Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘congress’

House passes gradual retreat bill

Posted by Richard on March 23, 2007

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's Gradual Retreat Caucus prevailed today, passing their $124 billion military spending bill by a vote of 218-212. The bill establishes a timetable for withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq by September 2008. It was opposed by Republicans and initially by the Democrats' Immediate Surrender Caucus, which wanted to cut off all funding for the Iraq conflict, presumably supposing that the troops there now could hitch rides home.

The Bush administration wanted $100 billion in military spending authorization. The remaining $24 billion is for pork projects added by the Democratic leadership to buy the Immediate Surrender Caucus votes they needed for passage. Yes, these are the same Democrats who owe their 2006 election success largely to voters' disgust with out-of-control pork-barrel spending, influence peddling, vote buying, …

Someone ought to crunch the numbers and compare the average pork per district needed to enforce party discipline on the Democratic side of the aisle versus the Republicans side. My first thought was that the Democrats' votes can probably be bought more cheaply. But then it occurred to me that Democrats spend tax dollars somewhat more freely, so the pork price might be bid up more easily. Clearly, it's a complex dynamic at work. Maybe some academic can get a government grant to look into it.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Clearing things up

Posted by Richard on March 13, 2007

The Democrats are tired of the Bush Administration's mumbling, bumbling, fumbling Iraq policy, so they're going to put a stop to it. They have a clear, direct, forthright plan for ending the Iraq conflict. Here, I'll let them explain it to you:

Any questions? 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

NTU rates Congress

Posted by Richard on February 23, 2007

The National Taxpayers Union has released its Congressional fiscal ratings for 2006, and the report cards are once again dominated by Ds and Fs. Only 61 Senators and Representatives earned an A (that’s actually up from 2005), while 224 earned an F.

Mind you, NTU’s grading scale is pretty lenient (they grade on the curve and they’re dealing with chronic under-achievers, so it has to be): the minimum for an A is 84% in the Senate and just 70% in the House; the thresholds for an F are at 24% and 23%, respectively. Nonetheless, NTU is justifiably proud of their ratings, now in their 28th year (emphasis added):

Unlike those of other organizations, NTU’s annual Rating does not simplistically focus on only a handful of equally-weighted “key votes.” For this reason, it has received praise from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including former Senator (and “Golden Fleece Award” creator) William Proxmire (D-WI). The Rating is based on every roll call vote affecting fiscal policy (199 House and 109 Senate votes for 2006), and assigns a “Taxpayer Score” to each Member of Congress that indicates his or her commitment to reducing or controlling federal spending, taxes, debt, and regulation.

The House had an average score of 39% (down 1% from 2005), giving the 109th Congress the poorest 2-year performance in 15 years. The Senate managed to hit 48%, a 4% increase from 2005, but still below 50% for the 9th year in a row. Despite the dismal averages, taxpayers still have a few good friends in Congress:

The top scorer in the House of Representatives was Arizona Republican Jeff Flake with a 92 percent rating. This is the fourth consecutive year Flake has captured the prize, a feat not exceeded in the House since Ron Paul (R-TX) racked up six first-place finishes in a row (1979-1984). South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint made his first appearance in the Senate’s winner’s circle, also at 92 percent. Bringing up the rear with the worst scores in the House and Senate were Dale Kildee (D-MI) and Tom Harkin (D-IA), with scores of 7 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Neither has ranked at the bottom before.

The Democrats and their PR arm, the MSM, have been claiming that their gains last November represented a repudiation of Bush on foreign policy, national security policy, and Iraq (even though they gained seats mainly by running more hawkish, centrist candidates). As I noted in November, the relentlessly bad news from Iraq was certainly a factor, but not the primary reason for Republican losses:

For sure, the Republicans’ wounds were largely self-inflicted. After 2002, Hastert dismantled the Contract with America’s ethics and accountability rules, and the Republicans became arrogant, fat, and lazy. They governed like Democrats, and the American people rejected that, as they usually do. Meanwhile, the Democrats recruited a bunch of candidates who sounded like Republicans, and the American people elected them.

I pointed out then how well Club for Growth candidates did. Now, the NTU has confirmed that fiscal responsibility — more precisely, lack thereof — was a big factor in Republican election losses:

According to Berthoud, the 2006 Rating results strongly indicate that Republican lawmakers who changed their voting patterns (and earned lower pro-taxpayer scores) tended to fare worse at the polls than those who continued their records of supporting limited government. Just two of the 22 House GOP incumbents who lost their seats in 2006 were “Taxpayers’ Friends,” while the remainder posted an average score of 52 percent – well below the overall GOP average of 60 percent.

Can you guess in what year Congress got the highest marks from the NTU? It was 1995 — the year of the Contract with America, when reform-minded, limited-government Republicans took over the House with broad support from the American people. If Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, and their cronies hadn’t gotten arrogant and smug, hadn’t discarded the Gingrich Revolution reforms, hadn’t forgotten that they need to at least credibly pretend to work for limited government and fiscal responsibility, the 2006 elections might have turned out quite differently.

One of NTU’s A-rated Friends of the Taxpayer, Rep. Ron Paul, is "exploring" a run for the Republican presidential nomination. I like almost everything about Paul except his blindness to the threat of Islamofascism (like most libertarians, he ignores the fact that they’re waging war on us, whether we choose to fight back or not). On fiscal and regulatory matters, he’s outstanding. Maybe he can help remind Republicans what they ought to represent — the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility that have brought them success in the past.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Democrats support the troops

Posted by Richard on February 13, 2007

The House of Representatives has begun debating (if you can call 5 minutes of pointless posturing per member a debate) the Democrats’ non-binding resolution opposing the troop increase in Iraq. Pelosi plans to have the vote on Friday. It’s expected to pass easily, with the invertebrate wing of the Republican Party joining the Democrats.

But this toothless timewaster is only the opening round — what the WaPo subhead called a "Precursor to Binding Legislation on Funding." In anticipation of a continuing struggle against the forces of retreat and defeat, the folks who brought you the NRSC Pledge have now begun the Victory Caucus. It’s for people who agree with Ronald Reagan that there is only one acceptable outcome in a struggle against the enemies of freedom: "We win. They lose." Drop by and check it out for the latest news and opinion regarding the war, along with tools and ideas for making a difference.

I’ll grant the House Dems this much — their resolution is commendably brief compared to the bilge introduced in the Senate. The meat of the resolution is just two sentences:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

N.Z. Bear thinks points 1 and 2 are contradictory, but I think that depends on what you mean by "support and protect." (And isn’t "protect" an odd choice of verbs? Who is protecting whom, really?)

The qualifying phrase, "who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq," is subject to interpretation, too. I’m sure some Democrats would use that qualifier only to withhold their support from Lynndie England and the Haditha Marines. But there are plenty of people on the left who subscribe to the John Effin’ Kerry view that our military is and always has been full of murderers, rapists, cowards, and war criminals. "Yeah, I support the troops who served honorably," theyll sneer, "if you can find any."

I’ve uncovered a previously unpublished photo from a recent anti-war demonstration that sheds additional light on how Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha support our troops:

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Curious pledge demographics

Posted by Richard on January 30, 2007

Last Thursday, I wrote about The NRSC Pledge, a grass-roots online protest — with teeth! — against the vertebrae-challenged Senate Republicans. The pledge is a promise not to contribute to any Republican senator who votes for a resolution disapproving the Iraq "troop surge" plan and not to contribute to the NRSC if it supports such a senator. Over 30,000 people have electronically signed it in the past five days, and this nice map shows the number of signers in each state. I’m amazed by some of the numbers.

California (population 36 million*) has by far the largest number of signers — over 6,000. Second is Texas (pop. 23 million) with about 2,500. Colorado (pop. 4.5 million) takes third place with over 2,200. Arizona (6 million), Florida (18 million), and Minnesota (5 million) all have around 1,300 signers — and no other state has over 1,000!

Look at some of the other big states — Illinois (13 million) has under 1,000, New York (20 million) and Pennsylvania (12.5 million) have fewer than 800 each, and New Jersey (8.7 million) has just over 400.

It’s not just a red state / blue state thing, either. Alabama is a decidedly red state with about the same population as Colorado, but one-tenth as many signers. North Carolina has twice Colorado’s population, but one-fourth the signers. The numbers for the smaller-population western states are pitiful: Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas have about 50 signers each, Idaho about 100, and Utah about 200.

So, how does Colorado end up hot on the heels of Texas, which has over five times our population, and far ahead of any comparable-population state? Are we that much more internet-oriented? That much more politically aware? That much less tolerant of hypocrisy and self-serving posturing? You got me.

And, yes, I most certainly do think these resolutions are self-serving posturing. The Senate just unanimously approved Gen. Petraeus. That so many senators are eager to go on record against what ought to be called the Petraeus Plan (he helped formulate it and strongly endorsed it in his Senate testimony) is an indication of how unserious and inconsistent they are. That they’re ignoring warnings by Petraeus and others about the harm their posturing does is an indication of how craven and contemptible they are.

So, have you signed the pledge yet? Why not do it right now? Oh, and if you have any theories about the participation rate differences, especially Colorado’s stand-out performance, drop them in the comments.

* All population numbers are rounded off from the 2005 figures at Infoplease.com.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A sorry spectacle

Posted by Richard on January 27, 2007

Yesterday, as I skimmed through the posts at Hugh Hewitt’s blog looking for updates on The NRSC Pledge, I skipped Dean Barnett’s post, Being Norm. That was a mistake I’ve since rectified — it’s a must-read. Barnett wrote about Sen. Norm Coleman, a solid conservative Republican whom Barnett really, really liked. Coleman, apparently with one eye on his 2008 re-election campaign, is supporting the Warner resolution.

Barnett expressed his displeasure and described how a politician who aspires to be a statesman ought to behave — and how he ought not:

Winston Churchill, after seeing to Great Britain’s survival, was unceremoniously dumped by the British electorate in favor of the supremely mediocre Clement Atlee in July of 1945. Lord knows I’m not comparing Coleman to Churchill; my point is sometimes outstanding public service is not rewarded at the ballot box.

If you enter the political arena, perhaps an understanding of that fact should be a personal prerequisite. At some point, in the course of doing what’s right, the voters may reject you. And lord knows if Great Britain could survive in 1945 without Churchill at the helm, the United States could weather the absence of Norm Coleman in the Senate.

Yesterday saw the sorry spectacle of John Kerry tearing up on the floor of the Senate as he announced he would not seek the presidency in 2008. As Roger Simon pointed out, it’s worth asking who the tears were for. Certainly Kerry wasn’t crying about the death of a Kerry agenda. Beyond his personal ambitions, there has never been a Kerry agenda.

John Kerry was crying for himself and the dashing of those ambitions. What a pathetic display. …

The fact that he chose to cry tears of self-pity from the Senate floor because he would not achieve his dreams speaks eloquently to what drove him, what consumed him and where his priorities have always been.

Contact Sen. Coleman and ask him if he wants to emulate Winston Churchill or John Kerry.

You have signed the pledge, haven’t you? Over 20,000 25,000 people have.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Take the pledge

Posted by Richard on January 26, 2007

On Tuesday, Gen. Petraeus testified that the Biden-Warner resolution opposing the Bush plan for Iraq, or any other similar resolution, would encourage the enemy and demoralize our troops. By all accounts, Gen. Petraeus is a highly competent, honorable, and intelligent military leader, and his opinion on this subject should carry considerable weight.

But it doesn’t take an expert in military strategy and tactics to understand the consequences of the cowardliness in the Capitol. The Islamofascists have long maintained that the West lacks the will for a sustained fight, and will run away when things get too difficult or bloody. And we already know from seized al Qaeda in Iraq documents that if we abandon Iraq, our enemies will eagerly follow us back here.

Iraq is not an isolated war, it’s one front in a much larger war. At this moment, Lebanon is on the brink of civil war, and an emboldened Hezbollah seems to be preparing to seize control. Do you suppose this is unrelated to the growing evidence of America’s wavering resolve?

ln the long run, retreat from Iraq will likely lead to at least hundreds of thousands and probably millions of deaths in Iraq, and to thousands or tens of thousands of deaths in the United States — maybe more. Who knows how many more will die at the hands of emboldened and strengthened Islamofascists in Lebanon, Israel, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, Britain, France, the Netherlands, …

The more that spineless Republicans and Democrats appear eager to run away from Iraq, the more al Qaeda in Iraq and Iran’s proxies must think that they’re just a few horrific IED blasts and another handful of American deaths from achieving politically what they can’t achieve militarily. Set aside for the moment the terrible long-term consequences of retreat — right now, today, this very moment, the Biden and Warner resolutions and their colleagues’ related hand-wringing and posturing are directly responsible for encouraging more violence and killing more Americans and Iraqis. It’s disgusting and contemptible and unforgivable.

This morning I joined 6100 other people (that number has since more than doubled tripled quadrupled) in signing The NRSC Pledge, which says:

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Hugh Hewitt, the quintessential Republican Party loyalist, helped start this effort, and he explained why tonight with four little words: "The war trumps party." I couldn’t agree more.

I also won’t contribute to any organization or PAC — such as the Club for Growth or the GOA PVF — that funnels money to any such senator. Gaius of Blue Crab Boulevard, who has a son serving in Iraq, made this additional promise:

I’ll go one better on the pledge. I WILL actively work against any Republican up for reelection who votes for a resolution – like Chucky "Dead to me" Hagel did. If our politicians are too stupid to see what kind of message they are sending to the world with their grandstanding, then they do not have the best interests of this country in mind and do not deserve to stay in office.

Good idea. I’m not a big-bucks contributor — I’m guessing all my campaign contributions last year amounted to not much over two grand. But I will be contributing to the primary opponents of Republicans who don’t stand with their president on this issue — and I’ll start with a contribution to anyone who challenges Sen. Warner. I’ll give a pass to a few GOP representatives (Ron Paul comes to mind) who opposed the war on principle from the beginning — they’ve followed their conscience all along.

But these gutless GOP wonders with their fingers in the wind who pander to a fickle public on this life-or-death matter (but don’t have the integrity or fortitude to actually prohibit appropriations from being used to increase troop levels)? They deserve to be punished. Please join me — sign the pledge. Then contact senators on Hewitt’s hit list and tell them to grow a spine or else.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“This is their majority”

Posted by Richard on January 17, 2007

Earlier this month, I noted that some Republican senators seemed practically giddy about being "liberated" from the burden of being in the majority. The same is apparently true in the House, where many, if not most, Republicans seem to favor rolling over and letting the Democrats do as they please. According to the Washington Times, only a few "pit bull" Republicans want to actively oppose the Democrats’ agenda (emphasis added):

The younger pit bulls want to go after the Democrats quickly and without remorse. Some of the older Republican stalwarts prefer sitting back and allowing new Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her party members to have their moment in the sun and govern accordingly.

Several Republicans confirmed privately that more than two-thirds of House Republicans are favoring a slow approach, while a minority of members think the attacks on Democrats should come rapid-fire.

Already, some say the opposition has been too quiet in allowing Democrats to pass key elements of their initial agenda.

There have been four major votes on Democratic bills since Congress convened under the new majority earlier this month. Of those, 24 Republicans crossed the line to support changes to Medicare, 37 voted with Democrats to expand funding for embryonic stem-cell research, 68 voted to implement more recommendations of the September 11 commission, and 82 Republicans voted for increasing the minimum wage.

Some Republicans privately fumed at these votes and noted that Democrats in the last Congress were far more united against the Republican majority’s bills.

"It’s the beginning of a long process," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. "This is their majority, and they have the right, even though I think a lot of their policies have more political utility than practicability."

"We’ve shown we can work together with Democrats on some issues, but our differences will become progressively clearer," he said.

Rep. Cole, for years, the Democrats have called you and your colleagues heartless monsters, racists, and planet destroyers, and they’ve fought tooth and nail against every Republican bill, resolution, and nomination. If the differences still aren’t clear to you, that reflects rather poorly on you and the rest of the GOP leadership.

The chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee is defending the Democrats’ right to prevail. The chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee is defending his fellow Republicans’ voting with the Dems in droves. What’s wrong with this picture?

In the entire twelve years that the GOP controlled the House, do you think even one Democrat ever said, "It’s their majority, and they have the right"?

It’s a shame that the Democrats have no effective opposition. A two-party system works so much better if both parties stand for something and possess a modicum of skill, tenacity, and dedication to their professed principles.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sinister ceremony

Posted by Richard on January 8, 2007

One of the new representatives sworn in last Thursday was Keith Ellison of Minnesota. He got a lot of press for being the first Muslim ever elected to Congress. He took the oath of office on the Koran (not just any Koran, but one that had belonged to Thomas Jefferson). That bothered some people, but not me.

If this picture of the swearing-in was widely disseminated in the Muslim world, however, I bet it bothered the heck out of a bunch of people, and not just because of Pelosi’s precious pose. What kind of Muslim takes an oath of office with his left hand on the Koran?

Traditional Muslims — for instance, Mahmoud Abbas on the left and an Iraqi local official on the right — take an oath by putting their right hand on the Koran:

Mahmoud Abbas taking oath of office Local officials in Al-Anbar province take oath of office

Muslims consider the left hand unclean:

"The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used his right hand for getting water for ablution and taking food, and his left hand for his evacuation and for anything repugnant." (Sunan Abu Dawud)

Maybe Louis Farrakhan’s "Islam for Dummies" doesn’t place as much emphasis as it should on cleanliness and purity. Cleanliness and purity are pretty important to traditional Muslims, and the list of things that are impure is rather long.

One can argue that an oath on the Koran differs in meaning from one on the Torah or Christian bible: Implicit in an oath on one of the latter is the statement, "God (or the tradition I embrace) requires me not to bear false witness." Implicit in an oath on the former is the statement, "Allah requires me to be honest with other believers most of the time, but says I should lie to infidels if it helps Islam."

Of course, no book possesses magical powers of enforcing honesty, so I’m not sure what making Rep. Ellison put his hand on the Christian bible is supposed to accomplish — certainly, there’s been no shortage of liars taking oaths on it. It’s the same silly obsession with symbols that causes some Bircher types to argue that we can restore our liberties by removing the gold fringe from the American flag in courtrooms.

A better case can be made that someone with certain values and beliefs — such as: the only legitimate law is Allah’s, the only legitimate nation is Islam, and all non-believers must be forced to submit — can’t possibly uphold the U.S. Constitution, so we know in advance that he’ll betray his oath of office. But I’m afraid that argument should have been made to the citizens of Minnesota’s 5th district.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Cheerfully ceding control

Posted by Richard on January 5, 2007

Just as there are some women who find it "liberating" to be subservient and confined to a burqa, there are some Republicans who are much more comfortable with the Democrats in charge and their own party in the minority. For the past umpteen years, many Republicans have acted as if they were still the minority, preferring to let the Democrats set the agenda and define the terms of debate. Now, they’re acting as if they’re relieved that the Democrats are back in charge:

“The place is like a bubbling bottle of Champagne, overflowing with joy and hope and civility,” said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia. And to think, this guy is in the minority now.

“People want us to stop acting like kindergarten kids,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.

The Warners, Alexanders, and Snowes of the Republican Party have been "liberated" from the burdens of governing, effectively promoting "core beliefs" they only pretend to have, and opposing ideas they don’t really oppose. Now they can go back to being the "loyal opposition," politely but ineffectually mouthing platitudes about limited government, fiscal responsibility, and all that other nonsense that they never really believed and didn’t want to implement. And they can go back to doing what they like best — schmoozing and compromising and back-scratching.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bad news: Congress to work harder

Posted by Richard on January 5, 2007

The Democrats have promised that the new Congress will work much harder than the previous one. No more three-day weeks, no more lengthy recesses. They want to be in session far more days and do far more legislating. Naturally, that sends shivvers down my libertarian spine. If there’s one thing I liked about having the Republicans in charge (and often, there was only one thing), it was that they didn’t get much done. To me, "Do-nothing Congress" isn’t a pejorative, it’s high praise.

According to Andrew Roth at the Club for Growth blog, it’s not just me and a few cranky libertarians that feel that way — it’s investors in general. Roth looked at 2006, comparing a dollar invested in the S&P 500 only on days when Congress was in session versus a dollar invested only when Congress was out of session. At the end of the year, the return on the former was 2.25%, and the return on the latter was 11.56%. The spread was even greater for the NASDAQ Composite Index: if you were invested only when Congress was in session, you lost 5.70%, but if you were invested only when Congress was out of session, you gained 8.19% — almost a 14-point spread.

Roth’s observation isn’t new or unique. He pointed to a nice column from last August by Amy Shlaes. She talked about Peter Singer, who first noticed the "Congressional effect" in 1991 and has now created a hedge fund dedicated to making money from it. Singer has long-term empirical data to back up his thesis:

Choosing the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index as his measure, Singer reviewed 40 years of stock data and government calendars. At least one chamber is in session for more than half of the 250-odd trading days of the year. Yet the index made a greater share of its price gains when Congress was in recess — at least two to three times greater per day.

Economists Michael Ferguson and Douglas Witte reviewed even more data over longer periods, and found the Congressional effect in four different indexes. It was especially pronounced — even flabbergasting — for the Dow Jones Industrial Average:

Since 1897, the year after the Dow was created, an impressive 90 percent of the gains came on days when Congress was out. Their charts show that a dollar invested in 1897 with the strategy of going back to cash every time Congress met was worth $216 by 2000.

But an 1897 dollar invested on the reverse strategy was worth only $2 after a century. The big gap between performances began to show up after World War I, when it became clear that Washington would play a bigger role in the country.

For both philosophical reasons and down-to-earth, bread-and-butter economic reasons, I hope Pelosi’s and Hoyer’s promises of long hours and five-day work weeks turn out to be meaningless posturing, just like their promised "ethics reforms."
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Siding with Sheehan

Posted by Richard on January 5, 2007

Since shortly after the election, Cindy Sheehan and her radical anti-war far-left moonbat friends have made their demands clear to Nancy Pelosi and the leadership of the Democratic Party: the next Congress had better be all about hearings, investigations, and impeachment.

Yesterday at an aging feminists’ tea party, complete with Bella Abzug impersonators, Pelosi articulated (if you can call it that) her agenda:

PELOSI: This Congress is going to be about children. When I receive that gavel tomorrow, I will be receiving it on behalf of the children of America.

I became nauseous. I thought long and hard. And I reached a momentous decision: Given a choice between Nancy Pelosi’s agenda for Congress and Cindy Sheehan’s, I’ll take Sheehan’s.

Bring on the endless hearings, the parades of witnesses, the self-important oratory. Sounds like gridlock to me — far better than a bunch of legislation "for the children."
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Not a Lott to cheer about

Posted by Richard on November 15, 2006

Senate Republicans chose Trent Lott over Lamar Alexander as the minority whip. That’s choosing awful over terrible. Or maybe terrible over dreadful. It’s hard for me to keep the fine gradations of undesirability among these guys straight.

Dean Barnett pegged the sarcasm meter when he hailed the Senate Republicans for so quickly heeding the electorate’s plea for more Trent Lott. He continued:

Is it just me, or is it becoming increasingly apparent that the Republicans and Democrats are determined to engage in a two year dumb-off? If it weren’t for the fact that there are some very determined lunatics out there trying to kill us, this would be funny.

But they are out there, so it isn’t.

In the dumb-off scoring, the Dems can retake the lead by going with Rep. Murtha as House majority leader. But I suspect there will be plenty of lead changes in the next couple of years. The stupidity competition between the two parties is at the same time funny, sad, and infuriating. It’s also the cause of growing cynicism among the electorate, and I can’t decide whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing from a libertarian perspective.

It does disturb me that I have to depend on this collection of clueless chumps to make the right decisions regarding those very determined lunatics.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

GOP leadership vote now is wrong

Posted by Richard on November 15, 2006

About a bazillion bloggers, myself included, have expressed dissatisfaction with the current GOP congressional leadership and with its effort to hurry a vote so it can maintain its control of the House Republican Conference for the next Congress.

The vote is currently scheduled for this Friday, and a number of big hitters, including Hugh Hewitt and Captain Ed, have expressed displeasure with what Hugh called "the arrogance of a defeated leadership doing a bum’s rush" when what’s called for is reasoned debate, agreement on a set of "First Principles," and then the selection of leaders.

What I haven’t seen is a more fundamental criticism of this hurried vote. Regarding the Congressional leadership, the Dirksen Congressional Center says this (emphasis added):

At the beginning of each two-year congressional session, members of the House of Representatives and the Senate meet separately to organize and select their leaders. The Republicans call their internal party organization the "Conference" while Democrats call their party organization the "Caucus."

Both parties in each chamber hold organizational meetings where their members elect their own leadership, adopt internal rules for how their party will operate, and draft their version of the institutional rules for either the House or the Senate. These meetings are closed to the public and to the press.

Excuse me, Republican leaders, but this Friday is not the beginning of the congressional session. And unless I’m very confused, the members of the House Republican Conference who will vote this Friday are the current members. At least 29 of those voting (probably more, since 8 races are undecided and I think there are some retirements) won’t be members of the next Congress. What business do they have helping to elect the party’s leadership for the next Congress? Most of them are part of the reason that the next House Republican Conference will be in the minority!

This "hurry up and vote" business is a bunch of BS, and Republicans with any guts and integrity at all ought to stand up and say so.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Stay the course”: right for Dems, wrong for GOP

Posted by Richard on November 15, 2006

It’s rather ironic, isn’t it? The Democrats succeeded in last Tuesday’s elections largely by appearing cleaner ethically and running moderate and conservative candidates. So Nancy Pelosi wants to celebrate the success of that strategy by dumping Steny Hoyer, who implemented it, and making an ethically challenged moonbat, John Murtha, the new majority leader. Even the Washington Post was struck by the stupidity of that:

Mr. Murtha’s candidacy is troubling for several reasons, beginning with his position on the war in Iraq. A former Marine, Mr. Murtha deserves credit for sounding an alarm about the deteriorating situation a year ago. But his descriptions of the stakes there have been consistently unrealistic, and his solutions irresponsible. …

Mr. Murtha would also be the wrong choice as majority leader after an election in which a large number of voters expressed unhappiness with Washington business as usual. Mr. Murtha has been a force against stronger ethics and lobbying rules. …

As a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, he has been an avid participant in the orgy of earmarking, including numerous projects sought by a lobbying firm that employed his brother. During the Abscam congressional bribery investigation in 1980, Mr. Murtha was videotaped discussing a bribe with an undercover FBI agent. ("You know, we do business for a while, maybe I’ll be interested, maybe I won’t, you know," Mr. Murtha said.) He wasn’t indicted, but it’s fair to say the episode raised questions about his integrity.

Of course, there’s plenty of irony and stupidity on the other side of the aisle, too. The Republicans lost a bunch of seats due to their ethically challenged, unprincipled, inarticulate, and ineffective leadership. So, of course, they’re poised to stick with that leadership. Bob Novak thinks that’s remarkably stupid:

The depleted House Republican caucus, a minority in the next Congress, convenes at 8 a.m. in the Capitol Friday on the brink of committing an act of supreme irrationality. The House members blame their leadership for tasting the bitter dregs of defeat. Yet, the consensus so far is that, in secret ballot, they will re-elect some or all of those leaders.

In private conversation, Republican members of Congress blame Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt in no small part for their midterm election debacle. Yet, either Boehner, Blunt or both are expected to be returned to their leadership posts Friday. For good reason, the GOP often is called "the stupid party."

Last Wednesday, I expressed my support for Mike Pence as minority leader and John Shadegg as minority whip, noting that the Republicans made a mistake when they chose Blunt over Shadegg in January. The more I read about Pence and Shadegg, the more I hope they can pull off the upset.

Pence said after the election, "The era of big Republican government is over," and issued a vision statement to back that up:

While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the real scandal in Washington D.C. is runaway federal spending, and our voters said, “Enough is enough.”

After 1994, we were a Majority committed to a balanced federal budget, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of a limited federal government. In recent years, our Majority voted to expand the federal government’s role in education by nearly 100 percent, created the largest new entitlement in forty years, and pursued spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and rampant earmark spending.

This was not in the Contract with America. Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people did not quit on the Contract with America-we did. And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our government and our most dedicated supporters.

I heard Pence interviewed on the radio this morning, and I was impressed. It’s not just issues, ideology, and vision, either — personality, charisma, and articulateness are important, too, especially when you know the media will be against you. Dennis Hastert cost the Republicans votes every time he stepped in front of a camera and microphone. Pence is a former talk radio host, and it shows.

The more I read about Boehner and Blunt, on the other hand, the more certain I am that "staying the course" with the current leadership would be a monumental mistake. Boehner once handed out checks from the tobacco lobby on the floor of the House while it was in session. Blunt defended earmarks at the Heritage Foundation just last Thursday. Both supported No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement, the abandonment of the Contract’s ethics and accountability rules, and boatloads of pork.

Staying with the Boehner – Blunt "business as usual" team could severely damage the GOP nationwide in 2008. And that, in turn, could have disastrous consequences for the 2010 redistricting. Do you Republicans really want to risk returning to minority status for another generation just so these pricks in Washington can protect their perks and pork?

Check out this video in support of Pence and Shadegg (2:21):

[BTW, if you’re on a low-speed connection and the video keeps stopping, that means it’s playing faster than you’re downloading it, so the buffer keeps emptying. Just go get a cup of coffee or a beer or something — give it a minute or two. Once most of it has been downloaded into your buffer (the line at the bottom is red most of the way across), drag the slider back to the beginning and start it playing again. In case it helps, here’s the direct YouTube link.]
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »