May 19-20, 2007
May 19 00:17 We Gotta Get Out of This Place May 19 05:48 Bloomberg-Hagel for President? May 19 07:01 McCain, Cornyn Engage in Heated Exchange May 19 07:52 Rep. Rogers Seeking Murtha's Reprimand May 19 22:41 Sit Down & Shut Up May 20 07:41 Jimmy Carter: Hatemonger May 20 22:23 Sen. Graham, There's a Reason Why They're Booing
Prior Years: 2006
We Gotta Get Out of This Place
According to this AP article, that's the music Gov. Tim Pawlenty played during a lunchtime visit to the legislature's end-of-year potluck. In a lighthearted gesture of goodwill, Gov. Pawlenty even brought some caramels to "sweeten the pot". Here's the significant information in the article:
The governor hand-delivered candy to lawmakers, quipping that he wanted to "sweeten the deal." One of his chief antagonists said he was beginning to see the outline of an agreement.I think that a deal is possible. I just don't have a reading on it's likely at this point. Something that I'm certain of is that the budget deal won't include any tax increases, which is a major win for the GOP. Many of us had worries with regards to Gov. Pawlenty & the badly outmanned legislature. Those worries are history now. Marty Seifert has held the House GOP Caucus together masterfully. Rep. Seifert should also thank, as I have here, Majority Leader Sertich. Had Sertich not alienated the entire GOP Caucus, the DFL might've persuaded a few GOP moderates to vote to override some of Gov. Pawlenty's vetoes. Simply put, Sertich's snotty behavior was a huge mistake.
Could the 2007 Legislature be just about done? Right on time?
Well, maybe. Friday was seen as a critical day for settling the state's two-year budget without requiring a special session after Monday's adjournment deadline.
"Wednesday was yellow alert, yesterday was orange alert and today is getting to be red alert," said House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, R-Marshall.
Negotiations, Pawlenty said, were "at a sensitive stage" and he wouldn't go into detail. "It would be good for everybody to finish on time. The deal never really fundamentally changes in these special sessions in June or July. It just ends up ticking everyone off, including the public," the Republican governor said. "All of us have probably promised more than they can deliver so some things are going to have to get thrown overboard."Gov. Pawlenty is being kind by saying that "All of us have probably" overpromised. That's possibly true in the abstract but I'd bet the proverbial ranch that nobody overpromises like the DFL overpromises its political supporters.
One of the governor's main adversaries, Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, said he sensed a deal was nearing. "I'm pretty certain there's going to be a soft landing," he said as senators and their staff gathered for a lunch-hour potluck. "The parameters of an agreement are apparent."Now it's a matter of whether the DFL will implement the common sense budget blueprint that Gov. Pawlenty is offering before Monday night's deadline. That's the $64,000 question. Stay tuned to LFR for further developments. I'll be monitoring things all weekend long.
Posted Saturday, May 19, 2007 12:17 AM
No comments.
Bloomberg-Hagel for President?
That's the subject of this Reuters article. I must say that I got a kick out of it. Here's the first thing that got me chuckling:
Reports that Bloomberg, New York's Republican mayor, is willing to spend a big chunk of his personal fortune, perhaps as much as $1 billion, on a White House run set off a new round of speculation about his intentions and his possible impact on the November 2008 election. The speculation was egged on by Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a conservative Republican and Iraq war opponent who also is considering an independent bid and had dinner with Bloomberg recently.Calling Chuck Hagel a "conservative Republican" is laughable. I'm not certain that I'd call him a moderate Republican. As I've said before, Hagel is this year's Linc Chafee. Linc Chafee wasn't close to being a moderate.
I hope that this ticket happens because it'd take lots more votes from Hillary than from the GOP nominee.
I highly recommend reading the entire article...especially if you're looking for a good laugh.
Posted Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:48 AM
No comments.
McCain, Cornyn Engage in Heated Exchange
That's the title of this Washington Post article. As I said here, this immigration 'reform' bill hit its high water mark in terms of popularity the day it was announced. That's because it doesn't enjoy widespread bipartisan support. I think that has McCain a bit on edge. Here's the key section of the article:
During a meeting Thursday on immigration legislation, McCain and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) got into a shouting match when Cornyn started voicing concerns about the number of judicial appeals that illegal immigrants could receive, according to multiple sources, both Democrats and Republicans, who heard firsthand accounts of the exchange from lawmakers who were in the room.McCain's temper is legendary to Washington insiders. That's why his legislative legacy isn't bigger. Earlier in his career, McCain reportedly took a 'My way or the highway' type of approach. Yesterday, I said this about him:
At a bipartisan gathering in an ornate meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain complained that Cornyn was raising petty objections to a compromise plan being worked out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House. He used a curse word associated with chickens and accused Cornyn of raising the issue just to torpedo a deal.
Things got really heated when Cornyn accused McCain of being too busy campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations, which have gone on for months behind closed doors. "Wait a second here," Cornyn said to McCain. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."
John McCain is seen as a self-serving, promise-breaking, unprincipled preener.This is proof that hell hath no fury like John McCain when someone stands in the way of him building his legislative legacy. It's also proof that there isn't a principle that John McCain won't compromise in his quest for a legislative legacy.
Let's also stipulate that this shows the precarious nature of the bill. It's been negotiated by McCain, Kennedy and others but that doesn't mean that people will like the bill. Senators especially don't like essentially being told "this is the way it's going to be." They want to put their imprint on legislation so they can tout their participation in crafting major legislation.
Each input that senators insist on has the potential of derailing the legislation. (Here's to praying that there's lots of 'inputs'.) That wasn't the end of the spat, though:
McCain, a former Navy pilot, then used language more accustomed to sailors (not to mention the current vice president, who made news a few years back after a verbal encounter with Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont).Mr. Jones' spin notwithstanding, this exchange isn't helping Sen. McCain's sinking presidential ambitions. The arrogance displayed here isn't flattering to Sen. McCain. It certainly won't endear him to conservatives who already think that he's a hothead and a 'it's all about me' person.
"[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room," shouted McCain at Cornyn. McCain helped craft a bill in 2006 that passed the Senate but couldn't be compromised with a House bill that was much tougher on illegal immigrants.
Cornyn's office declined to comment on the incident. McCain's camp specifically denied that the senator ever claimed to know more about the immigration issue than other senators, but acknowledged that the two Republicans had quite a disagreement.
"These negotiations can be very tense, and there was a spirited exchange. That's it," said Brian Jones, spokesman for McCain's presidential campaign.
It's worth noting how proprietary McCain is of this bill. Why wouldn't he welcome the improvements that Sen. Cornyn proposed? I find that rather troublesome. If he's going to be set about this provision, how will he react when bigger changes are proposed? Should we expect more Vesuvius outbursts from Sen. McCain?
I predicted yesterday that this legislation would collapse under the weight of its amendments. I believe that yesterday's outburst supports my opinion that this legislation won't have smooth sailing through the Senate. In fact, I predict that it'll have a bumpier ride through the House.
Which is good news for the good guys.
Posted Saturday, May 19, 2007 7:02 AM
No comments.
Rep. Rogers Seeking Murtha's Reprimand
John Murtha's temper got the best of him when Mike Rogers challenged the need for another pile of pork delivered to Murtha's district. Now Mike Rogers is poised to get the better of him, too. Here's the details of the incident:
Mr. Rogers said Mr. Murtha confronted him on the House floor Thursday night, vowing to block federal money for his district, according to a draft of the motion.Murtha's been ladling out pork for so long that he sees himself as the gatekeeper of defense pork. He snapped when Rogers, a former special agent in the FBI, challenged the need for $23 million going to the NDIC:
"I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever," Mr. Murtha allegedly told Mr. Rogers in a "loud voice." He referred to the pet projects lawmakers often tuck into large spending bills.
"This is not the way we do things here," Mr. Rogers replied. "Is that supposed to make me afraid of you?"
"That's the way I do it," Mr. Murtha said.
"We are a nation at war, and when we find wasteful spending we must stop it. This comes down to a choice between spies catching terrorists or pork barrel spending in a congressional district," Mr. Rogers said in a news release. "We can't allow members to be threatened and intimidated when they stand up to protect hardworking taxpayers' money."The NDIC in Johnstown, Murtha's hometown, doesn't have a great legacy:
A statement from House Minority Leader John Boehner cited a House committee report from last year, calling the NDIC an "expensive and duplicative use of scarce federal drug enforcement resources."That's of little concern to Rep. Murtha. His sole mission is to keep the pork flowing in overabundance to his district. Setting smart policy isn't a consideration. Murtha forgot about the notion of working for the public good long ago. That's why he's been one of the most corrupt politicians in Washington for a couple decades.
Unfortunately, there's little chance of Rep. Rogers' reprimand getting enough votes:
With Democrats in control of the House, Mr. Rogers' reprimand has little likelihood of success.This is just another example of the bald-faced lie Ms. Pelosi told about ethics:
Democrats, Pelosi said, "intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history".Somehow, I don't think that threats and intimidation is the definition that the American people have of "the most ethical Congress in history." The truth is that Pelosi and Murtha are corrupt to the core. Frankly, I'd doubt that there's an ethical bone in Murtha's body.
The good news is that Republicans can use this incident against Pelosi, Murtha and Co. in next year's campaign. Here's hoping that they use this incident like a billy club to pound the Democrats into submission.
The House code of official conduct states that a congressman "may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark,on any vote cast by another member."
I'd say that Murtha's threat is in direct violation of the official code of conduct. It'll be interesting to see how Democrats will rationalize their votes.
Posted Saturday, May 19, 2007 7:53 AM
No comments.
Sit Down & Shut Up
Over the past year, Jimmy Carter has gone from having the distinction of being the worst president of our generation to being the worst president of our generation and the worst ex-president of our generation. Here's an AFP article that 'builds' on his 'legacy'. This time, he's chastising Tony Blair for agreeing with President Bush.
Former US president Jimmy Carter on Saturday attacked outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair for his "blind" support of the Iraq war, describing it as a "major tragedy for the world".What's disgraceful is Jimmy Carter's Bush-hating. Jimmy Carter hasn't had any credibility on international issues since his appeasement of Ayatollah Khomeini started the global jihadist movement in 1979. He isn't in position to lecture anyone about foreign policy. He certainly isn't in a position to talk about being an honorable ally, which is what Tony Blair is.
In an interview with BBC radio, Carter was asked how he would describe Blair's attitude to US President George W. Bush. He replied: "Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient. I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world."
Frankly, I wish Jimmy Carter would develop a permanent case of laryngitis so we wouldn't have to listen his warped view of the world.
Carter, US president from 1977 to 1981, suggested Blair could have made a crucial difference to US political and public opinion by distancing himself during the build-up to the March 2003 invasion. "I can't say it would have made a definitive difference. But it would certainly have assuaged the problems that have arisen lately," he said.Carter's pacifistic tendencies don't allow him to admit that declaring wars on tyrants and dictators is actually a positive thing. It's a shame because his administration spoke often about human rights. Now we eliminate one of the worst human rights abusers in recent history and Jimmy Carter thinks that we've done the wrong thing and that Tony Blair is just blindly covering for President Bush. His pride doesn't allow him to consider the possibility that President Bush was right and that he's wrong again.
"One of the defences of the Bush administration, in America and worldwide, it's not been successful in my opinion, has been that, okay, we must be more correct in our actions than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us. I think the combination of Bush and Blair giving their support to this tragedy in Iraq has strengthened the effort and has made opposition less effective and has prolonged the war and increased the tragedy that has resulted."
What's worse is that the 1970's human rights champion now calls Iraq "this tragedy in Iraq."
Mr. President, Just why is disposing of a murdering thug like Saddam a tragedy"? Better yet, explain to us why sitting on our hands while Iraqi thugs torment Iraqi mothers, fathers and children is considered a moral choice. Frankly, letting a tyrant oppress entire ethnic groups is, on its face, the ultimate ironic immorality.
Posted Saturday, May 19, 2007 10:42 PM
No comments.
Jimmy Carter: Hatemonger
It's impossible not to say this. Jimmy Carter is a hatemonger. When Carter lashed out at British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush was his real target. Now he's lashed out at President Bush again. Why he's turned into such a hate-spewing bitter old man is beyond me. But that's what's happened. What else can you conclude after reading this:
Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.Those statements take chutzpah considering the fact that President Bush wouldn't have had to deal with al-Qa'ida, Iran and other terrorists if President Carter hadn't been the ultimate terrorist appeaser. If President Carter hadn't been a total wimp who put a higher priority on getting along with barbarians, President Bush wouldn't have to clean up Carter's mess.
The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."
When objective, clear-thinking history books are written, they'll note that President Bush started cleaning up the mess that Jimmy Carter started. I suspect that Jimmy Carter knows this. That's his motivation for lashing out. I'm betting that he's trying to distract people from the ineptitude of his administration. He failed because most serious, thoughtful adults know that he's a pathetic individual and the worst foreign policy president in U.S. history.
There's a good reason for President Bush abandoning the past practices of "previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon." The world changed on Sept. 11, 2001. The reason why Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41 didn't take pre-emptive action is because they didn't have to deal with a terrorist attack within the continental United States. Had the 9/11 terrorists attacks happened during Reagan's presidency, I'd bet that he wouldn't have been as measured as President Bush has been.
Carter's remarks didn't go unchallenged:
"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."Thinking people haven't taken President Carter seriously because he's a bitter, foolish man who never should've been elected president. His record speaks for itself. Let's not forget that the term misery index was invented because of his inept bungling of the economy. The misery index is a combination of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate. Let's look at this chart, which shows the misery index of the various presidents. Here's Carter's misery index ratings:
1977 13.55To this day, nobody's come close to the numbers Carter put up in 1979 & 1980. President Reagan was close but only because he had to right the economy of the Carter disaster:
1978 13.69
1979 17.07
1980 20.76
1981 17.97Now let's look at President Bush's numbers thus far:
1982 15.87
1983 12.82
1984 11.81
1985 10.74
1986 8.91
1987 9.84
1988 9.57
2001 7.59What we see is that President Bush's numbers are between half and a third of Carter's. That's on top of President Carter's bungling of the Iranian hostage crisis and his policy of appeasement of the Soviet Union.
2002 7.37
2003 8.26
2004 8.21
2005 8.48
2006 7.87
Simply speaking, it's safe to say that President Carter's administration is both a laughingstock and a disaster. Those monikers apply both to his foreign and military policies and his economic policies. You can't get much worse than that.
Posted Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:42 AM
No comments.
Sen. Graham, There's a Reason Why They're Booing
According to this article, Sen. Lindsey Graham was booed at the South Carolina State Convention. He was also cheered at the same convention. Here's what happened:
And the crowd booed Graham, R-S.C., when he said he had worked with U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., on the immigration legislation. "It's the best bill I think we can get to President Bush," Graham said as some in the crowd shouted "No!" Graham was cheered earlier in his speech when he talked about the war in Iraq. "Immigration got booed," Graham said afterward. "It's an emotional topic. People are mad."Sen. Graham's right that "people are mad." Unfortunately, he hasn't thought much about why they're mad. If he'd thought about why people are mad, he wouldn't put a priority on getting such a bad bill to President Bush's desk for signing. Why should it be a priority to pass legislation that doesn't enforce our borders and that grants informal immunity through the Z-visa?
Friday, I posted something titled " The Devil's in the Details." That was before the language was available. Now it's available and Hugh Hewitt has been studying it. It's vast understatement to say that he isn't happy with it.
Sen. Graham and the other Republicans supporting this legislation would be best off getting themselves out from underneath this bill because it's an abomination. If they do that, they'll find that their base wouldn't boo them. Sen. Graham can put all the lipstick on this pig but people have figured out that it's garbage legislation that shouldn't even get debated.
I'd rather have no bill than this bill. McCain and Kennedy and Co. can forge a series of agreements on immigration but they won't go anywhere until President Bush and Congress show that they're serious about enforcing the border. The first step in that is beefing up the border Patrol and building the wall. Only after that's happened can we talk about comprehensive reform. Not a minute sooner.
DeMint told the crowd that supporters were trying to "ram an immigration bill down America's throat" and said if it allows permanent residency of illegal immigrants, it should be called amnesty.Sen. Graham, the GOP House put a bill together that was vastly superior to this collection of bad policies. Ted Kennedy and John McCain undermined it with the first McCain-Kennedy compromise. I know that moonbats like Tom Harkin, Bernie Sanders and Chuckie Schumer wouldn't support it, which is all the more reason for Republicans to push it.
Graham said opponents like DeMint are being inaccurate when they say the bill provides amnesty because it requires immigrants to serve a probationary period and pay fines. "If you don't like President Bush's proposal come up with one of your own that can get support in the Congress to control immigration, which is in chaos," Graham said.
Sen. Graham is blowing smoke on the paying fines part, too, according to Captain Ed:
The Bush administration insisted on a little-noticed change in the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that would enable 12 million undocumented residents to avoid paying back taxes or associated fines to the Internal Revenue Service, officials said.I understand that fines and back taxes aren't the same but how can we be sure that fines won't be levied when we know that illegal immigrants won't be forced to pay back taxes before becoming citizens?
An independent analyst estimated the decision could cost the IRS tens of billions of dollars.
A provision requiring payment of back taxes had been in the initial version of a bill proposed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat. But the administration called for the provision to be removed due to concern that it would be too difficult to figure out which illegal immigrants owed back taxes.
It's time that Sen. Graham got his very own brain instead of trusting John McCain so much. If he doesn't, he might get bounced by a primary challenger.
Posted Sunday, May 20, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment 1 by Tom Shakely at 21-May-07 12:12 AM
This immigration "reform" package is complete bunk and the American people at large must recognize that, or we're going to have a real problem on our hands going forward.
We're creating a bigger and bigger government bureaucracy and are stuck with a president who is making liberals lose their mind and conservatives lose their drive.
Disaster is defined as getting the world of all odds. It certainly seems to be happening to the conservative base right now.
