Thursday, August 27, 2009
President Obama Hates Old People
From the GOP website:

How Government-Run Health Care Will Reduce Health Care Benefits You Currently Receive

"Maurice Engleman, 82 ... says the controversial Medicare Advantage program ... helped him beat cancer ... Engleman, who was diagnosed with tongue cancer last year ... [said,] ‘I don't believe Medicare would have taken care of the kind of services I required.'"

MANY OF YOUR FELLOW LOW-INCOME SENIORS BENEFIT FROM MEDICARE ADVANTAGE ...

Nearly Half Of Seniors Like You On Medicare Advantage Have "Incomes Below $20,000." "Among Medicare beneficiaries in all areas (regardless of whether a Medicare Advantage plan was available), 18 percent were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Forty-eight percent of beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage plans had incomes below $20,000. For comparison, 44 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries in the original fee-for-service program had incomes below $20,000."

Medicare Advantage Growing And "Making Extra Benefits Available" To More Of Your Fellow Seniors. "The relatively generous payment system for Medicare Advantage has encouraged greater plan participation in recent years, significantly expanding the number of private plans offered throughout the country and making extra benefits available to more beneficiaries."

BUT OBAMA'S CUTS TO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE WILL REDUCE YOUR HEALTH CARE BENEFITS

Your Medicare Advantage Program Is Obama's Top Target When It Comes To Paying For His Health Care Experiment. "The biggest savings he proposes, $177 billion, would come from having insurance companies bid for government reimbursements for offering private plans, known as Medicare Advantage, to senior citizens."

  • Obama Blasts Medicare Advantage As "Costly And Redundant." "About 10.2 million Medicare recipients are in Medicare Advantage ... the government pays insurers a set amount per Medicare beneficiary. Obama ridiculed it as costly and redundant ...."

And Obama's Cuts To Medicare Advantage Will Reduce Your Benefits. "Mr. Obama has repeatedly said, ‘Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits.' At the same time, he wants to eliminate what he describes as ‘unwarranted subsidies' and giveaways to private Medicare Advantage plans, which use some of the money to provide extra benefits."

Ah, I see. Yes, this is something to be concerned about for sure. The GOP have caught the Democrats trying to cut back on some wasteful, redundant programs in the federal government and are duly alerting the senior citizens that some of these proposed Medicare decreases could adversely affect their medical care.

Although, now, to be fair, this does raise a rather important question that needs to be addressed. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Are you kidding me? Seriously? I got pissed off before when the Democrats were the ones that had no policy except for "the opposite of what Bush wants" and now I'm doubly pissed off that it appears to be the GOP's plan.

Is this really what the Republican party is about? Is it? Are we in favor now of more Medicare? When it's proposed that the scope of the federal government be lessened (even if it is possibly a preamble to enlargening - though that won't happen) is it now our job to run to the seniors? Should I be working on the elderly people I know, telling them that President Obama wants them to eat dog food and take away their Medicare? Or is this all just part of a grand plan to confuse the hell out of the AARP?

I'm sorry, this is just stupid. I'd rather the party stood for something and stuck to it than just blindly opposing whatever President Obama suggests and saying whatever nonsense it takes to win.
Aug 27, 2009 6:49 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Monday, August 03, 2009
Pat Buchanan on Discrimination
Says Pat:
White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up and the other 10% were African-Americans who had been discriminated against. That's why.

To be fair, there were probably some non-white people that would have been willing to help with the Declaration of Independence and such if it wasn't for the fact that they were only considered 3/5 of a person and would have been horribly beaten and stuff. You know, minor barriers like that.

Aug 3, 2009 9:44 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, June 10, 2009
On Protocol
Just in case there were still any lingering questions as to how the President should behave towards foreign heads of state:

The American greeting routine used to be simple. Because we officially consider all people to be equal and equally worthy of respect, the same gesture, the handshake -- simple, dignified and egalitarian -- would do for all.

But symbolic subservience to a foreign ruler is worse. When Miss Manners sees American citizens delighting in bowing or curtseying to royalty, she tries to remind herself that they are just being silly, not treasonous. When an American official does it, we can only hope it was because he was noticing that his own shoelace was undone -- and not that he recognizes the divine right of kings in general, or the authority over us of that king in particular.

Jun 10, 2009 10:55 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Friday, March 13, 2009
Rock vs. Hard Place
Says ABC (someone with no stake at all, of course):
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he and President Obama spoke yesterday about the fact that CNBC's Jim Cramer was set to appear on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart last night.

He wasn't sure if the president caught Mr. Stewart's bloodletting of the host of "Mad Money," but he himself gave the show a thumbs up.

"I enjoyed it thoroughly," Gibbs said at his daily briefing.

Throughout the show, Stewart went after Cramer for CNBC's financial journalism, which the Comedy Central host suggested -- angrily at times -- was corrupt.

Gibbs today said Stewart "asked a lot of tough questions" and that he wasn't "surprised that CNBC hasn't put the video on its website."
Must have been hard for Gibbs given he had to choose between the liberal favorite son, Jon Stewart, and CNBC - the network even the other networks laughed at for being so biased towards Obama during the election.

For what it's worth, I'm with him on this one, though. Cramer needed the beatdown after his bluster the past few days. He was noticably more contrite once face-to-face with Jon Stewart.
Mar 13, 2009 2:04 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Rushing to conclusions
Camille Paglia on President Obama lowering himself to talk about Rush:
President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.

Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.

And I'm sick of people impugning Rush's wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big -- Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does. I was deeply upset, for example, by the sneering tone both Rush and Sean Hannity took on Inauguration Day, when partisan politics should have been set aside for a unifying celebration of American government and history. Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn't run with the elite -- he goes his own way.
Mar 10, 2009 11:04 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Friday, March 06, 2009
Sounds familiar
Secretary Clinton is using the global economic crisis to further a liberal agenda. Says who? Oh, she did:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience on Friday "never waste a good crisis," as she highlighted the opportunity of rebuilding economies in a greener, less energy intensive model.

Highlighting Europe's unease the day after Russia warned that gas exports to the EU via Ukraine might be halted, she also condemned the use of energy as a political lever.

Clinton told young Europeans at the European Parliament global economic turmoil provided a fresh opening: "Never waste a good crisis ... Don't waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security."
 | 
Mar 6, 2009 9:33 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Thursday, February 05, 2009
I'm watching you, Elmo...
From Power Line yesterday:
The Obama administration has capped executive compensation at financial companies that get bailout money from the feds at $500,000. Most people probably think this is a good idea. I don't disagree with the concept that taxpayer money shouldn't be sucked up by bonuses for executives in failing companies. Of course, I don't think the government should be investing money in failing companies in the first place.

Beyond that, I have a couple of specific objections. First, a number of banks were forced by the federal government to accept TARP funds that they didn't want. I don't think the government, having bullied those banks into taking unwanted money, should now be in a position to dictate compensation decisions. Second, while $500,000 may sound like a lot of money, the idea that you can find an executive who will competently run a multi-billion dollar enterprise for that salary is a joke. A car dealership in a mid-sized city, yes; Citigroup, no. So Obama's decree is basically grandstanding: it will work only if attractive stock option packages supplement the cash salary.
Yes, exactly. $500k sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but "sounds like a lot of money" is a lousy guideline. A reader of the blog contributed this, which I thought was a very good point as well:
A $500,000 cap on salaries? By all means...and let's extend this...to PBS for starters...no employee of any contractor to PBS or NPR...which are "substantially" subsidized by the taxpayers....is allowed compensation of more than $500,000....

And let's audit them all...they have a cozy arrangement where Bill Moyers, say, as big a left-wing hypocrite as you'll ever find, charges his production company scads of money, literally millions, and the production company simply has a contract with PBS....so, sure, no salaries....just "production costs" for PBS....Jim Lehrer does the same....the practice is widespread...

So by all means....ANY government subsidized enterprise should have the SAME restrictions as the banks....and let's include vendors who are so dependent on government contracts ("substantial") that it amounts to a de facto subsidy....THAT will get some attention...
Sounds fair to me.
Feb 5, 2009 2:39 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
The AARP's going to be mad
From a blog post on The Hill by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA):
Sift through their self-righteous attacks on the Senate floor and the bluster of their talking heads on FOX News, and there’s an important aspect of the debate over the recovery package that the Republicans in Congress seem to forget — they’re the ones that got us into this mess. After all, over the past eight years they have driven our economy off a cliff faster than Thelma and Louise.
Wow. Timely.
Think about it — it was President Bush who transformed a $5.6 trillion projected budget surplus into a record budget deficit. He did so by cutting taxes for the wealthiest among us while spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. It was the Republicans in Congress who opposed common sense oversight and regulation of the financial industry, and who passed pork by the barrel, most memorably Alaska’s $250 million bridge to nowhere. And it was under their collective watch that our economy lost 5 million manufacturing jobs and millions of families lost their homes to foreclosure.
Ok, even granting that that's true (and I don't) what the hell does that have to do with anything? What does that have to do with the merits of the arguments against the stimulus bill? Because a person is a member of a party that you credit with causing a problem are all of their opinions about a bill to try to resolve the problem automatically invalid? Does this mean that since the Democrats have spent all of the Social Security fund that the GOP gets to unilaterally fix the boomer retirement problem looming over our heads?
While I appreciate President Obama’s goal of working across the aisle to fix this crisis, we cannot allow partisan temper tantrums to stand in the way of fixing our economy. The American people elected President Obama in record numbers to lead our country in a new direction, if the Republicans aren’t willing to join him, the least they can do is get out of his way.
Yes, I know this is all just drum-beating partisan nonsense that no one actually is supposed to read or analyze, but come on. She's actually suggesting that if you don't support the President's bill that you should just "get out of his way"? Even putting aside the President's non-Constitutional role in the legislation, whatever happened to the nobleness of dissent? All through Bush's Presidency we heard about how noble it was to dissent - that it was the highest form of patriotism in a democracy. But now any opposition to the President's policies is nothing but a "partisan temper tantrum"? Feh.
Cross-post from Huffingtonpost.com.
Yeah, that's great. Enough said. Now here's the part where she talks about the merits of the stimulus package with specific retorts to the GOP's objections:
[not found]
Oh, sorry, never mind.
Feb 5, 2009 2:25 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Best laid plans
Seems like President Obama just can't catch a break. First his no-lobbyists promise:
On Jan. 21, the day after his inauguration, Obama issued an executive order barring any former lobbyists who join his administration from dealing with matters or agencies related to their lobbying work. Nor could they join agencies they had lobbied in the previous two years.

However, William J. Lynn III, his choice to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. And William Corr, tapped as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, lobbied through most of last year as an anti-tobacco advocate. Corr says he will take no part in tobacco matters in the new administration.

"Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

That was a big step back from Obama's unambiguous swipe at lobbyists in November 2007, while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. "I don't take a dime of their money," he said, "and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."

The waivers granted for Lynn and Corr caused some in Washington to wince. But others, including many longtime advocates of tougher ethical standards, suggest it all says as much about deeply ingrained practices — and even necessities — in Washington as about a new president.
And now the plan to restict stimulus spending to American goods and services only:
The European Union warned the US yesterday against plunging the world into depression by adopting a planned "Buy American" policy, intensifying fears of a trade war.

The EU threatened to retaliate if the US Congress went ahead with sweeping measures in its $800 billion (£554 billion) stimulus plan to restrict spending to American goods and services.

Gordon Brown was caught in the crossfire as John Bruton, the EU Ambassador to Washington, said that "history has shown us" where the closing of markets leads — a clear reference to the Depression of the 1930s, triggered by US protectionist laws.

Last night Mr Obama gave a strong signal that he would remove the most provocative passages from the Bill.
I can't decide if he was just promising things he knew he couldn't deliver (and didn't care) or was just being naive about some of his promises. But either way it's clear that despite his best intentions there are some things you just can't change overnight by executive fiat.
Feb 3, 2009 9:19 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Freeze dried pork
Another entry in the long list of bizarre inclusions in the stimulus bill:
The U.S. House of Representatives included $600 million for NASA in the $819 million economic stimulus bill it passed Jan. 25. The Senate version of the bill, due to be taken up the week of Feb. 2, contains $1.5 billion for NASA, including $500 million to shorten the gap between the retirement of the space shuttle and the first flight of its successor.

The House bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), includes no money for NASA human spaceflight programs. An amendment sponsored by freshman Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.) that would have added $2 billion to narrow the gap between shuttle and its successor was rejected by the House Rules Committee.

The bulk of the NASA money in H.R. 1 - some $400 million - is designated for Earth science satellite programs and climate change research.

H.R. 1 also includes $150 million for aeronautics, and $50 million to repair NASA facilities damaged by Hurricane Ike last summer.

The Senate version of the bill, S. 336, includes $500 million for Earth science, $250 million for aeronautics and $250 million for hurricane repair and other NASA infrastructure projects.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for providing more funding to NASA. No question about it. And I will concede that some of the money - that used for satellite programs and construction will provide jobs and help the aeronautics industry. I guess. But come on. Climate change research? Earth science? These may be important things (ok, the latter is) but this is necessary to stimulate the economy? We can't have tax cuts but we have to have climate change research to help the economy?
Feb 3, 2009 9:07 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Sunday, February 01, 2009
Wow, that would be a Great Leap Forward for the UK
Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the UK's Sustainable Development Commission:
Couples who have more than two children are being "irresponsible" by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government's green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government's Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.
Well that's excellent. Nicely done. Jonathan Swift would be proud.
 | 
Feb 1, 2009 9:46 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Anyone else see what's wrong here?
Obama's Weekly Radio Address:
Americans know that our economic recovery will take years -- not months.
Later that day...
The president pleaded for urgent action, saying, "If we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse." Obama's remarks came as he is lobbying for quick congressional passage of an $825 billion stimulus package to pump up the economy.
Ok, so I'll say it. If it's going to take years for the economy to recover (which is kind of convenient) then why is it so urgent for this stimulus package to be passed? So urgent that it has to be loaded up with pork and liberal special interest money so it'll be passed in a hurry. We can't take a little more time? Consult with some of those other non-majority lawmakers? Maybe write up some details for the voters to see as part of that whole transparency thing?
Feb 1, 2009 9:31 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback
Ah, well, it was a nice idea
First official broken promise:
One of President Obama's major campaign planks was making government more open and accountable. It's a reaction to a habit in Congress of rushing bills through the House and Senate without giving people much opportunity to know what the bills would do. Indeed, sometimes members of Congress don't even know what's in the bills.

So Obama pledged during the campaign to institute "sunlight before signing."

"Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them," Obama's campaign Web site states. "As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

But the first bill Obama signed into law as president -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- got no such vetting.

In fact, the Congressional Record shows that the law was passed in the Senate on Jan. 22, 2009, passed in the House on Jan. 27, and signed by the president on Jan. 29. So only two days passed between the bill's final passage and the signing.

The legislation was not posted to the White House Web site for comment in any way that we could find.

We see no way the bill could be deemed emergency legislation, even taking the broadest view. The bill overturns the effects of a Supreme Court decision that limited when workers could sue for pay discrimination. Most pertinently, the bill is retroactive to the time of the court decision -- May 28, 2007. Obama earned a Promise Kept from us for signing the law. But it would have the same effect if had been signed a few days later, so it's clearly not an emergency.

We asked the White House about this and if they planned to begin posting laws to the Web site for comment soon, but we got no response.
It's too bad. I was really impressed by the idea that Obama would institute this level of transparency. Between posting all executive orders and this I thought it would really increase accountability. Legislation's always been such a (often purposefully) murky thing to explore and this would help voters know better what's going on.

But now... eh. Even if he starts doing it now, barring some mea culpa and explanation, I'll always be wondering what he's leaving out and not posting.
Feb 1, 2009 8:33 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Saturday, January 31, 2009
Last chance for Obama toaster ovens
White House lawyers are trying to limit the commercial use of President Obama's name, likeness, etc.
The White House lawyers may have to make case-by-case determinations about the best ways to protect the presidential image without tempering enthusiasm or trampling on free-speech protections, said Jonathan Band, an intellectual property lawyer in Washington.

"It will be difficult," Band said. 'Because he is the president of the United States and there was this campaign and everyone's proud, I think the First Amendment will be applied much more broadly with respect to people wanting to use an image of the president than it would be with typical entertainment figures or sports figures."
Yes, everyone's very proud. This is sort of the flip side of running a cult-of-personality candidacy and is really to be expected. I suspect this is going to end up following the usual celebrity mantra: The only thing worse than everyone everyone wanting a piece of you is when they stop...
 | 
Jan 31, 2009 8:32 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Friday, January 30, 2009
Ah, that's the tricky part, yes
From the NYT:
At a news conference earlier today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the Democrat-only passage of the economic stimulus package, contending that Republicans were indeed included; their suggestions on tax cuts had become part of the bill itself, she said. But several G.O.P. senators and representatives hit the airwaves today, criticizing the spending portions and promoting their view of a more palatable alternative — bigger, broader tax cuts and incentives.
Ok, sounds good. But here's what she said...
We reached out to the Republicans all along the way, and they know it. And they know it. They were part of the original bill, with the - some of the tax provisions were their suggestions. They had what they asked for in terms of committee mark-up. They had the rule on the floor that gave them plenty of opportunity to make changes. They just didn't have the ideas that had the support of the majority of the people in the Congress.
Well, no, probably not. But since the DNC has a majority, only allowing in ideas that have the support of a majority is the same thing as only allowing in Democratic ideas. Which, logically, is NOT the same thing as allowing in Republican ideas.
 | 
Jan 30, 2009 10:30 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Wall Street bashing?
From the WSJ:
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama hammered Wall Street institutions Thursday for what he called "shameful" bonuses, saying it is the "height of irresponsibility" to ask for help from taxpayers and continue to reward executives with handsome pay packages.

"There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time," President Obama said before an Oval Office meeting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Vice President Joe Biden.

"When I saw an article today that indicates that Wall Street bankers had given themselves $20 billion worth of bonuses, the same amount of bonuses as they gave themselves in 2004, at a time when most of these institutions are teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don't provide help then the entire system could come down on top of our heads, that is the height of irresponsibility," President Obama told reporters.

"It is shameful."
Yeah, well, maybe. I don't know. There's not enough data to really tell. $18.4 billion is a lot of money, of course. But it is down 44% from 2007 and I don't see any data about how many people we're talking about. I would imagine that, like a sales commission, a lot of brokers and such have bonuses worked in as part of their salary structure. Just because they are white collar workers doesn't mean they're not entitled to their pay.

I'd just like to see a little more information and a lot less finger-wagging and knee-jerk bashing of the financial industry is all.
 | 
Jan 30, 2009 10:19 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
The great uniter?
From Politico:
Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada — with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?
Well, that didn't take too long. Already it's becoming an "us vs. them" mentality among the liberal attack groups. It's interesting too how they're saying Rush wants Obama to "fail" (not exactly what he said), as if Rush would want the economy to go into the toilet if it made Obama look bad. This from the people who were willing to see us fail in Iraq if it would only make Bush look bad. As is often the case, though, Rush sees through them to see the real agenda:
"Senate Republicans need to understand this is not about me," he wrote in an email. "It is about them, about intimidating them, especially after the show of unity in House. It is about the 2010 and 2012 elections. This is an opportunity for Republicans to redefine themselves after a few years of wandering aimlessly looking for a 'brand' and identity."
Exactly, yes. They're afraid the Senate will do what the House did and score a GOP shutout of the bill - nailing the bill firmly to Obama and the Democrats.
 | 
Jan 30, 2009 10:00 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Thursday, January 29, 2009
Really? You can do that?
From The Note:
ABC News has learned that tax refunds are now on hold in California for the first time in state history, according to the state controller's office.

"Unfortunately, we have asked the California Franchise Tax Board not to send over tax refund claims beginning today because we will not be able to process them and have them out the door by Feb. 1 when a 30-day delay in tax refunds goes into effect," Hallye Jordan, spokeswoman to California State Controller John Chiang, tells ABC News.

During the 30-day delay, the controller's office estimates that a combined 2.74 million California individuals and businesses will have their tax refund delayed.

The controller's office estimates that the delay in tax refunds will free up $1.99 billion over the next month to pay for education, debt service, and other payments that legally have first claim to state funds.
Oh, well, bully for the State of California.  Can someone explain to me how this is anything but stealing from the taxpayers?  This is money that was taken that the State determined it was not entitled to (hence the term "refund").  Now it's keeping it and making money off of the interest.  It should by all rights pay interest back to the taxpayers for holding on to their money.  They have, in effect, forced its citizens to purchase short-term treasury bonds and is pocketing the interest.
 | 
Jan 29, 2009 11:57 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Bipartisan Support: Denied
From The Daily Telegraph (all emphasis mine):
President Barack Obama got the $825 (or $1.2 trillion over a decade) stimulus package through the House of Representatives but the 244 to 188 vote is a hollow victory indeed. Without a single Republican voting for the bill, his high-profile visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday came to exactly naught - at least on the House side.

Obama vowed to change Washington and usher in a new post-partisan era. The the mood music and optics were pitch perfect as he trekked up to the Hill. Republicans praised his gesture, welcomed his sincere demeanour and appreciated his willingness to listen.

Problem was, he wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said. When he was asked if he would re-structure the package to include more tax cuts, he reportedly responded: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."

He apparently added: " I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."

That's fine. No doubt Obama will indeed get beaten up on Fox News. But his failure to get even the squishiest moderate Republican - including the 11 entertained in the White House by Rahm Emanuel last night - to back him is not merely a big score for Rep Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, and the rest of the GOP leadership.

It also shows that it is not just Fox, the loony Right or Rush Limbaugh - or however else you might want to characterise the opposition in order to marginalise it - who had grave misgivings about the content of the bill.
Said Rep. Schultz (D-FL):
They repeatedly are slapping the outreached hand of Democrats who are attempting to work in a bipartisan way. We have given the Republicans every opportunity to have input and help shape this.
Yes, but input doesn't mean "You guys sit in a corner and tell us what you want and we'll say no."  Once in a while you have to compromise - you know, like you were constantly telling the GOP to do when they were in power.  Instead we get:

Obama faced an early test last week, when, in the midst of the debate over economic stimulus, Democrats worked to shut Republicans out of the policy process, then behaved boorishly when Republicans complained.

Democratic leaders responded with the political equivalent of a sack dance in football. “If it’s passed with 63 votes or 73 votes, history won’t remember it,” said Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added to the mood by saying, “Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election.”

There is still time for Obama to object to such behavior. If he wants to fulfill the promise of his rhetoric, he should take Pelosi to the woodshed and insist that she include Republicans, collegially, in the process. He should stand up to his party and threaten to veto a bill if it fails to make reasonable concessions to his friends across the aisle. He should advise his own staff to begin returning the phone calls of senior Republican aides.

And then, of course, those two little words:
Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: "I won."

The statement was prompted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, who challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check.

Still, other Democrats echoed the sentiment. As he left the White House, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina was asked about Republican complaints that Democrats aren't listening to what their GOP colleagues have to say. "We're responding to the American people,” he said. “The American people didn’t listen to them too well during the election."
Which is fine by me, I'm all for "winner take all" and to hell with compromise.  That's life in politics.  But don't come back to me saying the GOP is being partisan or, when they regain power, that they're being unfair about not sharing power.

 | 
Jan 29, 2009 11:52 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Palin, Obama to share stage
From Politico:
In what could be a preview of the 2012 presidential race, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama will share a stage together this Saturday night in Washington, Politico has learned.

The Alaska governor and former GOP vice presidential nominee, making her first trip to the nation’s capital since the election, will join the president at the Alfalfa Dinner, a venerable gathering of the city’s political elite.
No, no, no, no, no.  She's a very nice, intelligent woman, but she's been Quayled.  Rightly or wrongly, she is no longer a viable candidate for any national position and do not, do not, DO NOT put her up for any kind of nomination.

 | 
Jan 29, 2009 11:34 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The more things change...



Not everyone responds to Obama's message of change. Iranian protesters have begun burning pictures of him now.  It's just another reminder that it doesn't matter what position you take or what you believe.  It doesn't matter if you're pro-Israel or not.  It doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative - a hawk or a dove.  They want to destroy us.  All of us.
Jan 13, 2009 2:36 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Potty Parity? Really?
From MetroSource:
WASHINGTON - The masses heading to the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama could spend a lot of time in line for a port-a-potty.

A George Washington University law professor says the 5,000 port-o-potties planned for Inauguration Day will be "grossly inadequate."

Professor John Banzhaf, the so-called "Father of Potty Parity" sent a letter to the Presidential Inaugural Committee warning of potential lawsuits.

He says women, who take longer in the restroom, could be forced to wait in longer lines than men, and that amounts to discrimination.

Banzhaf says waiting in long lines is not just an inconvenience. It can trigger medical problems. He's asking the Presidential Inaugural Committee to make the toilets gender-neutral so that women do not have to wait longer than men

Yeah, so... ok.  I'm not sure I see the problem here.  If they're not apportioned by gender then it doesn't matter - everyone waits an equal amount of time, ideally.  If they are then just give more to women than men.  May still have long lines but everyone will be equally inconvenienced.  Anyway, I think the "medical problems" claim is a bit much.  Seems to me if you're like to have problems from having to wait in line maybe you should save the judicial system some wear and tear and just stay home.  Not like anyone's being forced to go to the big, crazy event with limited bathrooms.

Jan 13, 2009 2:30 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Post-Mortem
Yeah, well, whatever.  A few observations left.

Things overheard being said today by...

Democrats
It's a new day!
We were right all along!
The rest of the world loves us again!
No more Chimpy McBushHitler... well, in a few months anyway.
Finally, I don't have to pay my mortgage or buy gas.

Republicans
Well, there's still some concern about that untraced fund-raising.
Congratulations, it was well-fought but you won.
Yeah, well, we weren't all that pleased with McCain either.
Done.  Fine.  Good luck with all that.


Things NOT overheard being said today by...

Democrats
Huh, guess we were wrong about all that election-stealing stuff.  Sorry.
This is a time to be bipartisan.
All those evil corporations gave McCain so much more money that he... wait...
The country is still divided and it's time to come together.

Republicans
Let's run Palin in 2012.
Obama's not my President!  He's like Hitler! (Never mind.  Thanks, asshat.  No more votes for you.)
They stole the election, let's sue!  Wahhhhh!

Anyone
I miss the election cycle already.  Let's get started on 2012!

Nov 5, 2008 10:46 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Friday, October 03, 2008
VP "Debate"
So, I was going to do a play-by-play restating of the debate but I really don't have time today.  Got people out at work and tonight's a date night, but maybe some other time.  So here's the short version:
Moderator: Please answer [question].
Biden: Certainly.  [answer].
Palin: Instead let me talk about [some canned, unrelated statement]
Moderator: Senator, your reply?
Biden: Well, that's not true because of [reasonable rebuttal]
Palin: ...

And repeat.
Sorry, I was hoping for better, but it was objectively pretty bad.  Not enough to change my vote but I can't imagine it's going to win a lot of thoughtful, independent voters to the GOP.  I don't believe anyone can "win" a debate like this - the media's insistence on granting one that status aside - since it's never a real debate but just talking points back and forth.  Still, if someone could win the debate, it would be Biden.  Which sucks, but what can you do?

Part of the problem too is that each of these four candidates represents a different point on the likable/knowledgeable spectrum.  To illustrate:

 PlatitudesReal Policy
Likable
Unlikable
Oct 3, 2008 11:37 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Economy Mess - with Stick Figures
An explanation of the current real estate crisis in easy-to-follow cartoon format:

http://www.manausa.com/blog/30/financial-markets-mess/

Sep 30, 2008 8:53 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Saturday, September 27, 2008
More Letters
Well, the last letter actually seemed to work out all right, so here are few more.  Political-style...

To Congress:
Stop mentioning how long you've been working every time you're on camera.  No one in the real world is impressed.  Really.  Many of us do it all the time.  There's an economic crisis and you worked until 1 AM last night?  Wow, that's quite a sacrifice.  I'm very impressed that you've given up 2-3 hours of sleep to prevent the free world from imploding into economic chaos and destruction.

To Senator McCain:
You messed up.  The whole "canceling the debate" gambit failed.  As much as I appreciate the idea of a Senator doing his current job first, don't worry about it.  There are 98 other Senators that are perfectly qualif... well... equally qualified to deal with the crisis.  You're just getting in the way and causing political friction.

To Senator Obama:
Come on... you've been campaigning for President since 3 weeks after you were elected.  It's clear you had no intention to do your actual Senator job so just go campaign.  Stop with the photo shoots and flights out to D.C. and just get back at it.  You're messing up the whole process too.

To every news commentator:
STOP saying "main street" in comparison with "Wall Street".  Seriously, it's just maddening.  You managed to get past saying "gravitas" all the time, and you've even started cutting back on "heartbeat away from the Presidency" when talking about Governor Palin, just stop saying "main street".  It doesn't make you look in touch with the "common folk" especially with everyone else saying it too.

So there.
Sep 27, 2008 8:39 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Thursday, September 04, 2008
Holy Cow!
Wow.  I have to say, a couple weeks ago I was pretty sure that Obama would win the election.  Now, after Governor Palin's speech at the Convention, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he wins and she succeeds him as the first female President.


 | 
Sep 4, 2008 6:42 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Fradulent Election Call
Got a call from some 800-number yesterday that left a message on our machine.  It's a remarkably offensive abuse of voter trust and I hope whichever candidate, special interest group, or the DNC themselves is held accountable for it.  The Gainesville Times ran an article about it yesterday evening:
Registered voters in at least three Northeast Georgia counties, including Hall, received automated phone calls falsely informing them that they had to vote in Tuesday's primary runoff election in order to vote in November, officials said.

Jackson and Banks county voting officials said they were flooded with calls from concerned voters who received the message. A Hall County board of elections official said the office got one call about the message.

Banks County Probate Judge Betty Thomas said the unidentified voice announces that they have received information from the registrar that they haven’t voted and that if they don’t vote Tuesday, then they would be ineligible to vote in the November general election.

And of course, that's wrong, she said.

Thomas said the Georgia Secretary of State's office was notified and was looking into the source of the calls, which came from an 800 number.

Thomas said there would be no way that information on whether a person voted in Tuesday’s primary runoff election would be available immediately, and that a person did not need to vote in the runoff to vote in the November presidential election.

"I don't know if what they are doing is illegal, but they're giving the wrong information," Thomas said. "It bothers me because of the mistrust it instills in the system. It makes people think someone knows who voted, and then makes them think they know how they voted."

The recording does not name any candidates or specific election, Thomas said.

The only race that the Banks, Jackson and Hall county ballots have in common is the Democratic primary runoff for U.S. senator between Vernon Jones and Jim Martin.
I've lifted the audio from my machine so that you can hear it here.
Aug 6, 2008 7:05 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Saturday, February 16, 2008
Seriously?
That great theologian and political strategist, Charles Barkley, on how conservatives aren't true Christians, and his bid for Governor in 2014.

Personally, I'm not going to be convinced until I hear Howie Long's opinion on the election.

 | 
Feb 16, 2008 8:18 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Hello, you must be going

I'm sad to say I came to say you must be going.  I'm glad you came, but just the same, you must be going.  It's been a fun run, but I'm afraid Huckabee has little chance of winning.  And unless he has a really great showing today (which he has won West Virginia so far) it's probably time to drop out and throw his support behind Romney.  Because the alternative is he and Romney splitting the evangelical base and McCain getting the nomination.  And McCain, despite a recent barrage of media to the contrary, has a very spotty record when it comes to conservative values.

On the other hand, McCain might be more electable in the general than Romney since he's more centrist.  On the gripping hand, Rush Limbaugh and others have joined Ann Coulter in saying that they would vote for a Democrat over McCain - meaning he'd lose as much from the base as he'd gain from the Dems.  So I don't know, but either way it's bad news for conservatives.

Ah well, always 2012.

Oh, yes, I voted for Huckabee.  So call me an optimist.
Feb 5, 2008 6:37 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Friday, February 01, 2008
Ann Coulter for Hillary
Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes said that she would vote, even campaign, for Hillary over McCain if it comes to that.  I don't know if I would go quite that far (especially with news that Nancy Reagan is privately endorsing McCain) but if it came down to Obama and McCain?  Yeah, I don't know...

 | 
Feb 1, 2008 9:18 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, January 29, 2008
RNC Anounces partnership with UStream

The idea is to stream the events of the Convention over the internet and allow more interactivity and such. I asked whether it was possible to save the streaming video and embed it for later play, and they said it would be possible. I haven't found a way to do it with the video of the press conference itself, however, so hopefully they didn't just misunderstand. After all, embedding streaming video is really only of limited use. The whole power behind YouTube and TiVo is that you don't have to be there when it happens.

You can see the page here but, of course, being streaming, there's nothing to see now.

Update: Just as they said, there is a place for "past clips" where you can see and embed previously aired video.  Very nice.  Look for a familiar mention around 13:30.

 | 
Jan 29, 2008 12:18 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Thursday, December 06, 2007
The Grammys
Michelle Malkin has noticed something eerily similar about the nominees for the Spoken Word Grammy...
Best Spoken Word Album (Includes Poetry, Audio Books & Story Telling)
  • The Audacity Of Hope: Thoughts On Reclaiming The American Dream - Barack Obama
  • Celebrations - Maya Angelou
  • Giving: How Each Of Us Can Change The World - Bill Clinton
  • Sunday Mornings In Plains: Bringing Peace To A Changing World - Jimmy Carter
  • Things I Overheard While Talking To Myself - Alan Alda
Huh.  Anyone else notice a pattern?
Dec 6, 2007 10:59 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Huckabee on immigration
 | 
Dec 6, 2007 10:48 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Ethics?
Says White House Press Corps institution Helen Thomas:
Q: Do you think technology is changing [journalism]? That a good reporter will always find a venue because there are so many media outlets now?

Thomas: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist and doesn't understand the ethics. We do have to have some sense of what's right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don't make accusations without absolute proof. We're not prosecutors. We don't assume.
Typical elitism.  Course we can't all have the professionalism and absolute proof requirements of Dan Rather.  Or the sense of right and wrong of the CNN debate organizers.  But let's just go to Ms. Thomas herself...
I'm covering the worst president in American history.

The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is another liar... I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does.
She certainly has the professionalism down.

Dec 6, 2007 10:26 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Approval
The approval rating for the war is at 41%.

Congress's approval rating is, heh, 20%...
Dec 6, 2007 9:55 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Alas! We're undone!
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer [cough] has an editorial by a guest columnist from the UK.  And she has found out or secret plot, I'm afraid.  She rightly starts out with:
In the long, hot autumn of 2000, the world was shocked by the contempt for democracy shown by the Republican Party. They knew their man had lost the popular vote to Al Gore by half a million votes. They knew the majority of voters in Florida itself had pulled a lever for Gore. But they fought -- amid the confetti of hanging chads -- to stop the state's votes being counted, and to ensure that the Supreme Court imposed George W. Bush on the nation.
Yes, the world is easily shocked.  I'm sure even Castro was felled by such dastardly election fraud.  I guess asking for a recount and not protesting when the Supreme Court threw out Gore's lawsuit counts as contempt for democracy.

But we have another trick just waiting for 2008.  It's... wait for it... the Electoral College! (bum bum bum!)

Don't laugh - to Democrats, following the Constitution is a dirty trick.
It is the worst part of the Constitution, producing perverse results again and again. On four occasions there has been such a big gap between the national popular vote and the state-by-state Electoral College votes that the guy with fewer real supporters in the country got to be president. It happened in 1824, 1876, 1888 and -- most tragically for the world -- in 2000.
Wow.  Four times.  That's really something.  Look, I don't really care about the Electoral College.  It seems to work but if we wanted to switch to the popular vote instead that's fine too.  A little more prone to fraud and abuse, I think, rather than the smoothing effect of the EC, but whatever.  But let's have no nonsense about how it's somehow only favoring one party or the other.

Just to show I did READ the article, she's complaining about a referendum in California that would split their EC votes much like Maine does.  The idea being that this will give the GOP some of California's EC votes rather than the 0 it usually gets.  And that doing that without also splitting Florida and Texas would be unfair.

But I think our UK friend might not understand the obstinate sovereignty that our states like to exercise.  The idea that the Texas legislature would be in the least influenced by what California does is absurd.  And it is, ultimately, a state decision, not a federal one.  And if you don't like it, you know, change it.  But there's no point complaining about the rules when you lose if you knew them going in.

Dec 6, 2007 4:59 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Guess no one will be naming a bear Barbara
Ok, I never thought I would see the day where Whoopi Goldberg would be the voice of reason either.  But that day has come.

You may have read about the British teacher jailed in the Sudan.  If not, she was teaching there and had some teddy bears that the kids could name.  Well, one of them wanted to give the bear a name that many people share in that region.  Unfortunately, the name was Muhammad and while it's ok to name a person that, not so much a stuffed bear.  So this tolerant theocracy does what everyone would expect and throws her in jail over an innocent mistake.  Then there were protests, predictions of long sentences and lashes and protests calling for her execution.  She's safe now, by the way.

Yeah, so no surprises there.  Then everyone's favorite bastion of sensible thought, The View, decides to discuss the story.  Barbara Walters has the usual liberal response to terrorism, i.e. "Yes, it's a terrible, terrible thing.  But..."  Her point is that while it's terrible what's happened, the same attitude is present in this country.  And that there are places here where if you named a stuffed bear Jesus that people would be outraged.  She doesn't say people would be calling for executions (at least as far as I could stomach getting through the clip) but she does draw a moral equivalence there which is just absurd.  And, seriously, if Whoopi is saying she doesn't believe it then I think you're way off the deep end...



IMAO's Harvey has really the best response I've seen to the mess right here.

 | 
Dec 6, 2007 4:14 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
On being an American Christian
Here's a great article on what it means to be a Christian living in America.  It echoes a lot of the same feelings I've had.  Due to my work with the church youth and trying to stay involved in politics, I am told all the time that we need to get fired up and take back this country.  Or that it used to be a Christian nation and now it's slipping and we need to stop it before it's too late.  But I could never really buy into that.  I thought it was just apathy but in reality it's a sense of hopelessness.  After all, as much as I care about this country, it is not my home.  And there is a coming darkness that will require the complicity of the U.S. simply because we are too powerful for it to succeed otherwise.  So the country is doomed eventually in any event.

Not that we shouldn't, of course, try to delay it as much as possible.  But ultimately we will not win and the country will perish because it is of this world.  So we should pray, and mourn, and, eventually, we should let go.

John Piper puts it better than I do (quoted in entirety and emphasis added):

The fact that Christians are exiles on the earth (1 Peter 2:11), does not mean that they don’t care what becomes of culture. But it does mean that they exert their influence as very happy, brokenhearted outsiders. We are exiles. “Our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). “Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Hebrews 13:14).

But we are very happy sojourners, because we have been commanded by our bloody Champion to rejoice in exile miseries. “Blessed are you when others . . . persecute you . . . on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven” (Matthew 5:11-12). We are happy because the apostle Paul showed us that “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Romans 8:18). We are happy because there are merciful foretastes everywhere in this fallen world, and God is glad for us to enjoy them (1 Timothy 4:3; 6:17). And we are happy because we know that the exiles will one day inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5). Christ died for sinners so that “all things” might one day belong to his people (Romans 8:32).

But our joy is a brokenhearted joy, because Christ is worthy of so much better obedience than we Christians render. Our joy is a brokenhearted joy because so many people around the world have not heard the good news that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). And our joy is a brokenhearted joy because human culture –- in every society –- dishonors Christ, glories in its shame, and is bent on self-destruction.

This includes America. American culture does not belong to Christians, neither in reality nor in Biblical theology. It never has. The present tailspin toward Sodom is not a fall from Christian ownership. “The whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19). It has since the fall, and it will till Christ comes in open triumph. God’s rightful ownership will be manifest in due time. The Lordship of Christ over all creation is being manifest in stages, first the age of groaning, then the age of glory. “We ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23). The exiles are groaning with the whole creation. We are waiting.

But Christian exiles are not passive. We do not smirk at the misery or the merrymaking of immoral culture. We weep. Or we should. This is my main point: being exiles does not mean being cynical. It does not mean being indifferent or uninvolved. The salt of the earth does not mock rotting meat. Where it can, it saves and seasons. And where it can’t, it weeps. And the light of the world does not withdraw, saying “good riddance” to godless darkness. It labors to illuminate. But not dominate.

Being Christian exiles in American culture does not end our influence; it takes the swagger out of it. We don’t get cranky that our country has been taken away. We don’t whine about the triumphs of evil. We are not hardened with anger. We understand. This is not new. This was the way it was in the beginning –- Antioch, Corinth, Athens, Rome. The Empire was not just degenerate, it was deadly. For three explosive centuries Christians paid for their Christ-exalting joy with blood. Many still do. More will.

It never occurred to those early exiles that they should rant about the ubiquity of secular humanism. The Imperial words were still ringing in their ears: “You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Mark 13:13). This was a time for indomitable joy and unwavering ministries of mercy.

Yes, it was a time for influence–-as it is now. But not with huffing and puffing as if to reclaim our lost laws. Rather with tears and persuasion and perseverance, knowing that the folly of racism, and the exploitation of the poor, and the de-Godding of education, and the horror of abortion, and the collapse of heterosexual marriage, are the tragic death-tremors of joy, not the victory of the left or the right.

The greatness of Christian exiles is not success but service. Whether we win or lose, we witness to the way of truth and beauty and joy. We don’t own culture, and we don’t rule it. We serve it with brokenhearted joy and longsuffering mercy, for the good of man and the glory of Jesus Christ.

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org


 | 
Dec 6, 2007 9:11 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Huck has the Mo!
So what came out of the ridiculous Republican debate last week?  Well, besides the startling (to those not paying attention) revelation that CNN again planted the debates with Democrat activists (up to 1/3 identified so far including a member of Hillary's GLBT steering committee) it seems that our friend Huckmentum is on the rise.  Says Patrick Ruffini:
[#1 winner, Huckabee] won this and it wasn't close. In past debates he'd try to be all folksy in his national security answers, which really deflated his gravitas. But the issue terrain was a target rich environment for him, from his strong rebuttal to Mitt on not punishing children for the sins of their parents, to his eloquent and authoritative answer to the ill-conceived Bible question to the quip about Jesus not running for public office. Though clearly on his game, Huckabee seemed to benefit from everyone else being off theirs.
On the one hand I'm glad he's doing so well and stands a chance at winning Iowa.  That could catapult him to winning the nomination.  Trouble is, I'm not sure he's electable in the general.  So, we'll see.


Dec 6, 2007 8:59 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Thursday, November 29, 2007
Sharing... Bad...
John Stossel urges us not to learn the wrong lessons from Thanksgiving:
When the Pilgrims first settled the Plymouth Colony, they organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share everything equally, work and produce.

They nearly all starved.

Why? When people can get the same return with a small amount of effort as with a large amount, most people will make little effort. Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. Some ate rats, dogs, horses and cats. This went on for two years.

[Later], the people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.

"This had very good success," Bradford wrote, "for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. ... By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many. ... "

Because of the change, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623.

What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. But the problem has been known since ancient Greece. As Aristotle noted, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

When action is divorced from consequences, no one is happy with the ultimate outcome. If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in it, each person has an incentive to be a free rider, to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon, the pot is empty and will not be refilled -- a bad situation even for the earlier takers.
Reminds me of the old Onion article: Marxists' Apartment A Microcosm Of Why Marxism Doesn't Work

Nov 29, 2007 11:46 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Experience
Much has been made recently about the debate between Clinton and Obama about who has more foreign policy and governing experience: a former first-lady on her second Senate term, or a first-term Senator who once lived overseas.  Of course, the closest either has to executive experience is sharing a house with a former President.  As always, Scrappleface puts it in perspective and shows the true depth of their experience:
"In the White House, First Lady Clinton worked side-by-side with Vice President Al Gore, who I defeated in 2000," said Mr. Bush, "In the Senate, she served alongside John Kerry and John Edwards, who I defeated in 2004. No one else in the race has such broad-ranging experience with what it means to be a Democrat presidential candidate in the 21st century."

The president noted that "the very fact that Sen. Clinton is now debating with rookie Sen. Barack Obama over who has more experience serving in an executive position, which neither senator has ever done, further demonstrates that among Democrats she's seasoned, prime beef. As my friends in the ranching business say, 'It's what's for dinner'."
Nov 29, 2007 11:06 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, November 20, 2007
More question planting? I'm shocked!
Still working on my review of the debate last week.  Since then, though, all six of the "undecided voters" that CNN chose to ask questions have been identified and, to no one's surprise, they are all involved with the Democratic Party or are political activists.  Not that there's anything wrong with that -- it is a Democratic primary debate, of course.  But the fact is that they were not represented as "undecided Democratic activists" or even "undecided Democrats".  CNN wanted us to believe that these people were ordinary, random citizens just yanked from UNLV and the surrounding area.  Don't believe me?  Can't bear to give up the CNN Kool-Aid.  Fine:



 | 
Nov 20, 2007 8:44 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Guess the Dems think Guiliani's winning
First they accuse him of being a cross dresser and then they have Mo Rocca make fun of how he talks.  A brief excerpt:
MO ROCCA: When we select a president, we're not just electing an executive to do a job. We're electing a person to represent us, which is why in these marathon campaigns, we start to look at personality traits. It can be Hillary Clinton's laugh, George Bush's smirk back in 2000. Or now for me, it's Rudy Giuliani lisp. I'm a little biased here because I have a lisp, too, which is why I went to a speech therapist to sound it out.

Is America ready for a president with a lisp? Rudy Giuliani has a lisp. Full disclosure. I have a lisp. Disclosure.

MO ROCCA: If a lisp also connotes weakness, is that something that can be a detriment to someone who's trying to become the leader of the free world?
Says the WSJ:
It is unimaginable that a mainstream network would give this sort of treatment to, say, Barney Frank or John Edwards. We're not going to feign outrage again; the truth is that we find this all sort of amusing. But it is a reminder of just what a sham left-wing political correctness is. People who claim to oppose "homophobia" or other forms of prejudice often turn out merely to want a monopoly on it.
Indeed.

Nov 20, 2007 8:21 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Monday, November 19, 2007
Huckmentum meets Prime Chuck!
Mike Huckabee has a new ad out capitalizing on the Chuck Norris Facts internet meme that was popular a while back (but isn't really anymore).  So I'm not sure if it's kind of out-of-touch or brilliant.  But I'm leaning towards the latter.


 | 
Nov 19, 2007 10:07 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Friday, November 16, 2007
Hillary's asbestos pantsuit
From ScrappleFace, concerning Hillary's "asbestos pantsuit" that she brought to the debate last night:

China Recalls Hillary Clinton's Asbestos Pantsuit

(2007-11-16) — Chinese authorities today announced a sweeping recall of garments manufactured with asbestos, including the pantsuit worn by Sen. Hillary Clinton during last night’s Democrat presidential debate.

Sen. Clinton’s trousers were marketed mostly through retailers in the Washington D.C. region, and made from "a political-grade fabric that provides protection from spontaneous combustion, thus avoiding the embarrassment of 'pants on fire'."

Because asbestos is the leading cause of lung cancer in laboratory mice and rats, experts said it posed a particular danger to Sen. Clinton's rivals on the stage last night.

The Chinese government apologized to the former First Lady for shipping the flame-retardant slacks, and said she could either return them for a refund, or try asbestos abatement through dry cleaning.

A spokesman for the Clinton campaign said the candidate had no worries, "because Hillary has a lot of friends in Chinatown who are experts at laundering things, and would love to contribute to her campaign in any way they can."

Heh, "pants on fire", that's great.
Nov 16, 2007 10:46 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Thursday, November 15, 2007
That's just... fantastic.
Michelle Malkin is still covering the protests in Olympia, Washington.  Parents there are blocking military deliveries and supplies by placing themselves in the way of the trucks.

Oh, and their kids too.

From an eyewitness, and the one who took the picture to the right (and others in the story -- click the link above to see more heart-warming goodness):
I work at the port, and have observed some truly mind boggling events unfold, but the most astonishing was the use of children as human shields. The attached pictures were taken on 11/9/07; the night military equipment was first blocked from leaving the port. The Olympia Police Department essentially abandoned any effort to remove the protesters out of fear that a child would be harmed in their efforts to enforce the law. The mother of these children apparently had no such concern.

After the military convoy was forced to retreat, a victory celebration ensued, with chanting dancing, etc. I was horrified to watch as the woman in the attached photograph, distracted by events, allowed her infant to fall from her lap and land, face first on the pavement. The second photo shows her retrieving the crying baby as her other two children, dressed as terrorists look on.

This situation, and another two days later, when dozens of college aged girls were arrayed in rows with arms linked to block the road, showed a deliberate effort to use the same tactics as the terrorist savages who manipulate us, knowing that decent people cannot abide putting innocents in harm’s way. And, while the police were dragging the females away, under the glare of the media’s cameras, the males were establishing rolling blockades; throwing rocks at police and military vehicles; breaking windows, etc.

(emphasis mine) Original story.

Nov 15, 2007 6:31 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
What's the Frequency, Moonbat?
Dan Rather is suing CBS.  You may remember that after presenting clearly false documents as real ones during a Presidential election, and then still holding to the veracity (if not validity) of the documents, Dan Rather was fired (or resigned, whichever they said publicly).

So what is the basis of his lawsuit?  He's claming he was the victim of a massive conspiracy stretching from CBS executives all the way to the White House.
Today, in New York Supreme Court, in response to Dan Rather's civil lawsuit, CBS filed a lengthy 30-page motion to dismiss the case.

CBS executives also released a statement today, noting that they are "mystified" by Rather's "bizarre allegations" but will "vigorously" defend themselves in court if need be.

"Dan Rather is one of the most important figures in the history of broadcast journalism, and for more than 40 years was one of our most valued colleagues," CBS said in the statement. "That is why we at CBS are mystified and saddened by the baseless and self-serving allegations and distortions of fact raised in his lawsuit."

"Today we are filing a motion to dismiss," added the statement. "If we are required to proceed beyond this point, we will defend the case vigorously and demonstrate that the lawsuit is wholly without merit, and that the bizarre allegations by Mr. Rather are untrue."

"The Complaint is predicated on allegations of a bizarre 'scheme' extending from the White House to an array of CBS executives including Sumner Redstone, CBS's Executive Chairman, Leslie Moonves, CBS's Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew Heyward, formerly president of CBS News, all of whom, according to Rather, colluded to harm Rather's reputation and keep him off the air," add CBS lawyers. "Of course, there was no such nefarious scheme, and Rather's allegations bear no resemblance to reality. CBS and its executives are not now, and never have been, out to get Dan Rather."
So, we'll see what comes of this...
 | 
Nov 15, 2007 6:20 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Huckmentum, part 2
Huckabee's rating jump in Iowa:



Graph from Real Clear Politics.
Nov 15, 2007 4:18 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Huckmentum!
My Presidential pick, Mike Huckabee, is on the move in Iowa:
The latest polls out of Iowa, dating back to the middle of October, show what is now more than a few good days for the former Arkansas Governor: They show him clearly, solidly in second place in the GOP race. That's a huge accomplishment for a guy with no money.

In a mid-October University of Iowa poll, Huckabee was tied for second place. In subsequent polls from American Research Group, Zogby, CBS/New York Times and Strategic Vision, he's in second place by himself, by as many as seven points, in the Strategic Vision poll, and six points, in the CBS/NYT poll. He trails only Mitt Romney, though by 12.8 points in the latest RCP Iowa Average.

The Huckmentum is unbelievable, considering that Huckabee has fewer staffers total than Romney has in Iowa alone. But with Sam Brownback out of the race, and despite big evangelical endorsements for Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain, could it be that rank-and-file Christian conservatives are making Huckabee the candidate of their choice?

If so, look for Huckabee to sustain his momentum. The Iowa Christian vote is estimated by some to be as high as 40% of the GOP base. If Huckabee can form a coalition of even half those voters, he will vault himself into serious contention. For the record, Politics Nation said Huckabee would do well as far back as December of 2005, though we will admit that we were selling more stock than we were buying in recent months.
All good news, especially considering the odds that Guiliani will just fade away and Mitt Romney has no chance whatsoever.

Nov 15, 2007 9:56 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
DNC Chairman: Everybody Goes to Heaven
Flying in the face of, well, really almost every religion on the planet, DNC Chairman and nutjob extraordinaire Howard Dean said the following on Monday:
"This country is not a theocracy. There are fundamental differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party believes that everybody in this room ought to be comfortable being an American Jew, not just an American; that there are no bars to heaven for anybody; that we are not a one-religion nation; and that no child or member of a football team ought to be able to cringe at the last line of a prayer before going onto the field."
So there you have it.  The Democratic Party has decided that there are no bars to heaven -- that anyone can get in regardless of faith, works, grace, or whatever.

Nov 15, 2007 9:51 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback
Ouch. Spot on too.
New York Governor Spitzer has dropped both his plan to issue illegal aliens driver's licenses, and his great idea of imposing sales tax on purchases from online retailers like Amazon.  You know, right before Christmas.  Hillary was guardedly supportive of the plan (while, naturally, blaming it on the President at the same time) during the October 30 debate:
Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability.
Well, it's not probability, there are a number of skill and attention factors in play, etc.  Still, whatever.  Then after the politically tone-deaf Governor withdrew that proposal, and after her aides had already said she supported the measure, Hillary said:
I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal. His difficult job is made that much harder by the failure of the Congress and the White House to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

As President, I will not support drivers' licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system.
I know; stop the presses.  A Clinton changed an issue stance overnight and likely coerced the Governor into shutting up right before a debate.  It's all just lead in to the real thing I wanted to post.  This was Obama's spokesman Bill Burton on Wednesday about the whole issue:
When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it's easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them.
Nov 15, 2007 9:30 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, November 13, 2007
New IMAO Shirt
I'm still trying to decide between Huckabee and Thompson.  Still.  This is cool.

 | 
Nov 13, 2007 5:38 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Voter's Guide
Plans are in place for another voter's guide this year (2006 Guide).  Steve has already signed on again to provide his opinions on local and national elections.  I'm designing it this year to accommodate an unlimited (you know, practically) number of commentators, campaigns, candidates, districts, etc.  So if you want to participate just let me know -- by E-mail, please, not in the comments -- as soon as possible.  I'll need to know with some notice so that I can research and collate all of the local elections (bond issues, etc.) that the system will need to support.  I'll also have to set up commentator bios and such.

Obviously this is limited to people I know so I can ensure there are no cranks [read: Ron Paul drones] to gum it up.  But anyone is welcome to submit suggestions or feature requests.

 | 
Nov 13, 2007 4:41 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Monday, June 25, 2007
Diane Feinstein on Free Speech
Ah, the "fairness doctrine".  Even the mention of the Orwellian name brings back to mind the 1990s when Limbaugh was king and the dems were desperate to thwart him any way they could.  Senator Feinstein is "looking into" bringing it back.  The article in full:
WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday she is "looking at" the possibility of reviving the fairness doctrine for U.S. broadcasters.

Feinstein, speaking on "Fox News Sunday" with Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said talk radio in particular has presented a one-sided view of immigration reform legislation being considered by the Senate.

U.S. talk radio is dominated by conservative voices.

"This is a very complicated bill," said Feinstein. "Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty -- we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system."

Feinstein said the measure before the Senate "fixes those flaws" but that doesn't get presented on talk radio, which she said "pushes people to ... extreme views without a lot of information."

Asked if she would revive the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues, Feinstein said she was "looking at it."

"I remember when there was a fairness doctrine," she said, "and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."

Ahh, that's the free-speech, capitalist society I like.  Don't like the opinions on talk radio?  Free market system preventing boring, unpopular alternative views from being aired?  Why, get the government to force 'em!

 | 
Jun 25, 2007 11:14 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, June 06, 2007
I Like Mike
Mike Huckabee on evolution vs. creation:

When the topic came up again Tuesday night in a CNN-sponsored debate in New Hampshire, one of those evolution skeptics, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, offered a spirited defense of the biblical creation narrative.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth," said Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister. "A person either believes that God created the process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own."

Huckabee also said that if Americans "want a president who doesn't believe in God, there's probably plenty of choices. But if I'm selected as president of this country, they'll have one who believes in those words that God did create."

He went on to quote Martin Luther: " 'Here I stand, I can do no other.' And I will not take that back."

Huckabee later added, "If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it."

However, when pressed about whether he believed in a literal interpretation of the timeline laid out in Genesis -- that God created the world in six days about 6,000 years ago -- Huckabee said, "I don't know."

"Whether God did it in six days or whether he did it in six days that represented periods of time, he did it. And that's what's important."

And Huckabee made it clear that he did not appreciate the question, either, calling it unfair.

"It's interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president," Huckabee said. "I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States."
A good point, that.  It's just too bad he has no chance of winning.  From everything I've read he seems an excellent candidate for President.
Jun 6, 2007 10:01 AM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Putin's Duties
Heard an interesting exchange towards the end of National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley's press briefing on 6/1/07.

Q Steve, on Russia before, you were talking about President Putin and saying, well, there's been an escalation in rhetoric. But it seems like it's been more than that when he's comparing the U.S. of imperialism -- he's used the phrase, "Third Reich." When you talk about working with Russia, how do you really work with them as a partner when he's throwing out rhetoric like that?

MR. HADLEY: Well, there's been a lot of press reporting on that. We, of course, talked to the Russians about that specific reference, and they told us that they were not making any comparison between the United States and the Third Reich.

They're talking about this comment where Russian President Putin compared our "imperialism" (whatever he means by that) to that of, well, Hitler.  Unfortunately there's no Godwin's Law in international politics.

For that matter, given recent levels of social discourse, having one in domestic politics would be nice too...

Anyway, what struck me is that I can't for the life of me understand how they can say what they said and then come back and say they weren't making a comparison between the U.S. and the Third Reich.  Let's go to the quote:
"We do not have the right to forget the causes of any war, which must be sought in the mistakes and errors of peacetime," Mr Putin said.

"Moreover, in our time, these threats are not diminishing," he said. "They are only transforming, changing their appearance. In these new threats, as during the time of the Third Reich, are the same contempt for human life and the same claims of exceptionality and diktat in the world."

The Kremlin press service declined to clarify the statement, saying Mr Putin's spokesman was unavailable because of the Victory Day holiday, the report said.

But Director of the Institute of Political Studies Sergei A. Markov, who works closely with the Kremlin, told the paper that Mr Putin was referring to the US and NATO.

"He intended to talk about the United States, but not only," Mr Markov told the Times in reference to the sentence mentioning the Third Reich. "The speech said that the Second World War teaches lessons that can be applied in today's world."
So maybe I'm missing something, but if he's saying that we have the same contempt for human life (a bold claim coming from Russia, considering) and same claims of exceptionality as the Third Reich, how is that not comparing us?

Anyone have an idea?  Something I missed?


* I KNOW, strictly speaking, Godwin's Law doesn't say anything about the morality of invoking Nazis, just the inerrant probability thereof.  It's a good rhetorical device, so sue me.

** Not really.  No suing.  Thanks.
Jun 5, 2007 8:39 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
The Latest Contender
Just in case you haven't yet heard, it seems our old friend Cynthia McKinney has resurfaced and is considering a run for the 2008 Presidential election.  Like similar efforts back in 2004, she is being encouraged to run as a Green Party candidate.  Says she:
With the failure of the Democratic Congress to repeal the Patriot Act, the Secret Evidence Act, the Military Tribunals Act, I have to seriously question my relationship with the Democratic Party. The idea has not been ruled out. All the current Democrats running for president support the principle of potential military action against Iran; none of them is for impeachment of the President. They can’t speak for me. I am open to a lot of ideas in 2008.
It's not entirely clear why she is for impeachment of the President or, more importantly, how electing her President will affect that.

Personally, I think, the only thing better than her getting the Green Party nomination would be if she could somehow get the Democratic nomination.  So Smiling Kevin is proud to offer its unqualified support for Cynthia McKinney as nominee for the Green Party for President of the United States.
Jun 5, 2007 12:31 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Monday, June 04, 2007
Bah! I deride your truth handling abilities!
For those of you no longer watching The Simpsons (and in many ways, I admire your ability to let go as I can't yet) you may not have seen some of the bizarre turns it's taken lately.  Here are some screencaps from The Bart-Mangled Banner, aired May, 2004.  It was on syndication yesterday and that reminded me I meant to this a while back.

Honestly, the episode is just a great big mess.  (Great meaning large or immense; I use it in the pejorative sense)

The backstory is that through a series of misadventures, Bart accidently mooned the U.S. flag.  To defend that, he goes on a bizarre simulacrum of The O'Reilly Factor.  This is handled with the same broad strokes as they used in earlier episodes with their Rush Limbaugh clone, Birch Barlow.


After the TV appearance goes sour, this being Bush's America and all, they're imprisoned in what turns out to be Alcatraz:




With them is that constantly-persecuted, stifled champion of freedom: Michael Moore...




and the censored Dixie Chicks who have suffered so.




The family is taken to, naturally:




...where they are forced to watch a video on...




how the Bill of Rights sucks.



This is, of course, supposed to be the conservative viewpoint of the Bill of Rights: that we don't like it.

This differs from the LIBERAL viewpoint on the Bill of Rights which is:
  • Expand the 1st Amendment so that we can show hardcore sex on broadcast networks during the day
  • Expand the 4th Amendment to allow infanticide
  • And to make room for those changes go ahead and remove the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments.  They're really outdated anyway...
But, you know, whatever... After a while you just stop caring.  This actually pales to the 18th season finale (May 20) which shows it as extremist to be upset about profanity on broadcast networks.  Invoking, you guessed it, the First Amendment.  Then it goes on about how stupid and wrong Fox News, etc.

That and the Family Guy episode the same week that was set in Texas and, well, you can imagine, I'm sure.

I don't even care if they have a liberal bias, so long as it's funny and they occasionally jab the other side too.  The Simpsons used to do that; but now it's just become nonsensical ravings.
 | 
Jun 4, 2007 10:11 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
Good News and Bad News
John Edwards, of all people, actually got it right yesterday at the Democratic debate yesterday.  Says Edwards:
The job of the president of the United States is not to legislate but to lead
Yes, yes yes.  Exactly.  Thank you - someone finally said that.  I'm glad that someone was paying attention when they were being taught about the three branches of government.

Of course...
John Edwards's Health Care Plan
John Edwards's Plan for a Worker's Paradise
John Edwards's Plan to Halt Global Warming
etc.

Ah, well.

Jun 4, 2007 2:37 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback