As most know by now, William F. Buckley, passed away yesterday at the age of 82.
Along with founding The National Review and creating Firing Line, Buckley is widely credited with being the father of the modern conservative movement. He was clearly responsible for helping form the political philosophies of two other icons of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Scott Johnson, writing in PowerLine, recalled a memory of quintessential Buckley:
"I joined Buckley for dinner when he arrived at Dartmouth to speak upon his return from Nixon’s trip to China in the spring of 1972...At Buckley’s speech following dinner, a drunken antiwar protester assailed Buckley during the question and answer period: 'Mr. Buckley, Mr. Buckley, Mr. Buckley,' he began. 'Do you really think the United States is in Vietnam to protect the freedom of the Vietnamese people, or rather to exploit their resources, take over their country, pursue imperial ambitions and wage a war of aggression?'
'The former,' Buckley responded."
Buckley's death comes at a time when the conservative movement seems to have run its course. Its ideas seem to have lost touch with the mood of the country. Many in the GOP have hoped for an heir to Reagan. I wonder if what we really need is an heir to Buckley.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Stein Dissembles on School Closing
Superintendent Richard Stein announced plans to close the Washington Irving School at a Gates-Chili School Board meeting held there on Wednesday. Stein's budget outline and the reaction to the planned closing were reported in this Democrat & Chronicle article.
Stein discussed the high points of his proposed budget that increases spending by approximately 3.3%, to over $81 million. He revealed the badly kept secret that Washington Irving was slated to be closed. He pointed out that the district has 16 underused classrooms at its 5 elementary schools. Gates-Chili has been experiencing declining enrollments. Further, the Irving building is one of the oldest in the district and has a number of structural problems that would be costly to repair.
Unfortunately, Mr. Stein decided to lay the blame for the closing on the County's decision to cut the sales tax share paid to local school districts. "That's real money we lost that is not coming back," said Stein. "It's not easy for me to be here in a building that I care for as much as any building in the district and deliver this news. I didn't ask for a $1.6 million problem, but we got it."
This implies that the school would not be closed but for the revenue loss. That flies in the face of the facts. It looks like Mr. Stein decided to dodge taking any heat for the closure decision. What ever happened to being a forthright leader who explains the reasoning behind a decision and persuades his constituents of the sense of his plan?
Weak, Mr. Stein, very weak! And not much of a lesson in leadership and honesty for all of your district's students.
Stein discussed the high points of his proposed budget that increases spending by approximately 3.3%, to over $81 million. He revealed the badly kept secret that Washington Irving was slated to be closed. He pointed out that the district has 16 underused classrooms at its 5 elementary schools. Gates-Chili has been experiencing declining enrollments. Further, the Irving building is one of the oldest in the district and has a number of structural problems that would be costly to repair.
Unfortunately, Mr. Stein decided to lay the blame for the closing on the County's decision to cut the sales tax share paid to local school districts. "That's real money we lost that is not coming back," said Stein. "It's not easy for me to be here in a building that I care for as much as any building in the district and deliver this news. I didn't ask for a $1.6 million problem, but we got it."
This implies that the school would not be closed but for the revenue loss. That flies in the face of the facts. It looks like Mr. Stein decided to dodge taking any heat for the closure decision. What ever happened to being a forthright leader who explains the reasoning behind a decision and persuades his constituents of the sense of his plan?
Weak, Mr. Stein, very weak! And not much of a lesson in leadership and honesty for all of your district's students.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Campaign Must Have Started
Well, if you had any doubt that the main-stream media would turn on John McCain when he went from "GOP maverick" who was a thorn in the side of President Bush to "GOP standard bearer" and potential threat to Democrat dominance in Washington, you need only read this New York Times attack piece on McCain.
It was expected that the "Keating 5" savings and loan scandal would come up, but the Times threw in quite a bit more, including an eight year-old, unconfirmed rumor of a possible romantic connection to a female lobbyist. Yikes! The nominating process isn't even over yet, but the attacks have begun!
All the news that's fit to print, huh? What happened to this once great newspaper?
It was expected that the "Keating 5" savings and loan scandal would come up, but the Times threw in quite a bit more, including an eight year-old, unconfirmed rumor of a possible romantic connection to a female lobbyist. Yikes! The nominating process isn't even over yet, but the attacks have begun!
All the news that's fit to print, huh? What happened to this once great newspaper?
Friday, February 15, 2008
A Matter Of Perspective
As I ran through the Democrat & Chronicle's Editorial Board Blog a few days ago, I came across this Max Anderson post. I twice considered responding, but my courage failed me. In fact, it is with some trepidation that I post this entry . I suspect that many white readers are, like myself, fearful of being labelled a racist for engaging in a discussion with racial overtones and/or criticizing a leader of the black community, like David Gantt. In fact, if you review the comments attached to Mr Anderson's post along with the comments associated with "What is all the hoopla about?" on the Chili Blog and "Gantt's Remark" on the Gates blog, I think you will see that there is some very deep-seated emotion surrounding this issue.
It is quite clear that I have a different view of the extent of racism in Monroe County and America, generally, than do Mr. Anderson or the D&C Editor, Mr. Lawrence, or commentors Gloria Winston al-Sarag and Howard J. Eagle, who contributed much to the blogs I referred to above. While I acknowledge that racists and racism persist, I do not perceive racism to be as pervasive in our society as those gentlemen and lady do. Obviously, the fact that I, like most white Americans, have never been discriminated against due to my skin color, while many black Americans have been and continue to be, is part of the explanation for the difference in our perspectives.
I do, however, believe that some part of black Americans' perception of the extent of racism is due to the "leadership" of black politicians and commentators who still rely on identity politics and use of the "race card" to achieve their ends. My observations of Mr. Gantt over the past 20-25 years lead me to place him in that category of "leader".
I have criticized Mr. Gantt because I have found his efforts to be backward looking and counter-productive. He has often stood in the way of projects in Rochester and Monroe County unless he could extract concessions for what he sometimes calls "his community". I am somewhat leery of making such criticisms, as I realize that critics of Mr. Gantt do so at their peril. Recently, on the Gates blog, strident Gantt supporters accused some of his critics of racism. I had not noted the supposed racist overtones in their criticism, but Mr. Gantt's supporters did. Similarly, during the debate on the Public Defender selection, many black observers suggested that the actions of the Monroe County GOP Legislature majority parallelled the conduct of the authorities in Selma and Birmingham, Alabama in the 60's. In my mind, this was simply a partisan political dispute; to Mr. Gantt and many in the black community, it was a Civil Rights issue. I suppose my view can be attributed to ignorance of the extent of racism in the community. But it is my honest belief that the GOP players were motivated by politics only and that it was Mr. Gantt's actions which led directly to the development of the racial dimension of the issue. For more on Mr. Gantt's role in the PD controversey, check this post by Lucy on the Mustard Street blog.
As fate would have it, this year's Presidential campaign may give us a chance to test the extent of racial attitudes in the country. I would hold up Barack Obama's candidacy as a prime example of my point about differing perspectives. To me, and to many (most?) white Americans, Barack Obama is not a "black" politician. I do not perceive him as a black man, nor does his race define him to me, nor, apparently, does it to the increasing numbers of non-minority voters who are propelling him towards the Democratic nomination. This is in contrast to black voters who, by virtue their near-unanimous support for Obama, do seem to perceive him as "their" candidate.
Yet Senator Obama has not campaigned as a traditional black candidate. His campaign has not evoked traditional race-oriented themes, as have those of many black politicians like David Gantt, locally, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, nationally. In fact, Obama's candidacy (and possibly, his Presidency) could well go a long way towards ridding the country of the vestiges of racism. The benefits of the ascendancy of a "trans-racial" or "post-racial" black leader, like Senator Obama will, however, be muted somewhat by black politicians and pundits (like Gantt, Jackson, and Sharpton) for whom race identification and victimization, remain their basic modus operandi.
So to Mr. Anderson I would say, yes, our community is divided, but I do not think that there is a simple explanation for the division. Racism is certainly a factor, however, attempting to attribute racist motives to any critic of the conditions in Rochester is unhelpful. It is clear that blacks in Rochester still suffer from anti-black bias in the white community. It is equally clear, however, that the problems of violence, joblessness, drug abuse, and lack of educational success, which beset the black community to a disproportionate extent, cannot be explained away solely, or even largely, by claims of racism. Politicians who by their words and actions, make such claims, actually do a disservice to both the black community and the larger community as a whole.
Ed. Note: The date on this post (2/15) is apparently the date from the original draft. The final version published here was written on 2/20 and should have been so dated.
It is quite clear that I have a different view of the extent of racism in Monroe County and America, generally, than do Mr. Anderson or the D&C Editor, Mr. Lawrence, or commentors Gloria Winston al-Sarag and Howard J. Eagle, who contributed much to the blogs I referred to above. While I acknowledge that racists and racism persist, I do not perceive racism to be as pervasive in our society as those gentlemen and lady do. Obviously, the fact that I, like most white Americans, have never been discriminated against due to my skin color, while many black Americans have been and continue to be, is part of the explanation for the difference in our perspectives.
I do, however, believe that some part of black Americans' perception of the extent of racism is due to the "leadership" of black politicians and commentators who still rely on identity politics and use of the "race card" to achieve their ends. My observations of Mr. Gantt over the past 20-25 years lead me to place him in that category of "leader".
I have criticized Mr. Gantt because I have found his efforts to be backward looking and counter-productive. He has often stood in the way of projects in Rochester and Monroe County unless he could extract concessions for what he sometimes calls "his community". I am somewhat leery of making such criticisms, as I realize that critics of Mr. Gantt do so at their peril. Recently, on the Gates blog, strident Gantt supporters accused some of his critics of racism. I had not noted the supposed racist overtones in their criticism, but Mr. Gantt's supporters did. Similarly, during the debate on the Public Defender selection, many black observers suggested that the actions of the Monroe County GOP Legislature majority parallelled the conduct of the authorities in Selma and Birmingham, Alabama in the 60's. In my mind, this was simply a partisan political dispute; to Mr. Gantt and many in the black community, it was a Civil Rights issue. I suppose my view can be attributed to ignorance of the extent of racism in the community. But it is my honest belief that the GOP players were motivated by politics only and that it was Mr. Gantt's actions which led directly to the development of the racial dimension of the issue. For more on Mr. Gantt's role in the PD controversey, check this post by Lucy on the Mustard Street blog.
As fate would have it, this year's Presidential campaign may give us a chance to test the extent of racial attitudes in the country. I would hold up Barack Obama's candidacy as a prime example of my point about differing perspectives. To me, and to many (most?) white Americans, Barack Obama is not a "black" politician. I do not perceive him as a black man, nor does his race define him to me, nor, apparently, does it to the increasing numbers of non-minority voters who are propelling him towards the Democratic nomination. This is in contrast to black voters who, by virtue their near-unanimous support for Obama, do seem to perceive him as "their" candidate.
Yet Senator Obama has not campaigned as a traditional black candidate. His campaign has not evoked traditional race-oriented themes, as have those of many black politicians like David Gantt, locally, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, nationally. In fact, Obama's candidacy (and possibly, his Presidency) could well go a long way towards ridding the country of the vestiges of racism. The benefits of the ascendancy of a "trans-racial" or "post-racial" black leader, like Senator Obama will, however, be muted somewhat by black politicians and pundits (like Gantt, Jackson, and Sharpton) for whom race identification and victimization, remain their basic modus operandi.
So to Mr. Anderson I would say, yes, our community is divided, but I do not think that there is a simple explanation for the division. Racism is certainly a factor, however, attempting to attribute racist motives to any critic of the conditions in Rochester is unhelpful. It is clear that blacks in Rochester still suffer from anti-black bias in the white community. It is equally clear, however, that the problems of violence, joblessness, drug abuse, and lack of educational success, which beset the black community to a disproportionate extent, cannot be explained away solely, or even largely, by claims of racism. Politicians who by their words and actions, make such claims, actually do a disservice to both the black community and the larger community as a whole.
Ed. Note: The date on this post (2/15) is apparently the date from the original draft. The final version published here was written on 2/20 and should have been so dated.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
But He Didn't Mean Anything By That
The political battle between Democrat Assemblyman David Gantt and the GOP majority in the Monroe County Legislature took a nasty turn on Tuesday. Philbrick at Mustard Street has a brief snippet of video from Tuesday night's legislature meeting attached to his post on the affair. It shows Mr. Gantt being escorted from the Legislature Chambers, while making a comment that (one would hope) he regrets making. Stunningly, while the cameras were rolling, Mr. Gantt said "You wonder why a guy go into Missouri and shoot some damn body".
His reference to the recent shooting of City Council members in the St. Louis, Mo. area is reprehensible. Apparently no longer content to simply score political points, Gantt has moved on to incitement to violence. I'm sure he and his apologists will say he wasn't suggesting that the St. Louis shooting was justified by the conduct of the victims, nor was he sending signals to anyone in our community that they should consider such action.
But if not, then I have to ask, just what was he trying to say? Perhaps Mr. Gantt read Tom Tobin's post on the D&C Editorial Blog headlined "Gantt smoked 'em" referring to Gantt's political machinations having bested GOP County Legislators in this matter. Maybe Gantt thinks Tobin's next piece ought to read "Gantt snuffed 'em".
His reference to the recent shooting of City Council members in the St. Louis, Mo. area is reprehensible. Apparently no longer content to simply score political points, Gantt has moved on to incitement to violence. I'm sure he and his apologists will say he wasn't suggesting that the St. Louis shooting was justified by the conduct of the victims, nor was he sending signals to anyone in our community that they should consider such action.
But if not, then I have to ask, just what was he trying to say? Perhaps Mr. Gantt read Tom Tobin's post on the D&C Editorial Blog headlined "Gantt smoked 'em" referring to Gantt's political machinations having bested GOP County Legislators in this matter. Maybe Gantt thinks Tobin's next piece ought to read "Gantt snuffed 'em".
Political Potpourri
There have been a number of political stories of interest, both local and national, over the past few days. Some random thoughts......
Public Defender:
The caterwauling about "the process" masked the fact that the person most responsible for politicizing the issue was David Gantt. Harry Bronson gets my nod as Best Actor in a Hypocritical Role (just beating out Monroe Bar Assn. President, Tom Smith) for his portrayal of a concerned and moral legislator who "just wanted to do the right thing". Of course, Bronson and Smith were quite content with Legislature President Wayne Zyra's "process" until Mr. Gantt "reminded" them that it was an evil Republican process. Republicans......bad!
Meanwhile, someone tell Jim Lawrence that its Zyra, not Zayre (Zayre was a discount store, Zyra is the Leg. President).
Gunning for Robach:
The three pretenders to Robach's throne all used the PD issue to get "face time" in the media. They were falling all over each other trying to be the most "outraged" at the insensitivity of the GOP legislature majority. Sandy Frankel gets my pick for best use of hyperbole for her statement that the Legislature's restriction on public input was "the way they did things in Russia". Note to Ms. Frankel: In Russia, if they wanted to keep you quiet, they killed you or sent you to the gulag; you certainly didn't hold a news conference.
School Funding:
Former Lt. Governor, Stan Lundine, now chairing the Governor's task force on ways to curb local government spending, was quoted as favoring giving the State Education Commissioner power to consolidate school districts over the objection of taxpayers in the affected districts. In a D&C report this morning, citing an Elmira Star-Gazette article, Lundine was quoted as saying "We need a hammer as well as incentives" regarding the power he wants the State to wield. He also said "I understand that people want to have democracy...". He may understand that they want it, but he apparently doesn't think they should have it. Additional note to Ms. Frankel: This is the way they did things in Russia.
Obama's Winning Streak:
I continue to be amazed by Obama's success. Never has a candidate gone so far while saying so little. His two watchwords are "change" and "hope". Well, I just hope the changes he will make if he's elected won't ruin the country. Meanwhile, I wouldn't count Hillary out just yet. She may not win, but she won't go quietly, of that I'm sure.
Public Defender:
The caterwauling about "the process" masked the fact that the person most responsible for politicizing the issue was David Gantt. Harry Bronson gets my nod as Best Actor in a Hypocritical Role (just beating out Monroe Bar Assn. President, Tom Smith) for his portrayal of a concerned and moral legislator who "just wanted to do the right thing". Of course, Bronson and Smith were quite content with Legislature President Wayne Zyra's "process" until Mr. Gantt "reminded" them that it was an evil Republican process. Republicans......bad!
Meanwhile, someone tell Jim Lawrence that its Zyra, not Zayre (Zayre was a discount store, Zyra is the Leg. President).
Gunning for Robach:
The three pretenders to Robach's throne all used the PD issue to get "face time" in the media. They were falling all over each other trying to be the most "outraged" at the insensitivity of the GOP legislature majority. Sandy Frankel gets my pick for best use of hyperbole for her statement that the Legislature's restriction on public input was "the way they did things in Russia". Note to Ms. Frankel: In Russia, if they wanted to keep you quiet, they killed you or sent you to the gulag; you certainly didn't hold a news conference.
School Funding:
Former Lt. Governor, Stan Lundine, now chairing the Governor's task force on ways to curb local government spending, was quoted as favoring giving the State Education Commissioner power to consolidate school districts over the objection of taxpayers in the affected districts. In a D&C report this morning, citing an Elmira Star-Gazette article, Lundine was quoted as saying "We need a hammer as well as incentives" regarding the power he wants the State to wield. He also said "I understand that people want to have democracy...". He may understand that they want it, but he apparently doesn't think they should have it. Additional note to Ms. Frankel: This is the way they did things in Russia.
Obama's Winning Streak:
I continue to be amazed by Obama's success. Never has a candidate gone so far while saying so little. His two watchwords are "change" and "hope". Well, I just hope the changes he will make if he's elected won't ruin the country. Meanwhile, I wouldn't count Hillary out just yet. She may not win, but she won't go quietly, of that I'm sure.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Three Amigos To Take On Robach
The political winds are blowing Democrat in New York. The GOP is trying to hold on against that gale and keep its slim majority in the State Senate.
Three local Democrats have decided that the wind could fill their sails and carry them to victory over Joe Robach. Former State Senator, Rick Dollinger, resigned his judgeship so that he would be free to make the run. Brighton Supervisor, Sandy Frankel, jumped in less than 24 hours later. Finally, Rochester School Board member, Willa Powell, who previously lost to Robach (by a 2-1 margin) also decided to give it another shot.
The fact that these three plan to fight it out among each other is evidence that they all think the time is ripe for a Democrat win in the 56th Senate District. Frankel has been mentioned as a possible candidate so many times, for so many offices, I've lost count. She generally shies away from any contest she thinks she can't win. (The Lt.Gov. run doesn't count; I doubt she thought she could win, but it was a no lose effort since she did not have to give up her seat as Supervisor.) Dollinger gave up the seat rather than risk losing to Robach a few years ago; he feels the shift in the wind. Ms. Powell, well, she has little chance against the other two Democrats, let alone Joe Robach.
Either Frankel or Dollinger will be a formidable opponent for Robach. The fact is, the GOP is unlikely to hold on to the State Senate. This race will be close, and Joe may hang on, but the GOP has a number of vulnerable seats, so it seems quite likely that Joe Bruno will not be a thorn in Gov. Spitzer's side much longer.
Republican party strategists had hoped that Rudy Giuliani would be at the top of the ticket. Having a favorite son running for President could have brought a higher GOP turnout that might have helped Republicans running statewide. Now they will have to hope that John McCain runs a strong Presidential campaign.
Still, it may be entertaining to watch these three fight it out for the chance to run. Frankel and Dollinger's initial comments lead me to think this may not be a "genteel" battle.
Three local Democrats have decided that the wind could fill their sails and carry them to victory over Joe Robach. Former State Senator, Rick Dollinger, resigned his judgeship so that he would be free to make the run. Brighton Supervisor, Sandy Frankel, jumped in less than 24 hours later. Finally, Rochester School Board member, Willa Powell, who previously lost to Robach (by a 2-1 margin) also decided to give it another shot.
The fact that these three plan to fight it out among each other is evidence that they all think the time is ripe for a Democrat win in the 56th Senate District. Frankel has been mentioned as a possible candidate so many times, for so many offices, I've lost count. She generally shies away from any contest she thinks she can't win. (The Lt.Gov. run doesn't count; I doubt she thought she could win, but it was a no lose effort since she did not have to give up her seat as Supervisor.) Dollinger gave up the seat rather than risk losing to Robach a few years ago; he feels the shift in the wind. Ms. Powell, well, she has little chance against the other two Democrats, let alone Joe Robach.
Either Frankel or Dollinger will be a formidable opponent for Robach. The fact is, the GOP is unlikely to hold on to the State Senate. This race will be close, and Joe may hang on, but the GOP has a number of vulnerable seats, so it seems quite likely that Joe Bruno will not be a thorn in Gov. Spitzer's side much longer.
Republican party strategists had hoped that Rudy Giuliani would be at the top of the ticket. Having a favorite son running for President could have brought a higher GOP turnout that might have helped Republicans running statewide. Now they will have to hope that John McCain runs a strong Presidential campaign.
Still, it may be entertaining to watch these three fight it out for the chance to run. Frankel and Dollinger's initial comments lead me to think this may not be a "genteel" battle.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
GOP In-fighting Doesn't Bode Well For November
I think John McCain is likely to be the GOP nominee this year.
Based on the reactions of many pundits, I doubt he'll be able to unify the party for a successful election bid, even if he's running against Hillary Clinton.
As I drove back to Rochester from a court date in Poughkeepsie, I had a chance to listen to a few talk shows. Rush and Sean Hannity were particularly bitter about McCain. Hearing the language they used and the reactions of their callers, it is clear that a great wave of conservative disaffection towards McCain is growing.
I'd say that the disaffection is so great that there is little chance that the GOP can unite behind McCain to defeat the Democrat nominee.
I find that fact remarkable. I know and agree that John McCain has taken some stands that I don't like, but I cannot understand the idea that not voting for him is going to "teach" the GOP leadership a "lesson". How is letting Hillary or Obama and the Democrats lead us further down the road to socialism going to teach anybody a lesson? I don't understand the theory that if you can't get all or most of what you want, you would rather get none of what you want, instead of some of what you want.
Further, why is McCain winning? If he's such a bad guy, why is he outpolling the conservative choice, Mitt Romney? Why do the McCain haters out there think they know better than the majority of GOP primary voters?
I really can't believe that the GOP is going to miss the opportunity given to it by the split of Democrat coalition partners between Hillary and Obama. Instead, we are going to cut ourselves up because Ronald Reagan isn't on the ballot.
UPDATE - 2/6/08: I have found that the conservative disaffection and dismay regarding John McCain's increasingly likely nomination is widespread. There are, however, some serious conservative thinkers who are asking us to put our feelings about McCain in the proper perspective. John Hinderaker filed a defense of McCain in a PowerLine post. Stanley Kurtz, implored conservatives not to "sit it out" in this NRO post. They are both well worth reading.
Hinderaker's piece links to a Hugh Hewitt post giving "seven reasons to vote for the GOP nominee". Hinderaker noted that Hewitt has been a staunch and emphatic Romney supporter, to date. Here is a key quote from Hewitt's article:
"There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68....When activist judges are more than willing to rewrite rules of long-standing, periods of exile should never be self-imposed 'for the good of the party.' Exiles can go on a very long time indeed. Ask the Whigs."
UPDATE II - 2/7/08: CNN and Time Magazine are reporting that Mitt Romney will announce that he is suspending his campaign when he gives his speech at today's CPAC meeting. Mitt had the personal resources to continue, but he must have concluded that spending that kind of money on a losing hand was a bad bet.
Meanwhile, other sources are reporting that John McCain has been making overtures to conservative Republicans and, particularly, to conservative talk-radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. McCain will also speak at CPAC and try to point out that he is, in fact, a conservative and is in tune with mainstream conservatives on most key issues.
Based on the reactions of many pundits, I doubt he'll be able to unify the party for a successful election bid, even if he's running against Hillary Clinton.
As I drove back to Rochester from a court date in Poughkeepsie, I had a chance to listen to a few talk shows. Rush and Sean Hannity were particularly bitter about McCain. Hearing the language they used and the reactions of their callers, it is clear that a great wave of conservative disaffection towards McCain is growing.
I'd say that the disaffection is so great that there is little chance that the GOP can unite behind McCain to defeat the Democrat nominee.
I find that fact remarkable. I know and agree that John McCain has taken some stands that I don't like, but I cannot understand the idea that not voting for him is going to "teach" the GOP leadership a "lesson". How is letting Hillary or Obama and the Democrats lead us further down the road to socialism going to teach anybody a lesson? I don't understand the theory that if you can't get all or most of what you want, you would rather get none of what you want, instead of some of what you want.
Further, why is McCain winning? If he's such a bad guy, why is he outpolling the conservative choice, Mitt Romney? Why do the McCain haters out there think they know better than the majority of GOP primary voters?
I really can't believe that the GOP is going to miss the opportunity given to it by the split of Democrat coalition partners between Hillary and Obama. Instead, we are going to cut ourselves up because Ronald Reagan isn't on the ballot.
UPDATE - 2/6/08: I have found that the conservative disaffection and dismay regarding John McCain's increasingly likely nomination is widespread. There are, however, some serious conservative thinkers who are asking us to put our feelings about McCain in the proper perspective. John Hinderaker filed a defense of McCain in a PowerLine post. Stanley Kurtz, implored conservatives not to "sit it out" in this NRO post. They are both well worth reading.
Hinderaker's piece links to a Hugh Hewitt post giving "seven reasons to vote for the GOP nominee". Hinderaker noted that Hewitt has been a staunch and emphatic Romney supporter, to date. Here is a key quote from Hewitt's article:
"There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68....When activist judges are more than willing to rewrite rules of long-standing, periods of exile should never be self-imposed 'for the good of the party.' Exiles can go on a very long time indeed. Ask the Whigs."
UPDATE II - 2/7/08: CNN and Time Magazine are reporting that Mitt Romney will announce that he is suspending his campaign when he gives his speech at today's CPAC meeting. Mitt had the personal resources to continue, but he must have concluded that spending that kind of money on a losing hand was a bad bet.
According to Mark Halperin at the Time blog, Romney plans to say at CPAC speech: ”If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or (Barack) Obama would win….”
Meanwhile, other sources are reporting that John McCain has been making overtures to conservative Republicans and, particularly, to conservative talk-radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. McCain will also speak at CPAC and try to point out that he is, in fact, a conservative and is in tune with mainstream conservatives on most key issues.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Troopers Go Metro
The Democrat & Chronicle published an editorial this morning entitled "Reassign troopers".
The editorial supports Governor Spitzer's plan to reassign State Troopers away from rural and suburban school resource officer jobs and racino security, and into urban "high crime" areas. It doesn't bother me that such a re-assignment will take place, but the "justifications" made by the D&C for doing so are cause for concern.
The editorial states that the troopers are being taken away from tasks "better performed by local officers or deputies, or by a trained civilian security force". They go on to say "Currently, 118 school districts statewide employ troopers as resource officers. Some of those are suburban districts not really in need of the high-level skills and training troopers bring.
The school assignments might make sense, though, if it were not for the serious crime problems in upstate cities".
If you live in Brighton or Gates, be prepared for the D&C to use the same arguments to support moving your police into the City of Rochester as part of a metro police plan. It's obvious, isn't it, that the police are more needed in the City than in our suburbs? Why should we have more police service than we "need" while the City can't afford the number of police needed to stop crime there?
In addition to foreshadowing metro police articles, the editorial is notable for what it doesn't say. The D&C is all for chargebacks for Monroe County Sheriff's road patrol costs. What about a State police chrgeback? Will the taxpayers in those school districts losing their troopers get a state tax reduction? Will the taxpayers in the City pay a chargeback?
Once agin we have the D&C talking out of both sides of its editorial "mouth".
The editorial supports Governor Spitzer's plan to reassign State Troopers away from rural and suburban school resource officer jobs and racino security, and into urban "high crime" areas. It doesn't bother me that such a re-assignment will take place, but the "justifications" made by the D&C for doing so are cause for concern.
The editorial states that the troopers are being taken away from tasks "better performed by local officers or deputies, or by a trained civilian security force". They go on to say "Currently, 118 school districts statewide employ troopers as resource officers. Some of those are suburban districts not really in need of the high-level skills and training troopers bring.
The school assignments might make sense, though, if it were not for the serious crime problems in upstate cities".
If you live in Brighton or Gates, be prepared for the D&C to use the same arguments to support moving your police into the City of Rochester as part of a metro police plan. It's obvious, isn't it, that the police are more needed in the City than in our suburbs? Why should we have more police service than we "need" while the City can't afford the number of police needed to stop crime there?
In addition to foreshadowing metro police articles, the editorial is notable for what it doesn't say. The D&C is all for chargebacks for Monroe County Sheriff's road patrol costs. What about a State police chrgeback? Will the taxpayers in those school districts losing their troopers get a state tax reduction? Will the taxpayers in the City pay a chargeback?
Once agin we have the D&C talking out of both sides of its editorial "mouth".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
