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’

Colorado governor’s race gets interesting — and I switch candidates

Posted by Richard on October 23, 2010

I caught the tail end of a live debate among Colorado's top three gubernatorial candidates on KDVR tonight. For those of you not in Colorado (or not paying attention), the candidates are:

  • Dan Maes, a political neophyte with lots of baggage. He's a conservative Republican.
  • John Hickenlooper, mayor of Denver. He's a liberal Democrat who talks about "social justice."
  • Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman. He's the American Constitution Party candidate, and generally described as very conservative (a "right-wing extremist" according to his critics). 

When asked about marijuana, two of those candidates trotted out all the tired old anti-marijuana myths and scare stories and took a hard-line pro-drug-war stance. The other one forcefully argued that marijuana prohibition was a failure and unequivocally supported legalization. Can you guess which candidates embraced the "reefer madness" rhetoric and which was the enlightened, reasonable, and tolerant one? 

Yep, it was the "right-wing extremist" Tancredo who supported a sane approach to pot. Maes and Hickenlooper both sounded like every lame ONDCP ad you've ever seen.

A few months ago, when it became clear that Maes was a deeply flawed candidate and Tancredo jumped into the race, everyone — absolutely everyone — assumed that the race was over, and that Hickenlooper would cruise to an easy victory.

Surprise! The latest independent poll shows a statistical tie: Hickenlooper 44%, Tancredo 43%, Maes 9%. (If Maes gets less than 10% in the election, the GOP becomes a minor party under Colorado law.)

And that poll was taken before Michael Sandoval unearthed a Hickenlooper quote that's gotten a lot of negative attention. The mayor, responding to a question about why the Matthew Shepard Foundation was locating in Colorado instead of Wyoming, said (emphasis added): 

I think a couple things, I mean, you know, the tragic death of Matthew Shepard occurred in Wyoming. Colorado and Wyoming are very similar. We have some of the same, you know, backwards thinking in the kind of rural Western areas you see in, you know, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico.

According to Kelly Maher, the mayor's campaign suffers from an enthusiasm gap (and Hickenlooper himself has lamented his small crowds), while Tancredo events are "wall-to-wall packed" and full of "political energy." Tancredo seems to be surging and may peak at just the right time. If so, he could make history — a Tancredo victory would be perhaps the most stunning event in a year full of surprising political events.

If Tancredo falls short, people can point to Maes as the "spoiler," and for a change we can accuse the die-hard Republicans who voted for him of "wasting their vote" and "helping the Democrat win" — accusations they've hurled at Libertarians in the past. Oh, the delicious irony…

Me? I'd planned to vote for Libertarian Jaimes Brown, but with the race this tight, I've changed my mind. I'm going to support Tancredo. I know him somewhat — he used to speak at Denver LP meetings back when I was active in the party, and we bumped into each other at other liberty-related activities from time to time. I think he's sincere, principled, articulate, and funny. Not at all the angry right-wing ogre some people paint him as. And he definitely has a libertarian streak.

I'm inclined to agree with Rossputin, who explained why he, who wouldn't support McCain, is supporting Tancredo:

First, I believe Tancredo is much more principled than John McCain. I believe he’s a real conservative and, more importantly for me, I believe he has a libertarian streak in there somewhere.  While I’ve said repeatedly that I have a big problem with Tanc’s views on immigration, especially legal immigration, I’m hard pressed to find validity in the argument of some that I should not vote for Tancredo for an office which will have precisely zero impact on legal immigration policy, but which has huge impact on how the state of Colorado will spend its money and tax its citizens.

Second, I was OK not supporting McCain and knowing that was effectively a vote for Obama because my belief was that people need to learn what “Progressivism” really is, who “Progressives” really are – namely dictatorial haters of liberty who think that everyone but them is stupid – in order to finally rebel against it.  It was the “boiling the frog” story; McCain and Obama would both keep us on the path to big government, it’s just that Obama would drive the road so fast that it would scare the passengers whereas McCain would make our ride to our own economic death much more pleasant for the average American and therefore much more likely to be completed.

But Americans have learned that lesson (at least for a little while) and I don’t need a leftist Governor of Colorado to add an extra helping of watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) to the shit sandwich that is our federal government.  There is no important additional valuable lesson to be learned by electing Hickenlooper.  There is only pain and damage for the state.

Tancredo for Governor. Let's make history! 

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

GOP’s beltway buffoons prepare to piss away victory

Posted by Richard on October 19, 2010

I've commented before that, on the eve of an anti-Democrat tsunami, the stupid leadership of the Stupid Party might just try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Should victory come anyway, and the American people give the GOP another chance, they might just try to screw it up again. They're already signaling their willingness to do so

If they recapture the House, Republicans say they are wary of following the example of the class of 1994, which shut down the government in a standoff with President Bill Clinton. Top Republicans contend that passing legislation, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, will earn them more credibility with voters than refusing to waver from purist principles.

Three points: (1) This isn't 1994. (2) Shutting down the government wasn't the class of 1994's big mistake — failing to effectively communicate their reasons, values, and goals (and then abandoning them) was. (3) The last thing the fired-up electorate that's poised to hand them power is interested in is passing legislation — especially the kind of bipartisan BS these clowns seem to have in mind.

"It's pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.). "They want us to come together [with the administration] after we agree to disagree."

That's got to be one of the stupidest and most incoherent quotes ever uttered. And it makes it crystal clear that Issa and those like him have no understanding of the American people, have nothing in common with the American people, and must hold the American people in contempt.

As Angelo M. Codevilla noted in his critically important American Spectator article, inside the beltway there is little difference between the leaders of the two parties. Both are part of the ruling class and very different from what Codevilla called the "country class." (If you haven't read that article, I strongly urge you to do so.)

The stupid leadership of the Stupid Party is as contemptuous of and hostile to the grass-roots Tea Party movement as their friends in Evil Party are. The establishment GOP leadership may accept Tea Party votes (except when they're cast against the Murkowskis of the party), but they're not about to let unenlightened yahoos from the hinterlands actually control the reins of power or change The Way Things Work in Washington. 

After the election, if it goes as predicted, there's going to be an even bigger battle — a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. The outcome will depend on how many "upstarts" — principled people committed to the values that the stupid leadership merely mouths insincerely — we send to Washington.

The outcome of that battle will also determine whether the Republican Party survives as a major party. Because the "country class" has awakened. And the Tea Party movement isn't going away.  

UPDATE: Read this uncharacteristically long Instapundit post. And note especially this quote from reader Cam Edwards: 

All this talk of third parties has me wondering: why wouldn’t it be easier for Tea Partiers to take over the local party apparatus of the GOP (and to a lesser extent, the Dems as well) instead of creating a third party from scratch? If the same Tea Partiers that have been attending rallies, town hall meetings, candidate forums, etc. turned that same energy post-election to both taking over parties at the local level, as well as running candidates for things like city council, school board, county commission (the offices that won’t make you famous, but can make you effective)… I think it could be shocking how much the political landscape could change by 2012. 

Sounds like a plan to me.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Another veterans group I’ll no longer support

Posted by Richard on October 11, 2010

I used to donate to the Disabled American Veterans from time to time. I stopped after learning that the DAV funneled lots of money to Socialist Democrat candidates. I've been a regular contributor to the Veterans of Foreign Wars for years, but I've made my last contribution to that organization, and for the same disgusting reason:

You might think that a prominent veterans organization like the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) would actually reserve its political endorsements for, you know, veterans, or at least those politicians that actually demonstrate some level of respect for the military.  But you would be wrong.  And the problem is not just the VFW; rather, the VFW’s current lobbyist-driven fiasco simply serves to illustrate how out-of-touch the Washington in-crowd is with the feelings of us benighted souls dwelling outside the beltway.

In the Florida 22nd Congressional District race, incumbent Democrat Ron Klien is running against Republican challenger Allen West.  Actually, he’s properly addressed as Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Allen West, a decorated combat veteran who commanded a battalion in Iraq until he was forced to retire after making a 9mm suggestion to a captured terrorist that it would be a very, very smart move to give up some information about future attacks against LTC West’s men.  Now, that’s not to say Congressman Klien does not have a distinguished military record of his own – to be fair, apparently he saw most of Saving Private Ryan on AMC once, though he found it pretty scary.

After due consideration- which apparently means the VFW’s lobbyists told it to do so – the VFW endorsed Klein.

Okay, sometimes an organization makes a mistake.  I mean, it’s not like the VFW decided to endorse, say, a liberal Democratic senator who tried to humiliate an Army general testifying by demanding that he call her “Senator” instead of the perfectly appropriate “ma’am,” or who allowed her fundraisers to be hosted by the likes of Hanoi Jane.  That would be, well, crazy.

Oh, wait.  The VFW is endorsing leftist Senator Barbara Boxer.  Yeah, the same Barbara Boxer who voted to undercut us troops as we sat out in the desert waiting for Operation Desert Storm to start.  Yeah, the same Barbara Boxer who undercut the troops by voting to cut and run in Iraq.  Yeah, that Barbara Boxer – the one who will be running around using the VFW’s shameful endorsement as a shield against the truth of her track record of contempt for our military.

Like so many institutions, the VFW’s connection with Washington has dragged it away from its roots.  The organization’s relentless lobbying on behalf of veterans for more and more benefits has meant cozying up to any politicians who will trade their votes for the credibility the VFW’s endorsement provides.  But now, the VFW’s Washington operation is only about getting more and more benefits, and this has created an unholy alliance with politicians who detest the military yet crave the ability to play the veterans card.

Read the whole thing. According to Blackfive, the VFW has also endorsed Colorado Rep. Ed Perlmutter against challenger and Navy veteran Ryan Frazier. Along with Alcee Hastings, Barbara Lee, Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy, … the list goes on.

But Perlmutter?? Seriously? Even the Denver Post, a reliably Democrat-leaning rag, has endorsed Frazier over Perlmutter! And the VFW still snubs the veteran Frazier for the Socialist Democrat Perlmutter? Unforgivable.

I've just made another donation to Frazier for Colorado. And a first donation to Allen West for Congress. I've also sent an email to vfwpac@vfw.org informing them that the VFW will never get another penny from me, and why. 

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

A necessary fight

Posted by Richard on October 9, 2010

Human Events' Eric Erickson (emphasis added): 

Most everyone is convinced the Republicans will take back the House of Representatives. The Senate was never likely, though the seats the GOP will pick up will move the Senate decidedly to the right.

What is little noticed, however, is that 80% of incumbents will be re-elected. That is pitiful. In a year where “throw the bums out” has become a mantra for many, an 80% re-election rate is a rate too high.

According to Ballotpedia, 843 Democrats are guaranteed election to state legislatures on November 2 because no Republicans are running against them. On the other hand, 1,057 Republicans — most of them long-term incumbents — are guaranteed election to state legislatures because no Democrats are running against them. That represents one-third of state legislative races in the country.

For the nation to really change course, the revolution at the ballot box we are seeing at the federal level must over time move to the state and local level. It is a necessary fight, but one that will take time.

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

Giving thanks for John McCain

Posted by Richard on October 8, 2010

In a deliciously well-written piece (you should read it just to enjoy the alliteration and word-play), Gregg Opelka argued that Republicans should be ever so grateful that John McCain was their nominee in 2008. Why?

Because McCain did the one thing that none of those other men would have dared to do. And in so doing he unwittingly introduced kryptonite into the presence of Barack “Superman” Obama. In 2010 political lingo, kryptonite is spelled in the form of ten other letters: Sarah Palin. When McCain astonished with his choice of Palin as vice-presidential running mate, a chain of events unfolded that created the arch-nemesis of Barack Obama, the one force that would torment the would-be Social Justice-draped crusader more than Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh combined could ever do.

Make no mistake, DC comics readers: Sarah Palin is the agent of paralysis that is now crippling Democrats in the 2010 midterms. “Ah, but the Democrats brought it on themselves,” you cry in rebuttal. “They passed Obamacare and the stimulus bill and cap-and-trade and Cash for Clunkers, all bills that the American people overwhelmingly disapprove of. That’s what’s behind the imminent Republican rout.”

A valid point, granted. But even in the face of the their Saharan thirst to rebuff the will of the center-right American people, Democrats could have averted catastrophe, and Superman could have escaped the mid-term elections with bruised, but intact, majorities in both House and Senate-had it not been for that pernicious half-baked Alaskan. (Gee, Superman, it sucks to have a nemesis, doesn’t it?)

“But Palin isn’t even running,” you astutely ratiocinate. To which I humbly reply, “Nonsense.”

Liberal media punditry was positively Nureyevian in its grand jeté to denigrate Palin when she announced in July of 2009 she was abandoning her Alaskan gubernatorial post. “Quitter. Coward. Lightweight,” it intoned. The tasty chum chucked from the Palin prow did not go undevoured by the circling liberal media sharks, who fed for weeks on what they thought was the last of Sarah.

But as admirers of Conan Doyle’s Dr. Moriarty know, a worthy adversary has two invaluable qualities, patience and perseverance. It hardly seems a coincidence that there is a city in Alaska called Perseverance.

“The tasty chum chucked from the Palin prow” — marvelous writing! And it gets even better. Read the whole thing.

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

McMahon body-slams Blumenthal

Posted by Richard on October 7, 2010

The first debate between Connecticut Senate candidates Linda McMahon and Dick Blumenthal included a couple of minutes that, by all rights, should seal a McMahon victory. But then, I don't understand how Blumenthal can even be in it after the revelation that he repeatedly lied about serving in Vietnam. 

McMahon asked Blumenthal a simple question, "How do you create a job?" His response was just pitiful in presentation and clueless in content — he thinks that to create jobs we need much more government regulation. At the end, McMahon just destroyed him. If the rest of the debate offered anywhere near as stark a contrast, this was what pro wrestling fans call a squash match. 


[YouTube link]

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

Let’s hope they play the Palin card

Posted by Richard on September 20, 2010

Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic is urging the Obama administration to "play the Palin card," and Doctor Zero hopes they do. In a brilliant piece cross-posted at his blog and Hot Air, he offered a spot-on analysis of why doing so would be a big mistake for them and good news for the limited government, pro-freedom movement — and for Palin. The piece was linked by both Instapundit and James Taranto, and they both quoted a paragraph that's a truly wonderful rant. But it isn't just all rant.

The entire piece is excellent and quite insightful. I especially liked this:

I hope the White House takes Ambinder’s advice, because it would be suicidal.  His crack about Palin’s “reveling in the culture wars” betrays his ignorance.  He is confused by the details of her biography, and the sincere affection she earns from her admirers.  His Palin Card is drawn from the wrong suit.  She’s the Queen of Diamonds, not the Queen of Hearts.  Her most impressive statements over the last two years have been on matters of economics, policy, and politics.  She has shredded the Administration over health care, the Gulf oil spill, and unrestrained government spending.  She’s endorsed dozens of primary candidates, with something like a 70% success rate.  Her most notable clashes with “culture” have involved asking it to stop making rape jokes about her daughters.

And this (emphasis in original):

There are lots of colorful personalities making news during this election season, but these elections are not about personality.  Describing them as expressions of unreasoning anger against the Democrats underestimates the thoughtfulness and determination of the Tea Party movement.  Voters are not just looking for scapegoats to punish for a lousy economy.  They are preparing to act against the system itself, in a manner without precedent in modern history.  Palin understands this better than any other frontrunner for the 2012 Presidential nomination.  Her presumptive rivals have ties to various aspects of that system, as with Mitt Romney’s precursor to ObamaCare in Massachusetts.  Too many of them treat the repeal of ObamaCare as a sensitive topic, while Palin uses it as a battle cry.

Exactly. Read the whole thing.

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

Murkowski and the Combine

Posted by Richard on September 20, 2010

Lexington Green doesn't think Lisa Murkowski is running as a write-in candidate out of anger, animosity toward Joe Miller, or other personal reasons. He thinks she's protecting The Combine and the long-standing game its members of both parties play. Interesting read.

UPDATE: Sen. Murkowski defended her decision on CNN today with lots of double-talk and obfuscation. Since this is CNN, she wasn't asked about her pledge before the primary to support the Republican nominee. She also wasn't asked specifically what she meant when she claimed there was a "smear campaign" against her by Tea Party Express. I helped fund those ads and know for a fact that she was "smeared" by having her own votes brought to the attention of Alaska voters.

I'm still not certain whether her write-in candidacy is motivated by personal peeve and animus or by allegiance to "The Combine," as Green alleges. Either way, it's contemptible.

(HT: Instapundit)

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

Stop calling them tax cuts

Posted by Richard on September 17, 2010

I saw a Nancy Pelosi soundbite tonight in which she claimed that Republicans were blocking a "tax cut for the middle class" unless Congress also enacts a "tax cut for the wealthiest Americans." I believe it was Orwell who said that if you let your opponent control the language and define the terms, you'll lose the debate. We're not arguing about cutting anyone's taxes.

The phrase "Bush tax cuts" gets over 10 million hits on Google. I use it myself all the time. But it has distorted the debate, and it's time to reclaim the language. What's on the table is whether tax rates go up or not — not whether they go down.

The Tax Foundation has a nice explanation of why the Bush tax cuts (there I go again) are expiring:

During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes. That was the so-called Bush tax cut, formally known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA, pronounced egg-tray).

Reconciliation was devised in 1974 as a way to for the Senate to deal more effectively with budget bills, but it soon became a technique to limit amendments and debate. In 1985, the Senate added the so-called Byrd rule to reconciliation. Named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from, among other things, altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Any senator may object that a provision violates that stricture, and if the presiding officer agrees, a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.

Overall, 62 senators supported H.R. 1836 as amended by the Senate, thereby sending it to conference. In the end, 58 senators voted in favor of the conference report.  Nevertheless, because the bill was passed under reconciliation, revenues further than 10 years in the future could not be changed. And so, on December 31, 2010, all of EGTRRA will expire and revert to 2001 law.

The 2003 tax cuts mostly accelerated the original tax cuts, but also put in place new tax cuts for dividends and capital gains. The 2003 tax cut, known as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) was also passed under reconciliation.

So, in a nutshell, here's what happened: In 2001 (and again in 2003), Congress voted to cut tax rates through 2010 and to raise them again in 2011. Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party members, most economists, and the majority of likely voters are calling on Congress to rescind the 2011 tax increase and leave tax rates as they are today. That's not a tax cut. That's simply maintaining the status quo.

Believe me, I'm all for really cutting taxes. What the President keeps bragging about doesn't count — those aren't tax rate cuts, they're targeted tax credits with two purposes: behavior modification and rewarding his allies.

But for right now, the subject being debated is whether to allow the largest tax increase in history to take effect on January 1, at a time when unemployment is at near-historic levels and most businesses large and small are already afraid to invest in the future and hire new employees. The subject being debated is whether to administer a potent poison to an economy that's already extremely ill. 

So let's quit talking about "extending the Bush tax cuts" and use more accurate language: we want to stop the tax increases. 

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

Stupid leader of stupid party fumbles tax issue

Posted by Richard on September 14, 2010

On ABC's "Face the Nation" this past Sunday, House minority leader John Boehner (SR-OH) totally screwed up on the issue of the impending tax increases, which was shaping up as a big winner for the Republicans. This kind of unforced error is why some of us call his party the Stupid Party, and it reminded me of why I wanted the Republicans to choose Pence over Boehner as minority leader back in 2006.

Here's what Boehner should have said:

"The President doesn't need any Republican votes for his plan to increase taxes on the job creators and small businesses of America. The Democrats have a commanding majority in the House, and there is no filibuster or other procedural mechanism by which we Republicans can prevent the Democrats from passing whatever bill they want.

"The President wants Republicans to abandon their opposition to a tax increase in order to pressure the more responsible members of his own party. Growing numbers of them are disturbed by his class-warfare rhetoric and rightly fear that a tax increase in the midst of a deep recession, while appealing to his far-left base, would do serious harm to this country. Neither I nor any other Republican will help him with his ill-considered, dangerous plan."

That wasn't so hard, was it? If a humble blogger out in flyover country can come up with that answer, why can't the big-shot politico who's supposed to be providing leadership for the party that purports to be for lower taxes, limited government, and fiscal responsibility? 

I'm not a big fan of Sen. Mitch McConnell, but he gets a big shout-out from me this time for attempting to counter the harm done by the bone-headed Boehner: 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said on the Senate floor today that he is introducing legislation "that ensures that no one in this country will pay higher income taxes next year than they are right now."

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for McConnell said today that every Senate Republican has pledged to oppose any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts that doesn't include an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy. McConnell himself has given similar remarks. "That's the kind of debate that unifies my caucus, from Olympia Snowe to Jim DeMint," McConnell said, the Washington Post reports, referring to one of the most moderate and one of the most conservative Senate Republicans.

On the Senate floor today, McConnell said, "Only in Washington could someone propose a tax hike as an antidote to a recession."

If the anti-Democrat tsunami that many are predicting actually takes place (which probably depends on idiot Republicans like Boehner not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory — not a safe bet by any means) and the GOP takes control of the House, I sure hope there's a clean sweep of the leadership. Mike Pence for Speaker of the House!

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

The video that exposes Jane Norton’s lies about Gregory Golyansky

Posted by Richard on August 10, 2010

Republican Senate candidate Jane Norton has viciously smeared Gregory Golyansky in an effort to bolster her sagging primary campaign against Ken Buck. But the shameful and outrageous treatment of the Golyansky brothers didn't begin with Norton, and it's a disturbing tale of law enforcement malfeasance, prosecutorial misconduct, and contemptible behavior by government officials and politicians willing to crush the innocent in order to protect their backsides and further their careers.

Jane Norton knows the true story; she's hoping you don't. Now, the Golyansky brothers have set the record straight in this outstanding, must-see video. Please watch. 


[YouTube link]

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

CUT condemns Norton attack ad

Posted by Richard on July 16, 2010

On Tuesday, the Colorado Union of Taxpayers issued a press release condemning Republican senatorial candidate Jane Norton's negative ad against her primary opponent, Ken Buck — an ad I called a sleazy smear. Now that I've finally noticed it, here is the text of the CUT press release (emphasis added):

The Colorado Union of Taxpayers called for U.S. Senate candidate to cease her personal attacks on Greg Golyansky, who serves on the CUT Board of Directors. Golyansky was first elected to the CUT Board in 2003, and has served continuously since then.

In negative ads against Senate candidate Ken Buck, Norton calls Buck a "A government lawyer who doesn't follow the rules"-a charge that the Denver's Channel 7 News labeled "misleading." http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/24087213/detail.html

The Norton ad darkly claims that "Ken Buck was investigated for ethics violations; improperly undermining the prosecution of pawn shop owner Gregory Golyansky."

The Norton attack omits some key facts: Henry Solano, who had been appointed United States Attorney by President Clinton, determined that his office should not bring a case against Golyansky. But in 1999, the new U.S. Attorney, Tom Strickland, decided to make the case into a prop for his future Senate campaign, and ordered that felony charges be filed against Golyansky and two of his relatives. Every career prosecutor in the Colorado U.S. Attorney's Office, including Ken Buck, refused to prosecute the case. So the case was given to two new lawyers whom Strickland had hired. The case was so obviously weak that it ended up with Golyansky pleading guilty to one misdemeanor, and being sentenced to a single day of probation.

CUT President Marty Neilson said, "Jane Norton's attacks on Gregory Golyansky are outrageous, mean-spirited, and misleading. Norton claims that she is the taxpayer's friend, but she is practicing character assassination against a genuine taxpayer advocate. The Colorado Union of Taxpayers calls on Jane Norton to cease these malicious and misleading advertisements."

Thank you, Marty Neilson. Thank you, Ken Buck, for having the courage to resist Tom Strickland's efforts to persecute the Golyanskys in order to further his career. And shame on you, Jane Norton!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

NAACP criticized by SC congressional candidate Tim Scott

Posted by Richard on July 9, 2010

From South Carolina's FITSNews:

S.C. Rep Tim Scott – the Republican nominee for South Carolina’s first congressional district – took exception Tuesday to a draft resolution from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that accuses the Tea Party movement of harboring “racist elements.”

The NAACP is expected to approve the resolution this week at its annual meeting in Kansas City.

“I believe that the NAACP is making a grave mistake in stereotyping a diverse group of Americans who care deeply about their country and who contribute their time, energy and resources to make a difference,” Scott said.

Scott is the first African-American Republican to be elected to the S.C. State House since Reconstruction. [apparently, that's incorrect — ed.] If elected in November, he would become the only African-American Republican in the U.S. Congress.  He’s never made a big deal about his ethnicity, though, choosing instead to focus on fiscal policy.  In fact, Scott was one of only a handful of GOP lawmakers in Columbia to earn an “A” grade from the S.C. Club for Growth for his votes to limit taxes and government spending.

His voting record quickly made him a favorite among Tea Party activists searching for true fiscal conservatives within the GOP ranks.

Tim Scott (campaign website) is running in the congressional district where the first shots of the Civil War were fired. In the primary election, he defeated Gov. Carroll Campbell's son. In the runoff, he trounced Sen. Strom Thurmond's son, getting 68% of the vote. He's expected to easily defeat a weak Democrat.

Scott is one of three state legislators who joined forces to put a measure on the ballot that would amend the state constitution to block parts of Obamacare, including the individual mandate.

Scott's statement went on to say: 

As I campaign in South Carolina, I participate in numerous events sponsored by the Tea Party, 9/12, Patriot, and other like-minded groups, and I have had the opportunity to get to know many of the men and women who make up these energetic grassroots organizations.  Americans need to know that the Tea Party is a color-blind movement that has principled differences with many of the leaders in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans.

Their aim is to support the strongest candidates – regardless of color or background – who will fight to return our country to its Constitutional roots of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets.

Between Tim Scott, Gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley, and a bunch of upstart, reform-minded legislative candidates (five out of fifteen Republican incumbents were defeated in the primaries, and some others chose to retire), it's clear that change has swept through the South Carolina GOP — and seems poised to sweep through the state. 

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

The deeming has resumed

Posted by Richard on July 2, 2010

Only 12% of likely voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Lopsided majorities want the deficit drastically reduced (82%), but also think the country is already overtaxed (66%) and blame politicians' unwillingness to cut spending (83%) for the deficit. And the Congressional Budget Office has just released a grim long-term outlook (PDF) predicting things are going to get much worse.

In this climate, Congressional Socialist Democrats, already facing a tough election year, are reluctant to have to defend yet another monstrously bloated budget with yet another trillion-plus-dollar deficit. So, what to do? As Connie Hair reports, they've decided "we don't need no stinkin' budget" and have instead resurrected a sleazy strategy they were considering during the health care takeover debate: 

Last night, as part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, House Democrats attached a document that "deemed as passed" a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the "deeming" document allows Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the pesky constraints of a budget.

The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against deeming the faux budget resolution passed.

Never before — since the creation of the Congressional budget process — has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money.

House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) warned this was the green light for Democrats to continue their out-of-control spending virtually unchecked.

"Facing a record deficit and a tidal wave of debt, House Democrats decided it was politically inconvenient to put forward a budget and account for their fiscal recklessness. With no priorities and no restraints, the spending, taxing, and borrowing will continue unchecked for the coming fiscal year," Ryan said. "The so-called ‘budget enforcement resolution' enforces no budget, but instead provides a green light for the Appropriators to continue spending, exacerbating our looming fiscal crisis."

The Socialist Democrats and their media mouthpieces call it a "continuing budget resolution" so people will think this is no different than the continuing resolutions passed in the past when the end of the fiscal year approached and one or more of the funding bills used to enact the budget had not yet been agreed on. But as the Republicans pointed out, this "deeming" meets none of the Congressional Budget Act criteria for a budget resolution. 

The only criteria the Socialist Democrats' "deeming" meets are the criteria for a fraud and charade. 

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

Jane Norton’s sleazy smear of Ken Buck

Posted by Richard on July 1, 2010

There's lots of interest in the Colorado Senate race these days. All the pundits' eyebrows were raised by Bill Clinton's endorsement of Democratic challenger Andrew Romanoff over the establishment candidate, appointed Sen. Michael Bennet. I guess now we know that when the Obama administration tried to bribe Romanoff into dropping his challenge, they didn't use Clinton as an emissary like they did when they tried to bribe Sestak in Pennsylvania.

But I'm more interested in the Republican race. Establishment candidate Jane Norton once had about a 25-point lead over challenger Ken Buck, but the latest RealClearPolitics average has Buck up by 7. So recently, a desperate Norton began airing a scurrilous attack ad, long on weasel words and short on accuracy, challenging Buck's ethics record. 

The ad is about the late-1990s prosecution (I'd call it persecution) of Gregory and Leonid Golyansky, two hard-working Russian immigrants who own a pawn shop, for alleged firearms law violations. It followed closely on the heels of a convenient and one-sided 6/24 Denver Post story about the case. 

This was during the Clinton years when the BATF was engaged in a concerted nationwide campaign to put gun dealers out of business (and in fact cut the number in half). My good friend David is a friend of Greg Golyansky, and I remember he kept our little Saturday breakfast club informed about the sordid tale, which dragged on for years. As I recall, there was much chicanery by BATF and Justice, including false testimony and arranging for approval of background checks that should never have been approved in order to try to set up the Golyanskys. Maybe David, who checks in here from time to time, will fill in some details. 

I know that after several years of repeated BATF sting operations, a 37-count felony indictment, and the eventual ill-advised prosecution, Greg Golyansky cut his losses (over half a million dollars in legal expenses) and pled guilty to a single trivial misdemeanor paperwork violation, and was sentenced to one day of probation. The cases against the other defendants were dismissed. 

Ari Armstrong has a good post about this, in which he says:

Senate hopeful Jane Norton’s vicious attacks on GOP rival Ken Buck regarding Buck’s service in the U.S. Attorney’s office may deeply hurt Norton’s campaign, as I have already indicated. The problem is that Norton is attacking Buck for standing up against a political railroading in a gun case.

He also has a transcript of the David Kopel's comments about the case on Colorado Inside Out (video here). Here's a portion that summarizes the whole situation well (emphasis added): 

Greg was a pawn dealer. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms brought a case against him. The U.S. Attorney office declined to prosecute. Henry Solano, the Clinton-appointed United States Attorney, agreed with that, said there’s nothing here. Indeed, the only witness against him (Golyansky) was a mentally ill homeless drug addict with severe credibility problems.

And then Tom Strickland comes in on the theory that “I’m going to be the big tough U.S. Attorney and prosecute gun cases.” And he takes a case that not one single career attorney in the United States Attorney’s office in Colorado was willing to prosecute, so he brings in two of his little hand-picked minions who came in with him to bring felony charges against three people.

It was an outrageous abuse of power.

Now Ken Buck violated the protocol by talking about it outside the office. And I agree that was a violation of the U.S. Attorney’s protocol.

But when you say, when is a guy going to make a mistake, I like a guy who makes a mistake on behalf of someone who was being unfairly, unjustly, and politically persecuted.

And then for Jane Norton to turn around and say this is some terrible issue against Ken Buck — well, it just reminds me that Jane Norton’s husband was the guy who before Strickland came into office, probably had the worst record in Colorado history of being an abusive, out-of-control, way over the line, United States Attorney, Mike Norton.

I'm 100% with Dave and Ari. The airing of this issue and Norton's sleazy attempt to smear Buck make me likely to send a contribution to Ken Buck for Senate. I've been a registered Libertarian since the mid-80s, but I'm tempted to switch to Republican (temporarily) just to vote for Buck and against Norton. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »