September 26, 2017
Sep 26 03:47 Klobuchar teams with Sanders Sep 26 08:54 Partisanship killed the blue slip Sep 26 09:44 Overthinking the NFL's protests? Sep 26 10:32 University of Censorship-Berkeley Sep 26 14:57 St. Cloud, nanny city?
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Klobuchar teams with Sanders
According to this tweet , Sen. Klobuchar praised the "@mngop reinsurance proposal as solution to skyrocketing premiums." While it's true that the Republican plan will reduce health insurance premiums and stabilize the individual market, there's no chance that Sen. Klobuchar will vote for that GOP legislation. The woman that portrays herself as Mrs. Bipartisanship gave Minnesota voters a glimpse into who the real Amy Klobuchar is. Earlier tonight, she appeared with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the definition of hard-leftism, on CNN. That's astonishing. Sen. Graham is a moderate-to-liberal Republican. As I said earlier, Sen. Klobuchar consistently portrays herself as a moderate Democrat.
If that image of Sen. Klobuchar was true, shouldn't Sen. Klobuchar be anxious to work with Sen. Graham to negotiate a bipartisan agreement? If Sen. Klobuchar reject Sen. Sanders' extremism? That's how it should work. Unfortunately, that isn't what's happening. Unfortunately, Sen. Klobuchar is siding with the least bipartisan senator in the last fifty years rather than the moderate-to-liberal Republican senator from South Carolina. I'd love to hear Sen. Klobuchar explain why this happened:
During the debate, Sen. Cassidy praised Minnesota's system , offering Klobuchar a golden opportunity to work some bipartisan magic. Unfortunately, Sen. Klobuchar didn't capitalize on that opportunity. Instead, she stuck with her bipartisan rhetoric and partisan actions, saying "I am asking people to join me to fix the Affordable Care Act." "put the politics aside and put the people first."
Sen. Cassidy clearly presented Sen. Klobuchar with the opportunity to solve the ACA's skyrocketing premiums. Instead of accepting that offer, Sen. Klobuchar insisted on fixing the ACA. What's astonishing is that Sen. Klobuchar's idea of using the GOP reinsurance plan would require a major rewrite of the ACA. That wouldn't be a tinkering-around-the-edges modification.
It's pretty clear that Sen. Klobuchar isn't the moderate she portrays herself to be. It's a shame she isn't. If she truly was a moderate, she'd be free to vote for good legislation rather than sticking with Bernie Sanders.
Posted Tuesday, September 26, 2017 3:47 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 26-Sep-17 02:53 PM
Why does Amy want to fix Obamacare now when the democrats have lost power? They could have fixed Obamacare when they had 2/3 of the power yet the chose to do nothing. I say let it implode and let the chips fall where they may.
Partisanship killed the blue slip
Eleanor Clift's article laments the death of a Senate tradition -- the blue slip. In her column, Clift wrote "The Republican majority has already stripped the minority of its right to filibuster Supreme Court nominations. Ignoring senators who don't mark a blue piece of paper to indicate support for a federal judicial nomination would effectively strip one last tool from the minority."
I won't play the well-they-did-it-first card even though Democrats killed the filibuster on presidential appointments and lower court nominees. Harry Reid, in a moment of hyper-partisanship, changed Senate rules to pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with liberals and to pack the NLRB with partisans that reflexively rule in unions' favor.
Instead, I'll state the obvious. I'll state that hyper-partisanship killed the blue slip. Clift mischaracterizes what happened when she wrote "If a senator doesn't return the blue slip, it's an automatic red light for the nominee, power that in the best of times forces consultation and consensus and yields judges who can win more than a narrow party-line vote."
In the light of the Democrats' resistance movement, the blue slip simply became another weapon to kill judicial nominees that Democrats found to the right of David Souter. It's insulting that Clift would write such partisan BS. She knows better. Then again, she's one of DC's most bitter partisan hacks. The problem isn't that they're on their way to abolishing the blue slip. It's that, for the last 8 years, Democrats have become a party interested only in over-the-top partisanship.
Does anyone seriously think that Sen. Franken would return his blue slip if President Trump had met with him before he'd nominated Justice Stras? There's a better chance of me getting hit with a bolt of lightning while holding 2 winning lottery tickets. The truth is that Sen. Franken is a partisan hack who isn't fit to serve on the Judiciary Committee. In this video, Sen. Franken imposes a religious test on Amy Coney-Barrett:
Religious tests for judicial nominees is prohibited by the Constitution. In fact, it's prohibited . Period:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States .
Any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that either doesn't know about that prohibition or simply ignores it shouldn't have a veto authority over a highly qualified judicial nominee.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell served notice earlier this month when he told The New York Times that blue slips 'ought to simply be a notification of how you're going to vote, not the opportunity to blackball.' This was taken as a signal that if Democrats withhold blue slips on Trump's judges, he would stop the practice just as he stopped the filibuster earlier this year in order to confirm Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
One of the great tragedies of this Congressional Session was watching the entire Democratic delegation vote against Justice Gorsuch's nomination. Justice Gorsuch was supremely qualified. He'd gotten the highest rating possible from the American Bar Association. He'd frequently received praise for the depth he displayed in his opinions from people across the political spectrum. Despite those facts, Senate Democrats voted against his confirmation.
I don't want to hear whiney liberals complaining about the death of traditions, especially when they're the people killing them.
Posted Tuesday, September 26, 2017 8:54 AM
No comments.
Overthinking the NFL's protests?
My friend Ed Morrissey has written this thoughtful post about the Dallas Cowboys' innovative protest prior to last night's game.
In his post, Ed wrote "Every team had some form of protest, and all but the Cowboys during the anthem. (The Steelers managed to fumble theirs so badly that a three-tour veteran apologized for standing for the anthem. Sheesh.)" Later, Ed wrote "Back to the Cowboys' innovation: did it work? Clearly the crowd at the game wasn't impressed with the change. That's because they paid (a lot) to see a football game, not a social-justice parade, plus it was a demonstration by the visiting team, which made the boos all the more natural. Many object to the message, which they see as a blanket condemnation of police in general - and a pointless exercise even for that cause."
It's fair to think that a significant percentage of NFL players protesting aren't properly informed. It's fair to question NFL players, especially after the then-St. Louis Rams wide receivers came out of the tunnel displaying the hands up, don't shoot signals:
I don't doubt that these players felt passionately about their perception of the lack of a relationship between the black community and law enforcement. I just wish those players had consulted Burgess Owens and Pastor Michel Faulkner. Check out this masterful joint interview conducted by Tucker Carlson:
Finally, Ed notes "However, for those whose objection centered entirely on disrespect for the flag, this seems to be a reasonable compromise. The players get to have their say on the field, and then everyone salutes the flag. Had the protest taken this form from the beginning, we'd be debating the merits of the claim rather than patriotism and respect for the country. It certainly satisfies my objections to the fad, even if I disagree with some of the particulars of the protests, which is what debate is supposed to handle."
The goal should be to fix problems. Kneeling or sitting during the national anthem doesn't fix a thing. I'd argue that it hurts more than helps. It's already tearing apart one passionate NFL community. If the players wanted to change the dynamics of race relations, kneeling during the National Anthem isn't effective. My sincere recommendation to the players is to think outside the box. I'd suggest that they quietly work within their spheres of influence to change the thinking of minority youths and law enforcement. Setting up a task force that brings leaders in the African-American community and law enforcement so both get to walk in each others' shoes might be the right place to start.
That conversation needs to happen without race-baiters like Al Sharpton on the sidelines. Sharpton isn't about shedding light as much as he's about creating heat. Cooler heads must prevail. If they don't, this problem won't get fixed.
In the end, what's important is to take away the spotlight, then bring together calmer voices.
Posted Tuesday, September 26, 2017 9:44 AM
No comments.
University of Censorship-Berkeley
Rather than being called the University of California-Berkeley, the school should be renamed the University of Censorship-Berkeley. This Campus Reform article highlights just how ridiculous things have gotten.
According to the article, "On Sunday, conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos attempted to follow through on his promise to speak at Berkeley despite the decision of the Berkeley Patriot, a student organization that had agreed to sponsor the Free Speech Week, to pull its support from the 4-day event, citing pressure from the university. In a letter to Berkeley's Interim Vice Chancellor Stephen Sutton posted online by Yiannopoulos, the attorneys representing the Berkeley Patriot threatened legal action against the university for allegedly failing 'to protect our students from physical assault and vandalism,' threatening students with a 'hate crime' investigation, and several other grievances. 'The intent of the threat was clear: Cease speaking out or face criminal investigation,' the attorneys wrote. 'Well, our clients' heard the Chancellor's threat. They will be quiet, for now.' You are further notified that our clients are contemplating initiating litigation against the responsible parties and the administration for violation of our clients civil rights,' the attorneys also warned."
That's quite a story. The birthplace of the free speech movement now threatens people it disagrees with criminal investigations. If that doesn't sound like the tactics of a fascist state to you, it's time for you to hit the books. That's definitely one of the tactics a fascist state would employ.
Berkeley isn't part of the free speech movement. They're just another mindless liberal institution that's been infiltrated by anti-American thinking. How the mighty have fallen.
Posted Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:38 AM
No comments.
St. Cloud, nanny city?
This article caught my attention because it reports that St. Cloud, the city where I've lived my entire life, is thinking about becoming as progressive as Michael Bloomberg's New York City.
Apparently, some members of the St. Cloud City Council think we don't have enough pressing needs to worry about. They think they need to intrude into our lives a little more. According to Alyssa Zaczek's article, the "St. Cloud City Council moved Monday night to temporarily postpone a public hearing on raising the tobacco purchasing age to 21. City Council members were expected to schedule a public hearing on the matter for Oct. 9. Instead, council members will hold a study session on the issue in October in order to be better prepared for a public hearing in November."
Ms. Zaczek's article reports that "Council member Dave Masters requested that city administrator Matt Staehling reach out to the other cities in the area considering the ordinance change - including Sartell, Sauk Rapids, and Waite Park, among others - to determine where they are in the process and what, if any, changes those cities intend to make to the ordinance before voting upon it."
The busybodies on the City Council apparently think that adults who can vote and fight in our nation's wars shouldn't be allowed to buy cigarettes. What underlying principle brings them to that position? Are they aware that this potential ordinance won't prevent teens from smoking :
In 2009, Washington, D.C. raised its cigarette tax from $2.00 to $2.50 per pack. The District projected the new tax would generate $45 million in revenue, about 20 percent above 2009 levels. Instead, revenues came in $12 million below projections and $4.2 million lower than before the tax was imposed. Similarly, New Jersey reported a $52 million shortfall in tobacco tax revenues after it raised its cigarette tax by 17.5 cents in 2007. Due to these declining revenues, states often turn to broad-based tax increases to pay for an overspending problem. A recent NTU study also showed that 41 of 59 state tobacco tax increases from 2001-2006 were followed by more expansive tax increases within two years, as states attempted to make up for tobacco revenue that never appeared.
In other words, the tax increase had a negative effect on DC's revenues. St. Cloud wouldn't stop teens from smoking. They'd just buy their tobacco products elsewhere:
Should Gov. Mark Dayton's proposed 94 cent per pack cigarette tax increase succeed, it is likely that the state will see a large revenue shortfall due to smokers shifting their consumption across state lines, to the Internet, or to illicit black market tobacco.
From a policy standpoint, raising the age to 21 is stupid. Young people will just buy their tobacco products elsewhere. Trust me when I say that I've got other information that proves that this is foolishness. It isn't even about wanting to protect kids. It's proven that they'll purchase their product elsewhere.
Matt Staehling was tasked with finding out if Sartell, Waite Park and Sauk Rapids are as stupid as St. Cloud appears to be.
Let's hope Mr. Staehling finds out that they aren't that stupid.
Posted Tuesday, September 26, 2017 2:57 PM
No comments.
