December 24-28, 2009
Dec 24 03:07 Campaign 2010: The Path to the Majority Dec 24 04:06 Great Minds Think Alike: I Agree With John Kline Dec 26 08:33 Franken & Klobuchar Dec 26 16:21 Like Their Threats Mean Anything Dec 27 05:33 Stim I's Popularity Dropping Dec 28 06:47 A Blast of Common Sense Fresh Air Dec 28 10:47 Here's Your Answer, Ed Dec 28 13:04 Why Don't We Start With Paying Attention?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Campaign 2010: The Path to the Majority
Wednesday afternoon, I included a quote from DSCC spokesman Eric Schultz in one of my posts. Here's Schultz's quote on what the Democrats' campaign strategy should be:
"Republicans on the ballot next November who opposed the bill will be in the precarious position of telling voters they plan to rollback landmark health care reform which will have afforded coverage to hundreds of thousands in their state," DSCC spokesman Eric Schultz emails.This fight should be one that Republicans nationwide should be licking their chops over having. If the Democrats want to defend their raising taxes, exploding the deficit, hiking health insurance premiums and cutting corrupt deals to get to that sixtieth vote, then let's have that fight.
"We absolutely intend to make Republicans look voters in the eye next November and make it clear they want to take affordable health care reform away from them," Schultz continues, adding that they intend to press the case that "if it was worth filibustering" to Republicans, then surely it's "worth repealing."
The American people passionately hate the Democrats' health care legislation. They don't believe that it won't explode the deficit. They've watched the corruption involved in the Senate making sausage. They've read about the impending tax increases contained in this legislation. If Democrats want to remind voters of these things, then let's oblige them.
Let's help remind people that there really aren't any moderate Democrats in the Senate and precious few in the House. Let's remind people that so-called moderates like Evan Bayh voted the same way that self-described socialist Bernie Sanders did when Harry Reid needed him to.
Let's not stop there, either. Let's remind the people that Democrats have spent money at levels never before seen in American history. Let's remind them of the bailouts, the budgets and the stimulus bill that they've voted for.
The last budget President Bush submitted was for approximately $3,100,000,000,000. A year later, the budget we're operating under is almost $4,000,000,000,000. That's a spending increase of over 30 percent.
Let's campaign on the promise that we'll repeal 75 percent of that spending increase, then promise to re-instate the Bush tax cuts.
Finally, our campaign creed should be that we need to change directions from President Obama's failed policies and that we'll pass laws that clean up the corruption in Washington. Also, let's campaign on the promise that we'll put this nation's fiscal house in order, led by Chairman Paul Ryan's efforts to return to the balanced budgets of the John Kasich era.
If we show the American people that we've consistently voted against the Democrats' spending increases, then we'll have credibility on this important issue.
I can't emphasize enough how important it is that we repeat telling voters that unemployment was 4.6 percent when Nancy Pelosi got the Speaker's gavel and that it's 10 percent now. Finally, if I was running the campaign, I'd ask these simple questions:
Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? Haven't you had enough already?That's the fastest path back to the majority.
UPDATE: Great minds think alike .
Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 3:18 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 24-Dec-09 07:44 AM
Very sound advice all the way around. I would just add that the GOP has a very effective counter to the Democrat "strategy" cited above. Look THEM squarely in the eye and say, "OK, give us a list of those 'hundreds of people' who now have affordable coverage, and how much the rest of us are already paying for it."
Great Minds Think Alike: I Agree With John Kline
According to this post , Rep. John Kline and I are on the same page in terms of the 2010 elections:
A few political observers are starting to predict that Republicans could regain the majority in the House, Kline said.There's no question that that goal is an uphill fight that'll require alot of hard work. Still, the hill's incline isn't as sharp as it was 6 months ago. It's gone from having an incline like the Tetons to having an incline of the Minnesota foothills.
"That's a dream that very few of us could have six months ago and it's a dream now that is starting to have legs, " Kline said. "My colleagues and I are starting to talk about regaining the House in a serious way."
From Hawaii to Maine, concern about Democratic leadership will "bring districts in play that were not in play six months ago," he said.
I've been preaching that the Democrats have misread their mandate and that they've overreached because they misread 2008's elections. They've been hurt by the health care debate, their piling up of unprecedented deficits and their reckless spending.
The TEA Parties must be credited with starting the GOP's momentum. There's alot to be said for the blogger conference calls conducted by House GOP Conference and the House Minority Whip's office, too. Those calls connected DC's politicians with the real world.
The momentum started when the House GOP voted unanimously against the failed stimulus legislation. Once the activists saw that the House GOP had regained its spine, activists started reporting on the group's return to fiscal sanity. Now we're seeing that gain momentum.
The first proof of the aforementioned momentum was provided in Virginia, where Bob McDonnell annihilated Creigh Deeds, and in New Jersey, where Chris Christie defeated corrupt incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine. In both those elections, independents voted for the Republican by a 2:1 margin.
Another bit of proof comes from Scott Rasmussen's polling on the generic ballot question. In this week's polling , Republicans led Democrats by 8 points, their biggest lead in a decade .
In a recent interview, Frank Luntz said that 72 percent of the people said that they were "mad as hell and that they weren't going to take it anymore ." Dr. Luntz said that that's almost identical to what they were in 1994.
Kline said he wasn't sure what will happen with the proposed health care overhaul making its way through Congress. "My crystal ball is entirely broken on this thing," he said.I said in this post that that's a fight well worth having if you're a Republican. It's a winning issue nationwide, from Maine to California, from Minnesota to Texas.
He remains opposed to the overhaul and doesn't think the version in the Senate will get a single Republican vote if it comes back to the House. "That's a fight still coming," he said. "Believe me, we are going to engage in the fight.
It's a winning issue because the American people have seen the corruption in the process. They've seen the spinelessness of moderates like Ben Nelson (Yes, I know he's a senator but I'm betting voters won't make that fine a distinction.) and Mary Landrieu.
Factor in the huge tax increases in the bill and the spending involved in it and you've got something that touches a nerve with voters.
That's before factoring in the failed stimulus, the bailouts and the Democrats' reckless spending and you've got the makings of a disastrous year for Democrats.
Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 4:06 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 24-Dec-09 09:42 AM
Sit back and relax. It's all downhill now for you guys. A slam dunk. No cause to go knock yourseves out with unneeded work.
Just rest, win all those seats and then rest on your laurels.
You guys deserve it because of all the proactive things you've been doing the past few months.
Make the big push - GOP recruits to go and win that war the old time GOP way. Lincoln was a war president, honor his tradition.
Indeed, enlist. It's set up so you can vote in your home district while on patrol along the Af-Pak border.
But all that can wait. Enjoy the holidays, the days starting to lengthen, movement into Spring.
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 24-Dec-09 01:46 PM
Keep dreaming Eric.
LOL
LL
Franken & Klobuchar
QUESTION: What's the difference between Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar?
ANSWER: Sen. Franken doesn't pretend to be a centrist.
The reality is that Amy Klobuchar, for all her rhetoric, isn't a centrist. Remember the 2006 campaign? In one of Ms. Klobuchar's shining moments , Ms. Klobuchar said this about the Iraq war:
Since April, I have been asking the President to give the nation a clear plan to bring our troops home safely. As with any effective plan, there should be a realistic time-frame based on specific milestones and benchmarks, with honest and current information from the administration about the status of our efforts, the training of the Iraqi forces, and the restoration of basic services to Iraq. In fact, the leaders of Iraq's otherwise sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis agreed that there should be a time frame for the drawdown of American troops. If the president is unwilling to provide a plan, Congress should call upon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do so. By establishing such a plan and setting a time frame for a drawdown of forces, we send an important signal to the people of Iraq that we do not intend to stay indefinitely and that we expect them to take on the responsibility of governing and securing their own nation. That is why I oppose establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.What an idiot. Congress can't compel the Pentagon to draw up plans for anything. Congress doesn't have that authority over the Pentagon.
The reason I mention this is that Sen. Klobuchar's respect for the Constitution still doesn't exist. Thursday morning, Sen. Klobuchar voted for Harry Reid's health care bill knowing that it contained an individual mandate that is unconstitutional. It also contained some tax provisions in it that aren't constitutional either. You can't tax insurance companies, then exempt the Michigan Blue Cross-Blue Shield and the Nebraska Blue Cross-Blue Shield companies from that tax. That violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protections Clause :
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".Sen. Klobuchar should stop pretending that she's a moderate. Senators take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Thus far, she's failed miserably in defending the Constitution. Frankly, I haven't seen proof that she even thinks about the Constitution.
Here's Republican Party Chairman Tony Sutton's statement on Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar voting for Sen. Reid's health care legislation:
After weeks of shady backroom payoffs, unseemly sweetheart deals and Enron style accounting, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar sold out Minnesota today by voting for a reckless nearly trillion dollar spending bill that increases premiums, raises taxes by $500 billion, cuts Medicare by over $470 billion and mandates that taxpayers fund abortion on demand. Candidate Obama promised America an open legislative process played out on C-SPAN. Instead, we saw a sleazy, secretive power play where Harry Reid bought off senators to get to 60 votes. In 2010, Democrats will pay a steep political price for their decision to ram this unpopular bill down the throats of the American people.The only correction that I'd make to Chairman Sutton's statement is that it costs $2,500,000,000,000 when all the provisions are fully implemented. The "nearly trillion dollar spending bill" is the CBO's number that they arrived at only because the Democrats' bill taxes us starting immediately but doesn't start spending until 2014.
Another indication that Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar vote the same way is that their votes would've been the same on President Obama's failed stimulus bill, just like their votes have been the same on President Obama's omnibus spending bill this year. (NOTE: Sen. Franken was still locked in his recount fight when the stimulus bill was voted on. However, he's quoted as saying he would've voted for the pork-filled, less-than-stimuluating bill.)
Sen. Klobuchar isn't the only so-called moderate whose reputation got disintegrated during the health care debate. Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Claire McCaskill, Mark Pryor and Evan Bayh all saw their reputation as fiscal conservatives disintegrated by voting for this job-killing, tax-increasing monument to fiscal insanity. Instead of putting the nation first, they put their ideological priorities first.
Rest assured that voters, especially independents, will remember that the next time they're up for re-election. They'll remember because they will have been paying the taxes and they will have dealt with the individual health insurance mandate.
Contrary to Sen. Schumer's bald-faced lie , this legislation's popularity has hit its peak. Here's Sen. Schumer's lie:
"This is a happy day. (Senate Republican Leader) Mitch McConnell said on the floor that we're going to go home and hear our constituents rail against this bill. I don't believe that. I believe that the negativity that Leader McConnell and others have continually displayed on the floor has peaked, and now when people learn what's actually in the bill, and all the good it does, it is going to become more and more popular because it is good for America, good for the American people, and a true symbol of what we can do if we all pull together," said Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer.When the bill gets published and dissected, people will learn about the CLASS Act, which is the start of another entitlement. People will get hit with the legislation's tax increases and fines for not doing what the politicians have told them to do.
That, by itself, will doom the Democrats' election chances for the next decade. In my opinion, Sen. Schumer's statements are said to tell his colleagues that the protesters at their townhalls aren't real, that they're just astroturfed supporters of the evil insurance companies and the evil pharmaceutical companies. (Isn't it ironic that Sen. Schumer is attempting to villify the insurance companies that he voted to a huge windfall profit to?)
Sen. Schumer shouldn't worry about townhalls, though, because neither Sen. Franken nor Sen. Klobuchar have the fortitude to subject themselves to open events. They'll only enter the event if it's a totally controlled environment.
If there's one thing I know, it's that America has a strong libertarian streak in them. Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar stand opposed to most of what the libertarian movement believes in. Sen. Klobuchar should worry about this because she'll have to deal with a revitalized libertarian movement in 2012.
Posted Saturday, December 26, 2009 8:42 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 26-Dec-09 10:13 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget another important line each campaign used.
Amy K talked about how we had to get the budget deficit under control. Since she's become Senator Amy K has voted to dramitically increase spending and the deficit has sky rocketed.
Al last year during the campaign was critizing Norm for being George Bush's yes man. Franken made a point that Coleman had an obligation which he failed to do to oppose George Bush. Just what exactly has Al done to oppose Obama since he got his oath. Shouldn't Al be practicing what he preached.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Like Their Threats Mean Anything
According to this article in the Hill, so-called Blue Dog Democrats have issued this ultimatum to Harry Reid:
Democratic centrists have informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) they will accept few changes in the final healthcare bill negotiated between the House and Senate. Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have made clear there is little room to deviate from the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve.TRANSLATION: BLAH, BLAH BLAH, YADA, YADA, YADA .
They are the most vocal of nearly two-dozen senators who have indicated they see little wiggle room in the conference talks. Centrists have said they will not vote for a healthcare reform bill that imposes a tax surcharge on the nation's highest income earners or reduces the tax burden on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans, which are held by many unionized workers.
These buffoons haven't figured it out that their credibility disappeared the minute they accepted their 30 pieces of silver from Reid the first time. Nobody's taking their threats of voting against cloture seriously because they made the same bravado-filled statements before accepting their payoffs.
The era of fiscally responsible Democrats officially ended with these spineless wimps sold their votes for a couple trinkets while saddling their constitiuents with higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, an exploding deficit and higher health care costs.
Landrieu said she would not support the final legislation if negotiators tinkered with the Senate proposal for taxing high-cost insurance plans. "I can only support a bill if the Cadillac plans are taxed at the level they are in the Senate [bill,]" said Landrieu. "It's not because I'm thrilled about taxing those plans, which I'm not, but it is the No. 1 cost-containment measure in the bill. It's what is going to drive costs down over time."I've studied the various moving parts within the health care system fairly closely but I can't figure out how taxing health insurance policies contains health care costs.
Nelson said he would not support the final bill if it included the House proposal to impose a tax surcharge on individuals earning more than $500,000 and families earning more than $1 million. "I've already said that would be a deal-breaker," said Nelson.Sen. Nelson has said a number of things were dealbreakers...until he voted for the legislation with the deal-breaking provisions in it.
The reality is that these spineless wimps won't say no to their leadership when it matters. They'd rather catch hell from their constituents than from Chuck Schumer. That's gotten them by thus far but that's changing. That'll change the instant that they face the voters. By then, it'll be too late to do the right thing. By then, it'll be too late to undo the damage to their individual and collective reputations.
This past summer, the American people told politicians what they didn't want. Throughout the fall, in poll after poll, the same American people said that they didn't want government-run health care. The American people didn't just quietly voice their opinions, either. Their objections were concise and unflinching in consistency. You couldn't send a message any clearer.
This past week, the message that Blue Dogs sent their constituents was equally concise and consistent. Unfortunately, their message was that they'd be supporting their party's leadership, not their constituents.
The Blue Dogs' message was received. This November, the Blue Dogs that ignored us will hear from all of the frustrated voters whose refrain is an emphatic "NO MORE!!!"
Posted Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:25 PM
No comments.
Stim I's Popularity Dropping
No matter how President Obama and Vice President Biden spin it, their $787,000,000,000 stimulus plan is a failure. Scott Rasmussen's polling shows that that's becoming a widespread belief:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 30% of voters nationwide believe the $787-billion economic stimulus plan has helped the economy. However, 38% believe that the stimulus plan has hurt the economy. This is the first time since the legislation passed that a plurality has held a negative view of its impact.There's nothing in the first stimulus that incentivizes small businesses to increase entrepreneurial activity. The only thing in the legislation that's easily recognizable is the huge payoffs to the Democrats' political allies. If you aren't part of a public employees union, there really isn't much in the bill.
The first stimulus had lots of aid to state governments. Unfortunately, that won't create permanent private sector jobs, which is what's badly needed. There was lots of money for public works projects but those aren't the types of projects that create long-lasting private sector jobs.
This continues a trend with President Obama's policies. The longer that the health care bill was debated, the more unpopular it became. The longer that people see the inneffectiveness of President Obama's stimulus plan is, the more unpopular it's becoming. It's already had that effect on Cap and Trade. Then again, Cap and Trade never was popular, probably because people knew it as a tax increase from the outset.
People will hold the stimulus bill's unpopularity against congressional Democrats because they're the people who crafted it and voted for it. When the report card for this Congress is filled out, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi will get failing grades because they will have forced alot of difficult votes that cost Speaker Pelosi her Speaker's gavel.
People's dissatisfaction with this administration started wit President Obama's fear campaign where he told everyone that failure to pass his stimulus plan would create a catastrophe that we might never pull ourselves out of. Their dissatisfaction grew with each bailout. The people's dissatisfaction reached its boiling point, though, when Congress ignored the people about health care.
At this point, alot of the trust that people had for President Obama has vanished into thin air. His forecasts have been wildly inaccurate, especially with unemployment rates. His deficit forecasts haven't been accurate, either.
Couple that with the Blue Dog Democrats' spinelessness and you've got a recipe for electoral disaster. There's only one party to blame for President Obama's incompetence because the Democrats own both ends of Pennsylvania Ave, including with a filibuster-proof Senate.
President Obama might give himself a B+ on his first year but I'm betting that the American people will give him an emphatic failing grade next November. I'm betting that the best grade the American people will give President Obama next November will be a D, with D- the more likely grade.
States are still running deficits, which means that they're either run poorly or the economy isn't responding to President Obama's stimulus plan. Let's agree that states, other than California and Michigan, don't run deficits when the economy is expanding.
Here in Minnesota, the first deficits that we had to deal with from this recession was in 2008. We're again facing a $1,200,000,000 deficit this year, which is less than 5 months after our most recent biennial budget went into effect. It's being forecast that we'll have another multi-billion dollar deficit when our next biennium arrives in 2011.
That means that, if the forecast is right, which it usually is, Minnesota's economy will have been in the tank for 4 straight years. Minnesota isn't alone in this situation. That's why President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are planning another injection of cash to the states this spring.
It isn't surprising, given these statistics, that people have turned on Obamanomics.
Posted Sunday, December 27, 2009 5:38 AM
Comment 1 by Janet at 27-Dec-09 06:51 AM
All may be true, Gary, but if this "health" bill is not stopped, it may be next to impossible to reverse the actions/taxes/steps included in it. How does a nation turn back from a power-grabbing political move like this? Tweaking around the edges will do nothing. See Steyn at NRO. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjU5OTJmODE4MGM5YmNiZDEyZDU5ZWU3NThhYjdmNGY=)
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-Dec-09 10:44 AM
Janet, I'm not suggesting a tweak here or there around the edges. I'm talking about electing enough people who will pledge to repeal the Democrats' legislation.
Anything less is unacceptable.
A Blast of Common Sense Fresh Air
Colin McNickle's column isn't a breath of fresh air. It's a blast of fresh air common sense. Here's what I'm talking about:
It was in 1774 that John Adams reminded how the "most sensible and jealous people are so little attentive to government that there are no instances of resistance until repeated, multiple oppressions have placed it beyond a doubt that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties."Let's be blunt about something. This administration isn't interested in following the law if it doesn't serve its purposes. And rarely does the law serve this administration's purpose.
And that's not merely to "oppress the individual or a few," the father of the Constitution added, "but to break down the fences of a free constitution, and deprive the people at large of all share in the government, and all the checks by which it is limited."
Mr. Adams, of course, would have been labeled a "right-wing extremist" or a "militia maniac" by today's "progressives" in Congress who have been working so assiduously to soil the fabric of America. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would dismiss Adams' sentiment as "un-American" and tap dance around its implications of unconstitutional freelancing.
But on the cusp of a new year and the second decade of the 21st century, this is where America finds itself: Constitutional perverts and rule of law scofflaws are in charge, the once-creeping crud of socialism has broken into a trot and an increasing number of good and decent people really are mad as hell and not willing to take another centimeter of the shaft.
And perhaps, just perhaps, revolution is nigh.
"Revolution" is a dicey word in any era. Indeed, it can be accomplished by the ballot and not the bullet. But the Founders and the Framers had no qualms about the latter. How soon today's "leaders", supposed custodians of the Constitution but merely unionized garbagemen, seem to forget that America was born in armed revolt and that the luminaries of the era acknowledged its necessity in the defense of natural rights.
Remember Speaker Pelosi's reaction when a reporter asked what constitutional authority she had for health care? Here's her reaction:
CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"Later, Pelosi's office gave this reply to CNSNews:
Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
"You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."
Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the "Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform," that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.The ICC is the liberals' crutch upon which they rest all their arguments for expanding the federal government's authority. the liberals' argument essentially says that the Tenth Amendment isn't a counterbalance to the ICC. That's nonsense, especially since the Tenth Amendment hasn't been repealed.
Mr. McNickle's statement that "perhaps revolution is nigh" isn't preposterous. If you talk with TEA Party activists of all politicial persuasions, you'll find out that they're all worried that government has gone into maniac-drive. Sensible center-leftists like Doug Schoen and William Daley notice the leftward drift and are worried about it. Based on what Schoen said during an interview with Mark Steyn, it's obvious that he's a big TEA Party fan. There are lots of independents who see government as out-of-control. They don't see President Obama or congressional Democrats exercising any fiscal discipline.
The thing that's making revolution likely, in my opinion, is watching Democrats ignore what We The People are saying, especially on health care. Dr. Frank Luntz said that the phrase that most accurately describes voters' mood is they're "mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore."
There's another part to this TEA Party revolution, too. Not only are people in a foul mood over the Obama administration's policies but they're upset that the Democrats don't care about the Constitution. Tenth Amendment groups are popping up nationwide. They're afraid that this administration would trample their state's ability to govern.
In years past, frankly, they didn't care because we weren't in the dire straits that we're in now. This administration's policies and their overreaching is telling people that the Obama administration is deeply incompetent and power hungry. Simply put, people are worried that this administration wants to ruin everyone's lives, not just a few people's lives.
Americans and Pennsylvanians faces a crucial test in 2010. They can either continue traveling down the road to serfdom or return to liberty's boulevard. The republic's future hangs in the balance.Mr. McNickle's framed it perfectly. The choice is our's. As Ronald Reagan once said, "it's a time for choosing."
Let's hope we choose liberty over comfortable nanny state serfdom.
Posted Monday, December 28, 2009 6:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 28-Dec-09 07:22 PM
Gary, where does the Constitution give authority to create and fund a "Department of Defense"?
Since you might get that one, where does the constitution authorize formation of a "Department of Homeland Security"? And why would you suggest the same place as your answer to the first question, and then dislike the repeated working of the commerce clause, provision of medical care in exchange for money being, last I thought of it, commerce.
Last, where does the Constitution authorize the creation of an FAA, or the regulation of air traffic?
Have a Happy New Year.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Dec-09 12:46 AM
Gary, where does the Constitution give authority to create and fund a "Department of Defense"?Article II - The Executive Branch Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.Clearly, the Founding Fathers provided for national defense-related issues.
As for the FAA, that clearly must be regulated at the national level because it involves travel across state lines, making it a federal issue.
As for the ICC, I'm not saying it's invalid. I'm just saying that there's a natural tension between the ICC & the Tenth Amendment. Typical liberal orthodoxy says that the ICC supersedes the Tenth Amendment. Interestingly, many ConLaw professors refer to the Ninth & Tenth Amendments as "the Dead Amendments."
Any other questions you'd like me to answer?
Comment 2 by Clay Barham at 28-Dec-09 08:37 PM
SELF INTEREST OR SELF-CENTERED
This is directed at those who admire and criticize Ayn Rand's beliefs about people who stand on their own feet. Most who criticize Rand say she promoted selfishness, thereby greed, which is self-centered and anti-individual creativity, therefore, anti-Rand. Rand admired the creative individual, such as James Jerome Hill, on whom she was reputed to have based her character Dabney Taggart in Atlas Shrugged. If we look at Howard Roark's summation to the jury, from Fountainhead, we do not see a self-centered individual destroying his work. Were he greedy, he would have simply accepted his payment. We see a self-interested, other- and outer-centered individual in love with his own dreams and creations, as one would love a spouse, child or family and refuse to allow them to be assaulted. Though love for anything spiritual may be missing, a great idea or vision also measures up to that which is spiritual, and that view is not inconsistent with Christianity. Claysamerica.com.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 29-Dec-09 11:42 AM
Okay, Gary, if I want to buy pharmaceuticals in Canada since they are identical to those here but cheaper, I cannot, same commerce clause as applies to medical devices, drugs, etc., in healthcare.
Now, where in the Constitution does it say the judiciary can declare unconstitutional an act passed by the legislative branch and signed by the executive?
And if you have trouble locating precise language, how long has that precedent existed, how did it arise - how early in the republic's existence, and might that suggest that some things are established from the founding of the union - after abandonment of the Articles of Confederation, but need to be inferred from the Constitution, read as a whole, and from the necessities that arise where specific language was never written explicite enough to alone be decisive?
Long question, thinking it over is more important than posting a reply.
Ayn Rand - Comment 3 -- Her writing was tedious and repetitive. I have seen the one book termed, "Atlas Yawned." It is three inches thick, but what does it say that could not be done in a pamphlet? The Objectivist Manifesto. 31 pages as all that's needed.
And her thoughts are as simplistic as her science was unscientific.
John Galt's perpetual motion machine and all that.
Here's Your Answer, Ed
In Ed Morrissey's post on the Hillary/Obama State Department's failure, Ed asks an important rhetorical question: Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration have been in place for over eleven months. When do their failures start being their own? The opening paragraph of Ann Kornblut's Washington Post article provides the answer to Ed's question:
President Obama has performed a difficult but familiar balancing act over the past few days: ordering new security measures in the wake of an attempted airliner attack without excessively alarming the public or triggering an outcry from civil liberties advocates.ANSWER: Never as long as President Obama's phalanx of sycophants still have a major newspaper to write this type of garbage from.
The reality is that President Obama's State Department and his Homeland Security Department FAILED MISERABLY. Ed quotes this Washington Post article saying that "Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father in Nigeria reported concern over his son's 'radicalization' to the U.S. Embassy there last month" and that "intelligence officials in the United States deemed the information insufficient to pursue."
Putting all the niceties aside, President Obama's new approach to national security issues has been a failure. I don't care whether "President Obama has performed a difficult but familiar balancing act" or whether he ordered "new security measures" after a potential mid-air disaster was avoided or whether he did so without "triggering an outcry from civil liberties advocates."
The bottom line is that his administration failed miserably. This didn't have anything to do with President Bush's administration, as Robert Gibbs has suggested. It's time for the children in the Obama administration to start taking responsibility for their failures.
There was a time when nespapers held administrations accountable for their failurs. Apparently, reporters like Ann Kornblut have dismissed those responsibilities. The good news is that citizen journalists like Ed have stepped into that gap.
Posted Monday, December 28, 2009 10:53 AM
No comments.
Why Don't We Start With Paying Attention?
This morning, on GMA, Janet Napolitano said that the government needs to re-examine how their terrorist watch lists are monitored:
Today, on "Good Morning America," she said, "Clearly, there's some work that needs to be done to link up what we call the tie, the generic base in which his name had been entered, to those who already have visas."That's possibly true but there's a more fundamental step that should be taken, namely, having the appropriate authorities look into a person whose father walked into a U.S. embassy and told the embassy people that his son might be an Islamic extremist. You'd think that people in security positions would attempt to connect the dots, especially after a high profile commission published a report saying that the most important thing going forward was connecting the terrorist warning dots.
"We want to go backwards now and review our list processes," Napolitano added. "They clearly need to be adjusted. We need to look at this individual specially, and the screening technology that was deployed."
You'd think that a tip like that would at least warrant a quick check of things like visas, whether he'd traveled to or lived in any terrorist-sympathizing countries like, say, Nigeria. Here's another troubling piece of information:
In May 2009, a report by the Justice Department Inspector General found problems with how the FBI was managing the terrorism watch list, noting, "We found that the FBI failed to nominate many subjects in the terrorism investigations that we sampled, did not nominate many others in a timely fashion, and did not update or remove watchlist records as required. Specifically, in 32 of the 216 (15 percent) terrorism investigations we reviewed, 35 subjects of these investigations were not nominated to the consolidated terrorist watchlist, contrary to FBI policy."Was this IG report shared with Secretary Napolitano? If not, why wasn't it? If it was, what action did Secretary Napolitano take? What types of recommendations did she get from her senior policy staff? If it's revealed that this IG's report had made it to Secretary Napolitano's desk and she hadn't acted on it, then she needs to be fired ASAP.
Frankly, I don't have a bit of confidence in Secretary Napolitano. This is, after all, the same woman who thought that military veterans, conservatives and constitutionalists presented a terrorist threat :
The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.Why should we suddenly think that she'll experience a sudden burst of competence now?
The initiative, dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle, was outlined in February, two months before a memo giving a similar warning was issued on April 7 by the Department of Homeland Security.
Disclosure of the DHS memo this week has sparked controversy among some conservatives and veterans groups. Appearing on television talk shows Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the assessment, but apologized to veterans who saw it as an accusation.
Posted Monday, December 28, 2009 1:10 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 29-Dec-09 02:35 PM
Gotcha politics? Time for that rather than for careful analysis and correction?
Okay:
"Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.
"American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials."
-and-
"As Republicans seek to put the blame for the widespread perception of ineptness at the Transportation Security Administration on the Obama administration, Democrats are arguing that Republican legislators bear part of the blame and that they're politically vulnerable on the subject.
"Perhaps the largest impediment to change at the agency: South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint has a hold on the appointment of a TSA chief, over his concern that the new administration could allow security screeners to unionize.
"Republicans have cast votes against the key TSA funding measure that the 2010 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security contained, which included funding for the TSA, including for explosives detection systems and other aviation security measures. In the June 24 vote in the House, leading Republicans including John Boehner, Pete Hoekstra, Mike Pence and Paul Ryan voted against the bill, amid a procedural dispute over the appropriations process, a Democrat points out. A full 108 Republicans voted against the conference version, including Boehner, Hoekstra, Pence, Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, Darrell Issa and Joe Wilson."
DeMint being responsible for the headless agency? Over union p*****g match politics? And as I recall from earlier posts, he's somebody's folk hero.
Ah, well, the shoe fits, so those responsible should wear it?
this link
liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=11690
