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 ‘politics’

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 »

Caution: legislature at work

Posted by Richard on January 23, 2007

I don’t usually read (and certainly don’t subscribe to) The Denver Post. It’s a depressingly predictable liberal rag. They’ve never met a tax increase they didn’t like, they reflexively endorse 90+% of Democratic candidates (throwing in just enough "thoughtful moderate" Republicans to justify their claim to being non-partisan), and they positively swoon over phrases like "government initiative," "investing in our future," and "public-private partnership."

But I’m going to have to start dropping by their website regularly to read the columns of David Harsanyi, which seem to be consistently iconoclastic, humorous, and more than a little libertarian. Check out, for example, his wonderful Dec. 21 column, "Liberals confused over charity," which opens with the line, "Anyone can be compassionate with other people’s money."

Today’s column is a follow-up to his Jan. 11 column about the latest installment of Denver’s plan to "end [sic] homelessness." They’re throwing vast amounts of money at a non-profit organization with a long history of defaulting on government loans so that it can build housing units for the homeless (at $250,000 apiece, not counting the parking garage for the cars the homeless don’t have). This is the latest such project targeting a recently revitalized neighborhood that’s getting a bit sick of being the preferred location for various "affordable housing:" and "group home" projects. Harsanyi pointed out that powerful city councilwoman Debbie Ortega, appointed executive director of the Mayor’s Commission to End Homelessness, is also the president of this profligate non-profit’s board of directors, and furthermore, is associated with its for-profit arm. How convenient.

But I particularly want to draw your attention to Harsanyi’s Jan. 18 column, which provided a brief — and funny — overview of the plethora of paternalistic legislation our lawmakers introduced in the first few days of this legislative session:

How about Rep. Anne McGihon’s crucial HB 1126, "concerning the authority of physical therapists to perform physical therapy on animals."

Gross.

Then there’s this paternalistic absurdity called HB 1006, sponsored by Rep. Paul Weissmann. He wants to double penalties for moving violations when the driver is "knowingly distracted."

How is one "knowingly distracted," exactly? By living?

For the purposes of Colorado law enforcement, "knowingly distracted" includes, but is not limited to, cellphone use (even hands-free), grooming, reading, eating and drinking. In other words, it gives police almost unlimited pretext to issue double fines.

Listen, no one should be reading a novel while driving. But should sipping a cup of coffee or eating a bagel be a crime?

Speaking of treating parents like children, every year, Democratic Sen. Bob Hagedorn is good for at least one solid intrusion. This year he’s babysitting by sponsoring a bill that prohibits "the use of an artificial tanning device by a minor unless specifically prescribed by a physician."

That bill seems less weird when you check out HB 1082, apparently sponsored by Rep. Andy Kerr and Mr. Spock. It would make it a crime for an individual to be implanted with a microchip. If citizens want to install microchips in their (untanned) teenage daughters, isn’t that their creepy concern?

Then there’s Rep. Jim Riesberg, who is co-sponsoring a bill that would create a new bureaucracy at your gym.

The "Athletic Trainer Practice Act" requires athletic trainers to obtain a valid license issued by "the director of the division of registrations in the department of regulatory agencies" before engaging in the practice of athletic training or representing himself or herself as an athletic trainer.

Republican Sen. Tom Wiens has joined the fun. He’s sponsoring a bill that "clarifies" the ins and outs of "whether to wear a helmet while participating in equestrian events called ‘gymkhana."’ Gymkhana, I believe, is derived from the Hindi phrase that translates to "stay the hell out of my business."

Amen, David!

To be fair — and to further illustrate Harsanyi’s sense of humor — I should quote his correction today of an error in the above:

Note: I owe an apology to state Rep. Andy Kerr, whom I accused in my last column of conspiring with Mr. Spock to pass a bill outlawing human microchips. It was Rep. Mary Hodge. And she is in league with the Cylons.

Regarding distracted driving, by the way, I’m happy to report that the Libertarian Party of Colorado (which seems to have stopped promoting insane 9/11 conspiracy theories) came out solidly against the bill and got a fair amount of local media attention for doing so. To date, however, they haven’t addressed tanning by minors, microchips, athletic trainer regulations, or any of the other pressing matters Harsanyi mentioned.

I can only hope the microchip issue doesn’t set off the moonbat wing of the LPCO.
 

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 »

Bravo, Senator Allard!

Posted by Richard on January 16, 2007

Colorado’s Senator Wayne Allard yesterday did something all too rare among politicians — he announced that he was going to keep a promise he’d made to the voters. In both his 1996 election campaign and his 2002 re-election battle, Allard pledged to serve only two terms. Unlike many other term-limit pledgers, Allard kept his word:

Appearing with his wife, Joan, at a press conference at the state Capitol, Allard said, "The people of Colorado placed their trust in me based on a promise I made to them and I am honoring that promise. In an age when promises are cast away as quickly as yesterday’s newspaper, I believe a promise made should be a promise kept."

The term limits pledge was a relic of the so-called "Republican Revolution" of the 1994 election, when the GOP swept to power promising to change the ways of Washington.

As time passed, some one-time leaders of the movement, including Rep. Tom Tancredo, and others who signed pledges, such as former Rep. Scott McInnis, abandoned their promises in the name of continuing public service. Others, such as former Rep. Bob Schaffer, lived up to their pledge and went home.

Time magazine once described Sen. Allard as one of the worst senators. Consider the source. Allard has been a low-profile senator, not given to bombast or currying favor with the media. He’s focused on matters of importance to his constituents, not to the movers and shakers in Washington and New York. Someone once said that as a Senator, Wayne Allard is a pretty good veterinarian.

But Allard’s been one of the most fiscally conservative senators, consistently getting high marks from the Club for Growth and the National Taxpayers Union. Thus his announcement is bittersweet news. I’m glad he’s keeping his promise. But I’d hate to see him replaced by the promise-breaking, deal-making Republican Scott McInnis. And I’d really hate to see him replaced by the Democratic representative from the People’s Republic of Boulder, Mark Udall.
 

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

Something new in the air

Posted by Richard on January 9, 2007

Sniff. Sniff. What’s that smell? Could it be from today’s National Western Stock Show parade, which features cattle and sheep being herded through downtown Denver? No, it seems to be coming from the State Capitol. Ah, I see — Bill Ritter’s just been sworn in as governor, and he’s outlined his ambitious plans for the state:

Bill Ritter embarked on his journey as Colorado’s 41st governor today, calling on Coloradans to live up to the state’s "ambitious and daring" pioneers by embracing a new "Colorado Promise" that pushes the frontiers of renewable energy, creates the nation’s best-educated work force and provides health care for all.

Standing atop the Capitol steps, backed by his sprawling family and facing the soaring Rocky Mountains, Ritter urged all Coloradans to set aside partisan differences and unite in "finding the common ground for the common good."

Ritter underscored his belief that government involves a "social compact — the covenant that says government exists for the people, for all people… It exists to ensure we take care of seniors, and the disabled, and for those who struggle mightily — whatever the reason. Government has a responsibility to intersect with their struggle, looking always for ways to improve the quality of their lives."

"To those who are cynical about the legitimate role of government and where it can intersect and improve people’s lives — I promise a reason to hope. We will govern well. We will govern to solve problems. We will govern responsibly."

Hmm — for some reason, that last part reminds me of Daniel Webster:

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

For me, one of the worrisome aspects of Ritter’s ascendancy is his record of hoplophobia and unrelenting antipathy toward gun owners’ rights. Gov. Bill Owens wasn’t exactly a great friend of gun owners — once, when told gun owners wouldn’t like his betrayal on some issue, Owens sneered something like "What are they going to do, vote Democratic?" But Owens was merely unprincipled and indifferent toward gun owners. Ritter, a former Denver district attorney, has always exhibited fear and loathing.

Since both houses of the legislature are also in Democratic hands, this promises to be a difficult time for firearms ownership and self-defense rights. If you’re a Colorado firearms owner, now would be a good time to contribute to Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. If you’re in some other state, remember that Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and Chuck Schumer are running things now, and contribute to Gun Owners of America.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

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 »

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 »

Brown and Ford

Posted by Richard on December 29, 2006

Two very different men of significance died this week: James Brown and Gerald Ford. I’m sorry to see them both go. I must confess, though, that my most vivid memories regarding both are actually of their impersonators. Beyond WIN buttons, I don’t recall much of anything Ford did or said, but I can still see Chevy Chase playing Ford as a bumbling, stumbling simpleton on SNL. Pretty unfair (of both Chase and me) — Ford was third in his class at Yale Law School.

Likewise, although I can hear snatches of Brown’s music in my mind, the image that I remember is a Brown impersonator (I can’t recall who, but I don’t think it was Eddie Murphy) caricaturing Brown’s shtick of starting to leave the stage seemingly exhausted, then suddenly regaining his strength, shrugging off the coat draped over him by an assistant, and storming back to the microphone.

Like most of us, both men had their pluses and minuses. Interestingly, they were opposites in that regard. By all accounts, Gerald Ford was a very nice man, but he wasn’t a very good president. James Brown, on the other hand, was a terrific performer, but apparently wasn’t a very nice man. Since we’re supposed to speak well of the dead, I’ll recast their weaknesses in a more positive light. I’m pretty sure James Brown didn’t mistreat women as much as Bobby Brown. And I’m certain the country would have been better off if Gerald Ford had won in 1976.
 

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

Does the LP help or hinder liberty?

Posted by Richard on December 20, 2006

Last week, former Republican Congressman Bob Barr switched to the Libertarian Party. He not only joined the LP, he immediately became a Life Member and a leader, joining the Libertarian National Committee as Region 4 (Southeast) representative. Barr told Reason that he left the GOP for the LP in order to save the Constitution and preserve liberty:

I chose to join the Libertarian Party because at this time in our nation’s history, it’s fundamentally essential to join a party, work with a party, that’s 100 percent committed to protecting liberty. As great as the Republican Party is — and I have been fortunate to work with that party for many years and still have the highest regard for it — the Constitution is under such assault in this day and age. In order to have any chance of saving the Constitution and our civil liberties, we need a party dedicated to that cause.

Bruce Bartlett thinks Barr made a terrible mistake. According to Bartlett, joining the LP actually hurts the cause of liberty instead of helping it. His opinion of the party and the effect it has on the political debate isn’t kind:

Over the years, I have known a great many people who have flirted with the Libertarian Party, but were ultimately turned off by its political impotence and immaturity. C-SPAN runs Libertarian conventions, and viewers can see for themselves how unserious and childish they are. They show that the Libertarian Party is essentially a high-school-level debating club where only one question is ever debated — who is the purest libertarian, and what is the purest libertarian position?

At times, serious people have tried to get control of the Libertarian Party and make it a viable organization. But in the end, the crazies who like the party just as it is have always run them off. In the process, however, they have also run off millions of voters who have supported libertarian candidates at one time or another. After realizing what a waste of time the Libertarian Party is, many became disengaged from politics and don’t vote at all.

The result has been that libertarian-leaning activists have been drawn away from the Republican Party and the Democratic Party by the Libertarian Party, leaving the major parties with fewer libertarians. In other words, both major parties have fewer libertarians than they would without the Libertarian Party, meaning that the net result of the party has been to make our government less libertarian than it would otherwise be.

Bartlett wants the LP to disappear completely and be replaced by an advocacy group like the NRA, complete with lobbyists, advertising, and focused campaign contributions. I’m not entirely persuaded, but I must admit that in the last few years, I’ve focused my attention — and money — on organizations like Cato, the Institute for Justice, and the Club for Growth, not the LP.
 

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

Dinner with Blanco

Posted by Richard on December 14, 2006

This story really cracked me up:

Call it a sign of the times for Louisiana’s embattled governor: A chance to dine with Gov. Kathleen Blanco fetched a winning bid of $1 at a recent fundraising auction hosted by a group of business leaders.

The president of the Monroe Chamber of Commerce, in northeastern Louisiana, said she called Blanco’s office Tuesday to apologize for a "poor joke gone awry."

"It’s something we deeply regret," chamber president Sue Edmunds said Wednesday. "Our organization has worked very well with the governor. We have been pleased with her efforts on behalf of this community."

Dinner with Blanco was the last item up for bid at the fundraising auction last week. Edmunds said the bidding opened at $1,000 and dropped to $500 before the auctioneer accepted a $1 bid from bank executive Malcolm Maddox, a regional chairman for Capital One.

Edmunds went on to claim that lots of other people were ready to bid more, but the auction ended "abruptly," leaving everyone "stunned." Yeah, right. Immediately after the $1 bid, the auctioneer suddenly closed the bidding, turned on his heel, and walked out, leaving throngs of people frantically waving their hands for a chance to dine with the Guv. Nice try, Ms. Edmunds — very diplomatic of you.

My guess is the timeline was more like this: The auctioneer’s request for a $1000 opening bid was met with stone cold silence, followed by a few giggles and titters. The amendment to $500 garnered more of the same. After getting no response despite his cajoling, the auctioneer reluctantly called for a bid of any amount. That’s when he got the $1 bid from the banker, accompanied by much laughter. The auctioneer began trying to coax another bid: "I’ve got $1. Do I hear $100? … Do I hear $10? … Come on, folks, this is the Governor we’re talking about! And the money’s going to a good cause! … Do I hear $2?" Nothing but laughter. Only then was the bidding closed "abruptly."

The winning bidder is no fool, however. After some sober reflection (and maybe some conversations with Capital One higher-ups on Monday), banker Malcom Maddox increased his donation from $1 to $1000. But he’s going to skip the dinner at the Governor’s mansion. The man does have certain standards, after all.
 

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

Almost finished counting

Posted by Richard on November 15, 2006

One week after the election, the Denver Election Commission is almost finished counting ballots. That means we may soon get official results for two state-wide races and a local referendum that have been up in the air.

The referendum is Mayor Hickenlooper’s "kiddie tax" to fund pre-school, about which columnist Peter Blake said, "you know they won’t finish counting until John Hickenlooper’s pre-school tax passes." It looks like Blake was right — it trailed after election day, it continued to trail all week, but lo and behold, as we approach the end of the count, it’s miraculously surged ahead by a thousand votes.

The statewide races are at-large Univ. of Colorado Regent and Secretary of State. Actually, the candidates for the latter didn’t wait for the official results — today, Democrat Ken Gordon conceded to Republican Mike Coffman, and the two pledged to work together to prevent future recurrences of this year’s voting fiascos, of which there were plenty. In Douglas County, the people who stuck it out didn’t finish voting until after midnight. In Denver, the wait was up to five hours because it took poll workers on laptops up to 20 minutes to connect to a central server and validate each voter.

Denver’s counting problems were largely the result of misprinted bar codes on 70,000 absentee ballots, requiring them to be sorted by hand. Pueblo reportedly also isn’t finished counting, but no one there offered an explanation. Denver had a host of other problems, including multiple ballot errors discovered before the election and the incorrect postage amount printed on absentee return envelopes. Then there were thousands of ballots that the Commission said "weren’t filled out right," so they’re being "copied" to new ballots to be scanned. Yeah, right…

Denver’s Clerk and Recorder, who is the appointed member of the three-person election commission, resigned today. He was supposed to be the "technology chief" to guide the two elected commissioners, but it turned out he’d padded his resume.

The ballot errors, bar code problems, and dysfunctional software are all courtesy of Sequoia Voting Systems. Nope, they’re not associated in any way with Diebold. They’re apparently closely connected to the government of Venezuela. That’s right, moonbat conspiracy theorists — if anyone screwed with Colorado’s elections, it was your commie hero, Chavez.
 

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

The dinosaurs are still powerful

Posted by Richard on November 13, 2006

There’s been no shortage of analyses and finger-pointing to explain the GOP’s "thumpin’" this year. It was Iraq. No, it was corruption. They were too extreme. No, they abandoned their conservative principles. Immigrant-bashing hurt. No, failure to close the borders hurt. And on and on… I think one of the primary causes is something almost no one’s discussed — and some, like Dean Barnett, explicitly rejected. 

Hugh Hewitt, lots of bloggers, and other voices of the "new media" like to disparage the "dinosaur media" and point to declining ratings for network news, falling readership and revenue for the big liberal papers, and other signs of the declining influence of the mainstream media. They exaggerate the truth. The dinosaurs may be in decline, but they’re still immensely powerful and can crush you when they make the effort. And, boy, did they make the effort this time!

Yes, it’s the same media as in 2002 and 2004, as Barnett noted. But, (a) they really pulled out all the stops this time, and (b) their relentless propaganda campaign against Bush and the Republicans had a cumulative effect.

Lenin said, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." After hearing it repeated as fact a bazillion times, most Americans believe that Bush lied about Iraq’s WMD threat and Saddam’s support of terrorists. After three years of negative stories from Iraq outnumbering positive ones by approximately ten thousand to one, most Americans believe the situation is hopeless.

Story after story about DeLay, Cunningham, Foley, and Ney hammered into the American consciousness the Democratic talking points about the "Republican culture of corruption." But there’s nary a media mention of more than 70 Democrats with ethical or legal problems, including Reps. Jefferson, Murtha, Rangel, Mollohan, Conyers, and Schakowsky, Sens. Boxer and Reid, and Govs. Blagojevich and Corzine.

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.

If they’re going to turn things around in 2008, the Republicans need to clean house. They need new leaders like Reps. Pence and Shadegg, and Sens. Kyle and DeMint. They need to embrace the primary candidates backed by the Club for Growth — 7out of 8 were elected this year.

But they need one more thing: an effective strategy for countering the power of those media dinosaurs, because they’re not dead yet.
 

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