesting was the buzz in the neighborhood. Children waved to the motorcade and even a few former Obama supporters drove by to see if they could catch a glimpse.

Many conservatives expressed regret that they could not go to this event, but seemed much more enthusiastic about Romney and his prospects than they did a few months ago.

This change in attitude about Romney cannot be attributed just to the implosion and withdrawal of his rivals.

There is something about Romney that makes one warm to him over time. After three years of Obama's petulance, Romney seems mature -- steady and optimistic. After Obama's class warfare, Romney refreshes with his refusal to be shamed for his success, for his consistent defense of hard work and free enterprise.

Maybe it's because Derby is drawing near; that puts Kentuckians in a good mood. Still, I sense a growing enthusiasm that Romney might win.

McConnell Schools the Con Law Prof

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell expressed the shock many of us felt at President Obama's attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court to uphold Obamacare. The president comported himself more like a thuggish Chicago pol than a former professor of Constitutional Law.

Most bewildering was Obama's rejection of judisicial review, which has been unquestioned since Chief Justice Marshall wrote Marbury v. Madison, two centuries ago.

Obama's warning that the Court ought to defer to Congress because it is an elected branch was particularly rich given that Democrats had to literally bribe their own to secure enough votes for Obamacare. Recall the "Gatorade", the "Cornhusker Kickback", and the "Louisiana Purchase."


This, on top of the fact that few of the members who voted for the bill read the 2,700 pages before voting. Speaker Pelosi boasted they needed to "pass the bill so you can find out what's in it.". The Supreme Court can and should see if this monstrosity violated the Constitution and strike it down if exceeds the enumerated powers of article I.

To hear Obama, one would think that the Court was the product of a junta. To the contrary, these justices, all of them, were appointed by democratically-elected presidents and confirmed by democratically-elected members of the Senate. Thenk God they serve for life, to protect them from the political pressure we saw in the Rose Garden yesterday.

Here is McConnell's statement on the issue.

"Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare’s unprecedented mandate on the American people, elected leaders have an obligation to protect our system of checks and balances. The President, more than anyone else, has an obligation to uphold the legitimacy of our judicial system. But his remarks on the Court reflect not only an attempt to influence the outcome, but a preview of Democrat attacks to come if they don’t get their way. 
 
“Only someone who would browbeat the Court during the State of the Union, and whose administration stifled speech during the health care debate, would try to intimidate the Court while it's deliberating one of the most consequential cases of our time.  This president's attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court falls well beyond distasteful politics; it demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for our system of checks and balances.”

What a Lousy Week For the President

This week should have made President Obama wonder why he was running for a second term: he showed the Reverse Midas Touch on every issue he came near. His former aura of brilliance looked chipped and faded.

First, there was the open mic deal he attempted to negotiate with Russian President Medvedev. Aside from the merits, and the fact that it evoked the villain in a cheesy James Bond knock-off, there was the question of competence. How did this happen? How does someone who has been president for three years not consider that the mic might be hot? And his staff? It's not like he was making small talk with a Medal of Honor recipient: this was the puppet of a regime that would like to pay back the U.S. for ending their quest for world domination. Even given that Medvedev is the puppet rather than the puppeteer, one would have hoped for a little more care, a little more caution in dealing with him.

Second, there was the Obamacare argument at the Supreme Court. The SG's bumbling performance reflected badly on the president who appointed him. To be sure, The SG didn't have much to work with in terms of either law or facts. But still, the question of what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause -- the limiting principle -- was asked almost verbatim 20 years ago in the Lopez argument. The SG, and Obama, knew it was coming. They had two years to prepare. Nonetheless they were speechless.

Finally, gas prices continued their steady creep upward. Americans will be very conscious of this fact as they fill up the tank for Spring Break, those who are fortunate enough to have a job and a little money to drive someplace warm. What if Obama gets his wish and we get European prices? As Mitch Daniels pointed out, this is the one domestic goal in which Obama is succeeding. Imagine five more years of similar gas price increases. We would have Jimmy Carter-sized inflation. And we would see a change in population trends for Americans. Simply, put, we would have less children, like Europeans.

The first time I saw all those tiny cars in Europe, I was mystified. Then I realized: there are no mini- vans because their families are so much smaller than American families and because gas is so expensive. The toy cars are all they can afford, and subsequently all they need.

So as we gas up our mini-vans this week, let's consider this one domestic achievement of the Obama administration and hope that by the time Spring Break ends, the Republican primary will also have come to a close.

Today at the High Court, the Mandate Looked Fragile

The atmosphere at the Supreme Court this morning reminded me of the Kentucky Derby, only it took tow hours rather than two minutes. The Justices even drank (water, presumably) out of silver Julep cups!

Everyone was so excited to be there, regardless of which side they favored. The crowd outside was festive - even played the Black Eyed Peas.

Many of those who camped out to get tickets changed into court attire in the Supreme Court restrooms. A few others, including a bunch of Georgetown Law students, looked like they'd slept on the sidewalk but still relished their chance to see history.

There were many Senators, including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Sen. John Kerry walked in and took a center seat just before the gavel pounded, the better to make sure we all knew he had arrived.

The caliber of advocacy varied. Paul Clement, for the 26 attorneys general, was outstanding. The Solicitor General, for the Obama administration, had a very rough start. He was visibly nervous and could never provide a limiting principle when pressed by the conservative justices.

After the first hour, it was clear that the individual mandate was in trouble.

Much has been said about Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. His questions and comments today suggested that unless he changes his mind in conference, he will vote to strike down the statute. That is perfectly consistent with his jurisprudence.

Before the argument, I was more worried about Justice Scalia, who takes a broad view of the necessary and proper clause. What a relief, therefore, to see Justice Scalia pounce on the S.G. from the get to.

The liberal justices tried their hardest to help out the government. The effort was neither pretty nor effective.

Justice Thomas asked no questions, but that his his style. He did, at one point when Wickard was mentioned, reach for an amicus brief and start paging through it. Maybe Sen Paul's amicus brief?

Obamacare

Here are some pictures outside of the Supreme Court. We'll have a full rundown of the events in the coming hours.

Sex Week at Harvard Law

Back in the day, we didn't have an official Sex Week.  The Harvard chapter of Law Students for Reproductive Justice(LSRJ) is helping to coordinate the week-long activities.  That's the Harvard equivalent of the Georgetown Law organization to which Sandra Fluke belongs.

One such event is promoted,  “Join HLSRJ and Good Vibrations for a short discussion of sex-positivity, a demo of lube and some popular sex toys, then Q&A. Free Food!”

I couldn't make this up.

All I can say is the next time the HLS Placement Office asks me if I would like to serve as a mentor or house an intern, I'm gonna think twice.

H/t:  Instapundit

McConnell Gives GOP Weekly Address on Obamacare Anniversary

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell gives this week's Republican address on a theme he has been relentless about the last several days:  the second anniversary of Obamacare.  Click here for video.

McConnell's address is similar to op-eds he wrote for the C-J and NRO, and similar to speeches and news conferences he's given recently.  What is distinctive, however, is his determination to see Obamacare either struck down as unconstitutional -- or repealed. McConnell is on a mission, plain and simple. Make no mistake:  if McConnell becomes majority leader, he will see this thing repealed (if the Supreme Court hasn't disposed of it in the mean time.).

Note that while McConnell has been all over the news in recent days regarding the anniversary of Obamacare, the Obama administration itself has been strangely silent.  As McConnell asked yesterday, where's the birthday cake, Mr. President?

The Terrible Twos: McConnell on Obamacare Anniversary

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is marking the two year anniversary with Obamacare with a full-court press, including a news conference (rare for a Friday, when the Leader travels home to Louisville) and and op-ed in National Review Online.  The NRO piece is worth reading in its entirety, but in case you don't have time, here are a few highlights.

McConnell's op-ed makes the point that Obamacare is even worse than most of us had feared.  Therefore, Republicans are even more committed to repealing it -- if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down.

On Team Obama's political strategy regarding Obamacare, McConnell notes, "Time and again, the president and his allies have arrogantly presumed that a public that has largely opposed Obamacare from the start would either come to like it or forget about it over time. Their hopes never materialized."  Instead, public opposition to Obamacare remains high; three-fourths of Americans believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Republicans acknowledge that health care requires common-sense, market-based reform and are therefore prepared to replace Obamacare with a conservative alternative:

 Among other problems were the rising cost of health care to private and public payers, the exposure of too many families to potentially catastrophic health-care costs, and the lack of coverage for millions of Americans
Yet rather than solving the most pressing problems in the old system, Obamacare has made many of these problems far worse. Costs and premiums are rising, Medicare has been weakened, states now struggle to keep pace with even costlier federal mandates, and the economy is being sapped as new mandates dissuade employers from creating new jobs.

Obamacare has screwed up Medicare, saddling states with unfunded (and unconstitutional mandates) that states cannot afford and that will jeopardize the quality of care our seniors receive:

States face their own challenges. Many couldn’t afford federal health-care mandates before Obamacare mandated dramatic increases in Medicaid rolls — and the costs to pay for it. Needless to say, even if states are able to meet the costs of covering as many as 25 million more Medicaid patients, the quality of the care for those who rely on Medicaid would almost certainly suffer.


The president may be able to boast that more people have coverage. But states, which will have to shoulder the costs, won’t be applauding.

Nor will America’s seniors, millions of whom now know from bitter experience that the president wasn’t speaking to them when he vowed that, under Obamacare, “if you like the plan you have you can keep it.” Since then, millions who have and like Medicare Advantage have learned it won’t necessarily be there for them anymore.

McConnell also hits upon the key distinction between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives trust in the innate wisdom of the citizenry; they believe that individuals have the common sense and responsibility to take care of themselves; the little people are not stupid, and don't need the government to run their lives or spend their money for them. Democrats, in contrast, think that the poor fools in the flyover states need to be saved from themselves by the enlightened progressives:

 most Americans understood from the start that the president’s claims about this plan simply weren’t credible. Chief among them was his insistence that it wouldn’t add a dime to the deficit. Americans aren’t stupid. They know that a government entitlement is about as likely to pay for itself as, well, a government entitlement.

McConnell clearly lays out the differences between the the two parties on this critical issue of  health care. It is imperative that Republicans elect enough senators to give McConnell a majority so that if the Supreme Court fails in its task, the Senate can repeal this monstrosity.

Sen. Paul Responds to SCOTUS Property Rights Decision

Sen. Rand Paul's focus on property rights -- and the EPA's assault on those rights -- is reflected in his press release today on The Supreme Court's opinion in Sackett v. EPA.  In that opinion, the high court (9-0) "provided some measure of relief to those who wish to challenge the heavy-handed enforcement of an out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency,"  according to Paul.

Paul, through his release, notes:

“From this point forward, citizens like the Sacketts will be able to challenge the EPA in court before huge fines and other actions are levied against them,” Sen. Paul said. “This sends a resounding message to the Administration that ever-expanding bureaucracy and regulations cannot continue to go unchecked. I will continue to fight to rein in the EPA, and today’s decision is heartening that we will succeed.”



The court did not however take a stand against the larger abuses of the EPA. Rather, in a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito specifically called on Congress to fix the law and clarify the definition of navigable waters, stating that “only clarification of the reach of the Clean Water Act can rectify the underlying problem.”

Paul's take on Sackett echos some thoughts he gave the Louisville Lawyers' Chapter of the Federalist Society last month.  Paul complained that the EPA has made it impossible form miners to comply with the Clean Water Act, by asserting that intermittent rain run-off is a navigable stream for purposes of the Clean Water Act.  Likewise, Kentucky businesses have been subjected to the Clean Water Act for rain fun-off from the roof of small businesses.  That makes no sense, Paul said, and is not within Congress's authority to regulate.

Even though today's decision is largely procedural, Paul's focus on property rights is well-placed.  The right to own and develop property is a core freedom in a democracy, going back to the Magna Carta. It's what distinguishes us from serfs. Indeed, much of the intellectual energy that led to our nation's founding stems from the writings of John Locke regarding property rights.  So this is an area of law and public policy that constitutional conservatives should monitor closely.

Dems Resort to Violence Against Women Act, Again

Democrats have so enjoyed the Sandra Fluke saga that they are trotting out another wedge issue to illustrate the supposed Republican War on Women. Sen. Charles Schumer will be invoking the Violence Against Women Act as an example of how much Dems care for those of us inclined to the vapors.

Take this from the perspective of someone who has represented dozens of victims of domestic violence:  we do not need a Violence Against Women Act. That statute was Joe Biden's mash note to the feminist lobby.  It is unnecessary and wasteful.

To be sure, domestic violence is horrific.  I have represented clients who have been kicked in the stomach while eight months pregnant, strangled until they passed out, thrown down stair cases and subjected to death threats.  There is no question that a just society must apprehend and punish those who engage in such violence, where it can be proven.

Most of my domestic violence clients have been women.  Most, but not all. Yet what makes such conduct reprehensible, however, is not that it is directed against women; it is equally wrong to strangle a man until he passes out.  It is the nature of the act, not the gender of the victim, that warrants judicial intervention.

Nor is this a federal problem.  The Constitution vests the states with the police power. This is not a problem that implicates interstate commerce; there is no constitutional basis for the federalization of crimes involving violence against women (or against men, for that matter).

Women, like men, need jobs.  Women, like men, need to be able to fill their cars for less than $ 100 a tank.  The commonality in all of my domestic violence cases has been poverty.  The stress that it places on relationships and families causes untold tragedy.  That's why we need a president who can restore the economy to one that gives Americans a realistic prospect that the future can be better.

Democrats want to talk about the Violence Against Women Act to deflect the damage that they have done families through their mishandling of our economy.  It is a ruse that women should reject.

Sen. Santorum Discovers Tea!

Rick Santorum's latest email blast shows that he is trying to style himself as the Tea Party candidate -- apparently oblivious to the fact that Ron Paul is still in the race.

Touting his wins in the Deep South, Santorum begins his email, "Dear Patriot".  Classic Tea Party.  And he goes on to talk about taking our "country and our party back."  That sounds an awful lot like Sen. Rand Paul's tag line when he ran for Senate. ("I have a message, a message from the Tea Party. We've come to take our country back."

The there's the signature:  "For America."

All Santorum needs to do now is to lose the sweater-vest and don an tri-corner hat.

It feels a little disingenuous for a guy who endorsed Arlen Specter. I thought we were trying to take our party and  our country back from the Arlen Specters of D.C., not give it to them.

Tea Party Caucus to Propose Medicare Reform

Tomorrow those  senators who comprise the Tea Party Caucus -- Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jim DeMint -- plus Lindsay Graham will unveil a plan to reform medicare.

Based on previous comments, I expect it to grandfather those approaching retirement age. (Forgive the verb choice; it is not a pun!) For everyone else, look for the qualification age to be pushed back to reflect longer life expectancy.  And look for means testing for those in upper income brackets. 

It's good to see that the Tea Party is still focusing on trying to reform entitlements, while everyone else seems to be in a stupor over the Republican primary.

Interesting to see Lindsay Graham in this line up. 

Sen. Rand Paul Proposes Budget Tomorrow

It has been more than 1,000 days since the Democratic-controlled Senate has passed a budget.  That's longer than the Siege of Leningrad, and Sen. Rand Paul has had enough.

Tomorrow, Paul will propose: his FY2013 budget, "A Platform to Revitalize America."

Note the use of the word "Platform."  It evokes a presidential bid, perhaps deliberately so. 

Paul's platform will include a plan to balance the budget in 5 years.  He also calls for passage of the REINS Act, which would require that major executive branch regulations be subject to approval by Congress. That would certainly slow down the growth of the regulatory state and shake up lobbying and lawyering under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Paul's staff has been promoting this event for several days, and will include a blogger call as well as a press conference.  This is a well-orchestrated event.

Paul will be joined by by Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Mike Lee (R-UT) -- the Senate Tea Party Caucus.

In addition to the budget, Paul will discuss energy policy. Paul will call for more domestic exploration and drilling, in contrast to the Obama administration policies -- a contributing factor to the $6 a gallon gas now selling in California.

Andrew Breitbart

Andrew Breitbart is dead at age 43. He died suddenly, early this morning of natural causes.

We have lost a great patriot. Andrew loved liberty and he was willing to fight for it. He challenged us to speak the truth -- boldly, clearly and as often as it takes to keep America exceptional.

This is a huge loss not only for the conservative cause, but for our country.

The best way that we can honor his memory is for each of us, in our own way, step up.

Another Week, Another Primary

So, are you jazzed about today's primary in Michigan and Arizona? I am indifferent.

I will support the nominee, whoever he is.  I do not agree with Democrats and the Mainstream Media that the so-called fratricide is killing Republican chances. Anyone who thinks the Republican primary is ugyly, just wait until Team Obama starts spending its millions.  What we are watching now, that's the cartoon before main feature.

 I therefore dispute the notion that the primary is damaging the Republican brand. What is killing us is that neither of our front-runners is conservative.  To the contrary, the more that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum try to increase their conservative street cred, the phonier they look.

But even a phony conservative is better than our current state of affairs. I console myself with this thought whenever Mitt Romney regales us with how many Cadillacs Ann drives, and whenever Rick Santorum whines that he is holier than the Pope.  No, they are not my dream candidate. That would be Mitch Daniels.  The prospect of Mitch Daniels somehow getting nominated in a brokered convention is just that:  a fantasy.

Not gonna happen.

Mo Dowd Goes Bat-Shiz Delusional

Conservatives have known for many years that Maureen Dowd lives in a parallel universe unbounded by concepts like facts.  In today's column, she trots out that old canard about George W. Bush stealing the election from Al Gore.

Lady, Girl, give it up.  You lost. And if Republicans can pull it together, you will lose again this year.

In assaulting the Republican field, and particularly Rick Santorum, Mo lets this whopper fly:  "More and more, they openly yearn for a fresh candidate, including Jeb Bush, who does, after all, have experience at shoplifting presidential victories at the last minute." (Emphasis added).

Shoplifting presidential victories?  That's a flat-out lie.  Two mainstream newspapers reluctantly so said.

USA Today reported on April 4, 2001

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....

Even Mo's own newspaper, the New York Times -- not exactly part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy -- reached the same conclusion on its front page, November 12, 2001:


A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.


Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.


Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations....

This is what happens when a columnist forgets to read her own front page:  she internalizes the mythology of the DNC talking points without the reality check of . . . reality.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson Gives GOP Address

This week's Republican Addrsss comes from Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (video here). She hits two points. First, she challenges Senate Democrats to act on four bills that would remove barriers to small businesses expanding and hiring. Each bill has already passes the House with large bipartisan majorities but is stymied in the Senate. Second, she mocks the administration for its bone-headed energy policies, which are succeeding in giving us European gas prices -- the explicit goal of Obama's Secretary of Energy. Hutchinson calls on the administration to let America take advantage of the Keystone Pipeline before Canada decides to sell to China.

Rand Paul: No Cabal Between Ron Paul and Romney

Sen. Rand Paul clarified a remark he made this week that he would be "honored" to be Romney's VP nominee. Some have taken that to substantiate speculation that Ron Paul and Romney have cut some sort of a deal. Ron Paul's attacks on Santorum during the last debate added fuel to the rumor.

Sen. Paul said this on the Ron Paul website:

The media speculation about some supposed cooperation between
the Ron Paul campaign and Mitt Romney has gotten completely out of hand. Ron Paul is running for President of the United States. His son, Sen. Rand Paul, is supporting his father’s run for President of the United States. That’s all that’s going on here. There is no secret “conspiracy.” During a radio interview this morning in Chicago, Sen. Paul said:

“If there’s a secret deal they’re keeping it secret from me, I think that’s mostly internet chatter and fun for people to speculate on…”

Speculative fun is exactly right. Sen. Paul explained his own views on the supposed Romney/Paul connection this morning, including his comments about being “honored” if he were to be considered as the GOP vice presidential nominee:

I think the story kind of got misrepresented, because you know when I was asked, every time I’m asked these kind of questions, these are hypothetical questions, I always say you know what? I still have my first choice in the race and that’s Ron Paul. My first choice would be a Ron Paul presidency and my first choice for a position would be an unofficial adviser to a Ron Paul presidency…

But when they push and push and push, and say ‘What about Romney? Would you do it?’ I mentioned that it would be an honor, and what I meant by that is sort of like if you were nominated for an academy award, what’s your response? You’d say “It’s be an honor to be nominated’ and so I think it would be silly for me not to say that if anybody considered me that I’d be honored by it, but I think it was somewhat overblown, it sort of fits into this sort of cabal that people write about…

That there’s this big strategy between Ron Paul and Romney, really the Ron Paul strategy as far as I’m aware of it is to gather delegates and to try to win, and one of the unwritten stories really is that Ron Paul may have already won a couple of states but people haven’t realized it because the delegates haven’t been allotted in Iowa yet, and we still think there’s an reasonable chance we can win Iowa we they count the delegates, we think there’s a reasonable chance we can win Maine when they count the delegates, and this is sort of an unwritten story that’s out there, and also why I don’t like the story out there that somebody’s trying to angle for some other position other than I’m just trying to help my dad at this point…

 
 

KY Senate Kisses Horse Industry Good-Bye

What a disappointing vote yesterday in the Kentucky Senate:  citizens will not get to vote on whether Kentucky should expand gambling to aid the horse industry.

At least there was a vote; last go round, Senate President David Williams killed the bill in committee, in an alarming lack of transparency. Yet many are left with the nagging suspicion that this was a rigged vote -- timed to ensure defeat.

David Williams opposes gambling in Kentucky, although it is well known that he personally likes to gamble:  gambling for me, not thee. He has no credibility on the issue and should have just let Sen. Damon Thayer handle the whole thing.  Indeed, given Williams' resounding defeat in his bid for governor, he has little credibility on any issue.  Why is he still Senate President?  Are people still afraid of him after that disastrous election? Sure, he's a brilliant man, but wouldn't a less polarizing leader be more effective?

What is discouraging about the Senate vote is that it is anti-democratic.  Ordinary Kentuckians deserved a chance to have their say on the issue. All senators, regardless of their personal position, therefore should have voted to put the issue on the ballot.  A vote against the amendment is parternalistic; it says that voters cannot be trusted to make the right choice. The only way this issue can be put to rest is by allowing voters to address it directly.

There should be bipartisan support for our horse industry. As an out of state transplant, I can testify that bourbon and horses do more for Kentucky's image than anything else. That add an allure to the state and do  much to counterbalance the notion that we all have meth mouth and run around barefoot. Moreover, the horse industry is a huge employer, offering jobs for a wide range of skill levels, It is a tourism magnet. It is a counter-weight to the dreaded Urban Sprawl.  It is a green industry. Really, there are any number of constituencies, otherwise odd bed-fellows, that should be banding together to save it.

The reality is that other states, like New York, are gunning for our horse industry -- successfully. Those who oppose gambling need to identify an alternative to prevent the horse industry from becoming a vestige of Kentucky's past.

Sen. Paul's Amicus Brief on Obamacare

Sen. Rand Paul's amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court not only calls on the Court to strike down Obamacare, but to jettison the 1942 precedent that has allowed Congress to blow past its enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause.  That case held that Congress can forbid a farmer from feeding his family and livestock with wheat he grew himself on his own farm; it ushered in the era of big government -- and big debt.

Here's a link to the brief.  In full disclosure, I am counsel of record.  Constitutional conservatives will appreciate that Paul calls for the Court to overrule Wickard v. Filburn  when it addresses Obamacare.  That's the case that Judge Silberman of the D.C. Circuit reluctantly concluded justified the individual mandate.  Of course, the D.C. Circuit, as an intermediate court, is stuck with Wickard.  But the Supreme Court is not.  In all likelhihood, the Court will distinguish Wickard, if it strikes down Obamacare.  However, look for Justice Thomas to echo Paul's call to make clear that Wickard was wrongly decided.

Sen. Paul spoke about the brief and many other topics yesterday at the Federalist Society's Louisville Lawyer Chapter. This is the first time that he has spoken to any Federalist Society chapter, and he drew a huge crowd.  It's a natural fit, because like the Tea Party, the Federalist Society seeks for rule of law based on the plain text of the constitution as understood by the Framers:  limited government, personal responsibility, liberty.

Here's some of the press coverage.  WFPL  had the best coverage of the brief.  The C-J focused mostly on Paul's opposition to federalizing  the criminalization of synthetic drugs. WAVE 3 fixated on Paul's assessment of the odds of a brokered Republican Convention, which he put at 30 percent. WHAS 11 made the point that Paul is "staying true" to his campaign message.  (How sad that it is actually newsworthy for a politician to keep his word.).

The Daily Caller picked up on Paul's remark that he would be "honored" to be considered as candidate for Vice President. There is speculation that the reason Ron Paul is hitting Rick Santorum so hard, but not Mitt Romney, is that Ron Paul has cut some kind of deal to be Romney's V.P. nominee.  In fact, Rand Paul would probably add more to the ticket than his father.

Here's what the media missed yesterday:  in casual conversation, before the event started, when asked whether he would run for president, Paul very candidly said he was "thinking about it." In the event that Obama is reelected, I expect Paul to run.

A few observations on working with Paul on the brief.  Law students of all ideological persuasions have thought for 70 years that Wickard v. Filburn was wrongly decided.  It makes a mockery of a federal government, and particularly a Congress, that is subject to enumerated and hence limited powers. 

To have a sitting member of the U.S. Senate show the courage and intellectual honesty to say what so many think -- that Wickard   is wrong --  was extraordinary.  It is the constitutional equivalent of telling the Court that the Emperor has no clothes.

I was struck by Paul's command of constitutional law; he is a non-lawyer  who knows more than most lawyers.  He is a voracious reader who loves history.  I was also struck by his humility and sense of humor.  Despite his intellect and position, he is modest and down to earth.

Although I still don't agree with him on all issues, I think that we are blessed to have his service.

One Term President in Obama's Own Words

Rand Paul is Right About Egypt

But for Sen. Rand Paul's efforts to cut off aid to Egypty, there would not be one story about the U.S. citizens being held hostage in Egypt. Plainly, this assault to American sovereignty -- which now endangers Americans -- does not fit into the reelection narrative for the Appeasement Presidency. (How's that Arab Spring working out for you?)

Liberal apologist Dana Milbank directed his bile against Paul for holding up the confirmation of a Hispanic lawyer to the Eleventh Circuit. This was the hit piece in which Milbank made his chimichanga remark against the Republicans, which is too offensive and asinine to reprint here.

Milbank implies that Paul had no need for Hispanics because Kentucky's Hispanic population is only three percent of the state's total.

The ethnicity of the nominee is beside the point. Paul simply asked for the Senate to take ten minutes from the comfirmation to discuss the Americans being detained in Egypty. What nominee wouldn't happily have his confirmation postponed for a few minutes for the sake of American lives?

Mikbank's outrage on behalf of Hispanic jurists rings hollow. Dana, where were you when Democrats stonewalled the nomination of Miguel Estrada? Plainly, conservative Hispanics do not fit into Dana Milbank's world view of how a Hispanic should think or vote. It is difficult to know what is more disgusting: Milbank's hypocrisy or his condescension,

Santorum Surges (Yawn)

By all accounts, Rick Santorum is a good guy. Everyone who knows him, even if they do not support him, comments on his decency -- an undervalued quality in these news cycles in which we are subjected to details of JFK robbing teenagers of their virginity.

Santorum will do. He is perhaps a little more conservative than Romney. Nonetheless, Santorum is an earmark-seeking statist, who opposed right to work and endorsed Arlen Specter. So forgive my lack of enthusiasm.

Again I wonder, why are our choices so poor in this field of candidates? This is why Republicana are fantasizing about a brokered convention. We want someone to save us from the RINOs.

Ron Paul will be a force at that convention, brokered or not. Therefore, if Marco Rubio takes pass on VP, look to Paul supporters to ask for the VP slot to go to Rand Paul to shore up the nominee's bona fixes on cutting the size of government. That is the critical issue for this election, and one which Santorum or Romney needs help to appeal to the Tea Party.

Top 1% Pays Highest Percentage

Sure, the top 1% may pay the most taxes, but they still don't pay as high of a rate as the middle class, right? Not true. According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% payed an average rate of 24.01% to the federal government in 2009. That's more than any other income level- nearly 8% greater than the top 5% and an even greater gap for lower incomes. When it comes to regular earned income, (not capital gains) the top 1% pays the highest rate.

Obama Must Go

‎35% is too much for the government. As Herman Cain says, "If 10% is good enough for God, than 9% should be perfectly acceptable for the government."

How can Obama want the federal government to spend over $3.7 TRILLION dollars this year when our total revenue is is only $2.6 trillion? I don't understand. Where does all that money go? That is $11,874 per person. PER PERSON. Every man, woman, and child in this country.

We have a $15.37 trillion dollar national debt that was supposed to be CUT IN HALF by the end of Obama's first term. Instead, Obama has added nearly $5 trillion to the debt. If we divided the debt up among all Americans, we each would have to pay OVER $49,000. This year, we will pay $242 BILLION in interest on this enormous debt. The richest man in the US, Bill Gates, is only worth $56 billion. Yes, that is a lot of money, but now when our interest payments are more than four times greater than the net worth of our richest citizen.

Now Obama is trying to cheat his way into a second term by waging class warfare. The top 1% pays over 22% of the taxes! You might say, "Well Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary." Warren Buffet pays capital gains taxes, which are taxes off of investments. Any American who makes money off investments only pays 15%. It encourages people to take risks. Buffet's secretary makes "earned income," therefore she pays a regular tax rate. Interesting enough, Buffet's secretary must make between $200,000-$500,000 in order to be obligated to pay a 34% tax rate.

Now for ObamaCare. Obama is FORCING people to buy health insurance. It is someones choice whether or not to buy something. You may say, "You have to buy car insurance." NO, YOU DO NOT. You can chose not to drive, right? Can you chose not to live? Unfortunately, yes, but I can assure you that many people will not make that choice. Even worse, until Obama flip-flopped his view, churches had to pay for and almost encourage what they believed was a sin.

Speaking of flip-flops, Obama has many. Like keeping GITMO open, or canceling our space program after promising to make it a top priority. Also, he called Mubarak a "stalwart ally," then later telling the Egyptian ruler that he must go.

Obama once said that as long as Iran was a threat, he would continue Bush-era plans to put a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. The Russians didn't seem to like that idea, so Obama canceled plans to built the missile defense system. The Russians later praise Obama for the possibly deadly move.

I could go on and on all day. I am fed up with this guy. We need some real change. WTF, as Sarah Palin would say

Grover Norquist is Over-stating the Anti-Catholic Bias at Harvard

Grover Norquist told the Daily Caller that President Barack Obama's HHS regs reflect the anti-Catholic bias to which Obama would have been exposed at the Harvard Law School.

Norquist was graduated from Harvard College and the Harvard Business School. “He went to Harvard, I went to Harvard, I know the level of anti-Catholic animosity you run into from people at Harvard,” said Norquist. “It usually doesn’t translate into government policy, and with Obama it does.”

I beg to differ. Norquist is five years older than the president and I, so he attended Harvard that much earlier. Five years is not a generation, however, so I find it hard to believe that Norquist's Harvard experience was that different from mine or from Obama's.

I cannot say I ever encountered any anti-Catholic sentiment at Harvard. To the contrary, the Catholic student community there was quite vibrant, so much so that in those early years after graduation, I donated to the Catholic Student Center rather than to the law school.

And since Norquist hones in on the law school, I must likewise point out that the Harvard Law School Catholic community was strong enough that we started having our own Sunday night masses at the law school (Pound Hall), so we wouldn't have to walk three blocks in the cold.  In fact, we had an ordained priest in the class ahead, who acted as our own unofficial law school priest. I also recall one student who attended the Sunday law school mass who decided to stay after graduation and attend Harvard Divinity School. He would have moved on if the bias was as Grover portrays.

It's too bad that Grover's experience was so different.  Based on my own not that many years after him, I tend to think he was exaggerating.

Obama's policy as manifested in the HHS regulations, coercing people to violate their conscience, is abhorrent. But it cannot be blamed on Harvard.

CPAC Coverage: McConnell

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell just spoke at CPAC.  (If you don't know what CPAC is, you have landed on the wrong site. Welcome anyhow!)  Here are excerpts from McConnell's speech:

• Under the Obama administration, government spending has increased by more than 20 percent.
• We need a federal pay freeze, because the wage gap between government and private sector employees has doubled the past ten years.  Worse, government benefits are 60 percent higher than those of the taxpayers who pay for them.
• President Obama, right after he signed the stimulus bill, promised to cut the defict in half.  We know how that turned out.
• The Obama administration promised that its spending spree would keep unemployment below eight percent.  Another broken promise.

Jesus Would Not Qualify for the HHS Exemption

It's true.  Jesus the Christ would not qualify for the Obama administration's exemption from its new HHS regulation that requires religious entities to pay for not just birth control and sterilizations but also the Morning After (abortion) Pill.

NRO has a good primer that reveals the narrowness of the Obama administration's religious exemption.  According to Mark Rienzi,  senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and a professor of constitutional law at the Catholic University of America,

The existing exemption is incredibly narrow and actually penalizes those charitable organizations that are kind enough to help people who are not members of their own faith. A Catholic soup kitchen, for example, would fail to qualify simply because they serve hungry Jews, atheists, and Muslims along with hungry Catholics. The same would be true for inner-city Catholic schools, which frequently educate poor children of all faiths. On top of that, the exception would apply only to organizations that refuse to hire members of other religions and that file tax returns as churches or religious orders. The conscience clause also applies only to organizations and not to individual business owners who may not want to pay for

How odd it is that the exemption excludes those who minister to people of other faiths -- or no faith.  The Obama administration has targeted "good acts" that might result in conversion.  It is almost as if the Obama administration is trying fight a contagion:  stop effective proselytizing before we end up with more bitter people clinging to their guns and Bibles.

It's a particularly hypocritical approach from an administration that loves to preach "tolerance."  In fact, the exemption punishes tolerance; the charities can only qualify for the exemption if they preach to the choir, and just the choir. So much for embracing diversity.

By this standard, Jesus and his apostles would have lost their exemption any time they ministered to a Gentile.  Don't let Kathleen Sebelius hear about that Samaritan woman at the well!

This is how Obama treats a major denomination that is a swing-vote block in what is sure to be a close election.  This is Obama in his restrained mode, seeking reelection.  Imagine what he will do if he no longer has to worry about being reelected?

The implication for religious freedom, indeed, for all aspects of freedom, is truly terrifying.

McConnell, Paul Condemn HHS Mandate

The Obama administration's efforts to force Catholic employers to pay for sterilization, contraceptions and the Morning After abortion pill has even liberal Catholics outraged.  Non-Catholics, too, recognize that this is an assault against freedom to worship, not just an assault on Catholocism. Republicans need to hit this issue hard. Indeed, this is so bad for the administration that we can expect a faster reversal than one can say "Susan G. Komen."

Here are responses from Kentucky's U.S. Senators.  In order of seniority, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had this to say in The Hill:


"Make no mistake, the Obama' administration's decision to force religious hospitals, charities and schools to comply with a mandate that violates their religions views is abhorrent to the foundational principles of our nation," said McConnell, making an unusual afternoon appearance on the Senate floor on Tuesday. "No one in the United States should ever be compelled by the government to choose between violating their religions beliefs and being penalized for refusing, yet that is precisely what this mandate would do.


"This ruling should send a chill up the spine of people of all faiths and even those with no faith at all," continued the minority leader. "If the state is allowed to violate the religious rights of one religion it can violate those of others."

Sen. Rand Paul has an op-ed on NRO today, below.  Both of Kentucky's senators stand ready to repeal this terrible regulation. The interesting twist on Sen. Paul's piece is that he puts the Obama administration's regulation in the broader historical context of socialism:

In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II delivered a scathing critique of socialism, declaring that “the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated. . . . Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil.”


Pope John Paul II’s indictment of socialism is illustrated in the Obama administration’s recent edict requiring nearly all employers — including Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities — to cover sterilizations and contraception in their employees’ health-care plans. Because “contraception” includes abortifacients, this decision — made under the powers granted to the executive branch under Obamacare — also threatens many Protestant employers.
The decision is the latest and most outrageous example of why Obamacare — socialized medicine — must be repealed in its entirety. It is also a shocking example of the administration’s choosing to ignore the opinions and beliefs of millions of Americans.


And while the Obama administration has never been a protector of pro-life Americans’ conscience rights — for example, it supports the federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives — this latest decision attempts to crush the freedom of the Catholic Church in this country. The president has declared a “war on religion,” as Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post last week.

Considering Obama’s comments about rural Pennsylvanians who “cling” to their religion, however, this is perhaps not entirely surprising.

The president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, correctly described the administration’s actions as “simply un-American,” and declared:

What other constitutionally protected freedoms might an increasingly powerful federal government revoke? What other [government]-mandated violations of conscience lie ahead for other groups of American citizens, in pursuit of what their government declares is in the common interest?

Archbishop Dolan also points out that the administration’s decision threatens the religious freedoms of all Americans. It must not stand.

The president’s contempt for the freedoms of Catholic Americans was also demonstrated in the way he personally betrayed Archbishop Dolan. Last November, the president met with the archbishop at the White House. During that meeting, President Obama reassured Archbishop Dolan that he respected the Church’s beliefs. Archbishop Dolan left that meeting convinced that the president would keep his word.

But on January 20, the president called the archbishop and instructed him that the only “concession” he would give to the Catholic Church’s beliefs was one extra year — until August 2013 — to comply with the contraception mandate. As Archbishop Dolan puts it, the president is “saying [the Catholic Church] has a year to figure out how to violate [its] conscience.”

McCain: Time to Kill the GOP debates

Sen. John McCain says we need to put a moratorium on Republican presidential debates before they drive up the unfavorables of the ultimate nominee any further.

He may be on to something. The debates are beginning to look like a cheesy reality show. We know that Newt will attack Mitt on Bain just as certainly as we know that Snooki will do jello shots.

We have had ample opportuni to assess the debating skill, temperament and demeanor of each of the four remaining candidates.

There is still a real and urgent need for the candidates to outline their positive positions on the economy, for starters. But this can be more effectively done in a substantive and serious policy speech rather than in a debate.

Sure, the debates are kind of fun to watch. People who do not follow politics are tuning in just to see who gets bloodied worse. It's great theater, but it is not the job of the Republican party at this critical juncture to entertain America. Our purpose must be to defeat Barack Obama.

Neighbor Gets It Right....

Our neighbor to the north, Indiana, is on the verge of becoming the 23rd state to enact a Right To Work law. The legislation passed the Indiana House on Wednesday and with a Republican controlled Senate and the strong endorsement of Governor Mitch Daniels, the legislation is on the fast track to becoming law. Indiana would be the first state in ten years to enact such a law and will presumably create more momentum for other states to follow suit.

Under the new law, unions would be banned from collecting mandatory fees from workers. Unions are understandably upset because this will greatly limit their ability to generate campaign dollars for union friendly (read Democrat) politicians. They are waging a mighty battle against it, but it appears at this point that the battle is lost in Indiana.

Unions need to face up to the fact that they, in their current form, are facing functional obsolescence in this country. When we had a relatively closed economy, we could afford the luxury of unions. There was a time when almost all products were made in the United States and workers could negotiate higher wages because they had little competition. Management was forced to meet many of their demands. Unfortunately for the unions, we now live in a global economy where capital and wages can quickly flow to cheaper labor markets. Union members that make $30 an hour do not understand that they are not competing anymore against American non-union workers making $20 an hour, they are competing against Asian and Indian workers making $5 an hour. Their alternatives are no longer between high union wages and lower non-union wages, they are between non-union wages and unemployment, as so many have painfully learned.

Unions are not intrinsically bad and they have done positive and beneficial things for many workers over the years. The reality though is that things change and that they are no longer viable, in their current American form, in the global economy. One would hope that smart and progressive union leaders could see this reality and proactively make changes to make unions more competitive and relevant, but this does not seem likely. In the meantime, progressive states like Indiana and 22 others will reap the benefits of increased business and investment from non-union companies.

Indiana has strong, forward looking political leadership that is looking out for the best interests of a majority of its citizens. One can only hope that Kentucky could be so lucky.

Marco Rubio Gives Republican Weekly Address

Sen, Marco Rubio give this week's Republican Address. Whoever gets the nomination needs to pick Rubio as V.P. He does a masterful job skewering Obama's record. He reveals the meanness of Obama's appeal to class warfare. And his description of American exceptionalism is downright inspiring. Take a moment to watch:



http://m.youtube.com/?rdm=4pauejspo&reload=3#/profile?desktop_uri=%2Fgopweeklyaddress&user=gopweeklyaddress&gl=US

SantorumShowed Up

Rick Santorum had his best debate of the election last night, maybe because his mom was in the audience.  He seemed less whiny.  And his request that the time be used for substance, as opposed to Mitt and Newt's sniping, was welcome and overdue. I still don't see Santorum winning.  However, he should do well enough in Florida to press on.

Newt has crested, in my view. The more I see of Newt, the better everyone else looks.  It didn't help that Elliott Abrams put the lie to Newt's claim that he helped Ronald Reagan win the Cold War.  On NRO, Abrams details all the snotty things Newt said to and about Reagan, and how Newt in fact undermined Reagan. Had Newt prevailed, it is unlikely that America would have won the Cold War.  It is a devastating critique of Newt and a must-read for anyone who is seriously considering him and anyone who considers Reagan the standard by which we should judge those who seek to carry the Republican mantle.

I fear that Newt would demean the Office of the President.  As one elderly lady observed to me recently, the man has the "morals of an alley cat."  When I see Newt, I think of Bill Clinton, and then I think about how W. had to put new carpet in the Oval Office.  My mind doesn't want to go there, but this is the consequence of Newt's life choices.

Mitt Romney did well the first hour. But it is uncomfortable to watch him go negative against Newt; plainly, this is not in Mitt's character.  That raises the concern:  will he be similarly awkward attacking Obama?

Andy Barr Raises $425k

Andy Barr, who lost by a hair in the 6th Congressional District, will file an FEC report stating that raised $425,000.

Barr ran the third closest Congressional race in the country two years ago. On Election night, the NRCC sent out emails to its volunteer lawyer network in anticipation of a recount. The margin, 647, just wasn't close enough.

The challenge for Barr is that Ben Chandler has voted to the right of the Democratic caucus. It is therefore harder to motivate conservatives from outside the district to donte than they would be inclined to donate to defeat John Yarmuth, for example.

But that's where realism comes in. No matter how much Yarmuth annoys conservatives, his advantage in registration makes Kentucky 3 a bad value for Republican donations. In Kentucky 6, however, we have a real shot.

John Yarmuth Whining

John Yarmuth had an amusing editorial in today's CJ. It highlighted his proposed constitutional amendment to overturn key provisions of the recent Citizens United case. This was the case in which the Supreme Court determined that corporations were "people" as regards their free speech rights and ability to make contributions to political action committees, or PACs. Mr. Yarmuth thinks the ruling was deplorable because of its injection of more corporate cash into the political process.

The most amusing statement in the editorial was this one: "The last thing Congress needs is more corporate and special-interest candidates who don't answer to the American people." Now a guy who is beholden to union interests and doesn't answer to the American people is okay. What hypocrisy!

For decades the Democratic party has used unions as campaign piggy banks. In effect unions have been "people" for a long time. Now that the Citizens United case allows legitimate PACs that might oppose their interests, they, and their bought-and-paid-for politicians like Mr. Yarmuth, are all upset and whiny.

Citizens United was a good decision. Mr. Yarmuth, get over it.

List of Barack Obama's Positive Achievements......

About That Republican Response

Watching  the Republican Response to the State of the Union by Gov. Mitch Daniels last night felt like a flash-back to when Gov. Bobby Jindal gave the Republican Response to an earlier Obama State of the Union. There was so much anticipation among conservatives that we were going to see something great -- a break-through performance by a rising Republican star.

And then we watched with horror as Jindal did that deer in the headlights thing, thereby dashing our hopes (and nearly, his career, until the BP Oil Spill gave him a chance to show how to govern under pressure).

Mitch Daniels didn't perform quite as badly as Jindal, last night, but nonetheless was disappointing.  He looked visibly nervous.  It is a hard setting, to be sure:  an empty space in Indiana with no crowd to work, and none of the grandeur of a Joint Session of Congress.

I still wish Daniels was our nominee because of his extraordinary record as governor, not because of this speech.

Talk About Getting Things Done

In the past hour, President Obama called on Congress to compromise and get things done. 


"I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days." said President Obama.


Interesting. It seems like every time someone asks Obama to make up his mind, he says "no," that he didn't have time to make an informed decision. 


Is three years not enough time to decide whether or not to approve an oil pipeline that would create thousands of jobs? 


Apparently not. Maybe he wanted to please his environmental friends, or perhaps Mr. Buffet's railroad?


Obama has no business asking people to follow his deadlines when he can't even follow their own. 


Any responsible boss would fire an employee who takes three years to avoid a decision. The American people should do the same.

Sen. Paul on Roe v. Wade Anniversary

Sen. Rand Paul did not get to deliver his remarks to the March on Life yesterday, due to the TSA treating him like a terrorist at the Nashville airport.   Here's what he would have said, if TSA had not made him miss his flight.  Note that Paul used the formulation of John Locke -- "life, liberty and property" rather than Thomas Jefferson's version, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  The distinction is not relevant to  anniversary of Roe, but is interesting nonetheless.

The question remains, can a nation long endure or can a civilization long endure that does not respect Life? Our Liberty comes from our Creator and our freedoms depend upon a respect for Life.

In order to protect the unborn from the very moment life begins, I introduced the Life at Conception Act during my first year in the Senate. I have also cosponsored several other pro-life bills including the Life at Conception Act, the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.

I also strongly support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would confirm in law that an unborn child is a person entitled to the right to life and support legislation that would restrict federal courts from hearing cases involving abortion. State governments must be allowed to implement laws that protect life.


It is the government’s duty to protect life, liberty, and property, but primarily and most importantly, a government must protect life. Today, tragically our nation wavers; our moral compass is adrift. Today, I worry about our nation's future. Together a brighter tomorrow is possible if we join hands to restore our nation's virtue.


To respect life and to listen to the voice of God that lives and breathes and beckons and yearns for our attention. When America remembers and restores her respect for life, when America refinds her moral bearings then we will thrive again, then we will find our way.


I will never give up fighting for the lives of our unborn children. May God bless America.”

Obama Must Go

Credits: Conservative FaceBook Page.

Kentucky's Primary May Matter

One consequence of Newt's win last night in South Carolina is that the primary season will drag on, maybe until the Kentucky primary in May. We may have a chance to pick the nominee for a change, or at least influence the outcome.

Maybe we will even get our own debate. Who would moderate? Joe Arnold would be good. Then we could have some sanctimonious jerk or other from the Courier-Journal for Newt to smack down. That would be hilarious. I foresee a standing ovation.

I have not seen much of a Newt presence in Kentucky, other than some spontaneous comments in Facebook. Romney, on the other hand, has been raising money and building connections here for five years. He held a fundraiser in Kentucky just this past November. Establishment Republicans in Kentucky have bee gravitating to Romney for months, as well, so it would not take much for him to set up a ground game to get out the vote.

The challenge for Newt would be to mobilize the Tea Party. That will not be possible so long as Ron Paul remains in the race. Given his son's popularity here, Ron Paul has a real shot at winning Kentucky.


We may not have many delegates, but a Kentucky primary is guaranteed to entertain.

South Carolina Blues

Regardless of who wins today in South Carolina, the Republican Party loses. We are out of viable options for president. Each of these candidates has attributes worthy of praise, regrettably offset by their shortcomings.

Newt is a masterful debater - a thrill to watch. How much fun it would be to watch him smack down the One. Yet the characteristic that makes Newt so mesmerizing also disqualifies him as president. He is, as a colleague who served with him in Comgress put it, a "high wire act." We watch with baited breath, not knowoing what he will do or say next. This is not the demeanor of someone who should have control of the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Further, Newt's attacks on capitalism recently reek of the class warfare we get from Obama. These attacks on free-market principles have no place in the Republican primary. That they come from the so-called ideas guy is alarming.

Mitt Romney has the requisite steadiness to be president. That same steadiness, however, is what makes it unlikely that he will govern as a true conservative. He may slow down the pace of growth of the state, but he will not reverse it. He is a incrementalist.

Rick Santorum has no chance. None. Same for Ron Paul. Gentlemen, it is time to do the right thing.

So those are our picks. Any would be better than the current occupant of the White House. But does anyone seriously believe theses are the best we can do? It is time to nurture the farm team so we are not stuck with a field this weak in 2016.

A Simple Math Problem....

Here is a simple math problem for the Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Louisville/Occupy Wherever folks:

Which person contributes more towards government programs which help the poor, the person that earns $1,000,000 a year and pays 15% in taxes, or the person that earns $50,000 a year and pays 20% in taxes?

Jon Huntsman Sulks Away

I must admit I was startled to hear that Jon Huntsman had quit the race. I had forgotten he was still in it. The tone of his calling-it-quits speech reminded me of why his candidacy was so off-putting. On the one hand, he seemed like such an elitist, showing off in the debates by speaking Chinese. On the other hand, he whined about the meanness of the other candidates and the coarseness of the process . . . all the while attacking the other candidates.

There was also the problem of ideology; Huntsman is at best a moderate. He probably would have done quite well in a Dmocratic primary. Republicans should welcome candidates with a wide variety of philosophies. That's how we develop and refine the ideas that become our platform. Huntsman, however, added no new ideas, neither good nor bad. Herman Cain gave us 9-9-9. Ron Paul has made us focus on the Fed. Mitt Romney, heaven help us, gave us Romneycare. Jon Huntsman just took up space on the debate stage tonight.

A Modest Proposal For Mr. Zillionaire

Senator Rand Paul announced today that he's returning $500,000 to the U.S. Treasury that his office did not spend this year.  Maybe Warren Buffett could begin his philanthropic tax-paying by matching this amount dollar-for-dollar with additional taxes he pays?  And here's another thought:  maybe Mr. Buffett would consider matching dollar-for-dollar in additional taxes paid by him for every other dollar that Congress cuts in spending?
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.

Listening to the Left will move you to the Right...

If you want to clarify and revalidate your conservative ideals, then it is highly recommended that you take a listen to Sirius XM Left, channel 127 on Sirius satellite radio. This is their liberal talk radio station. Here is just a little of what you will experience on this station:

* Profanity and blasphemy, including the "F" word
* Inappropriate sexual innuendo
* Palpable anger and constant whining
* Ad hominem attacks and belittling and mocking of those of diverse philosophical thought
* Hostility towards religion, especially Christianity
* A distinct lack of calm, well reasoned, thoughtful or provocative political discussion. Such ability does exist on the Left, but
apparently the majority of their radio talk show hosts lack it.

Some may gain affirmation of their conservative ideals by listening to Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, but I have found that listening to Sirius XM Left is an even better way to bolster confidence in the rightness of the conservative cause.

Warming Up to Mitt

Could it be cognitive dissonance?  I am starting to actually embrace the candidacy of Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee. For me, the turning point has been his unapolgetic defense of capitalism. We need  this at a time of class warfare; it is the perfect foil to Obama's Politics of Envy.

And I am starting to appreciate Romney's demeanor, particularly when contrasted with Obama or Rick Santorum -- both of whom grate on my nerves with their sniveling and whining. It is true, to a large extent, that who we vote for is influenced by who we want to listen to in our living rooms every night for the next four to eight years.  As much as I admire Rick Santorum's character, intellect and defense of the unborn, the shrillness of his personality and lack of self-deprecating humor are just too similar to Obama.

Redistricting Fun

From the Kentucky House Republican Caucus:

House Republicans released their redistricting plan early this morning as a Floor Amendment to House Bill 1. Under the House Republicans plan filed by Rep. Joe Fischer, R-Ft. Thomas, only two additional counties would be divided on top of the 22 counties currently divided by law while meeting the required five percent plus or minus deviation.


“It is our belief that our plan meets the requirements of the Kentucky Constitution and would stand up to judicial scrutiny, unlike the version that the House Democrats are trying to push through,” said House Republican Floor Leader Jeff Hoover, R-Jamestown. “But more importantly we believe our version is a more fair and equitable plan for all Kentuckians and for those they choose to represent them.”

Under the House Republicans version, four incumbent Democrats and two incumbent Republicans would be placed together in the 7th, 54th and 92nd Districts. The House Republican redistricting plan would also create new seats for the 84th District in a section of eastern Jefferson County.

House Bill 1 is scheduled to be heard and voted on by the full House of Representatives later this afternoon. House Republicans will ask that their floor amendment be heard and considered during this afternoon’s session

McConnell's Response to Buffett's Horsing Around: Let The Democrats Pony Up Instead

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had a good comeback yesterday to Warren Buffett's pledge to match Republicans dollar-for-dollar (and $3 for every $1 paid by McConnell) in paying more taxes: How about Mr. Zillionaire's pledging to match the Democrats instead?   After all, the Democrats in Washington are part of the one percent in the country not philosophically opposed to more taxes.
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.

McConnell Slams Obama Recess Appointment of "Czar"

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell quickly criticized President Barack Obama's recess appointment of yet another Czar. Obama appointed Richard Cordray as head of the new CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. All the Czars are unelected and unaccountable, and for this one, Obama by-passed Congressional approval by making the appointment while the Congress is in recess.

Here is McConnell's statement:

Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people by 'recess' appointing Richard Cordray as director of the new CFPB. This recess appointment represents a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer. Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.


The CFPB is poised to be one of the least accountable and most powerful agencies in Washington. Created by the deeply flawed Dodd-Frank law, it is subject to none of the checks that independent agencies normally operate under, and will have an unprecedented reach and control over individual consumer decisions. Earlier this year, 44 of my Senate Republican colleagues and I served notice that we will not confirm any nominee as director, regardless of party, until structural changes are made to make the bureau accountable to the American people—and more transparent. Our request was met with silence from the administration. As a result just last month the Senate rejected Cordray’s nomination. Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power. But once again, the President has chosen to circumvent the confirmation process.

Glad Iowa is Over

My disgust with this Republican field is such that it has become hard to even pay attention to Iowa. Sure, any of those candidates would be better than Obama.

The Republican track record of nominating "moderates," however, alarms me, because this is no ordinary election.  Tthe electoral fates of  Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and John McCain suggest that if Mitt Romney is the nominee, Obama will be reelected.  The Rasmussen poll says otherwise, but history is a better predictor than polling.

If Obama is reelected, I am not sure that we can ever recover as a country. American cannot endure four more years of narcissistic incompetence and hedonistic class warfare. 

Consider the percentage of Americans who pay no taxes:  with another term of an Obama presidency, will anyone be surprised to see that number pass 50 percent?  It's close now -- 42 percent; another four more years and we may well cross the threshold of the point where more people get money from the government than pay money to it.  There will be more takers than producers. And the takers will have the votes to demand ever more government, funded by the producers. 

Mr. One Percent

The Louisville Occupiers are upset because the city has told them that they have to take down their tents at Jefferson Park. The Occupiers have some legitimate grievances, but many of us do not take them very seriously because of their support for Mr. One Percent, Barack Obama. We cannot know for certain, but it is a fairly safe bet that most of the Occupiers voted for Obama and will vote for him again. This is completely irrational in light of their cause.
Who provides the majority of financial support for Obama's political campaigns? Answer: The One Percent. Who did Obama pick his economic team from? Answer: The One Percent. Who benefited most from Obama's bailouts and stimulus spending? Answer: The One Percent. Barack Obama is a poster boy for the One Percent. It is their interests that he is most committed to protecting. It is beyond understanding how the Occupiers cannot see what is so clear.
If the Occupiers are serious, job number one is getting rid of Barack Obama. Until they support that, the rest of the 99 percent cannot take them seriously.

Neil nails it!

Wrapping Christmas presents to the sounds of Neil Young's Harvest album. Song is "I'd Love to Change the World". Lyrics are:

Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Until there are
no rich no more?

Even 70's hippies understand economics better than the current regime.

Looking Ahead to KY-4 and Calling Hunter Bates

Few expected Geoff Davis to announce he was retiring from Congress this soon, but there is no surprise at the amount of interest in replacing him.  For Republicans, in particular,  KY-4 is a very attractive district, notwithstanding that Democrats still hold a registration advantage.

Davis's retirement must be causing plenty of East End Republicans to wish they'd moved from Jefferson County to Oldham County.  The voter registration for KY-3,  Jefferson County, makes it so unlikely that a Republican can win that it is a waste of resources to even contribute to a Republican there. Not so in KY-4.

In the inevitable Republican primary for the 4th Congressional District, Hunter Bates would be terriffic.  He is smart, humble, has a very strong faith and great political instincts. And he's a true conservative. He would be an outstanding Congressman.  I hope he runs; he would win and serve his district, Kentucky and the nation with distinction.

Trump Card

Donald Trump, of The Apprentice and monumental real estate bankruptcies fame, is set to moderate yet another Republican Presidential debate on December 27th. Now Donald Trump is a fun guy to watch, he has great bravado and the finest comb over on the planet, but having him as a moderator for a Presidential debate is taking the process into the realm of the absurd. Huntsman and Paul have sensibly already begged off on the invite, we will have to wait and see what other candidates bite.

We can just hear Trump's response to a weak answer from one of the candidates: "You're fired!" When pop culture icons become Presidential debate moderators, we know we have abandoned any sense of seriousness about the matter. Who will be the next Republican Presidential debate moderator, Madonna?

Trying to Enthuse About Romney

The brilliant Charles Krauthammer has done what no one heretofore has been able to do:  convince me that the Republican nominee must be Mitt Romney for the sake of our country.

Krauthammer compares the strengths and weaknesses of Romney against the latest non-Romney, Newt Gingrich, and concludes with evident reluctance that it must be Mitt -- and this without even mentioning Newt's personal baggage.

Listen to how Krauthammer distills the difference between the two front-runners:

Two ideologically problematic finalists: One is a man of center-right temperament who has of late adopted a conservative agenda. The other is a man more conservative by nature but possessed of an unbounded need for grand display that has already led him to unconservative places even he is at a loss to explain, and that as president would leave him in constant search of the out-of-box experience — the confoundedly brilliant Nixon-to-China flipperoo regarding his fancy of the day, be it health care, taxes, energy, foreign policy, whatever.

I recently spoke with someone who served in Congress with Gingrich who described Gingrich as a "high wire act."  Even in the Republican caucus, members held their breath, not knowing what Gingrich would do next -- but certain that it would make for big headlines.

With Romney, on the other hand, we know what we are getting: a moderate Northeastern Republican a la Nelson Rockefeller.  We might not like it, but we know what to expect.

As Krauthammer points out, it is Gingrich's "need for the grand display" based on his own certainty of his brilliance -- his narcissism -- that makes Gingrich a dangerous bet for conservatives. That's assuming he could get elected, which Krauthammer doubts given the stench of lobbying for Freddie Mae and Mac that accompanies Gingrich.

My sense of foreboding about Romney has nothing to do with his character, his intellect or his religion.  I just fear that he will join the growing list of "moderates" that Republicans keep nominating in a vain attempt to appeal to independents:  Gerald Ford; George H.W. Bush after we "read his lips"; Bob Dole; John McCain.  Mitt Romney fits more comfortably in that list than he does in the much shorter list:  George W. Bush; Ronald Reagan, who made no apologies about their adherence to conservatism and were rewarded with election.

It is unfortunate that the choice has come down to Mitt vs. Newt.  Mitch Daniels could have won this election. He would have been a superb president. Perhaps he still will be, one day.

But here is the danger.  Even if a Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan gets elected in 2016, if Obama has been reelected, this country may no longer be recognizable in 2016.  It will be too late.

You play the hand you’re dealt. This is a weak Republican field with two significantly flawed front-runners contesting an immensely important election. If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).

Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?