I haven't commented here on the Jeff Frederick imbroglio, but a post by my friend Leslie Carbone provokes the desire to agree publicly: Jeff Frederick should stay.
And agree I do, with virtually every point Leslie makes. Jeff is my Delegate, and a friend. I voted for him to be RPV Chairman. I did so having gone to Richmond intending to vote for John Hager, whom I have known (and liked) far longer than I have known and supported Jeff. Indeed, I had some serious reservations about some of the criticisms raised by Jeff's campaign. But the Convention run by John Hager's staff changed my mind.
And, like Leslie, I am deeply concerned about the bitterness of this fight, which has caused deep divisions among good friends. Fortunately, at least among the Jeffersoniad, I don't see the personal animosities arising out of differences of opinions that I see elsewhere. Those who think that Jeff should step aside, or be removed, seem to believe that this is the best course for entirely practical reasons, and I would be a fool to suggest that such an argument lacks merit. The very fact that it is made by serious people without a particular axe to grind makes it worthy of respect. That is, of course, as opposed to the reflexive rantings of fatuous dilletantes who hide behind pseudonyms and whose nihilistic actions make them unworthy of serious consideration.
And it is difficult indeed to take some of the latter seriously. They have joined in the far Left's efforts to demonize Frederick. And since they frequently suggest that the best way for the GOP to succeed is to be more like Democrats, I have to reject them ab initio. As Ronald Reagan demonstrated (see also 2006 and 2008 election results; Bush 43 Administration), "slower socialism" as a politically-motivating concept is both the road to serfdom and a recipe for electoral disaster.
But I am stubborn enough to believe that more harm would be done by Frederick's departure for bad reasons than would be done by his retention of his position even given his flaws.
Has Virginia's GOP really fallen upon such hard times that we're going to allow Virginia's far-Left moonbatosphere and its spineless cousins among so-called "moderate" Republican bloggers to not only dictate who is an "acceptable" Republican, but also to overturn the results of a lawful vote?
'Fact is, it has been some time since an RPV State Chairman has completed a term to which he or she has been elected. The last one may well have been Pat McSweeney (1992-96). And then-Governor George Allen tried to orchestrate his removal, as well. Like now, I opposed that removal effort, which seems to have been as contrived as this one.
All that Governor Allen achieved, given the super-majority requirements of the State Party Plan, was to weaken McSweeney and RPV for the remainer of McSweeney's term. And one wonders whether that effort didn't come around to bite Allen on the posterior, whether a strong RPV could have made the difference in Allen's unsuccessful run for a second term to the United States Senate in 2006.
I actually attended the State Central Committee at which McSweeney's removal was considered. Among other things, Tenth Congressional District Chairman (then, and sadly, now) Jim Rich earned my everlasting emnity for his role in that contrived controversy. My impression at the time --- and confirmed at subsequent meetings, where I frequently carried proxies for others --- was that the SCC was largely not so much the voice of the various units from which its members were elected as it was a "gold watch" for good and faithful service. I vividly remember one member standing up at the meeting during a subsequent convention to complain about the fact that the Party was providing child care for young children, so that their parents could attend and vote at the convention. I remember thinking --- and may have said in response at the time --- that this older gentlemen probably didn't have to suffer exposure to the little urchins at the country club, but that the Party's future was in young parents, and their children, and that his complaint was both silly and counterproductive.
Sadly, it seems that certain elements of the SCC have gotten no more serious in the interim. As Leslie notes, the charges against Jeff are by and large "silly," even among those that are not maddeningly vague (Charge 3 is that Jeff made "Unauthorized expenditures of RPV funds for unbudgeted activities without either State Central Committee or Executive Committee consent," and fails to specify even a single such "Unauthorized expenditure"; how does one respond to that?), and/or contrived, and/or false (Charge 2: failure to comply with a directive to disclose vendor contracts; Charge 10: failure to notify the Executive Committee of a non-existent security breach).
Indeed, some have the stench of bitter irony. Charges 4, 5, and 6 essentially complain about Frederick's conduct of SCC meetings. I'd bet a dollar that 10th Congressional District Chairman Jim Rich has signed up for this lynch mob, which makes these bold words from a man who has disregarded the "minimal rights" of those opposing him in similar circumstances.
Jeff has responded more than adequately. Not that his response will matter much to those sizing up Jeff's neck for a noose.
I have no illusions that the merits will make much difference to many among those on the SCC who never supported Jeff. In the memorable phrase of a friend regarding a particularly odious honor proceeding of which we were both aware in my law school days, it may well be that the "kangaroos [will be] a-hoppin'" at the 4 April SCC meeting.
But nevertheless, Jeff Frederick should stay.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Despicable Change
Apparently, President Barry has a plan to charge wounded veterans for the costs of treatment for their injuries sustained in battle.
There are plenty of questions about our veterans' health care system. But I've never heard anyone seriously question our national moral obligation to treat those who have given so much for their country.
This is unspeakably vile. More evidence --- as if more were needed --- that the far Left just doesn't get it.
H/T to Drudge.
There are plenty of questions about our veterans' health care system. But I've never heard anyone seriously question our national moral obligation to treat those who have given so much for their country.
This is unspeakably vile. More evidence --- as if more were needed --- that the far Left just doesn't get it.
H/T to Drudge.
Ron Silver, RIP
Tony Award-winning actor Ron Silver has died. Didn't know that he was formerly the President of Actors Equity, a union that I've filed NLRB charges against on behalf of a client.
As a former Democrat who became an independent based upon the far Left's coopting of the Democrat Party on terrorism and national defense policy, he was proof that Hollywood isn't quite hopeless, aside from his considerable thespian abilities.
RIP
As a former Democrat who became an independent based upon the far Left's coopting of the Democrat Party on terrorism and national defense policy, he was proof that Hollywood isn't quite hopeless, aside from his considerable thespian abilities.
RIP
Not News: The Truth Hurts, So Moonbats Lie
The latest meme of the moonbat blogosphere is that opponents of the fraudulently-misnomered "Employee Free Choice Act" --- including former Democrat presidential nominee Senator George McGovern --- are "lying" about it, because they say it "means the end of the secret ballot."
But --- like the legislation's title --- the accusation itself is a carefully-crafted misrepresentation.
Here's what moonbat Josh Chernilla, quoting MSNBC's vile lesbian commentator, had to say over at "Blue Commonwealth":
No one says that "the bill means the end of the secret ballot" as a general proposition. Of course, secret-ballot elections can still be sought and conducted for decertification and deauthorization (prohibiting unions and employers from imposing or enforcing a forced-unionism agreement). And, of course, a union could still seek a secret-ballot election to organizing a bargaining unit, though why one would do so when it could conduct its campaign behind closed doors and pressure employees without allowing employers to conduct a campaign is a mystery.
But of course, "the bill means the end of the secret ballot" to put a union to its proofs when it presents a petition for union representation signed by a majority of employees. And therefore, also of course, it "means the end of the secret ballot" in the circumstances to which it applies.
The lie itself also demonstrates a singular ignorance of existing labor law, one which one might not expect from someone with Maddow's academic credentials, were it not for her political credentials.
But, as recent presidential history has demonstrated, no lie is too outrageous in pursuit of more power for the far Left.
The entire notion that "it will be the employees' choice" is false, since these advocates for more union-boss power --- like most labor statutes --- virtually ignore those employees who do not support union representation. Of course, what Maddow fails to recognize is that the notion that it is "the employers'" choice is true, but only to the extent that existing labor law doesn't recognize the right of even a substantial minority of employees --- say, 30% of a bargaining unit, the percentage necessary to seek a certification, decertification, or deauthorization election under existing law --- to demand a secret-ballot election when a union and employer agree to card-check recognition. Of course, what currently requires agreement of an employer --- recognition upon a showing of majority support with signed authorization cards --- would become mandated under EFCA, with no mechanism for either an employer or bargaining unit employees to demand an election.
Hence, the term "card check" is absolutely accurate. Union representation would be imposed upon all employees, even those who don't want it, upon a showing that a mere and perhaps ephemeral majority had, in full view of union organizers, signed authorization cards.
It is understandable that the far Left would want to cast EFCA opponents as liars, since the change they propose would permit imposition of monopoly bargaining upon employees based upon the unexaminable promises, misrepresentations, and --- yes --- lies of union organizers in collecting authorization cards. It would also then impose mandatory "arbitration" of first contracts upon a failure to reach agreement, but that's a pernicious element of EFCA which gets less attention than the more fundamental flaw in its extinguishing of the right to a secret-ballot election to prove union support.
Maddow and Chernilla: Liars for the far Left.
But --- like the legislation's title --- the accusation itself is a carefully-crafted misrepresentation.
Here's what moonbat Josh Chernilla, quoting MSNBC's vile lesbian commentator, had to say over at "Blue Commonwealth":
Corporate interests are bent on lying about the Employee Free Choice Act - they'd have you believe that the bill means the end of the secret ballot - but nothing could be further from the truth. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives employees the choice to join unions - not the employers. Right now, workers can join unions through majority sign-up or a secret ballot election, and they can do so under the Employee Free Choice Act, too. The only difference is it will be the employees' choice, not the employers.Now, never mind that George McGovern has never been known as a champion of "corporate interests," even among the most pathetic of the moonbat Left. But EFCA proponents are advancing their cause by lying about the argument of their opponents.
No one says that "the bill means the end of the secret ballot" as a general proposition. Of course, secret-ballot elections can still be sought and conducted for decertification and deauthorization (prohibiting unions and employers from imposing or enforcing a forced-unionism agreement). And, of course, a union could still seek a secret-ballot election to organizing a bargaining unit, though why one would do so when it could conduct its campaign behind closed doors and pressure employees without allowing employers to conduct a campaign is a mystery.
But of course, "the bill means the end of the secret ballot" to put a union to its proofs when it presents a petition for union representation signed by a majority of employees. And therefore, also of course, it "means the end of the secret ballot" in the circumstances to which it applies.
The lie itself also demonstrates a singular ignorance of existing labor law, one which one might not expect from someone with Maddow's academic credentials, were it not for her political credentials.
But, as recent presidential history has demonstrated, no lie is too outrageous in pursuit of more power for the far Left.
The entire notion that "it will be the employees' choice" is false, since these advocates for more union-boss power --- like most labor statutes --- virtually ignore those employees who do not support union representation. Of course, what Maddow fails to recognize is that the notion that it is "the employers'" choice is true, but only to the extent that existing labor law doesn't recognize the right of even a substantial minority of employees --- say, 30% of a bargaining unit, the percentage necessary to seek a certification, decertification, or deauthorization election under existing law --- to demand a secret-ballot election when a union and employer agree to card-check recognition. Of course, what currently requires agreement of an employer --- recognition upon a showing of majority support with signed authorization cards --- would become mandated under EFCA, with no mechanism for either an employer or bargaining unit employees to demand an election.
Hence, the term "card check" is absolutely accurate. Union representation would be imposed upon all employees, even those who don't want it, upon a showing that a mere and perhaps ephemeral majority had, in full view of union organizers, signed authorization cards.
It is understandable that the far Left would want to cast EFCA opponents as liars, since the change they propose would permit imposition of monopoly bargaining upon employees based upon the unexaminable promises, misrepresentations, and --- yes --- lies of union organizers in collecting authorization cards. It would also then impose mandatory "arbitration" of first contracts upon a failure to reach agreement, but that's a pernicious element of EFCA which gets less attention than the more fundamental flaw in its extinguishing of the right to a secret-ballot election to prove union support.
Maddow and Chernilla: Liars for the far Left.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Ignorance Of Creigh Deeds
Got this fascinating little e-mail from Creigh Deeds today:
First, there's the implication that America can't "take the lead in conducting research that has the potential to improve the quality of life of countless Americans" unless government funds it. Remember, of course, that the so-called "ban" on embryonic stem-cell research was only a ban on government funding of it (which, to his credit, Deeds apparently recognizes); the private sector was completely free to use embryonic stem cells --- importantly, for foes, from aborted fetuses and discarded embryos from fertility clinics --- to their heart's content.
Does Creigh Deeds really believe this? Wow.
Moreover, while I don't pretend to understand the science of it --- my degree is in law, not genetics or biology --- the issue here isn't whether embryonic stem-cell research would occur. It clearly could occur, even under the eeeeeeevil! Bush Administration. Whether it did occur, I don't know. But to the extent that it did, it occurred with private or state funding, not federal funding.
But that raises this important little question: if it didn't occur, or if you're worried that it didn't occur, doesn't that raise a question as to whether it might not have occurred because its potential is not what the abortion lobby wants you to believe it to be? My layman's understanding is that the most practical applications of stem-cell research has not involved embryonic stem cells. With that being the case, might it be that private entities chose not to fund it based upon a disciplined cost-benefit analysis of its potential?
And if private entities subject to the discipline of the market have made that determination, how is it that government --- subject to no apparent discipline, at least in the age of the Obamorons --- can make a rational contrary determination?
Aside from the profound moral questions at issue, it is utterly clear that the decision to fund federally embryonic stem-cell research is the result of the damnable confluence of a pro-abortion lobby that would impose no limitations on the unbridled "choice" over the life and death of the most innocent, and a Big Government lobby which arrogates unto itself the authority to interpose itself into all manner of individual decisionmaking other than a mother's decision to kill her unborn child.
How either attitude is consistent with the scheme of "ordered liberty" created under our Constitution by great Virginians like Madison, Jefferson, and Washington remains a mystery.
Dear Friend,
Yesterday, I was so proud to have a Democratic President.
As you may have heard, President Obama signed an executive order to lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. Once again, America will take the lead in conducting research that has the potential to improve the quality of life of countless Americans. I'd be grateful if you could take a moment to join me in support of President Obama.
Show your support for President Obama on stem cell research.
While we should celebrate this historic day, the fight for stem cell research is far from over. Here in Virginia back in 2005, I exposed Bob McDonnell’s radical stance on this issue. I fought tooth and nail against him. And let there be no doubt that if elected Governor, Bob McDonnell would do everything he could to close Virginia's doors to the cures and hopes of stem cell research. We as Democrats simply can’t afford to lose in 2009.
I believe that yesterday was a beginning, not an end. I want Virginia to lead in the development of stem cell research. I believe our research institutions should lead in this fight, which not only would create 21st century jobs here in Virginia, but also help find the way to cures. Let’s show President Obama how important a step yesterday was.
Thank President Obama for supporting the promise of stem cell research.
Thank you for joining me in support of President Obama. Together, we can continue to move this Commonwealth forward.
Sincerely,Creigh Deeds
Now, aside from the fact that I'm no friend of Creigh Deeds --- don't even know how I got on his e-mail list --- this missive is rife with revelations about the guy who apparently wants to sell himself as a "conservative" Democrat.
First, there's the implication that America can't "take the lead in conducting research that has the potential to improve the quality of life of countless Americans" unless government funds it. Remember, of course, that the so-called "ban" on embryonic stem-cell research was only a ban on government funding of it (which, to his credit, Deeds apparently recognizes); the private sector was completely free to use embryonic stem cells --- importantly, for foes, from aborted fetuses and discarded embryos from fertility clinics --- to their heart's content.
Does Creigh Deeds really believe this? Wow.
Moreover, while I don't pretend to understand the science of it --- my degree is in law, not genetics or biology --- the issue here isn't whether embryonic stem-cell research would occur. It clearly could occur, even under the eeeeeeevil! Bush Administration. Whether it did occur, I don't know. But to the extent that it did, it occurred with private or state funding, not federal funding.
But that raises this important little question: if it didn't occur, or if you're worried that it didn't occur, doesn't that raise a question as to whether it might not have occurred because its potential is not what the abortion lobby wants you to believe it to be? My layman's understanding is that the most practical applications of stem-cell research has not involved embryonic stem cells. With that being the case, might it be that private entities chose not to fund it based upon a disciplined cost-benefit analysis of its potential?
And if private entities subject to the discipline of the market have made that determination, how is it that government --- subject to no apparent discipline, at least in the age of the Obamorons --- can make a rational contrary determination?
Aside from the profound moral questions at issue, it is utterly clear that the decision to fund federally embryonic stem-cell research is the result of the damnable confluence of a pro-abortion lobby that would impose no limitations on the unbridled "choice" over the life and death of the most innocent, and a Big Government lobby which arrogates unto itself the authority to interpose itself into all manner of individual decisionmaking other than a mother's decision to kill her unborn child.
How either attitude is consistent with the scheme of "ordered liberty" created under our Constitution by great Virginians like Madison, Jefferson, and Washington remains a mystery.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Why Doesn't This Surprise?
Apparently, one of the moonbats formerly known as one of the Ranting Kids is in high dudgeon over the decision of President Barry's Secretary of the Interior to delist wolves from the endangered species list under the Endangered Species Act.
Now, if you begin from the premise that an objective standard exists by which we can determine that certain species are "endangered" or not --- never mind that, having spent the last hundred years canonizing Darwin, the ESA is little more than an effort to overcome application of his theory --- it would seem to follow that circumstances exist for both putting species on the list, and for removing them.
Of course, if you begin from the premise that government must always grow and seize more control over our lives, then removing them becomes anathema, no matter how well they are doing as a species.
Guess which premise informs the moonbat formerly known as one of the Ranting Kids?
Now, if you begin from the premise that an objective standard exists by which we can determine that certain species are "endangered" or not --- never mind that, having spent the last hundred years canonizing Darwin, the ESA is little more than an effort to overcome application of his theory --- it would seem to follow that circumstances exist for both putting species on the list, and for removing them.
Of course, if you begin from the premise that government must always grow and seize more control over our lives, then removing them becomes anathema, no matter how well they are doing as a species.
Guess which premise informs the moonbat formerly known as one of the Ranting Kids?
Friday, March 06, 2009
Hasn't He Been Paying Attention?
You've got to love the Drudge headline:
"Chavez Calls On Obama To Follow Path of Socialism."
Apparently, Mr. Chavez hasn't been paying attention. After all, it would be entirely redundant.
"Chavez Calls On Obama To Follow Path of Socialism."
Apparently, Mr. Chavez hasn't been paying attention. After all, it would be entirely redundant.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Paul Harvey, RIP
It was reported minutes ago that broadcast pioneer Paul Harvey has joined his beloved wife, who passed away less than a year ago. Like my maternal grandparents, they were together an amazing nearly seven decades.
I vividly remember, as a small child in Logansport, Indiana, riding in my paternal grandparents' car, and hearing his resonant voice delivering the news. even before I paid much attention to what the news was.
He will be missed.
RIP.
H/T to Drudge.
I vividly remember, as a small child in Logansport, Indiana, riding in my paternal grandparents' car, and hearing his resonant voice delivering the news. even before I paid much attention to what the news was.
He will be missed.
RIP.
H/T to Drudge.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Time To Take Up Arms?
Let's see if I've got this right: you overpay your taxes, timely file for a refund of the overpayment, and the State tells you that you can't have your money back?!?!?
Well, that seems to be what's happening in Kansas.
Somebody please explain to me how this doesn't justify taking up arms against tyrannical government.
Well, that seems to be what's happening in Kansas.
Somebody please explain to me how this doesn't justify taking up arms against tyrannical government.
Monday, February 16, 2009
More "Change We Can Believe In"?
It seems that President Barry's Justice Department is defending Bush Administration secrets:
And I'm delighted that even the sanctimonious boobs elevated to positions of responsibility by the mediocrity who is President Barry have recognized the effectiveness and importance of the strategies pursued by the former President.
But "change we can believe in"? Change in which I would believe would be if President Barry issued an apology to former President Bush for his sanctimonious and ill-informed attacks.
Of course, the nice thing about having a cult of personality is not having to tolerate demands for such honorable behavior.
Despite President Barack Obama's vow to open government more than ever, the Justice Department is defending Bush administration decisions to keep secret many documents about domestic wiretapping, data collection on travelers and U.S. citizens, and interrogation of suspected terrorists.I suspect that President Barry got quite a splash of cold water in his face when he went from carping Democrat nominee to "President-elect" and, as a result, will adopt and pursue many of the same anti-terrorism policies of his predecessor.
And I'm delighted that even the sanctimonious boobs elevated to positions of responsibility by the mediocrity who is President Barry have recognized the effectiveness and importance of the strategies pursued by the former President.
But "change we can believe in"? Change in which I would believe would be if President Barry issued an apology to former President Bush for his sanctimonious and ill-informed attacks.
Of course, the nice thing about having a cult of personality is not having to tolerate demands for such honorable behavior.
A Little Too Close To Truth
On Inauguration Day, the line that ran through my head was a variation of the line from the Beatle's tune, "Eleanor Rigby": "Oh, look at all the pathetic sheeple...."
Now, there's a YouTube that captures that pathos of the Obamorons, a parody of this video:
Wish I'd thought of it, and had the talent to pull it off. Alas, I must simply settle for linking to it.
H/T to Doug Mataconis.
Now, there's a YouTube that captures that pathos of the Obamorons, a parody of this video:
Wish I'd thought of it, and had the talent to pull it off. Alas, I must simply settle for linking to it.
H/T to Doug Mataconis.
The Wrong Title
"Blue Commonwealth" is flacking for what newly-minted Fifth District Democrat Congressman Tom Perriello is calling his "Road to Recovery" campaign... er, "constituent meeting" tour.
With the policies that he's endorsing, of course, it's more appropriately categorized as the "Road to Serfdom" tour.
With the policies that he's endorsing, of course, it's more appropriately categorized as the "Road to Serfdom" tour.
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Far Left Meme On Gregg's Withdrawal
Apparently, President Barry's Administration is quite embarrassed by Senator Judd Gregg's (R-NH) withdrawal from consideration for Secretary of Commerce. Apparently, Senator Gregg determined upon further reflection that he could not serve in an Administration with which he has serious and fundamental disagreements.
Now, I thought it a mistake for Gregg to agree to serve in this capacity. From what I know of Gregg, he is a fairly Conservative Senator, and service in a manifestly far-Left Administration would create inevitable conflicts.
But of course, some on the far Left is in high dudgeon over Gregg's decision. They dismiss it as mere "political games." I wonder what they were saying about those partisan, obstructionist Democrats who opposed the President's policies in 2001? Well, I don't really wonder.
So this is apparently the treatment of fundamental policy differences in this childishly-conceived "post-partisan" era: dismiss them as "obstructionist" (damn those obstructionist parties in the 1934 Reichstag!); belittle them; and declare anyone in disagreement with the new Administration somehow "unAmerican."
Sieg Heil!
Now, I thought it a mistake for Gregg to agree to serve in this capacity. From what I know of Gregg, he is a fairly Conservative Senator, and service in a manifestly far-Left Administration would create inevitable conflicts.
But of course, some on the far Left is in high dudgeon over Gregg's decision. They dismiss it as mere "political games." I wonder what they were saying about those partisan, obstructionist Democrats who opposed the President's policies in 2001? Well, I don't really wonder.
So this is apparently the treatment of fundamental policy differences in this childishly-conceived "post-partisan" era: dismiss them as "obstructionist" (damn those obstructionist parties in the 1934 Reichstag!); belittle them; and declare anyone in disagreement with the new Administration somehow "unAmerican."
Sieg Heil!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Local Judge Set For Elevation
According to the Virginia Lawyers Weekly, Prince William County/Manassas/Manassas Park Circuit Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr., is in the mix for appointment to the Virginia Court of Appeals, the Commonwealth's intermediate appellate court.
If elected, Judge Alston --- the Circuit's President Judge --- would be the second Prince William jurist elevated to Court in recent years. Virginia Supreme Court Justice LeRoy F. Millette, Jr., was elevated to the Virginia Court of Appeals before being tapped for the Virginia Supreme Court.
Judge Alston grew up in Dale City, and is highly regarded for his abilities on the softball field.
Delegate Jackson Miller, Republican from Manassas, has apparently been championing Judge Alston's appointment.
UPDATE: Demonstrating uncharacteristic wisdom, the legislature has, in fact, selected Judge Alston for elevation.
If elected, Judge Alston --- the Circuit's President Judge --- would be the second Prince William jurist elevated to Court in recent years. Virginia Supreme Court Justice LeRoy F. Millette, Jr., was elevated to the Virginia Court of Appeals before being tapped for the Virginia Supreme Court.
Judge Alston grew up in Dale City, and is highly regarded for his abilities on the softball field.
Delegate Jackson Miller, Republican from Manassas, has apparently been championing Judge Alston's appointment.
UPDATE: Demonstrating uncharacteristic wisdom, the legislature has, in fact, selected Judge Alston for elevation.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Virginia Democrats Promote Perversion Rather Than Doing What's Right
With unemployment numbers hitting an unexpected high and much of the country's attention focused on the negotiations surrounding the economic recovery package, you would think that our state legislators would want to promote job growth and economic development. Nonetheless, it appears as though the Democrats in the House of Delegates have decided to place more importance on their extreme left-wing agenda rather than promoting the interests of Virginia residents.
House Democrats in a General Laws subcommittee voted Wednesday to promote perversion by supporting Del. Adam Ebbin’s HB2385, which would require public employers to provide special protections to sexual deviants. A majority of the House Democratic Caucus co-patroned the bill.
H/T to Blue Commonwealth. 'Cept our friends over at Blue Commonwealth are a little slow on the uptake, and reported as "last night" something happening four days before.
House Democrats in a General Laws subcommittee voted Wednesday to promote perversion by supporting Del. Adam Ebbin’s HB2385, which would require public employers to provide special protections to sexual deviants. A majority of the House Democratic Caucus co-patroned the bill.
H/T to Blue Commonwealth. 'Cept our friends over at Blue Commonwealth are a little slow on the uptake, and reported as "last night" something happening four days before.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Here's A Shocker!
Apparently, the woman who had octuplets last week, impregnated through via in-vitro fertilization, had her six previous children also through in-vitro fertilization. In short, only a man, a plastic cup, a freezer, and a turkey baster were involved in the conceptions of the children of this single woman.
It will come as no surprise to learn that this woman spent some quality time as a guest in one of California's state mental hospitals.
It will come as no surprise to learn that this woman spent some quality time as a guest in one of California's state mental hospitals.
Let's Play The Moonbat Match Game!
It's time once again for that perennial favorite .... the Moonbat Match Game!
You know how to play, boys and girls. Just substitute your favorite target for paternalism ... er, protection from eeeeevil!, and replace whatever it is the far Left is up to with your solution.
Today's contestant: The Green Miles!
Here's the phrase of the day:
You know how to play, boys and girls. Just substitute your favorite target for paternalism ... er, protection from eeeeevil!, and replace whatever it is the far Left is up to with your solution.
Today's contestant: The Green Miles!
Here's the phrase of the day:
"All Virginia workers deserve protection from the health effects of secondhand smoke, not just ones who work in bars and restaurants."Here's how you plan: just replace the bold-faced words with parallels, like this:
All [American citizens] deserve protection from the [evils of the nanny state], not just those who [live in "Red" states].Or:
All [babies] deserve protection from [abortion], not just those who[se mothers are pro-life].Go ahead, you can play, too!
Heh
Heard perhaps the best line on President Barry's speech last night to the Democrat congressional retreat from WMAL's Chris Plante, something to the effect that:
"He went after the Republicans hammer and sickle."
Wish I'd thought of it first.
"He went after the Republicans hammer and sickle."
Wish I'd thought of it first.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Barry And The Politics Of Tokenism
Well, it seems that Senator Judd Gregg's appointment as Secretary of Commerce was merely the Sock-Puppet's exercise in tokenism.
According to Congressional Quarterly:
Here's what one Lefty group was reported as saying about the appointment:
The census has only one purpose: apportionment for purposes of congressional representation. Any other function served is, in fact, extra-, and therefore un-, constitutional.
No wonder the far Lefties want the Census out of the hands of a Republican. Now, to be sure, it isn't like the modern GOP will treat it as the limiting charter of government that it is. However, there's at least a fair to middlin' chance that someone who calls himself a Republican has at least read the document.
According to Congressional Quarterly:
The normal procedure is for the director of the Census Bureau to report to the Secretary of Commerce.The director of the Census Bureau will report directly to the White House and not the secretary of Commerce, according to a senior White House official.
The decision came after black and Hispanic leaders raised questions about Commerce Secretary nominee Judd Gregg ’s commitment to funding the census.
Here's what one Lefty group was reported as saying about the appointment:
"Secretary of Commerce-designate Judd Gregg ’s record raises serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 census produces the most accurate possible count of the nation’s population,” the National Association of Latino Elected Officials said in a release on Tuesday, the day Gregg was named to the post. “Policymakers and planners at all levels of government rely on these data to make important decisions about their services, such as the number of teachers that will be needed in their classrooms, the best places to build new roads, or the best way to provide job training.”Of course, the notion that "Policymakers and planners at all levels of government rely on these data to make important decisions about their services, such as the number of teachers that will be needed in their classrooms, the best places to build new roads, or the best way to provide job training," is the false premise upon which this group proceeds.
The census has only one purpose: apportionment for purposes of congressional representation. Any other function served is, in fact, extra-, and therefore un-, constitutional.
No wonder the far Lefties want the Census out of the hands of a Republican. Now, to be sure, it isn't like the modern GOP will treat it as the limiting charter of government that it is. However, there's at least a fair to middlin' chance that someone who calls himself a Republican has at least read the document.
He Probably Won't Even Miss Them
Just yesterday, I was invited to join a new friend at the Palm in Tysons for a light lunch and a cigar.
So much for that.
Virginia's Republican House Speaker Bill Howell announces that he's reached a "compromise" regarding a restaurant smoking ban. According to his press release:
If only Republicans and Democrats were as interested in regulating the conduct of people who leech off of the rest of us as they are in regulating tax producers, the law-abiding, and users of legal products.
Perhaps our estimable Speaker will miss his testicles. Of course, that presumes that he ever had any, a fact not in evidence.
So much for that.
Virginia's Republican House Speaker Bill Howell announces that he's reached a "compromise" regarding a restaurant smoking ban. According to his press release:
The legislation would prohibit smoking in restaurants throughout Virginia, allowing several exceptions. The exceptions include restaurants with a designated smoking room that is physically separated and independently ventilated from non-smoking dining areas, any permanent outdoor patio area of a restaurant, any portion of a restaurant that is used exclusively for private functions, any private club as well as street-side “hotdog” stands and other mobile points of food service.Tell me: how does telling businessmen how to best serve their customers constitute a "compromise"? For this we elected Republicans?
If only Republicans and Democrats were as interested in regulating the conduct of people who leech off of the rest of us as they are in regulating tax producers, the law-abiding, and users of legal products.
Perhaps our estimable Speaker will miss his testicles. Of course, that presumes that he ever had any, a fact not in evidence.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Utterly Fascinating
With all of the tax-dodgers put into President Barry's Cabinet, the thought occurs to me that recent political history, i.e., the politicization of policy differences, has caused a few recent GOP Presidents to issue presidential pardons to high Administration officials.
President Barry has the first Cabinet whose tax-dodging members are in need of presidential pardons before they take office.
President Barry has the first Cabinet whose tax-dodging members are in need of presidential pardons before they take office.
A Real Loss
After all, given the standards of the Obamorons (Tim Geithner at Treasury; Thomas "Puff" Daschle at HHS), it's abundantly clear that Leona "Taxes-Are-For-Little-People" Helmsley was a woman ahead of her time.
It's really too bad that she isn't with us.
My guess is that she'd have been up for a post in Barry's cabinet.
It's really too bad that she isn't with us.
My guess is that she'd have been up for a post in Barry's cabinet.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I Wonder What This Means?
According to Nielsen, Ronald Reagan's inauguration in 1981 drew three million more viewers than President Barry's inauguration on Tuesday.
That's three million more viewers with a much smaller population (1980 population: 226.5 million, versus 2008 population: approx. 305.6 million).
I'm not sure what this means, but it certainly belies some of the fantasies of the far Left.
That's three million more viewers with a much smaller population (1980 population: 226.5 million, versus 2008 population: approx. 305.6 million).
I'm not sure what this means, but it certainly belies some of the fantasies of the far Left.
President Barry: Sock-Puppet For The Far Left?
Did anyone else catch President Barry's signing of the Executive Order regarding Guantanamo Bay? I only heard it, and haven't been able to find a link, but it sounded like he didn't even know the particulars of what he was signing, and that Greg Craig basically walked him through it in front of the press.
Is this guy the President, or just a sock-puppet?
Is this guy the President, or just a sock-puppet?
Just One Question
Where were these over-privileged dilettantes for President Bush?
Doug Mataconis has it right: "Creepy."
Doug Mataconis has it right: "Creepy."
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Dingy Harry Does The Right Thing, Vol. I
I had my doubts after Sunday's performance on the talk shows, but it seems that Senate Majority Leader "Dingy" Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has done the right thing, and refused to seat Governor "Hot" Rod Blagojevich's appointee to replace Barry Obama in the United States Senate.
Don't expect to see that headline again in the near future. Perhaps never again.
Don't expect to see that headline again in the near future. Perhaps never again.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
A Lion Passes
A prominent member of the Second Generation of the leaders of the Conservative movement has passed.
Paul M. Weyrich, first head of the Heritage Foundation, and current President and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation, died early this morning at age 66.
Like William F. Buckley, Jr., earlier this year, his voice was resounding to the last.
While I never had the privilege of meeting Mr. Weyrich, his work is much in evidence in Washington. I've spent many hours at the Heritage Foundation, through participation in the Third Generation group, and at other programs, and was interviewed on Tom Jipping's show on Free Congress' cable network (back in 1997, during the Teamsters strike against UPS), which eventually strayed far from its moorings to become [P]MSNBC.
He will be missed.
RIP.
UPDATE: And at least one moonbat has chimed in with his comments. He's all class.
Paul M. Weyrich, first head of the Heritage Foundation, and current President and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation, died early this morning at age 66.
Like William F. Buckley, Jr., earlier this year, his voice was resounding to the last.
While I never had the privilege of meeting Mr. Weyrich, his work is much in evidence in Washington. I've spent many hours at the Heritage Foundation, through participation in the Third Generation group, and at other programs, and was interviewed on Tom Jipping's show on Free Congress' cable network (back in 1997, during the Teamsters strike against UPS), which eventually strayed far from its moorings to become [P]MSNBC.
He will be missed.
RIP.
UPDATE: And at least one moonbat has chimed in with his comments. He's all class.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
LATEST IN BLAGOJEVICH SCANDAL!!!
It seems that the burgeoning Illinois scandal over Governor Rod Blagojevich's (D) efforts to sell President-elect Barry Obama's Senate seat has yielded a direct link to the incoming administration.
It seems that Vice President-elect Joe Biden was trying to make a deal for Blagojevich's hair.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
And Some Wonder Why He Lost
Apparently, John McCain believes that the GOP shouldn't ask questions about Barry Obama's involvement in the Blagojevich scandal.
I honestly don't know if there was any involvement. I rather doubt it.
But that doesn't mean that The One shouldn't have to answer questions.
I honestly don't know if there was any involvement. I rather doubt it.
But that doesn't mean that The One shouldn't have to answer questions.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Thank You For Smoking
On the road yesterday, I had occasion to hear Rush Limbaugh report on the discussion Barack Obama had on Meet the Press about his smoking habits and whether he will indulge (if he hasn't quit), when he moves into the White House. Barry apparently responded that he will follow Federal policy, which bars smoking in government buildings.
While I would encourage anyone to quit smoking cigarettes, if Barry exercises his right to indulge, his response should be to say "To Hell with 'Federal policy'!"
I expect to be highly critical of Barry and his administration. He is, for all practical purposes, a socialist. If he indulges his policy preferences, I expect to oppose him.
Nevertheless, for the next four years, barring anything unforeseen, the White House will be his residence.
And if he chooses to smoke, he is entitled to do as he damn well pleases in his own house.
I certainly won't be criticizing him for doing so.
While I would encourage anyone to quit smoking cigarettes, if Barry exercises his right to indulge, his response should be to say "To Hell with 'Federal policy'!"
I expect to be highly critical of Barry and his administration. He is, for all practical purposes, a socialist. If he indulges his policy preferences, I expect to oppose him.
Nevertheless, for the next four years, barring anything unforeseen, the White House will be his residence.
And if he chooses to smoke, he is entitled to do as he damn well pleases in his own house.
I certainly won't be criticizing him for doing so.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Amazing
I used to consider Waldo Jaquith one of the more tolerable members of Virginia's Liberal blogosphere. His blog aggregator is indispensable, and unlike many on the Left, who bar comments from Conservatives, he does not fear debate, even if he has a rather childish doorway to post a comment (one has to type "democratic").
Now, I'm not so sure. He declares in a recent comment that "Communism is downright cute."
Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned (well, of course I am), but I have a real problem with anybody who characterizes an ideology responsible for the death of as many of one hundred million souls and the enslavement of more than a billion others as "cute."
Whether it bespeaks ignorance or fundamental evil ... well, I just don't know.
Now, I'm not so sure. He declares in a recent comment that "Communism is downright cute."
Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned (well, of course I am), but I have a real problem with anybody who characterizes an ideology responsible for the death of as many of one hundred million souls and the enslavement of more than a billion others as "cute."
Whether it bespeaks ignorance or fundamental evil ... well, I just don't know.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Leading Moonbat Blog Closing: Good Riddance To Bad Garbage
Having spent years making politics in Virginia more corrosive, it seems that the boys and girls at Ranting Kids... er, Raising Dough... er, Raising Kaine... er, "RK" ... er, whatever, are shortly shutting down.
It's none too soon. Sure, they have lots of readers, probably because childishness sells, particularly among the denizens of the far Left.
One has but to witness their recent complaints. It seems that one contributor is in high dudgeon over Virgil Goode's demand --- to which he is statutorily entitled --- of a recount in his narrow loss to lightweight Tom Perriello. One commenter, clearly engaged in an exercise in projection (having apparently forgotten Democrat whines about George Bush's victory in 2000), offered this observation:
And what were the boys and girls at Ranting Kids... er, Raising Dough... er, Raising Kaine... er, "RK" ... er, whatever, saying then?
Well, chief moonbats Lowell Feld and Josh Chernila offered a virtual cornucopia of rationalizations and complaints about the process. Lowell offered the observation that "it appears that 'the fix is in,' with the 'recount' rules written in such a way that there's almost no possibility of Deeds winning." Hmmm. Wasn't Virginia's State Board of Elections controlled by Democrats in 2005? Contributor Nichole openly urged Deeds to request a recount. Josh bucked up the Democrat nominee with "Keep fighting Creigh, we're behind you!" (emphasis added).
I have no doubt that the Virginia Moonbatosphere is in mourning over the impending shutdown of this widely-read blog. But the boys and girls at Ranting Kids... er, Raising Dough... er, Raising Kaine... er, "RK" ... er, whatever, are little loss to rationale discourse and debate. Or even to those who expect just a little bit of consistency, other than consistently applying situational ethics to their "analysis."
It's none too soon. Sure, they have lots of readers, probably because childishness sells, particularly among the denizens of the far Left.
One has but to witness their recent complaints. It seems that one contributor is in high dudgeon over Virgil Goode's demand --- to which he is statutorily entitled --- of a recount in his narrow loss to lightweight Tom Perriello. One commenter, clearly engaged in an exercise in projection (having apparently forgotten Democrat whines about George Bush's victory in 2000), offered this observation:
An established pattern of Republican elites and their sense of entitlement is, to put it simply: "Any so-called victory by Democrats is not legitimate; it is our right and duty to contest it." And, every time they do demand a recount or go to court (sometimes all the way to the Supreme Court) it does indeed in some measure de-legitimize the Democratic victory, making it seem somewhat less victorious, somewhat less likely to be repeated, while enhancing (in Republican minds at least) the stature of the Republican point of view.Wow. Now, I suppose that Goode's chances for success are somewhere between slim and none (only one commenter evidences any modicum of sanity; the children over there don't allow me to comment, after all). After all, my recollection is that Virginians can take pride in the integrity and accuracy of their electoral processes, a situation demonstrated in 2005, when Attorney General "Landslide Bob" McDonnell won his race by fewer than a thousand votes, and the recount resulted in a shift of fewer than fifty votes in his favor over Democrat State Senator Creigh Deeds.
Have we heard enough yet that Democrats won the White House only because of: 1) the unfortunate blip in the economy, 2) Bush's incompetence, and 3) failure of the current Republican leadership to adhere strictly to Republican principles, i.e., they were not conservative enough, because, after all: the United States is basically a center right nation. Therefore, Obama does not have a mandate and he must work in bipartisan fashion with the Republicans (on their terms, not his). All this applies at every level of government---- most especially in these pesky Congressional Districts such as Goode-Perriello. Obviously.
And what were the boys and girls at Ranting Kids... er, Raising Dough... er, Raising Kaine... er, "RK" ... er, whatever, saying then?
Well, chief moonbats Lowell Feld and Josh Chernila offered a virtual cornucopia of rationalizations and complaints about the process. Lowell offered the observation that "it appears that 'the fix is in,' with the 'recount' rules written in such a way that there's almost no possibility of Deeds winning." Hmmm. Wasn't Virginia's State Board of Elections controlled by Democrats in 2005? Contributor Nichole openly urged Deeds to request a recount. Josh bucked up the Democrat nominee with "Keep fighting Creigh, we're behind you!" (emphasis added).
I have no doubt that the Virginia Moonbatosphere is in mourning over the impending shutdown of this widely-read blog. But the boys and girls at Ranting Kids... er, Raising Dough... er, Raising Kaine... er, "RK" ... er, whatever, are little loss to rationale discourse and debate. Or even to those who expect just a little bit of consistency, other than consistently applying situational ethics to their "analysis."
Friday, November 21, 2008
Truly Gracious
An update on General Mukasey, via the Federalist Society:
November 21, 2008A class act.Dear Friends,Well, as I was saying...
Let me please begin by underscoring what an honor it was to speak to you last night. I am, as you might imagine, quite embarrassed to have collapsed last night. I hope that embarrassment is not the product of undue human pride, or at least not principally so. I am embarrassed in part because I fear I ruined your evening and caused you concern - for that I am truly sorry. Equally important, I hope the shortened conclusion of the speech did not detract from the message I hoped to convey: Specifically that the issues of law and policy relating to our continuing national security are real, and are worthy of the most careful thought and deliberation so as to keep the American people safe.
The Federalist Society has spent the last 25-plus years promoting thoughtful and fair debate concerning the critical legal and public policy issues facing our nation. It was an honor to address you last night, and I urge you to continue the fine efforts of the Federalist Society in the future.
Finally, I was truly humbled to hear all of the prayers and well wishes sent on my behalf from attendees at the dinner. Thank you all. I am, fortunately, well, and I too pray for all of our good health and for the future of the Nation we all love.
Very Truly Yours,
Michael Mukasey
Truly Terrible
Attending the Federalist Society Convention's annual dinner tonight, I happened to be in the audience when Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapsed towards the end of a truly inspiring speech regarding the Bush Administration's efforts to combat terrorism.
It looked for all the world to me as though he suffered a stroke. Of course, my degree is in law, not medicine.
Like former Congressman David McIntosh, who led one before we left after the AG was carried away by emergency personnel, I covet everyone's prayers for our Attorney General. Mine go to him and his family.
It looked for all the world to me as though he suffered a stroke. Of course, my degree is in law, not medicine.
Like former Congressman David McIntosh, who led one before we left after the AG was carried away by emergency personnel, I covet everyone's prayers for our Attorney General. Mine go to him and his family.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Good And Hard
The sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, is purported to have observed something to the effect that "Democracy is the theory that the public deserves to get what it wants, and good and hard, too."
For some reason, that quotation has been floating around my head for the last few days.
For some reason, that quotation has been floating around my head for the last few days.
My Take On The Results
As a Conservative who believes that people should vote on ideas, I am delighted that the results of this election demonstrate that there are not so many racists voting as one might suspect.
As a Conservative who believes that people should vote on ideas, I am appalled that the results of this election demonstrate that there are many more stupid people voting than one might hope.
As a Conservative who believes that people should vote on ideas, I am appalled that the results of this election demonstrate that there are many more stupid people voting than one might hope.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Once Again, Penn State Gets Screwed
Apparently, barely beating the nation's No. 1 team entitles one to leapfrog the idle No. 2 team. Texas Tech, previously No. 7, beat No. 1 Texas, and was awarded the No. 2 spot previously held by Alabama. Penn State, which was idle this weekend, remained at No. 3, while Alabama was awarded the top spot.
Once again, the most respected coach in college sports, and perhaps in all sports --- Joe Paterno --- is denied the respect he deserves.
Once again, the most respected coach in college sports, and perhaps in all sports --- Joe Paterno --- is denied the respect he deserves.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Estelle Reiner Dies
Wife of director/comedian Carl Reiner and mother of actor/director Rob Reiner died a few days ago.
She is most famous for perhaps one of the funniest lines ever delivered in a movie, though it was completely deadpan.
In her son's film When Harry Met Sally, Meg Ryan demonstrates that women can fake orgasms any time they want to, and proceeds to do so in a delicatessen. The camera moves to a then approximately 64-year-old Reiner, who declares to the a waitress standing by her "I'll have what she's having."
Hilarious.
RIP.
She is most famous for perhaps one of the funniest lines ever delivered in a movie, though it was completely deadpan.
In her son's film When Harry Met Sally, Meg Ryan demonstrates that women can fake orgasms any time they want to, and proceeds to do so in a delicatessen. The camera moves to a then approximately 64-year-old Reiner, who declares to the a waitress standing by her "I'll have what she's having."
Hilarious.
RIP.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Obamaniacs Evidencing Desperation?
Had just sat down for dinner a little while ago, and the phone rang. While there are plenty of reasons to hate that, this turned out to be "Mark ____ from Maryland, a volunteer for" Barry He-Whose-Middle-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Spoken Obama and Mark Warner.
What a hilarious call. He asked for my wife, who likewise, had just sat down to dinner. He asked a few questions, the upshot of which was "Who are you voting for?" Since I didn't want to interrupt my wife's dinner, I informed "Mark from Maryland" that there was utterly no chance that my wife would be voting for Barry or the Boyish Governor, and that, since my dinner was getting cold, he should stop wasting my time and his, and hung up.
Doubtless, he indulged his self-serving caricatures, and dismissed me as just another right-wing radical Christian who exercises dictatorial control over his wife who, at best, simply has a "false consciousness," being unaware of her own interests and in desperate need of the guidance of the vanguard of the proletariat.
Of course, this call may well represent a rather desperate tactic on the part of Barry and the Komsomol. After all, it hardly seems logical or persuasive for Marylanders to call into Virginia for Obama, and especially for Marky-Mark. Particularly south of the Occoquan. Moreover, why would it be necessary to use Marylanders if Obama is doing so well in Virginia?
And what about this?: Brenda Young has to be among the hardest of the hard "Rs." She's voted in every GOP primary in Virginia since 1990. She's been a member of her local GOP Committee since 1991. She's attended every GOP Convention (county; congressional district; and state), since 1992.
This call makes me more sanguine about the truth about Barry's "popularity."
What a hilarious call. He asked for my wife, who likewise, had just sat down to dinner. He asked a few questions, the upshot of which was "Who are you voting for?" Since I didn't want to interrupt my wife's dinner, I informed "Mark from Maryland" that there was utterly no chance that my wife would be voting for Barry or the Boyish Governor, and that, since my dinner was getting cold, he should stop wasting my time and his, and hung up.
Doubtless, he indulged his self-serving caricatures, and dismissed me as just another right-wing radical Christian who exercises dictatorial control over his wife who, at best, simply has a "false consciousness," being unaware of her own interests and in desperate need of the guidance of the vanguard of the proletariat.
Of course, this call may well represent a rather desperate tactic on the part of Barry and the Komsomol. After all, it hardly seems logical or persuasive for Marylanders to call into Virginia for Obama, and especially for Marky-Mark. Particularly south of the Occoquan. Moreover, why would it be necessary to use Marylanders if Obama is doing so well in Virginia?
And what about this?: Brenda Young has to be among the hardest of the hard "Rs." She's voted in every GOP primary in Virginia since 1990. She's been a member of her local GOP Committee since 1991. She's attended every GOP Convention (county; congressional district; and state), since 1992.
This call makes me more sanguine about the truth about Barry's "popularity."
Monday, October 20, 2008
A Pretty Pathetic Job Application
So former Secretary of State --- and this is his most relevant "former" --- Colin Powell has endorsed The One, Barry He-Whose-Middle-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Spoken Obama for President of the United States.
As someone pointed out to me this morning, it's a pretty pathetic job application.
Think about it. One who finds solace in polling data could conclude that an Obama victory is a foregone conclusion, that it's all over but the shouting. So now, sixteen days before Election Day, Powell endorses The One. Might it be that he wants a job in the new Administration?
After all, look at his justifications. Powell challenges McCain's judgment. Does he do so by pointing out his contempt for the First Amendment, and his support for limiting free speech, as illustrated by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform"? Does he attack McCain's support for any eminently arguable policy preferences?
No. Powell claims that it is illustrated by his pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President, saying that she is clearly not qualified to assume the office of President. But as compared to whom? Barry Obama? After all, Palin has the executive experience that Obama is sorely lacking. When one considers this fact, it becomes readily apparent that Powell's decision --- to the extent that it may not be completely opportunistic --- is based more on ideology than on objective criteria. And if it is based upon ideology, one can legitimately question whether his was ever truly a Republican ideology, even broadly construed.
He fears more conservative Supreme Court nominees? What Republican isn't hopeful of a more conservative Supreme Court?
Indeed, one looks at the endorsement and sees little more than The One's self-serving (and largely false) talking points. To the extent that The One's thin record depicts anything, it reveals a committed Socialist (even when --- uncharacteristically --- someone like "Joe the Plumber" gets access to ask a tough question). Other than that, The One presents little more than an empty vessel, into which his campaign devoutly hopes that the muddled middle will pour its own predispositions and hopes, without knowledge of his thin but actual record.
More interesting is the reaction of the far Left moonbatosphere. They hail the endorsement as a triumph, demonstrating once again that theirs are situational ethics of the worst sort. Aren't these the same people who not so long ago roundly condemned Colin Powell as a mere cipher, spouting the dishonest (they say) arguments in favor of taking out Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein? What is it that converted Colin Powell from a mere propaganda mouthpiece into a sage political analyst?
Apparently, his newfound and arguably opportunistic support for The One.
Lowell Feld, one of the leading moonbats ... er, "lights" over at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK," has even put up a post about past Republican comments about Colin Powell. I suppose it's more fun to attack the other side as hypocritical than to remind readers about your own (or your fellow travellers') previous attacks one someone whom you now believe to have "seen the light."
Powell's endorsement of Obama demonstrates nothing so much as the fact that Powell --- his service to the nation notwithstanding --- is not a serious or consistent political thinker. Certainly, to the extent that he has ever thought about issues broader than national security issues at all.
For this endorsement does not elevate The One so much as it diminishes Colin Powell. And that is unfortunate.
As someone pointed out to me this morning, it's a pretty pathetic job application.
Think about it. One who finds solace in polling data could conclude that an Obama victory is a foregone conclusion, that it's all over but the shouting. So now, sixteen days before Election Day, Powell endorses The One. Might it be that he wants a job in the new Administration?
After all, look at his justifications. Powell challenges McCain's judgment. Does he do so by pointing out his contempt for the First Amendment, and his support for limiting free speech, as illustrated by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform"? Does he attack McCain's support for any eminently arguable policy preferences?
No. Powell claims that it is illustrated by his pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President, saying that she is clearly not qualified to assume the office of President. But as compared to whom? Barry Obama? After all, Palin has the executive experience that Obama is sorely lacking. When one considers this fact, it becomes readily apparent that Powell's decision --- to the extent that it may not be completely opportunistic --- is based more on ideology than on objective criteria. And if it is based upon ideology, one can legitimately question whether his was ever truly a Republican ideology, even broadly construed.
He fears more conservative Supreme Court nominees? What Republican isn't hopeful of a more conservative Supreme Court?
Indeed, one looks at the endorsement and sees little more than The One's self-serving (and largely false) talking points. To the extent that The One's thin record depicts anything, it reveals a committed Socialist (even when --- uncharacteristically --- someone like "Joe the Plumber" gets access to ask a tough question). Other than that, The One presents little more than an empty vessel, into which his campaign devoutly hopes that the muddled middle will pour its own predispositions and hopes, without knowledge of his thin but actual record.
More interesting is the reaction of the far Left moonbatosphere. They hail the endorsement as a triumph, demonstrating once again that theirs are situational ethics of the worst sort. Aren't these the same people who not so long ago roundly condemned Colin Powell as a mere cipher, spouting the dishonest (they say) arguments in favor of taking out Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein? What is it that converted Colin Powell from a mere propaganda mouthpiece into a sage political analyst?
Apparently, his newfound and arguably opportunistic support for The One.
Lowell Feld, one of the leading moonbats ... er, "lights" over at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK," has even put up a post about past Republican comments about Colin Powell. I suppose it's more fun to attack the other side as hypocritical than to remind readers about your own (or your fellow travellers') previous attacks one someone whom you now believe to have "seen the light."
Powell's endorsement of Obama demonstrates nothing so much as the fact that Powell --- his service to the nation notwithstanding --- is not a serious or consistent political thinker. Certainly, to the extent that he has ever thought about issues broader than national security issues at all.
For this endorsement does not elevate The One so much as it diminishes Colin Powell. And that is unfortunate.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
My Two Favorite College Teams Undefeated!
With a majority of their respective seasons past, my two favorite college football teams --- Hampden-Sydney (the alma mater) and Penn State (I'm from Pennsylvania, and my grandparents were season ticketholders) --- are both ranked, and both undefeated.
Hampden-Sydney, No. 20 in Division III, and No. 1 in the Old Dominion Athletic Conference (ODAC), prevailed over the coeducational experiment in Lexington, AKA Washington & Leigh ... er, "Lee" (Robert E. Lee V, H-SC '86, was a classmate of mine) by a score of 39-29, while No. 3 Penn State broke a 12-game losing streak against Michigan by rolling to a 46-17 victory, allowing no opposing scoring after the first half, yesterday.
Hampden-Sydney may well be on their way to a second consecutive appearance in the Division III playoffs, since they can do no worse than 4-2 in the conference, with home games against Catholic (5-1 overall; 1-1 ODAC), the alma mater of H-SC Head Coach Marty Favret, next week and The Game against arch-rival Randolph-Macon (2-4 overall; 1-1 ODAC) on 15 November. A non-conference game against undefeated Huntington College (Montgomery, Alabama) is scheduled for 8 November.
And if Penn State can prevail against No. 12 Ohio State in Columbus next week, they will certainly be in the hunt for the National Championship.
Should be an interesting month in college football.
Hampden-Sydney, No. 20 in Division III, and No. 1 in the Old Dominion Athletic Conference (ODAC), prevailed over the coeducational experiment in Lexington, AKA Washington & Leigh ... er, "Lee" (Robert E. Lee V, H-SC '86, was a classmate of mine) by a score of 39-29, while No. 3 Penn State broke a 12-game losing streak against Michigan by rolling to a 46-17 victory, allowing no opposing scoring after the first half, yesterday.
Hampden-Sydney may well be on their way to a second consecutive appearance in the Division III playoffs, since they can do no worse than 4-2 in the conference, with home games against Catholic (5-1 overall; 1-1 ODAC), the alma mater of H-SC Head Coach Marty Favret, next week and The Game against arch-rival Randolph-Macon (2-4 overall; 1-1 ODAC) on 15 November. A non-conference game against undefeated Huntington College (Montgomery, Alabama) is scheduled for 8 November.
And if Penn State can prevail against No. 12 Ohio State in Columbus next week, they will certainly be in the hunt for the National Championship.
Should be an interesting month in college football.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
BIDEN CALLS FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST GOP OFFICIAL!
Hard to believe, but it's true. One of the Ranting Kids has the story here.
I wonder how many flipping toupees this will get from Ben Tribbett?
I wonder how many flipping toupees this will get from Ben Tribbett?
Interesting Insight On Barry
I've often said --- probably not here --- that the best Constitutional Law course I've ever taken was one taught by Professor David Marion, at Hampden-Sydney College, in my senior year.
At the alma mater's Homecoming this weekend, I learned that I'm not the only practicing attorney who feels this way. A much more recent graduate agrees.
It seems that a young man who graduated a few years after I did went on to law school at the University of Chicago, where his Con Law instructor was none other than Barack He-Whose-Middle-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Spoken Obama.
According to my source, Dr. Marion's course/teaching/method of instruction as a Political Science/Government course was superior --- far superior --- to Barry's as a law school instructor.
It surprises me not at all.
At the alma mater's Homecoming this weekend, I learned that I'm not the only practicing attorney who feels this way. A much more recent graduate agrees.
It seems that a young man who graduated a few years after I did went on to law school at the University of Chicago, where his Con Law instructor was none other than Barack He-Whose-Middle-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Spoken Obama.
According to my source, Dr. Marion's course/teaching/method of instruction as a Political Science/Government course was superior --- far superior --- to Barry's as a law school instructor.
It surprises me not at all.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Frederick States Fact; Moonbatosphere Whines
Facts are the enemy of Liberalism. It's an undeniable truth of life. Moonbats scurry from fact like vampires scurry from sunlight.
Witness the recent statement by Jeff Frederick. He repeated an observation made by Limbaugh a few days back: that both have closely associated with men who have bombed the Pentagon and buildings in New York City. I noted the comparison here.
Frederick said it in front of a magazine reporter, as if it were news, or as if twenty million people hadn't heard Limbaugh say it five days ago.
So what do the moonbats do? Well, of course, they act as if it were news. Lowell, the lead moonbat at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, "Raising Kaine" ... er, "RK," questions Frederick's sanity --- a subject on which he is perhaps qualified to speak --- and declares flatly that Bill Ayers --- the Weather Underground terrorist in question --- is not The One's friend.
They call for Frederick's resignation, demonstrating beyond doubt that they fear most a Republican Party of Virginia Chairman who will respond in kind to their attacks. They scream "racism and hate," as though they don't engage in class warfare and promote hatred against the successful, and as though pointing out The One's questionable associations were not legitimate. Of course, they declare that all but embrace of The One and his candidacy is racism per se.
It's expected when the moonbats whine. That's like a dog peeing on a fire hydrant. It's rather disappointing when someone as normally sensible as Doug Mataconis thinks it's a big deal.
Witness the recent statement by Jeff Frederick. He repeated an observation made by Limbaugh a few days back: that both have closely associated with men who have bombed the Pentagon and buildings in New York City. I noted the comparison here.
Frederick said it in front of a magazine reporter, as if it were news, or as if twenty million people hadn't heard Limbaugh say it five days ago.
So what do the moonbats do? Well, of course, they act as if it were news. Lowell, the lead moonbat at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, "Raising Kaine" ... er, "RK," questions Frederick's sanity --- a subject on which he is perhaps qualified to speak --- and declares flatly that Bill Ayers --- the Weather Underground terrorist in question --- is not The One's friend.
They call for Frederick's resignation, demonstrating beyond doubt that they fear most a Republican Party of Virginia Chairman who will respond in kind to their attacks. They scream "racism and hate," as though they don't engage in class warfare and promote hatred against the successful, and as though pointing out The One's questionable associations were not legitimate. Of course, they declare that all but embrace of The One and his candidacy is racism per se.
It's expected when the moonbats whine. That's like a dog peeing on a fire hydrant. It's rather disappointing when someone as normally sensible as Doug Mataconis thinks it's a big deal.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Heard On Rush Limbaugh Today
What does Barack Don't-mention-my-middle-name Obama have in common with Osama bin Laden?
They both have closely associated with men who have bombed the Pentagon and buildings in New York.
They both have closely associated with men who have bombed the Pentagon and buildings in New York.
OBAMA ADMITS HE'S A SOCIALIST!!!
Shortly before 10:00 p.m., E.D.T., the Democrat nominee for President, Barack Don't-mention-my-middle-name Obama admitted that he's a socialist.
He said that health care is a "right." Of course, that means that the government should take my money to care for those who are less responsible.
This alone should disqualify this dilletante from public office in the United States of America.
He said that health care is a "right." Of course, that means that the government should take my money to care for those who are less responsible.
This alone should disqualify this dilletante from public office in the United States of America.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
What Are His Credentials?
The impending congressional/taxpayer bailout of Wall Street raises any number of interesting questions.
Among the most interesting is why certain Members of Congress who were complicit in the bad decisionmaking which allowed the "crisis" to develop are given any role in crafting a solution to it.
Chief among these is Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
I would certainly like to know what business or finance credentials he brings to the table.
After all, the closest this career politician has ever come to running a business is when Steven Gobie was running a homosexual male escort service out of Frank's townhouse in the 1980s!
Among the most interesting is why certain Members of Congress who were complicit in the bad decisionmaking which allowed the "crisis" to develop are given any role in crafting a solution to it.
Chief among these is Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
I would certainly like to know what business or finance credentials he brings to the table.
After all, the closest this career politician has ever come to running a business is when Steven Gobie was running a homosexual male escort service out of Frank's townhouse in the 1980s!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Intellectual Whiplash
Well, OK. Ascribing the word "intellectual" to any part of Virginia's moonbatosphere is a stretch. Perhaps "intellectualoid" is a better word.
And how else do you explain the fact that many of those savaging Sarah Palin as "unqualified" for the job she seeks were championing Governor Timmy! for the same post?
Even Governor Timmy! himself!
The Moonbats Are Nuts!
Amazing! Democrats control both Houses of Congress. That means --- if Democrats are united --- Republicans cannot pass anything. It means, with the exception of the Senate filibuters, Republicans can stop virtually nothing.
Yet it is Republicans are responsible for the failure of the $700 billion bailout bill?!?!?!
Survey says ... well, the surveys will probably reflect that those idiots who are inclined to believe virtually any Democrat lie believe this, too, reflecting the triumph of government-controlled education, and the absence of teaching mathematical skills. But anybody who can count votes should know better.
That's nearly as crazy as the suggestion that George Bush is responsible for the financial crisis because of his agenda --- TALKING POINTS ALERT! --- of "deregulation on steroids."
Well, the first thing is, the Bush Administration attempted to sound the alarm on the precarious status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac practices years ago. Democrats on the Hill didn't want to hear it. After all, if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac kept on making irresponsible loans to people who couldn't afford to repay them, well, that just guaranteed another loyal Democrat constituency whose votes were effectively bought.
And let's not forget how this "crisis" started. Just like the "health care crisis," this is a "crisis" of Democrats' making. Democrats sponsored and jealously guarded the "community reinvestment" programs, supposedly enacted to address "racism" in the lending industry. Of course, Democrats were happy to fraudulently misrepresent sound and responsible lending practices as "racism" for political gain.
Soooooo, they socialized a portion of the lending industry with "government-sponsored entities": Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And just like Medicare (which socialized virtually half of the health-care "system," now that the chickens are coming home to roost, Democrats are calling, not for recognition of the failure of socialism and a removal of irresponsible government mandates, but for --- you guessed it! --- more socialism.
Now I can't begrudge any Republican who voted for the bailout. I understand their concern. It might even be a necessary evil, in light of the fact that this is a government-made crisis, arising out of government mandates. Kind of like the S&L debacle, where government guaranteed accounts, but failed to exercise appropriate oversight. The case can be made, and GOP leaders tried to make it.
However, unlike Democrats --- who reflexively throw money at any situation --- I would expect Republicans and Conservatives to be able to recognize the root causes, and actually address them by getting government out of an enterprise in which it has no legitimate business, expertise, or constitutional authority. And I expect Republicans to go after Democrat robber-barons like Franklin Raines, who precipitated this crises while profiting handsomely.
But to suggest that the failure of the bailout is to be blamed on the Republicans, well, only a moonbat residing in the cave of a far-Left echo chamber could believe that!
H/T to Riley for the YouTube video.
Yet it is Republicans are responsible for the failure of the $700 billion bailout bill?!?!?!
Survey says ... well, the surveys will probably reflect that those idiots who are inclined to believe virtually any Democrat lie believe this, too, reflecting the triumph of government-controlled education, and the absence of teaching mathematical skills. But anybody who can count votes should know better.
That's nearly as crazy as the suggestion that George Bush is responsible for the financial crisis because of his agenda --- TALKING POINTS ALERT! --- of "deregulation on steroids."
Well, the first thing is, the Bush Administration attempted to sound the alarm on the precarious status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac practices years ago. Democrats on the Hill didn't want to hear it. After all, if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac kept on making irresponsible loans to people who couldn't afford to repay them, well, that just guaranteed another loyal Democrat constituency whose votes were effectively bought.
And let's not forget how this "crisis" started. Just like the "health care crisis," this is a "crisis" of Democrats' making. Democrats sponsored and jealously guarded the "community reinvestment" programs, supposedly enacted to address "racism" in the lending industry. Of course, Democrats were happy to fraudulently misrepresent sound and responsible lending practices as "racism" for political gain.
Soooooo, they socialized a portion of the lending industry with "government-sponsored entities": Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And just like Medicare (which socialized virtually half of the health-care "system," now that the chickens are coming home to roost, Democrats are calling, not for recognition of the failure of socialism and a removal of irresponsible government mandates, but for --- you guessed it! --- more socialism.
Now I can't begrudge any Republican who voted for the bailout. I understand their concern. It might even be a necessary evil, in light of the fact that this is a government-made crisis, arising out of government mandates. Kind of like the S&L debacle, where government guaranteed accounts, but failed to exercise appropriate oversight. The case can be made, and GOP leaders tried to make it.
However, unlike Democrats --- who reflexively throw money at any situation --- I would expect Republicans and Conservatives to be able to recognize the root causes, and actually address them by getting government out of an enterprise in which it has no legitimate business, expertise, or constitutional authority. And I expect Republicans to go after Democrat robber-barons like Franklin Raines, who precipitated this crises while profiting handsomely.
But to suggest that the failure of the bailout is to be blamed on the Republicans, well, only a moonbat residing in the cave of a far-Left echo chamber could believe that!
H/T to Riley for the YouTube video.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
What The Moonbatosphere Hath Wrought
Someone sent this to me a few minutes ago.
It's despicable.
It's also the kind of response which is to be expected when otherwise respectable portions of the Democrat blogophere are peddling trash like this, while the moonbats are peddling worse.
I don't know the timing of the creation of this work, but I never saw anything even remotely like it until just a few minutes ago.
On The Abuses Of Credit
ViaDrudge, we learn that the nation's largest auto dealer --- a Chevrolet dealer in Arizona --- is closing its doors. Apparently, soft sales coupled with tighter credit has made it impossible for the business to stay open. Like many dealers, Heard Chevrolet "floor-plans" its stock, paying interest to GM for the privilege of displaying its automobiles.
'Can't say I'm surprised by this. My late grandfather was a Pontiac, Buick, and Cadillac dealer in Central Pennsylvania for more than forty years, from 1946 until 1 January 1987, when he sold his dealership in Sunbury to Blaise Alexander.
I vividly remember those dark days in the late 1970s, when Chrysler was begging for government loans to keep operating, oil prices were spiking, and sales of American gas-guzzlers tanked in the face of Japanese competition.
It was almost a certainty that, in a rather depressed area (economically), the only way that Schreffler Pontiac, Buick, and Cadillac survived was because of the fact that my grandfather didn't "floor-plan" his vehicles. Rather, he bought them from the manufacturer outright, and thereby avoided the costs of interest payments during economic downturns.
Don't be surprised if you see more car dealers going out of business in the next few months. And for the same reasons that we are talking about a nearly-trillion dollar bailout for Wall Street.
'Can't say I'm surprised by this. My late grandfather was a Pontiac, Buick, and Cadillac dealer in Central Pennsylvania for more than forty years, from 1946 until 1 January 1987, when he sold his dealership in Sunbury to Blaise Alexander.
I vividly remember those dark days in the late 1970s, when Chrysler was begging for government loans to keep operating, oil prices were spiking, and sales of American gas-guzzlers tanked in the face of Japanese competition.
It was almost a certainty that, in a rather depressed area (economically), the only way that Schreffler Pontiac, Buick, and Cadillac survived was because of the fact that my grandfather didn't "floor-plan" his vehicles. Rather, he bought them from the manufacturer outright, and thereby avoided the costs of interest payments during economic downturns.
Don't be surprised if you see more car dealers going out of business in the next few months. And for the same reasons that we are talking about a nearly-trillion dollar bailout for Wall Street.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Facts To Ponder ... And Who's To Blame
Sent to me by my brother-in-law, a 20-year Army and Army Reserve veteran:
This just in!
Hey boys & girls ... facts are facts!!
This has to make you think a little bit, if not then keep your blinders on!
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%;
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high --- 14,000 +;
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democrat Congress & yep --- we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure;
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low --- 11,100 --- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS
Yep, in 2006 America voted for "Change"! And we sure got it!!! Now, Barach H. Obama, the Democrat candidate for President --- and the polls say he's going to be "the Man" --- claims he's really going to really give us "Change"!! Just how much more "Chanage" do you think you can stand?!?!
This just in!
Hey boys & girls ... facts are facts!!
This has to make you think a little bit, if not then keep your blinders on!
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%;
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high --- 14,000 +;
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democrat Congress & yep --- we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure;
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low --- 11,100 --- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS
Yep, in 2006 America voted for "Change"! And we sure got it!!! Now, Barach H. Obama, the Democrat candidate for President --- and the polls say he's going to be "the Man" --- claims he's really going to really give us "Change"!! Just how much more "Chanage" do you think you can stand?!?!
Virginia Democrat Endorses Voter Suppression
Remember the days when Democrats complained of mythical Republican efforts at voter suppression?
Of course, it was just a myth, and an effort to play upon racial fears, since such accusations invariably accused Republicans --- without evidence --- of voter suppression in the Black community. Either that, or a concerted scheme to misrepresent humor ("Due to high turnout expected in this year's election, the Voter Registrar has determined that Republicans will vote on the first Tuesday in November, while Democrats will vote the next day").
Not this time. Now, a denizen of the Virginia moonbatosphere has shamelessly endorsed an effort to suppress votes. As one might expect, he endorses an effort to suppress votes in Texas, which is expected to go for John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Of course, it was just a myth, and an effort to play upon racial fears, since such accusations invariably accused Republicans --- without evidence --- of voter suppression in the Black community. Either that, or a concerted scheme to misrepresent humor ("Due to high turnout expected in this year's election, the Voter Registrar has determined that Republicans will vote on the first Tuesday in November, while Democrats will vote the next day").
Not this time. Now, a denizen of the Virginia moonbatosphere has shamelessly endorsed an effort to suppress votes. As one might expect, he endorses an effort to suppress votes in Texas, which is expected to go for John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Good Thing Stupidity Is Not A Crime
Promises from the moonbat contingent to prosecute the President for "murder."
I wonder how one types or dictates a pleading while suffering from cranial-rectal inversion?
I wonder how one types or dictates a pleading while suffering from cranial-rectal inversion?
Why Is Mark Warner Dodging EFCA?
What is it with the Boyish Governor?
My understanding is that Mark Warner, now running to succeed retiring Senator John Warner (R-VA, and no relation), once again dodged a question about the fraudulently-misnomered "Employee Free Choice Act" at yesterday's Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce debate. "EFCA," as it's known, is number one on the union hit parade, and would require, inter alia, employer recognition of labor unions securing signatures on union membership cards in a bargaining unit. This procedure is currently allowed under the National Labor Relations Act, but employers familiar with union intimidation tactics frequently demand secret-ballot elections to put unions to their proofs about claims of majority support for the union.
Even 1972 Democrat presidential candidate former Senator George McGovern has found this proposal too radical for his tastes.
So why won't Mark Warner let Virginians know his position?
Might it be that he fears Virginians' reaction to a Senator who will advance Big Labor's anti-democratic agenda of intimidation?
Remember, this is the same Mark Warner who promised when running for Governor that he wouldn't raise taxes, and turned around and fought for the biggest tax increase ($6 billion) in Virginia history, on fraudulent claims of budget "crisis."
Of course, anyone who's been paying attention knows that Democrats scream "crisis" whenever they want to spend more taxpayer money to buy votes.
My understanding is that Mark Warner, now running to succeed retiring Senator John Warner (R-VA, and no relation), once again dodged a question about the fraudulently-misnomered "Employee Free Choice Act" at yesterday's Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce debate. "EFCA," as it's known, is number one on the union hit parade, and would require, inter alia, employer recognition of labor unions securing signatures on union membership cards in a bargaining unit. This procedure is currently allowed under the National Labor Relations Act, but employers familiar with union intimidation tactics frequently demand secret-ballot elections to put unions to their proofs about claims of majority support for the union.
Even 1972 Democrat presidential candidate former Senator George McGovern has found this proposal too radical for his tastes.
So why won't Mark Warner let Virginians know his position?
Might it be that he fears Virginians' reaction to a Senator who will advance Big Labor's anti-democratic agenda of intimidation?
Remember, this is the same Mark Warner who promised when running for Governor that he wouldn't raise taxes, and turned around and fought for the biggest tax increase ($6 billion) in Virginia history, on fraudulent claims of budget "crisis."
Of course, anyone who's been paying attention knows that Democrats scream "crisis" whenever they want to spend more taxpayer money to buy votes.
Monday, September 15, 2008
A "Meltdown"? Not Hardly
I am no economist. In fact, I took the absolute minimum number of Economics courses necessary to earn my degree at Hampden-Sydney. In retrospect, I regret that decision somewhat, as H-SC has a fine Economics Department. Even today, when I return to campus, a number of the professors --- none of whose courses I actually took --- greet me by name.
Nevertheless, in looking at today's economics news, and the drop in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average (about 2.15% as I write), I am marvelled that the press is describing it as "a meltdown."
Really? I was in law school in 1987, and vividly remember the day when the DJIA lost approximately 25% of its value, or about 500 points on a then-average of about 2000.
That was "a meltdown."
One can only wonder about the premises from which these reporters are proceeding. Utter ignorance of history?
Or are they so completely in the tank for Barry Obama and the Democrat Party that they are willing to misrepresent current events to sustain the lies that a merely "sluggish" economy is "the worst since the Great Depression"?
Nevertheless, in looking at today's economics news, and the drop in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average (about 2.15% as I write), I am marvelled that the press is describing it as "a meltdown."
Really? I was in law school in 1987, and vividly remember the day when the DJIA lost approximately 25% of its value, or about 500 points on a then-average of about 2000.
That was "a meltdown."
One can only wonder about the premises from which these reporters are proceeding. Utter ignorance of history?
Or are they so completely in the tank for Barry Obama and the Democrat Party that they are willing to misrepresent current events to sustain the lies that a merely "sluggish" economy is "the worst since the Great Depression"?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
I Guess It Was Only A Matter Of Time
Just for grins, check out the rantings of this sanctimonious moonbat.
I guess it was only a matter of time before these boobs started assuming the mantle of Old Testament prophets.
If only they had approaching the same inspiration.
H/T to Moonbats-R-Us ... er, "RK."
I guess it was only a matter of time before these boobs started assuming the mantle of Old Testament prophets.
If only they had approaching the same inspiration.
H/T to Moonbats-R-Us ... er, "RK."
What Matt Damon Had To Say
According to the boys and girls at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK" (you know, the site that promotes another actor/Obama supporter whose most famous roles involve playing a moron), here's what Matt Damon had to say about Governor Sarah Palin:
Or even more absurd? Nominating as a candidate for President a guy whose entire ticket has no executive experience, and whose most significant decisionmaking has involved which radical associations he's going to throw under the bus for current political gain, and never mind the poor judgment reflected in making those radical associations in the first place. A guy who complains about "gotcha" moments ("lipstick on a pig is still a pig") who might be taken ever so much more seriously had he risen to the defense of George Allen two years ago, with his "macaca" moment.
It's like --- oh, I don't know --- a really bad Robert Ludlum movie.
H/T to Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK." Whatever.
It's like a really bad Disney movie... The hockey mom, you know 'I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska' and she's facing down Vladimir Putin using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It's absurd, it's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. It's a really terrifying possibility; the fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to it being a reality, it's crazy. I need to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago...I wanna know that, I really do, because she's going to have the nuclear code.You know what's really totally absurd? Taking seriously the political rantings of an (admittedly talented) actor and screenplay writer whose foreign policy experience is limited to playing the caricature of a covert operative.
Or even more absurd? Nominating as a candidate for President a guy whose entire ticket has no executive experience, and whose most significant decisionmaking has involved which radical associations he's going to throw under the bus for current political gain, and never mind the poor judgment reflected in making those radical associations in the first place. A guy who complains about "gotcha" moments ("lipstick on a pig is still a pig") who might be taken ever so much more seriously had he risen to the defense of George Allen two years ago, with his "macaca" moment.
It's like --- oh, I don't know --- a really bad Robert Ludlum movie.
H/T to Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK." Whatever.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
A Poll You Won't Hear About
I don't usually discuss "horse race," or more usually, "horse's a** race," numbers. However, this may be significant.
Not that you're likely to see it reported in the so-called "main stream" media, but pollster John Zogby, himself a Democrat, shows McCain/Palin up by nearly 4% over Barry Obama and Joe "the Plaigarist" Biden.
No wonder the moonbats are going positively crazy.
Not that you're likely to see it reported in the so-called "main stream" media, but pollster John Zogby, himself a Democrat, shows McCain/Palin up by nearly 4% over Barry Obama and Joe "the Plaigarist" Biden.
No wonder the moonbats are going positively crazy.
What Were You Saying About "Global Warming"?
More evidence that those who go on about "global warning" are merely engaged in another effort to find an excuse to control our lives.
"Global warming" is globaloney.
"Global warming" is globaloney.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Civil Rights Attorney?
Just for grins, I decided to do a little research on Barry Obama's claim to have been a civil rights attorney.
Particularly since I am actually one.
Interesting results.
Searching on Westlaw, I searched the "allfeds" database (all federal courts) for "at("Barack H. Obama"). A search under at("Barack Obama") yielded no results.
There were seven reported decisions, all between April 1994 and January 1996.
Four were appeals, all in the Seventh Circuit. Nothing unusual for a Chicago attorney. Three were in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Again, not unusual.
Yet in not one of them was Obama listed as lead counsel, at least obviously. He was the second or third (and last) named attorney in each of the Seventh Circuit cases. He argued (and won) only one of them.
Civil rights attorney? Maybe. For about five minutes.
Particularly since I am actually one.
Interesting results.
Searching on Westlaw, I searched the "allfeds" database (all federal courts) for "at("Barack H. Obama"). A search under at("Barack Obama") yielded no results.
There were seven reported decisions, all between April 1994 and January 1996.
Four were appeals, all in the Seventh Circuit. Nothing unusual for a Chicago attorney. Three were in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Again, not unusual.
Yet in not one of them was Obama listed as lead counsel, at least obviously. He was the second or third (and last) named attorney in each of the Seventh Circuit cases. He argued (and won) only one of them.
Civil rights attorney? Maybe. For about five minutes.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
A New Leni Riefenstahl?
I guess I'm a little slow (those of you who will confirm that in comments need not), but this occurred to me yesterday:
Is David Axelrod --- producer of the Obamaganza rally at the end of the Democrat convention --- the Leni Riefenstahl of our time?
And no, I don't mean Barry Obama is a Nazi. What I mean is that Axelrod --- like Riefenstahl --- is packaging a local rabble-rouser of little accomplishments and dangerous ideas into an acceptable political product, with little more than smoke and mirrors.
The only difference? Riefenstahl was more talented. And did it in black-and-white.
H/T to Zimbio.com. Martyhef said it first.
Is David Axelrod --- producer of the Obamaganza rally at the end of the Democrat convention --- the Leni Riefenstahl of our time?
And no, I don't mean Barry Obama is a Nazi. What I mean is that Axelrod --- like Riefenstahl --- is packaging a local rabble-rouser of little accomplishments and dangerous ideas into an acceptable political product, with little more than smoke and mirrors.
The only difference? Riefenstahl was more talented. And did it in black-and-white.
H/T to Zimbio.com. Martyhef said it first.
Dime-Store Psychology To Camouflage Reactionary Liberalism
You've got to love the moonbatosphere. Checking Waldo Jaquith's indispensible Virginia Political Blog Aggregator, I came across this little gem, offering the dime-store psychoanalysis of those who dismiss the idiocy of the far Left through the device of sarcasm as demonstrating "an indirect form of anger."
Of course, the goal is to ascribe to your political opponents an unattractive characteristic. So much easier than addressing the merits of their arguments, don't you know.
Or worse yet, addressing the fact that your candidate is not only objectively unqualified for the office he seeks, but is an agent --- not of change --- but of reactionary Liberalism.
But what is perhaps most entertaining is the irony of the accusation, and the tactic. After all, taking a page from our friend, it is actually those who regularly demonstrate their affliction with Bush Derangement Syndrome who are the most "angry" people in politics.
I suppose that our friend is demonstrating what the psychological types call "projection."
Of course, the goal is to ascribe to your political opponents an unattractive characteristic. So much easier than addressing the merits of their arguments, don't you know.
Or worse yet, addressing the fact that your candidate is not only objectively unqualified for the office he seeks, but is an agent --- not of change --- but of reactionary Liberalism.
But what is perhaps most entertaining is the irony of the accusation, and the tactic. After all, taking a page from our friend, it is actually those who regularly demonstrate their affliction with Bush Derangement Syndrome who are the most "angry" people in politics.
I suppose that our friend is demonstrating what the psychological types call "projection."
Palin's Pimples Versus Obama's Carbuncles
It's been an amazing week. Perhaps to avoid the fact that it has become utterly clear that the choice facing Americans is between "the Hero" and "the Zero," the so-called "mainstream media" has savaged Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain's choice as Vice President.
I don't know what the actual figures are, but I think it has to be beyond question that the so-called "mainstream media" already has devoted more time to the family difficulties involving Palin's eldest daughter than it has over Senator Barry Obama's ties to admitted terrorist William Ayres, convicted felon and slumlord Tony Rezko, and race-baiting "minister" Jeremiah Wright.
Once again, the media is more interested in a Republican's personal pimples, while ignoring a Democrat's professional carbuncles.
What was that again about "right-wing media bias"?
I don't know what the actual figures are, but I think it has to be beyond question that the so-called "mainstream media" already has devoted more time to the family difficulties involving Palin's eldest daughter than it has over Senator Barry Obama's ties to admitted terrorist William Ayres, convicted felon and slumlord Tony Rezko, and race-baiting "minister" Jeremiah Wright.
Once again, the media is more interested in a Republican's personal pimples, while ignoring a Democrat's professional carbuncles.
What was that again about "right-wing media bias"?
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
So Much For Those Judgmental, Right-Wing Christians
Just a few hours after I posted my last, I got this from the Hon. Robert G. Marshall:
Must suck when the targets of your caricatures respond according to their principles, rather than your ridiculous smears of their true beliefs.
Of course, the far Left --- who rabidly defend the "right to choose" (so long as it applies to the right to choose to kill an innocent) --- cannot survive their own internal contradictions. For if you believe in a "right to choose," you must of necessity believe that there are circumstances in which the "choice" is appropriate.
So defenders of abortion must believe that there are time when abortion is the "right" choice.
But they never want to tell us when it is "the right choice."
Now, even unsophisticated thinkers can comtemplate such circumstances. For example, perhaps, when one is carrying a severely handicapped child? What qualifies? Tay-Sachs, a horrible genetic disease which condemns a child to a lingering death by the age of five? Cerebral palsy? Down's Syndrome, like little Trig Palin? A teenage pregnancy? Mere inconvenience?
The reason that Sarah Palin has to be destroyed is not because she is unqualified to serve as President, for she is. In fact, she's more qualified to serve than Barry Obama.
Sarah Palin must be destroyed because she's everything that so-called "Feminists" purport to stand for, but really don't. She has made a political career on her own merits, not riding on the coattails of her former-President husband, like Hillary Clinton. She's not a wealthy woman like Nancy Pelosi who demagogues about how the rest of us aren't surrendering enough of our income. She's the mother of five. She has exercised her choice to open her heart to a child facing challenges which most can only imagine. Living with Down's Syndrome cannot be easy, and I can speak from personal experience on the point, as I know a man with Down's.
In short, she's the purported "feminist" ideal, and rejects almost entirely the feminist ideology.
No wonder the far Left fears her so.
MARSHALL RIPS DEMOCRAT LIBERALS FOR ATTACKS ON PALIN’S DAUGHTER
Virginia Del. Robert G. Marshall on Tuesday (Sept. 2) blasted liberal Democrats for launching “vicious and outrageously personal political attacks” on the unmarried pregnant daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John S. McCain’s choice as his vice presidential running mate.
“Liberal Democrats affirm a right to privacy for any woman who wants to have a legal abortion, but they are granting no such privilege to Bristol Palin,” said Marshall, of Manassas, who has represented Northern Virginia’s 13th Legislative District in the state House of Delegates for 17 years.
“The Democrats excuse themselves from the sin of scandal, but they’re more than willing to use children as pawns on political chessboards. Like the Pharisees when they confronted Christ with a woman taken in adultery, whom they couldn’t have cared less about, Democrat liberals will use any means to try to take the gloss off John McCain’s smart vice presidential pick.
“These vicious and outrageously personal political attacks must stop.”
Marshall, chairman of the Life, Liberty, Property Political Action Committee, compared a May 31 statement by Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, while he was campaigning in Johnstown, Pa., with that of Gov. Palin and her husband, Todd, on Monday when it became public that their 17-year-old daughter was pregnant.
“I’ve got two daughters,” Obama said in Johnstown when describing his position on abortion. “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Gov. Palin and her husband, on the other hand, on Monday issued a statement indicating they “are proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby. She knows she has our unconditional love and support.”
Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson, 18, the father of their pre-born child, are planning to wed.
“The issue of life and abortion is playing out like a gigantic morality play on the American political stage,” Marshall said, noting that Gov. Palin is pro-life and gave birth to son Trig five months ago though prenatal tests indicated he would be born with Down syndrome.
“What happened to tolerance? What happened to understanding and forgiveness?
“The Palin family is showing real strength of character under stress, which is what you have left when things are not under your control, everything seems to be going wrong, and you have to make a decision. They’ve made the right one.”
Must suck when the targets of your caricatures respond according to their principles, rather than your ridiculous smears of their true beliefs.
Of course, the far Left --- who rabidly defend the "right to choose" (so long as it applies to the right to choose to kill an innocent) --- cannot survive their own internal contradictions. For if you believe in a "right to choose," you must of necessity believe that there are circumstances in which the "choice" is appropriate.
So defenders of abortion must believe that there are time when abortion is the "right" choice.
But they never want to tell us when it is "the right choice."
Now, even unsophisticated thinkers can comtemplate such circumstances. For example, perhaps, when one is carrying a severely handicapped child? What qualifies? Tay-Sachs, a horrible genetic disease which condemns a child to a lingering death by the age of five? Cerebral palsy? Down's Syndrome, like little Trig Palin? A teenage pregnancy? Mere inconvenience?
The reason that Sarah Palin has to be destroyed is not because she is unqualified to serve as President, for she is. In fact, she's more qualified to serve than Barry Obama.
Sarah Palin must be destroyed because she's everything that so-called "Feminists" purport to stand for, but really don't. She has made a political career on her own merits, not riding on the coattails of her former-President husband, like Hillary Clinton. She's not a wealthy woman like Nancy Pelosi who demagogues about how the rest of us aren't surrendering enough of our income. She's the mother of five. She has exercised her choice to open her heart to a child facing challenges which most can only imagine. Living with Down's Syndrome cannot be easy, and I can speak from personal experience on the point, as I know a man with Down's.
In short, she's the purported "feminist" ideal, and rejects almost entirely the feminist ideology.
No wonder the far Left fears her so.
Ochildish
What does it say about a candidate when his most vocal, fervent supporters feel free to call the opposing candidate names? What does it say about a candidate whose most vocal, fervent supporters feel free to publicize the private facts about one of the children of his opponents?
What does it say when those most vocal, fervent supporters can praise a media type who questions the foreign policy questions of the bottom of an opposing ticket, while utterly ignoring the complete lack of similar qualifications at the top of theirs?
What does it say about a candidate whose most vocal, fervent supports praise his attestation that "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper," while ignoring the fact that his biological brother is living in poverty in Africa on about $12 a year?
What does it say about a candidate who allows such individuals to act as smear merchants against his opposition? Remember, after all, these are the people who decry "Willie Horton" and "Swiftboating." Their silence in the face of the sleazy, slanderous moonbatosphere is both considered and deafening.
Now, I know that the boys and girls over at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough, ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK" bill themselves as "Virginia's Online Progressive Community," but what can we take from these examples?
It's pretty simple, really: "Virginia's Online Progressive Community" is peurile, sophomoric, and just plain mean.
And God forbid one should ever dare to offer a little reality. I was barred from posting comments a few months back for wholly content-based reasons.
Yeah, yeah, I know: it's their website, and I have no free speech rights on someone else's property. But I allow far Lefties to comment here, when rarely do they comment. So much for the Left being guardians of freedom.
Of course, those of us who understand them know better. After all, these are the people who are commenting about suggesting that .... well, let's just let Horse's Ass, or "Mule," or something like that speak for himself:
Have these people ever opened a Bible? Have they ever darkened the door of a church for any purpose other than the search for political power/votes?
One has to wonder. After all, it seems to me that one needn't have spent a great deal of time with one's body in church or nose in the Bible to have sensed just a little of the theme of "forgiveness" in the New Testament.
I can't say I'm surprised, though. After all, the single defining characteristic of the totalitarian, secular Left is the myth of human perfectability through the instrument of government. Proceed from that arrogant, delusional presumption, and it's easy to fail to recognize the need for God, and for forgiveness for sins. Indeed, "sin" becomes an obsolete notion, replaced by pathologies to be cured by pills, or surgery, or education, or --- most important of all --- more government.
And how does it apply to Sarah Palin's daughter (with due regard for her, I will not name her here)?
Well, you can savage the minor child of a Republican, particularly when you've constructed these elaborate fictions about your ideological enemies.
Witness the continued popularity of Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough, ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK" among the moonbat Left.
What does it say when those most vocal, fervent supporters can praise a media type who questions the foreign policy questions of the bottom of an opposing ticket, while utterly ignoring the complete lack of similar qualifications at the top of theirs?
What does it say about a candidate whose most vocal, fervent supports praise his attestation that "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper," while ignoring the fact that his biological brother is living in poverty in Africa on about $12 a year?
What does it say about a candidate who allows such individuals to act as smear merchants against his opposition? Remember, after all, these are the people who decry "Willie Horton" and "Swiftboating." Their silence in the face of the sleazy, slanderous moonbatosphere is both considered and deafening.
Now, I know that the boys and girls over at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough, ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK" bill themselves as "Virginia's Online Progressive Community," but what can we take from these examples?
It's pretty simple, really: "Virginia's Online Progressive Community" is peurile, sophomoric, and just plain mean.
And God forbid one should ever dare to offer a little reality. I was barred from posting comments a few months back for wholly content-based reasons.
Yeah, yeah, I know: it's their website, and I have no free speech rights on someone else's property. But I allow far Lefties to comment here, when rarely do they comment. So much for the Left being guardians of freedom.
Of course, those of us who understand them know better. After all, these are the people who are commenting about suggesting that .... well, let's just let Horse's Ass, or "Mule," or something like that speak for himself:
One can easily imagine how right-wing preachers would decry an out-of-wedlock pregnancy in the family of a Democratic candidate, exclaiming, while pounding on their Bibles, that the pregnancy sets a "poor example" for American teenagers. They would say that this is what can be expected from a family with "liberal" permissiveness. Well, I'm waiting to hear what the Bible thumpers say this time.Really, "Mule"? Can one? Well, only if one is so thoroughly steeped in the mythos of the far Left that one has to make it up.
Have these people ever opened a Bible? Have they ever darkened the door of a church for any purpose other than the search for political power/votes?
One has to wonder. After all, it seems to me that one needn't have spent a great deal of time with one's body in church or nose in the Bible to have sensed just a little of the theme of "forgiveness" in the New Testament.
I can't say I'm surprised, though. After all, the single defining characteristic of the totalitarian, secular Left is the myth of human perfectability through the instrument of government. Proceed from that arrogant, delusional presumption, and it's easy to fail to recognize the need for God, and for forgiveness for sins. Indeed, "sin" becomes an obsolete notion, replaced by pathologies to be cured by pills, or surgery, or education, or --- most important of all --- more government.
And how does it apply to Sarah Palin's daughter (with due regard for her, I will not name her here)?
Well, you can savage the minor child of a Republican, particularly when you've constructed these elaborate fictions about your ideological enemies.
Witness the continued popularity of Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough, ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK" among the moonbat Left.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Sarah Palin And Unions
With the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate (a selection I endorsed elsewhere, incidentally, as speculation was growing over the pick), it was announced that Palin was "a former union member and the wife of a proud union member [Todd Palin]."
Here's what Todd Palin's union's president, Leo W. Gerard, had to say about his wife's selection for the GOP ticket:
Soooo, one has to wonder: If still a "proud union member," will Todd Palin be exercising his "Beck rights" to prevent his union from using his dues to oppose the election of his wife as Vice President? Was he even aware of the fact that he could not be forced to be a union member, or to support the political and ideological activities of the Steelworkers union? Or is he among those many union "members" who have illegally been told that full membership --- and support for union political and ideological activities --- was required as a condition of continued empolyment?
I'd certainly be interested to the answers to these questions, and Mr. Palin's course of action if they are what I suspect them to be.
Here's what Todd Palin's union's president, Leo W. Gerard, had to say about his wife's selection for the GOP ticket:
"It is important to realize that while the governor’s husband is a member of a union, this does not automatically qualify her for an on-the-job training program to become a heartbeat away from the presidency. And while her husband is one of 850,000 dues-paying members of the steelworkers union, it does nothing to absolve Sen. McCain of his long history of anti-union sentiment and anti-worker actions, including continuously pushing an anti-working family agenda that:
*Opposes giving workers the right to bargain collectively;
*Jeopardizes retirement security by privatizing social security;
*Further threatens job security by signing more job-stealing trade deals without the regard to human rights and environmental abuses; and,
*Erodes the ability of working families to secure quality health care by taxing their employer -provided coverage for both active and retired workers.
McCain’s choice is another example of his poor judgment and his desire to play politics as usual. McCain-Palin is not a team that works for working families. The first-term governor’s record is thin and divisive. And John McCain has a life-long record of being for the rich and powerful. No union card can hide that any more than Ronald Regan's union card did."
Other unions like the Teamsters (its Local 959 is one of the most powerful in Alaska) have been no more pleased by this obvious pander, which seems to have been conceived in ignorance of Rule 34 of Republican National Committeeman Morton Blackwell's Laws of the Public Policy Process: "You cannot make friends of your enemies by making enemies of your friends."
Soooo, one has to wonder: If still a "proud union member," will Todd Palin be exercising his "Beck rights" to prevent his union from using his dues to oppose the election of his wife as Vice President? Was he even aware of the fact that he could not be forced to be a union member, or to support the political and ideological activities of the Steelworkers union? Or is he among those many union "members" who have illegally been told that full membership --- and support for union political and ideological activities --- was required as a condition of continued empolyment?
I'd certainly be interested to the answers to these questions, and Mr. Palin's course of action if they are what I suspect them to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)