The Democrat & Chronicle reported on the City Council's "informal" decision to use the Special Election process to select a replacement for departing Mayor, Bob Duffy. The Council met in a closed door "caucus" and took a vote intended to express intentions until formal action could be taken. Apparently, though, this "informal" vote is something the Council members intend to "stand by" until the formal vote
This situation is fascinating on many levels.
First, it's quite remarkable that the Democrats are so unconcerned about public opinion that they would openly defy the clear majority of Rochester voters who favor the primary option. I guess the saying "once burned, twice shy" really applies to our local Democratic party. The last two Democratic Mayors were not the choice of the party apparatus. It appears that the Democrats are not going to make the mistake of letting "the people" thwart their choice this time around.
Second, the fairly muted reaction of the D&C to this clear Open Meetings Law violation is quite telling. Unless James Lawrence does a critical editorial in the next day or two, nobody is going to bother reading the next big story he writes about the need for "openness in government". If the D&C only calls for "sunshine" when GOP controlled bodies are involved, its hypocrisy regarding local politics will be quite out in the open (pun intended).
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Mr. Gantt Saves Taxpayers Money!
Today's Democrat & Chronicle contained this story about Assemblyman David Gantt and other New York lawmakers filing to receive their pensions despite the fact that they will continue to serve in the State Legislature.
This is the infamous practice known as "double dipping", which was allegedly one of the things that Governor-elect Cuomo vowed to take if elected. (I'll not hold my breath). The practice is legal and both Republican and Democrat members have taken advantage of the opportunity.
I won't bore you with my criticism of Gantt and his fellow crooks. Radio, TV, blogs and water cooler commentary have all uniformly excoriated this practice. I simply wanted to remark on Gantt's comment that he was actually saving taxpayers money by taking the pension now rather than allowing it to continue to accrue. He's right that his annual pension amount will be bigger in five years if he doesn't start taking it now. But is this move saving us money?
Sorry, Dave, you're math is off. If you take the lower annual amount now, plus your annual salary, you will be taking more total dollars out of the system than if you waited and took only the "larger" pension later. I guess you applied the same math skills when casting your budget votes all these years. It all makes sense to me now.
This is the infamous practice known as "double dipping", which was allegedly one of the things that Governor-elect Cuomo vowed to take if elected. (I'll not hold my breath). The practice is legal and both Republican and Democrat members have taken advantage of the opportunity.
I won't bore you with my criticism of Gantt and his fellow crooks. Radio, TV, blogs and water cooler commentary have all uniformly excoriated this practice. I simply wanted to remark on Gantt's comment that he was actually saving taxpayers money by taking the pension now rather than allowing it to continue to accrue. He's right that his annual pension amount will be bigger in five years if he doesn't start taking it now. But is this move saving us money?
Sorry, Dave, you're math is off. If you take the lower annual amount now, plus your annual salary, you will be taking more total dollars out of the system than if you waited and took only the "larger" pension later. I guess you applied the same math skills when casting your budget votes all these years. It all makes sense to me now.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Sign of the Apocalypse
I know I'm getting old, but I really don't get Facebook, Twitter, etc. The whole world of texting, social networking, reality TV and the like, seem to be the realm of the young (but often, in my view, the inane).
In any event, this post by Crabbylami, pretty much sums up my view on the topic. The author has the same "mature" (read: older person's) take on the state of celebrity worship, reality TV and social networking. It's a smart and humorous piece and an enjoyable read. It will remind you of Erma Bombeck (if you're old enough to remember her columns).
In any event, this post by Crabbylami, pretty much sums up my view on the topic. The author has the same "mature" (read: older person's) take on the state of celebrity worship, reality TV and social networking. It's a smart and humorous piece and an enjoyable read. It will remind you of Erma Bombeck (if you're old enough to remember her columns).
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Yes, We Do!
That's my answer to the question in the title of this post by Joel Dreyfuss.
Dreyfuss questions whether or not we Americans are really interested in substituting the personal scrutiny and profiling of air travellers employed by the Israelis for the naked image scanners and intrusive "pat downs" used by TSA.
I say yes, let's do the obvious profiling that would actually protect us, rather than the fake, ineffective but "even-handed" scanning and/or pat downs we all now have to suffer through.
I don't want to get blown up any more than anyone else, but law enforcement works best when it can use all of its tools. Profiling is a valid tool. We should not take the best tool out of the TSA's hands. The current TSA methodology is a poor substitute which has been foisted upon us by political correctness.
Dreyfuss questions whether or not we Americans are really interested in substituting the personal scrutiny and profiling of air travellers employed by the Israelis for the naked image scanners and intrusive "pat downs" used by TSA.
I say yes, let's do the obvious profiling that would actually protect us, rather than the fake, ineffective but "even-handed" scanning and/or pat downs we all now have to suffer through.
I don't want to get blown up any more than anyone else, but law enforcement works best when it can use all of its tools. Profiling is a valid tool. We should not take the best tool out of the TSA's hands. The current TSA methodology is a poor substitute which has been foisted upon us by political correctness.
Steelers vs. Bills: Live at the Ralph!
Tomorrow, I am going to a live football game for the first time in some 20+ years.
When I last went to see the Bills play, the stadium was called Rich Stadium and I think Joe Ferguson was the Bills' QB. I'm pretty sure I would be more comfortable at home watching this on TV, but my kids have never been to an NFL game and, since they are both Steeler fans, we're going to Buffalo.
I'm expecting it to be a fun (if a bit cold) experience.
UPDATE: Those who saw the game know the Bills should have won it. The Steelers started strong but then went to sleep. This Bills team just does not quit. If their talent was on a par with their heart, they would be a formidable team.
Also, there were so many Steeler fans in the stands that the Bills may have wondered if it was an away game. There was even a Steeler vendor outside the stadium, selling terrible towels and the like. Its pretty rare that the vendors go to an away game and can still sell enough stuff to make the trip profitable.
When I last went to see the Bills play, the stadium was called Rich Stadium and I think Joe Ferguson was the Bills' QB. I'm pretty sure I would be more comfortable at home watching this on TV, but my kids have never been to an NFL game and, since they are both Steeler fans, we're going to Buffalo.
I'm expecting it to be a fun (if a bit cold) experience.
UPDATE: Those who saw the game know the Bills should have won it. The Steelers started strong but then went to sleep. This Bills team just does not quit. If their talent was on a par with their heart, they would be a formidable team.
Also, there were so many Steeler fans in the stands that the Bills may have wondered if it was an away game. There was even a Steeler vendor outside the stadium, selling terrible towels and the like. Its pretty rare that the vendors go to an away game and can still sell enough stuff to make the trip profitable.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
GOP Beware!
As much as the election looks like a big night for Republicans, they would be wise to be very careful interpreting the "mandate" they may appear to receive from Americans. This is Mona Charen's point in her NRO article entitled "GOP: Hold the Hubris".
The Republican party is likely to be the beneficiary of the Tea Party movement and America's rejection of Democrat over-reach. But the GOP should be careful not to assume that the Tea Party wants the same old, same old GOP policies. They don't.
I have read that certain Republican congressmen, who will likely become committee chairs, may be RHINO's. I have also heard that the GOP commitment to ending earmarks may be wavering.
If the GOP doesn't heed the voice of the American people, 2012 may be the year that the Tea Party throws them overboard. The Democrats will survive this year's thrashing; the GOP would not survive a 2012 purge.
The Republican party is likely to be the beneficiary of the Tea Party movement and America's rejection of Democrat over-reach. But the GOP should be careful not to assume that the Tea Party wants the same old, same old GOP policies. They don't.
I have read that certain Republican congressmen, who will likely become committee chairs, may be RHINO's. I have also heard that the GOP commitment to ending earmarks may be wavering.
If the GOP doesn't heed the voice of the American people, 2012 may be the year that the Tea Party throws them overboard. The Democrats will survive this year's thrashing; the GOP would not survive a 2012 purge.
The Real Deal
We are all probably a bit cynical when it comes to politics and the impact of elections, but I truly believe that the election that is on tap next Tuesday is really as important as its being promoted to be.
It is clear in many realms of our lives there has been an erosion of personal responsibility. The "nanny state" has made wards and/or victims out of an increasing number of us. The number of people who are willing to accept responsibility for all aspects of their lives is actually decreasing as the amount and extent of government intervention in our daily lives increases.
It is quite clear that President Obama and the Democrat leaders of Congress took their election victories in 2008 as a mandate to dramatically increase the role of government in our economic and political lives. The stimulus and the health care bill were passed despite clear opposition from the American people. Frankly, the Democrats at all levels of government, basically told us that we should just mind our place and let them handle these important matters.
If the American people do not rise up and soundly repudiate Obama and the Democrats on Tuesday, I fear our chance to ever stop the inexorable march to the left will be lost for good. We are too close to the tipping point in America. If we don't stop the Democrats now, there will not be an America left as we grew up knowing it. It will become a European style social democracy (leaning towards a socialist state). As Reagan once said, "if America goes, liberty is lost because there is nowhere else to go".
As Tuesday approaches, I am hopeful and optimistic. I pray that the wave will surprise even those pollsters who predict a Tea Party victory. Failure in this is simply not an option.
It is clear in many realms of our lives there has been an erosion of personal responsibility. The "nanny state" has made wards and/or victims out of an increasing number of us. The number of people who are willing to accept responsibility for all aspects of their lives is actually decreasing as the amount and extent of government intervention in our daily lives increases.
It is quite clear that President Obama and the Democrat leaders of Congress took their election victories in 2008 as a mandate to dramatically increase the role of government in our economic and political lives. The stimulus and the health care bill were passed despite clear opposition from the American people. Frankly, the Democrats at all levels of government, basically told us that we should just mind our place and let them handle these important matters.
If the American people do not rise up and soundly repudiate Obama and the Democrats on Tuesday, I fear our chance to ever stop the inexorable march to the left will be lost for good. We are too close to the tipping point in America. If we don't stop the Democrats now, there will not be an America left as we grew up knowing it. It will become a European style social democracy (leaning towards a socialist state). As Reagan once said, "if America goes, liberty is lost because there is nowhere else to go".
As Tuesday approaches, I am hopeful and optimistic. I pray that the wave will surprise even those pollsters who predict a Tea Party victory. Failure in this is simply not an option.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
GOP Judicial Sweep in Monroe
GOP candidates for Monroe County Court and Monroe County Family Court swept the field in the Conservative and Independence Party primaries held Tuesday.
The winners included Vince Dinolfo, Jim Piampiano, and Vicky Argento in County Court races and John Gallagher in the Family Court.
Having these third party lines will greatly strengthen the GOP candidates chances of winning in the general election and since they defeated their Democratic rivals in these contests, it further bodes well for them in November.
The winners included Vince Dinolfo, Jim Piampiano, and Vicky Argento in County Court races and John Gallagher in the Family Court.
Having these third party lines will greatly strengthen the GOP candidates chances of winning in the general election and since they defeated their Democratic rivals in these contests, it further bodes well for them in November.
Stunning?
The New York Times used that term in this report describing Carl Paladino's rout of Rick Lazio in the GOP primary for New York Governor. The Times called Paladino's win a "stunning and decisive victory over his establishment rival".
But was it such a surprise? Lazio was a lackluster candidate perceived by many as a retread with little chance of winning. While I assume that most people have no illusions about Paladino's chances against Andrew Cuomo in the general election, it is clear that Paladino touched a chord with conservative voters in New York who have had enough of business as usual.
Christine O'Donnell's win over Mike Castle in the Delaware GOP Senate primary is more evidence that many in the Tea Party (and many in the GOP, as well) would rather vote for what they want in a candidate than focus solely on electability.
November should be interesting.
UPDATE - 9/15/10: The D&C weighed in this morning. The headline reads "Angry Voters Pick Paladino In Upset". It made me wonder what the mental state of the Lazio voters was. Resigned?
But was it such a surprise? Lazio was a lackluster candidate perceived by many as a retread with little chance of winning. While I assume that most people have no illusions about Paladino's chances against Andrew Cuomo in the general election, it is clear that Paladino touched a chord with conservative voters in New York who have had enough of business as usual.
Christine O'Donnell's win over Mike Castle in the Delaware GOP Senate primary is more evidence that many in the Tea Party (and many in the GOP, as well) would rather vote for what they want in a candidate than focus solely on electability.
November should be interesting.
UPDATE - 9/15/10: The D&C weighed in this morning. The headline reads "Angry Voters Pick Paladino In Upset". It made me wonder what the mental state of the Lazio voters was. Resigned?
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Chris Christie For President
I have become a huge fan of Chris Christie, the Governor of New Jersey. This guy is the real deal. I have seen several video clips of Christie dealing with critics. He is consistently able to articulate his views both forcefully and fairly.
I love the fact that his opponents claim he is harsh. What that means is that he disagrees with them, exposes the hollowness of their arguments, and refuses to back down in the face of their criticism.
This guy should be the front-runner for the GOP nomination for President. He is the man for the times.
Check him out in the video at the end of this post. It is worth watching.
I love the fact that his opponents claim he is harsh. What that means is that he disagrees with them, exposes the hollowness of their arguments, and refuses to back down in the face of their criticism.
This guy should be the front-runner for the GOP nomination for President. He is the man for the times.
Check him out in the video at the end of this post. It is worth watching.
That Religion Of Peace
Let me start off by stating that I think that the plan to burn the Koran was wrong-headed. There are far better and less inflammatory ways to make a point about 9/11, Islam and/or the Ground Zero Mosque.
I have been stunned, however, by the reaction of liberals in government and the media. Outrage, condemnation and fears of Islamic reprisal for the act. Funny, I never see such concern shown about how Westerners will react to acts of Islamic terrorism or insensitivity. There is little fear that we will erupt in violence over such things.
Ah, but Islam, that religion of peace, and its majority of moderate, peaceful, tolerant practitioners. Please don't burn a Koran or draw a cartoon image of Mohammad. Such acts will incite these otherwise benevolent and docile practitioners of this peaceful religion to violence and jihad.
John Hinderaker said it well in this post at PowerLine.
UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson weighs in.
I have been stunned, however, by the reaction of liberals in government and the media. Outrage, condemnation and fears of Islamic reprisal for the act. Funny, I never see such concern shown about how Westerners will react to acts of Islamic terrorism or insensitivity. There is little fear that we will erupt in violence over such things.
Ah, but Islam, that religion of peace, and its majority of moderate, peaceful, tolerant practitioners. Please don't burn a Koran or draw a cartoon image of Mohammad. Such acts will incite these otherwise benevolent and docile practitioners of this peaceful religion to violence and jihad.
John Hinderaker said it well in this post at PowerLine.
UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson weighs in.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
A Good Use Of Our Money
Today's Democrat & Chronicle contains an article regarding President Obama's Labor Day speech on the economy.
The President is seeking a $50 billion spending boost to create new jobs. The story, as reported by the McClatchy Newspapers, indicated that the $50 billion spending plan was..."a move he (Obama) said will create jobs and which Democrats hope will improve their election prospects in November".
I realize that politicians use our money to bribe us and try to ensure their re-elections. I just never saw it stated so openly.
Once again, we get to see the disdain in which we are held by the Democrats and their media minions.
The President is seeking a $50 billion spending boost to create new jobs. The story, as reported by the McClatchy Newspapers, indicated that the $50 billion spending plan was..."a move he (Obama) said will create jobs and which Democrats hope will improve their election prospects in November".
I realize that politicians use our money to bribe us and try to ensure their re-elections. I just never saw it stated so openly.
Once again, we get to see the disdain in which we are held by the Democrats and their media minions.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque
This issue seems to be a simple one to me.
There are certain truths we should agree on. First, Moslems have a right to practice their religion freely in this country, as do members of every faith. Second, a landowner has a right to build a structure and use it for any purpose permitted under applicable laws and rules. Given the foregoing, the Mosque proponents have a legal right to build the Mosque as and where they want.
That does not make it the right decision. Ground Zero is, for most Americans, hallowed ground like the Gettysburg and Pearl Harbor battlefields. Generally, memorials to those who sacrificed their lives there are erected at such places. I think it is fair to believe that the proposed Mosque and cultural center amount to a monument to a great Islamic "victory".
If the motives of the developers are pure, if it is true that they believe in fostering understanding and cooperation between Islam and America, then they should look for an alternative location. Putting the Mosque so close to Ground Zero, given the passions that have been stirred, cannot achieve those goals.
There are certain truths we should agree on. First, Moslems have a right to practice their religion freely in this country, as do members of every faith. Second, a landowner has a right to build a structure and use it for any purpose permitted under applicable laws and rules. Given the foregoing, the Mosque proponents have a legal right to build the Mosque as and where they want.
That does not make it the right decision. Ground Zero is, for most Americans, hallowed ground like the Gettysburg and Pearl Harbor battlefields. Generally, memorials to those who sacrificed their lives there are erected at such places. I think it is fair to believe that the proposed Mosque and cultural center amount to a monument to a great Islamic "victory".
If the motives of the developers are pure, if it is true that they believe in fostering understanding and cooperation between Islam and America, then they should look for an alternative location. Putting the Mosque so close to Ground Zero, given the passions that have been stirred, cannot achieve those goals.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
More Of The Same
The Democrat & Chronicle reports this morning that we finally have a State Budget.
As we all know, the budget is over four months late. You might be tempted to think that the delay resulted from efforts to rein in spending and cut the $9 billion deficit the State is facing. If you did, you'd be wrong.
The budget "highlights" include the fact that State spending will increase by 7.6% and there will be over $1 billion in new taxes. One of the tax increases is the elimination of the exemption on sales taxes for clothing and shoes costing less than $110.00. That ought to help people with lower incomes struggling to balance their budgets.
I was particularly impressed by the fact that the one bi-partisan vote taken in connection with the budget was a 51-8 vote in the Senate to cap local government's ability to raise property taxes. This was largely symbolic since Speaker Silver will not bring the cap to a vote in the Assembly. Still you have to hand it to our State Senators. They clearly believe in limiting spending and taxation....at any level of government but their own.
As we all know, the budget is over four months late. You might be tempted to think that the delay resulted from efforts to rein in spending and cut the $9 billion deficit the State is facing. If you did, you'd be wrong.
The budget "highlights" include the fact that State spending will increase by 7.6% and there will be over $1 billion in new taxes. One of the tax increases is the elimination of the exemption on sales taxes for clothing and shoes costing less than $110.00. That ought to help people with lower incomes struggling to balance their budgets.
I was particularly impressed by the fact that the one bi-partisan vote taken in connection with the budget was a 51-8 vote in the Senate to cap local government's ability to raise property taxes. This was largely symbolic since Speaker Silver will not bring the cap to a vote in the Assembly. Still you have to hand it to our State Senators. They clearly believe in limiting spending and taxation....at any level of government but their own.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
New Day, Same Story
The Democrat & Chronicle is, at least, consistent.
Today contained yet another story telling us that New York has too many local governments, special districts, etc. While that may be true, the fact that there are numerous taxing entities does not (as they imply) prove that those units of government are the main source of New Yorker's over-taxation.
As I have previously noted (e.g., here), I am sure that consolidation of some of those districts or cooperative service arrangements between them would save taxpayers money. My issue is that the D&C and certain politicians, (i.e., Andrw Cuomo) contend that this is New York's biggest tax problem. The consolidators have grossly oversold the tax savings value of consolidation.
The real taxation problem in New York is obvious to everyone who wants to face it. Our incredibly dysfunctional State Government in Albany is the problem. We have a Legislature that mocks its constituents by gavelling in and out of session without even trying to act on overdue budget legislation. We have a Governor who talks tough but fails to do anything concrete to force fiscally responsible action.
The D&C and others can try to keep the focus on the "big problem" of too many local government units but the fact is that the percentage of our total NY tax bill resulting from local government is peanuts relative to that resulting from the unquenchable need for tax revenue to support our Albany behemoth.
Today contained yet another story telling us that New York has too many local governments, special districts, etc. While that may be true, the fact that there are numerous taxing entities does not (as they imply) prove that those units of government are the main source of New Yorker's over-taxation.
As I have previously noted (e.g., here), I am sure that consolidation of some of those districts or cooperative service arrangements between them would save taxpayers money. My issue is that the D&C and certain politicians, (i.e., Andrw Cuomo) contend that this is New York's biggest tax problem. The consolidators have grossly oversold the tax savings value of consolidation.
The real taxation problem in New York is obvious to everyone who wants to face it. Our incredibly dysfunctional State Government in Albany is the problem. We have a Legislature that mocks its constituents by gavelling in and out of session without even trying to act on overdue budget legislation. We have a Governor who talks tough but fails to do anything concrete to force fiscally responsible action.
The D&C and others can try to keep the focus on the "big problem" of too many local government units but the fact is that the percentage of our total NY tax bill resulting from local government is peanuts relative to that resulting from the unquenchable need for tax revenue to support our Albany behemoth.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Partisan Decision-Making
The recent decision striking down part of Arizona's new immigration law was a clear example of "result-oriented jurisprudence".
Judge Bolton simply ignored the proper basis for review of the Obama Administration's request for an injunction and reached the result desired by her liberal instincts. You can read scholarly analysis of the decision at National Review Online
My view is that the Obama administration is blind to the result of their "victory". This is yet another example of liberals in positions of power telling us "unwashed" that we don't know what's good for us. The President tells us that the Arizona law is bad and he sues the State of Arizona to stop its enforecement. This despite the fact that clear majorities around the country think the law is the right idea. A Rasmussen poll out today says that 68% of Americans believe we should complete a border fence.
I can only hope that in November the American people remind President Obama and Judge Bolton that we live in a democratic republic and that "important" people like them derive their power from the consent of the governed. And the governed can withdraw their consent!
Judge Bolton simply ignored the proper basis for review of the Obama Administration's request for an injunction and reached the result desired by her liberal instincts. You can read scholarly analysis of the decision at National Review Online
My view is that the Obama administration is blind to the result of their "victory". This is yet another example of liberals in positions of power telling us "unwashed" that we don't know what's good for us. The President tells us that the Arizona law is bad and he sues the State of Arizona to stop its enforecement. This despite the fact that clear majorities around the country think the law is the right idea. A Rasmussen poll out today says that 68% of Americans believe we should complete a border fence.
I can only hope that in November the American people remind President Obama and Judge Bolton that we live in a democratic republic and that "important" people like them derive their power from the consent of the governed. And the governed can withdraw their consent!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Quick Thoughts on Green Nomination
Monroe County DA, Mike Green, has been tapped by Senator Chuck Schumer as the replacement for retiring Federal Judge, David Larimer.
Many local observers will focus on Green's questionable and unsucessful prosecutions of Andy Moore and James Smith and the allegation that this nomination is the pay-off for those "political" prosecutions. Number me as one of those who feels that those prosecutions had a large political component. I was actually surprised that the Democrat & Chronicle story on the nomination acknowledged the controversey.
No matter what anyone thinks about the nature of those prosecutions, there is a bright side to the Green nomination for conservatives. Mike Green is not an ideological liberal Democrat. Not that long ago most Republicans expected him to be the GOP nominee for DA. Tom Cook and Steve Minarik decided otherwise, however, Green will not likely be an "activist" Federal Judge. His rulings are likely to reflect his moderate to consevative political background.
Given some of the other names under consideration, we could do worse than have Mike Green on the Federal Bench.
Many local observers will focus on Green's questionable and unsucessful prosecutions of Andy Moore and James Smith and the allegation that this nomination is the pay-off for those "political" prosecutions. Number me as one of those who feels that those prosecutions had a large political component. I was actually surprised that the Democrat & Chronicle story on the nomination acknowledged the controversey.
No matter what anyone thinks about the nature of those prosecutions, there is a bright side to the Green nomination for conservatives. Mike Green is not an ideological liberal Democrat. Not that long ago most Republicans expected him to be the GOP nominee for DA. Tom Cook and Steve Minarik decided otherwise, however, Green will not likely be an "activist" Federal Judge. His rulings are likely to reflect his moderate to consevative political background.
Given some of the other names under consideration, we could do worse than have Mike Green on the Federal Bench.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
To Err Is Human
Umpire Jim Joyce proved that last night when his bad call cost Detroit pitcher Armando Garralaga a perfect game.
But the real story is the fact that Garralaga had the grace and class to forgive Joyce despite what had to be a huge disappointment. Meanwhile, Joyce showed class by accepting the blame for his mistake.
As one person said "it gave the world a chance to see how adults are supposed to act".
But the real story is the fact that Garralaga had the grace and class to forgive Joyce despite what had to be a huge disappointment. Meanwhile, Joyce showed class by accepting the blame for his mistake.
As one person said "it gave the world a chance to see how adults are supposed to act".
Monday, May 31, 2010
Duffy: Unfinished Business
I have been discussing Bob Duffy's run for Lt. Governor with friends and family. I have been fairly surprised by how many of them see this as a cynical, political move by Duffy.
Actually, it is not the run for Lt. Governor that they see as cynical, it is his former protestations that he was not a "politician" which has been exposed as bull and some of his policy initiatives, which now look like political ploys. Even the Democrat & Chronicle went from lauding his "ascension" to questioning his motives and asking what his departure will mean for the City of Rochester.
I'm not sure how to read this. I have nothing against the Mayor. I did not understand his sinking of Ren. Square or his plan to take over City Schools. I also don't think he's done anything notable to improve the City. He's been a pleasant guy, but he's done very little of substance and certainly nothing to have earned the incredibly fawning press coverage he got from the D&C.
Frankly, his legacy to Rochester may ultimately be that he sucessfully unloaded the Fast Ferry. Other than that, it hasn't been a memorable run. Maybe his term as Lt. Governor will lead to something more. Only time will tell.
Actually, it is not the run for Lt. Governor that they see as cynical, it is his former protestations that he was not a "politician" which has been exposed as bull and some of his policy initiatives, which now look like political ploys. Even the Democrat & Chronicle went from lauding his "ascension" to questioning his motives and asking what his departure will mean for the City of Rochester.
I'm not sure how to read this. I have nothing against the Mayor. I did not understand his sinking of Ren. Square or his plan to take over City Schools. I also don't think he's done anything notable to improve the City. He's been a pleasant guy, but he's done very little of substance and certainly nothing to have earned the incredibly fawning press coverage he got from the D&C.
Frankly, his legacy to Rochester may ultimately be that he sucessfully unloaded the Fast Ferry. Other than that, it hasn't been a memorable run. Maybe his term as Lt. Governor will lead to something more. Only time will tell.
Obama's Responsibility
There has been a lot of criticism of President Obama lately. While I consider myself a fairly strong critic of the President, I think some of the recent charges go too far.
First, I've see a lot of commentary regarding Obama's taking a vacation in Chicago rather than laying the wreath at the tomb of the unknowns. I think this is a bit over the top. Both Presidents Bush took vacations on some Memorial Day week-ends. The President is entitled to some time with his family. Further, as I understand it, he is going to a ceremony at the Lincoln National Cemetery today. So, let's drop this one.
More notably, the President is coming under increasing fire regarding the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I really have mixed emotions about this one. It is not at all clear that the Federal government could have done much in the wake of the explosion. I think people have outsized expectations about what a President and the government can do, in any event.
Perhaps that is the legitimate criticism of the President. He, like many of his Democrat colleagues, tout the almost unlimited ability of the Federal government to solve virtually any problem. Perhaps its fitting that he get some blame as the oil continues to spill from the damaged BP well and the Feds look helplessly on.
Still, like Bush with Katrina, I do not think it is fair to lay the entire matter at the President's feet. This is a true environmental disaster. We should take a close look at all of the reasons why it happened (including why our oil companies have to drill in deep water when there are shallow coastal areas, and remote land areas [like ANWR] where drilling is safer and easier, that are off limits). The response by the Obama Administration may ultimately be deemed insufficient, but at this point, I think its too early to make a definitive determination.
I am always afraid that people will stop listening if they think criticism is knee-jerk and unwarranted. I'd rather restrict my catcalls for Obama's clear and unequivocal mistakes (of which there are many). Lets keep our powder dry on weak issues so that our valid "indictments" of Obama are returned with a guilty verdict.
UPDATE: If you want to read some opinions which outline serious and damning criticism of the President, take a look at this and this.
First, I've see a lot of commentary regarding Obama's taking a vacation in Chicago rather than laying the wreath at the tomb of the unknowns. I think this is a bit over the top. Both Presidents Bush took vacations on some Memorial Day week-ends. The President is entitled to some time with his family. Further, as I understand it, he is going to a ceremony at the Lincoln National Cemetery today. So, let's drop this one.
More notably, the President is coming under increasing fire regarding the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I really have mixed emotions about this one. It is not at all clear that the Federal government could have done much in the wake of the explosion. I think people have outsized expectations about what a President and the government can do, in any event.
Perhaps that is the legitimate criticism of the President. He, like many of his Democrat colleagues, tout the almost unlimited ability of the Federal government to solve virtually any problem. Perhaps its fitting that he get some blame as the oil continues to spill from the damaged BP well and the Feds look helplessly on.
Still, like Bush with Katrina, I do not think it is fair to lay the entire matter at the President's feet. This is a true environmental disaster. We should take a close look at all of the reasons why it happened (including why our oil companies have to drill in deep water when there are shallow coastal areas, and remote land areas [like ANWR] where drilling is safer and easier, that are off limits). The response by the Obama Administration may ultimately be deemed insufficient, but at this point, I think its too early to make a definitive determination.
I am always afraid that people will stop listening if they think criticism is knee-jerk and unwarranted. I'd rather restrict my catcalls for Obama's clear and unequivocal mistakes (of which there are many). Lets keep our powder dry on weak issues so that our valid "indictments" of Obama are returned with a guilty verdict.
UPDATE: If you want to read some opinions which outline serious and damning criticism of the President, take a look at this and this.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Does He Really Want This Job?
As you all know, Andrew Cuomo tapped Rochester Mayor, Bob Duffy as his choice for Lt. Governor. Since Cuomo is a lock, this is tantamount to saying Rochester is getting a new Mayor.
Still, I wonder why Duffy wants the job. The Lt. Governor slot is barely more than a ceremonial office. This job makes being Vice-President look like a super post. I suppose it lends some prestige to Duffy if he runs for higher office in the future, but I don't think that many Lt. Governors have risen to the top job.
On the other hand, given recent history, Duffy may believe that being next in line may be worth something. Maybe Duffy thinks that Cuomo may have a skeleton in his closet similar to those that ruined Elliot Spitzer and weakened David Paterson.
Meanwhile, I think everyone who thinks this appointment will help Upstate NY ought to reserve judgement. Stan Lundine was from Upstate. I don't recall all the benefits he brought us. Cuomo probably looked at prior year's polling results and noted that Monroe County was one of the few parts of the State where Dems don't do well in state-wide races. He probably figured that the Duffy nod would seal the deal in the only (relative) weak spot he was likely to have.
Finally, who will be Duffy's replacement? And, most importantly, who will become the D&C's favorite Democrat?
Still, I wonder why Duffy wants the job. The Lt. Governor slot is barely more than a ceremonial office. This job makes being Vice-President look like a super post. I suppose it lends some prestige to Duffy if he runs for higher office in the future, but I don't think that many Lt. Governors have risen to the top job.
On the other hand, given recent history, Duffy may believe that being next in line may be worth something. Maybe Duffy thinks that Cuomo may have a skeleton in his closet similar to those that ruined Elliot Spitzer and weakened David Paterson.
Meanwhile, I think everyone who thinks this appointment will help Upstate NY ought to reserve judgement. Stan Lundine was from Upstate. I don't recall all the benefits he brought us. Cuomo probably looked at prior year's polling results and noted that Monroe County was one of the few parts of the State where Dems don't do well in state-wide races. He probably figured that the Duffy nod would seal the deal in the only (relative) weak spot he was likely to have.
Finally, who will be Duffy's replacement? And, most importantly, who will become the D&C's favorite Democrat?
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What's Good For The Goose
President Obama and Mexico's President Calderon both spoke out against the Arizona Immigration Law. At least Calderon has an excuse. For Mexico, illegal immigration to the U.S. by excess workers is a safety valve. But what is Obama thinking?
I think its typical of his aggogance. He doesn't care that a clear majority of Americans do not support his ideas about comprehensive immigration reform. He knows they are just bitter clingers. He's sure that if he just tells us what he thinks enough times, we'll finally understand. He ought to check the effect that support for immigration reform had on George W. Bush's approval numbers.
But back to Calderon. He was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. He initially criticised the Arizona Law, saying it violated human rights. Then, however, when asked by Blitzer Calderon if Mexican police asked people for "their papers", he quickly acknowledged that they did. Blitzer then asked if foreigners who entered the country illegally could stay in Mexico. Calderon all but scoffed, saying that they could not.
So, apparently, the law of a US State which is less severe than Mexico's law is discriminatory, while Mexico's Law is apparently fair and reasonable. I don't get it.
I think its typical of his aggogance. He doesn't care that a clear majority of Americans do not support his ideas about comprehensive immigration reform. He knows they are just bitter clingers. He's sure that if he just tells us what he thinks enough times, we'll finally understand. He ought to check the effect that support for immigration reform had on George W. Bush's approval numbers.
But back to Calderon. He was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. He initially criticised the Arizona Law, saying it violated human rights. Then, however, when asked by Blitzer Calderon if Mexican police asked people for "their papers", he quickly acknowledged that they did. Blitzer then asked if foreigners who entered the country illegally could stay in Mexico. Calderon all but scoffed, saying that they could not.
So, apparently, the law of a US State which is less severe than Mexico's law is discriminatory, while Mexico's Law is apparently fair and reasonable. I don't get it.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Does Michelle Know?
President Obama visited the Buffalo area yesterday on his "White House to Main Street" tour. In addition to speaking with workers at a local factory, he stopped for lunch at Duff's, a popular Buffalo area chicken wing restaurant.
The President ordered 10 wings, french fries and onion rings. I was really shocked by his order, given the First Lady's commitment to healthy eating. This link will take you to the website outlining her plan to fight childhood obesity.
What kind of example is the President setting by eating high-fat, deep fried foods? He apparently believes that appearing to be a "regular guy" who likes to try local dishes, trumps his wife's efforts as a food Nazi.
I'm with him on this one!
The President ordered 10 wings, french fries and onion rings. I was really shocked by his order, given the First Lady's commitment to healthy eating. This link will take you to the website outlining her plan to fight childhood obesity.
What kind of example is the President setting by eating high-fat, deep fried foods? He apparently believes that appearing to be a "regular guy" who likes to try local dishes, trumps his wife's efforts as a food Nazi.
I'm with him on this one!
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Where's The Outrage?
I have been travelling quite a bit by plane and car over the past few weeks.
Yesterday, as I filled my tank, I noted that the price of gas has climbed over $3.00/gallon, just about everwhere. Funny, though, I have not seen any stories in the media nor heard Chuck Schumer calling for an investigation. I distictly remember that the last time gas prices were this high, apoplexy swept through Washington and the news media.
So what's different today? (Yes, it's a rhetorical question.) Obviously, the fact that Obama is in the White House means three dollar gas is OK, while when Bush was in there it was an outrage (and probably a conspiracy).
I guess that with Obama in charge we should not sweat $3.00 gas; its probably all part of some plan of his to make the country better. I can't wait for $4.00 gas!
Yesterday, as I filled my tank, I noted that the price of gas has climbed over $3.00/gallon, just about everwhere. Funny, though, I have not seen any stories in the media nor heard Chuck Schumer calling for an investigation. I distictly remember that the last time gas prices were this high, apoplexy swept through Washington and the news media.
So what's different today? (Yes, it's a rhetorical question.) Obviously, the fact that Obama is in the White House means three dollar gas is OK, while when Bush was in there it was an outrage (and probably a conspiracy).
I guess that with Obama in charge we should not sweat $3.00 gas; its probably all part of some plan of his to make the country better. I can't wait for $4.00 gas!
Kagan Appointment
As everyone knows, Pres. Obama has nominated Solicitor General, Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens who is retairing from the Supreme Court. The nomination has drawn fire from both left and right. I assume that she will be affirmed, however. She seems to be intellectually qualified even though she was never a judge and she has a rather sparse paper trail. I have to assume that she will be a reliable liberal vote on the Court.
Frankly, this is one of the consequenses of Presidential elections. The President gets to nominate judges that he believes think like him. Appointments to the Federal bench are, in my opinion, the most long-lasting and material impacts of a Presidency. During his eight years as President, Bill Clinton appointed a vast number of liberal judges whose rulings have grave impacts on a wide range of issues that affect our lives.
This is the second Obama nominee. While Kagan, like Sotomayor, is a liberal, her confirmation will not markedly alter the make-up of the Court. Both she and Sotomayor replaced other liberals, thus the balance of the Court is little changed.
It is interesting to note that the "liberals" they replaced were both appointees of Republican Presidents (Souter by H. W. Bush and Stevens by Gerald Ford). Its ironic that many GOP nominees move to the left over the years. It never seems to work the other way.
Frankly, this is one of the consequenses of Presidential elections. The President gets to nominate judges that he believes think like him. Appointments to the Federal bench are, in my opinion, the most long-lasting and material impacts of a Presidency. During his eight years as President, Bill Clinton appointed a vast number of liberal judges whose rulings have grave impacts on a wide range of issues that affect our lives.
This is the second Obama nominee. While Kagan, like Sotomayor, is a liberal, her confirmation will not markedly alter the make-up of the Court. Both she and Sotomayor replaced other liberals, thus the balance of the Court is little changed.
It is interesting to note that the "liberals" they replaced were both appointees of Republican Presidents (Souter by H. W. Bush and Stevens by Gerald Ford). Its ironic that many GOP nominees move to the left over the years. It never seems to work the other way.
Paterson Postures
Governor Paterson finally made it official. There will be no special election in the 29th Congressional District.
That was no surprise, but the concerns Paterson alleged as the reasons for his decison were simply bull. He cited the cost of a special election and the possible dis-enfranchisement of members of the military.
Funny, but the costs did not bother him when we had special elections in other districts. The disenfranchisement claim is the real hoot. First of all, he's disenfranchising the whole 29th district by refusing to hold the special election. Moreover, if he was concerned that military members might miss out on the vote, how is it possible that he allowed a special election in the 23rd district, which included Ft. Drum?
The answer is simple: pure politics. The Democrats don't have a credible candidate, so Paterson wants to put off allowing Republican Tom Reed getting into the seat.
Paterson made up his "concerns" to cover the political basis for the decision. We're not that dumb, Governor.
That was no surprise, but the concerns Paterson alleged as the reasons for his decison were simply bull. He cited the cost of a special election and the possible dis-enfranchisement of members of the military.
Funny, but the costs did not bother him when we had special elections in other districts. The disenfranchisement claim is the real hoot. First of all, he's disenfranchising the whole 29th district by refusing to hold the special election. Moreover, if he was concerned that military members might miss out on the vote, how is it possible that he allowed a special election in the 23rd district, which included Ft. Drum?
The answer is simple: pure politics. The Democrats don't have a credible candidate, so Paterson wants to put off allowing Republican Tom Reed getting into the seat.
Paterson made up his "concerns" to cover the political basis for the decision. We're not that dumb, Governor.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
A Closer Look At Property Taxes
The Democrat and Chronicle had this story on the front of the Local section today. It is the latest installment in their long-running series of articles on the fact that propery taxes in New York are too high and that local governments should be consolidated.
At the outset, let me note my concerns that local property taxes, particularly school taxes, may be too high. But the treatment that the D&C gives to the topic in today's article (like most of their stories on the issue) is far too superficial and leaves many questions unanswered. Further, the statistics listed in the article are not given context which would help us determine their relevance.
The main stat in the story is that Upstate NY counties have among the highest real property taxes as a percentage of home values in the country. On its face, that seems like a damning fact. But how about some context? According to the National Ass'n. of Realtors, real property values in this area are in the bottom ten (10%) percent of values of the 150 largest metropolitan areas in the country (4th quarter, 2007). Given that fact, its not really surprising that taxes, as a percentage of value, are high.
The other regular feature of this type of article is the inevitable statement that property taxes in other states are far less than taxes here on the same value property. What the D&C has repeatedly fails discuss is what is in the basket of goods and services which local taxpayers receive for their money. In Gates, for example, my Town tax levy pays for police, fire and ambulance services, the highway department (plowing, street repair & maintenence, etc.), the library, the parks and recreation department and various other items. If I wanted to compare my taxes with those of someone in Virginia or North Carolina, I would have to know if all of those items were provided by the local government there, or if there were other taxes (for example, in Virginia where there is a personal property tax that covers some items our County property tax is earmarked for) or if there were private entities that provided those services for a fee. Only if we knew the relative cost of the same basket of goods and services in each location, could we make a fair comparison.
I would also like to see another statistic which I believe would be telling. I'd like to know the percentage of local taxes to total state and local taxes and where NY stands relative to other states in that vein. I pay substantially more in State income, sales and use taxes than I do in local taxes. I would be stunned if much more than 10-15% of my total state and local tax dollars went to local governments. When consolidation advocates statrt telling me we will save a lot by cutting down the number of governmental units, I'd like to ask them to show me the proof. We will still have the gaping maw that is Albany!
There is no question we are overtaxed in New York. I am sure that many municipal governments, particularly school districts, could tighten their belts. But in the end, I doubt there is as much disparity between local taxes here and in other states as people anecdotally believe. The real problem remains our State government in Albany. Until they stop spending money like there is no limit to our resources, we will continue to see our State lose people and opportunity.
At the outset, let me note my concerns that local property taxes, particularly school taxes, may be too high. But the treatment that the D&C gives to the topic in today's article (like most of their stories on the issue) is far too superficial and leaves many questions unanswered. Further, the statistics listed in the article are not given context which would help us determine their relevance.
The main stat in the story is that Upstate NY counties have among the highest real property taxes as a percentage of home values in the country. On its face, that seems like a damning fact. But how about some context? According to the National Ass'n. of Realtors, real property values in this area are in the bottom ten (10%) percent of values of the 150 largest metropolitan areas in the country (4th quarter, 2007). Given that fact, its not really surprising that taxes, as a percentage of value, are high.
The other regular feature of this type of article is the inevitable statement that property taxes in other states are far less than taxes here on the same value property. What the D&C has repeatedly fails discuss is what is in the basket of goods and services which local taxpayers receive for their money. In Gates, for example, my Town tax levy pays for police, fire and ambulance services, the highway department (plowing, street repair & maintenence, etc.), the library, the parks and recreation department and various other items. If I wanted to compare my taxes with those of someone in Virginia or North Carolina, I would have to know if all of those items were provided by the local government there, or if there were other taxes (for example, in Virginia where there is a personal property tax that covers some items our County property tax is earmarked for) or if there were private entities that provided those services for a fee. Only if we knew the relative cost of the same basket of goods and services in each location, could we make a fair comparison.
I would also like to see another statistic which I believe would be telling. I'd like to know the percentage of local taxes to total state and local taxes and where NY stands relative to other states in that vein. I pay substantially more in State income, sales and use taxes than I do in local taxes. I would be stunned if much more than 10-15% of my total state and local tax dollars went to local governments. When consolidation advocates statrt telling me we will save a lot by cutting down the number of governmental units, I'd like to ask them to show me the proof. We will still have the gaping maw that is Albany!
There is no question we are overtaxed in New York. I am sure that many municipal governments, particularly school districts, could tighten their belts. But in the end, I doubt there is as much disparity between local taxes here and in other states as people anecdotally believe. The real problem remains our State government in Albany. Until they stop spending money like there is no limit to our resources, we will continue to see our State lose people and opportunity.
Broder Misses The Mark
David Broder penned this column today. In it he described the Obama presidency as one which will be deemed "an era of substantial but deferred accomplishments".
This is at least the second Broder column since the passage of "Obamacare" in which Broder, like so many inside the beltway pundits, has lauded the President's accomplishments and essentially predicted an Obama "comeback" in stature and effectiveness.
The strangest part of this column (at least to me) is that Broder used the President's recent nuclear arms summit as the basis for his views. Broder lauds the President for seeking "a nuclear free world" (I'll leave aside my view that this is more a bumper sticker slogan than a well-defined policy). But Broder goes on to discuss the summit as if it represented real movement towards nuclear arms reduction.
Obama has done little in the real world to stop the growth of nuclear weapons. Broder and others will point to his deal with the Russians to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. But the Russians only did that deal so that they would not have to replace obsolete missles to retain parity with the US. We got rid of useful weapons, they got rid of junk.
Further, I'd argue his inaction on Iranian nukes will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and virtually insure that terrorists get their hands on nuclear materials. The Israelis cannot let Iran actually develop weapons that the Iranian President says he will use on Israel. As such, Israel must inevitably attack the Iranian nuke facillities. The US has apparently decided it will not acquiesce in such an attack and has denied Israel the "bunker buster" bombs which it would likely have used in such an effort. That will leave Israel with only one choice; use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran. That will set off an effort by every major Middle Eastern arab nation to get nuclear weapons.
Broder though thinks this summit will have the effect of going dramatically further down the path of disarmament. After all, Broder noted that 46 nations sent representatives who expressed their assent to the goal. I wonder if some aging pundit in 1928 waxed eloquent over the banning of war as public policy when more than 50 nations signed the Kellog-Briand Treaty? That worked out well, didn't it?
Sadly, Broder is clearly past his prime. He is wrong on both his belief in the value of the nuke summit and the re-birth of the Obama presidency. I think the November elections should allow for a useful evaluation of what Americans think on this score.
This is at least the second Broder column since the passage of "Obamacare" in which Broder, like so many inside the beltway pundits, has lauded the President's accomplishments and essentially predicted an Obama "comeback" in stature and effectiveness.
The strangest part of this column (at least to me) is that Broder used the President's recent nuclear arms summit as the basis for his views. Broder lauds the President for seeking "a nuclear free world" (I'll leave aside my view that this is more a bumper sticker slogan than a well-defined policy). But Broder goes on to discuss the summit as if it represented real movement towards nuclear arms reduction.
Obama has done little in the real world to stop the growth of nuclear weapons. Broder and others will point to his deal with the Russians to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. But the Russians only did that deal so that they would not have to replace obsolete missles to retain parity with the US. We got rid of useful weapons, they got rid of junk.
Further, I'd argue his inaction on Iranian nukes will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and virtually insure that terrorists get their hands on nuclear materials. The Israelis cannot let Iran actually develop weapons that the Iranian President says he will use on Israel. As such, Israel must inevitably attack the Iranian nuke facillities. The US has apparently decided it will not acquiesce in such an attack and has denied Israel the "bunker buster" bombs which it would likely have used in such an effort. That will leave Israel with only one choice; use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran. That will set off an effort by every major Middle Eastern arab nation to get nuclear weapons.
Broder though thinks this summit will have the effect of going dramatically further down the path of disarmament. After all, Broder noted that 46 nations sent representatives who expressed their assent to the goal. I wonder if some aging pundit in 1928 waxed eloquent over the banning of war as public policy when more than 50 nations signed the Kellog-Briand Treaty? That worked out well, didn't it?
Sadly, Broder is clearly past his prime. He is wrong on both his belief in the value of the nuke summit and the re-birth of the Obama presidency. I think the November elections should allow for a useful evaluation of what Americans think on this score.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Rooneys Are Not Amused
I am proud to be a Steeler fan today.
The Rooney's showed that some things are more important than winning. They think that character counts. Santonio Holmes was dealt for a fifth round draft pick after he violated the NFL's substance abuse policy again. This followed his drink throwing and DUI incidents. The Steelers said good-bye despite his prowess as a player.
Then they made it clear that Big Ben is also on thin ice. Unlike last year's denial speech, none of Steeler management backed up Roethlisberger while he gave his lame "I'm sorry, I was drunk", quasi-apology. Sorry Ben, this excuse isn't cutting it with Steeler management and many Steeler fans.
Ben has a lot of work to do to win back respect. He might start by staying out of college bars and hitting on coeds.
At least the Rooney's aren't just slapping him on the back saying "boys will be boys". I think that another incident will be strike three for Ben, no matter how good a QB he is. Letting Holmes go for a song was a pretty good indication that the Steeler's owners have a tolerance limit.
Good for them!
The Rooney's showed that some things are more important than winning. They think that character counts. Santonio Holmes was dealt for a fifth round draft pick after he violated the NFL's substance abuse policy again. This followed his drink throwing and DUI incidents. The Steelers said good-bye despite his prowess as a player.
Then they made it clear that Big Ben is also on thin ice. Unlike last year's denial speech, none of Steeler management backed up Roethlisberger while he gave his lame "I'm sorry, I was drunk", quasi-apology. Sorry Ben, this excuse isn't cutting it with Steeler management and many Steeler fans.
Ben has a lot of work to do to win back respect. He might start by staying out of college bars and hitting on coeds.
At least the Rooney's aren't just slapping him on the back saying "boys will be boys". I think that another incident will be strike three for Ben, no matter how good a QB he is. Letting Holmes go for a song was a pretty good indication that the Steeler's owners have a tolerance limit.
Good for them!
Monday, April 12, 2010
Failure To Connect The Dots
This morning's Democrat & Chronicle contained a story about the nuclear non-proliferation summit being hosted by President Obama.
According to the story, one focus of the summit is to prevent the spread of nuclear materials to terrorists, who could smuggle same into the heart of a big city. The President is correct in wanting to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists, but his actions belie his words.
The complete failure of this Administration to take serious steps to stop Iran from developing atomic weapons undercuts anything the President is doing to stop the spread of nukes. Does anyone doubt that Iran will provide nuclear material to Hamas or Hezbollah or Al-quida or the Taliban? Once Iran has nukes, terrorists will get the capability soon thereafter.
According to the story, one focus of the summit is to prevent the spread of nuclear materials to terrorists, who could smuggle same into the heart of a big city. The President is correct in wanting to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists, but his actions belie his words.
The complete failure of this Administration to take serious steps to stop Iran from developing atomic weapons undercuts anything the President is doing to stop the spread of nukes. Does anyone doubt that Iran will provide nuclear material to Hamas or Hezbollah or Al-quida or the Taliban? Once Iran has nukes, terrorists will get the capability soon thereafter.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Nothing But Politics
Governor Paterson announced last week that he was delaying setting a date for a special election to replace Eric Massa, who resigned his seat in NY's 29th Congressional District.
Paterson's statement indicated his concerns about the costs of a special election and the burdens it would place on County governments. What a crock! Paterson has been an Albany pol for decades. He never saw a dime he didn't want to spend. Why does he have "religion" now on the cost of a special in the 29th? Its simply because the Democrats don't have a candidiate.
The GOP's likely nominee, Corning Mayor, Tom Reed, has been campaigning and he has a fundraising advantage. The Dems are squabbling. David Koon announced yesterday that he was taking himself out of the race. Its simply not clear who they will run.
So once again we have the spectacle of Democrats deciding for us whether or not we get what we want. Gov. Paterson and the Dems would rather let the seat stay vacant, and allow the 29th to be unrepresented in Congress, than cede any advantage to the GOP candidate. They just don't care what we think and they don't care about what's right. They only care about power.
Paterson's statement indicated his concerns about the costs of a special election and the burdens it would place on County governments. What a crock! Paterson has been an Albany pol for decades. He never saw a dime he didn't want to spend. Why does he have "religion" now on the cost of a special in the 29th? Its simply because the Democrats don't have a candidiate.
The GOP's likely nominee, Corning Mayor, Tom Reed, has been campaigning and he has a fundraising advantage. The Dems are squabbling. David Koon announced yesterday that he was taking himself out of the race. Its simply not clear who they will run.
So once again we have the spectacle of Democrats deciding for us whether or not we get what we want. Gov. Paterson and the Dems would rather let the seat stay vacant, and allow the 29th to be unrepresented in Congress, than cede any advantage to the GOP candidate. They just don't care what we think and they don't care about what's right. They only care about power.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry
In the wake of the passage of Obamacare, several large corporations announced that the new law would have adverse effects on their health care costs and their bottom lines. Notably, AT&T announced that it was taking a One Billion Dollar write down against its revenues due to the effect of the repeal of the 28% Medicare Tax Credit which was contained in the law.
Well, the Commissars, oops, I mean the Democrats, are not amused. Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak have written to several of these companies and have asked them to testify before their Committee about how it's possible that the great blessing of health care reform they bestowed on us all could possibly have any negative effects. I guess the Dems think these CEO's got some 'splainin to do.
Andy McCarthy points out the pernicious nature of this effort in this NRO post. He calls our alleged leaders a "thugocracy". I'm afraid he's not far wrong.
Well, the Commissars, oops, I mean the Democrats, are not amused. Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak have written to several of these companies and have asked them to testify before their Committee about how it's possible that the great blessing of health care reform they bestowed on us all could possibly have any negative effects. I guess the Dems think these CEO's got some 'splainin to do.
Andy McCarthy points out the pernicious nature of this effort in this NRO post. He calls our alleged leaders a "thugocracy". I'm afraid he's not far wrong.
Random Thoughts
Health Care Vote; Where Do We Go From Here?
The election of 2010 may well determine what kind of country we live in and we leave to our kids. If incumbent liberals are ousted, America as a democratic republic and as the exceptional nation and last refuge of liberty may survive. If not, we will have moved irretrievably down the road to a European-style social democracy.
Violent, Racist Tea-partiers?
The "race card" has been so over-played that it is really beginning to lose its effect. No reasonable people believe the charges of the racial overtones of the anti-health care protests. The libs claims in this regard show how badly they want to change the subject from their arrogant power play in passing the bill. Its not working.
Show Trial?
The James Smith/Robutrad case seems weak from my perspective. It's clear that Smith was concerned about the impact of a criminal investigation on the GOP. I don't see how that translates to criminal behavior on his part. He did not stop the investigation. Furthermore, there is more than one way to deal with employees who violate work rules. Unless there is evidence that Smith had actual knowledge of criminal acts by Bob Morone and his crew (something more than over-long lunches at the Klassy Kat), and having such information, supressing it, I don't think he's guilty of a crime. Bad judgment, yes, a crime, no.
UPDATE: Take a look at this post by Philbrick at Mustard Street. He notes what a weak case exists against Smith, particularly on the main points of knowledge of criminal activity and efforts to cover up. Judge Gerace may well have come to the same conclusion that many observers have; namely that there really is no evidence of a crime here. I think there's a fair chance that he may dismiss the case.
Bad Judgment?
Speaking about bad judgment. Ben Roethlisberger is, at the very least, guilty of that. His being accused of sexual misconduct twice in eight months makes you wonder. He's 28 years old. Why is he drinking at college bars and (to euphemize) "chatting-up" co-eds? I hope he didn't do it, but either way, I've lost a lot of respect for him. He felt the need to hire the attorney who got Ray Lewis out of his murder accessory rap. Wow! Talk about keeping good company.
The election of 2010 may well determine what kind of country we live in and we leave to our kids. If incumbent liberals are ousted, America as a democratic republic and as the exceptional nation and last refuge of liberty may survive. If not, we will have moved irretrievably down the road to a European-style social democracy.
Violent, Racist Tea-partiers?
The "race card" has been so over-played that it is really beginning to lose its effect. No reasonable people believe the charges of the racial overtones of the anti-health care protests. The libs claims in this regard show how badly they want to change the subject from their arrogant power play in passing the bill. Its not working.
Show Trial?
The James Smith/Robutrad case seems weak from my perspective. It's clear that Smith was concerned about the impact of a criminal investigation on the GOP. I don't see how that translates to criminal behavior on his part. He did not stop the investigation. Furthermore, there is more than one way to deal with employees who violate work rules. Unless there is evidence that Smith had actual knowledge of criminal acts by Bob Morone and his crew (something more than over-long lunches at the Klassy Kat), and having such information, supressing it, I don't think he's guilty of a crime. Bad judgment, yes, a crime, no.
UPDATE: Take a look at this post by Philbrick at Mustard Street. He notes what a weak case exists against Smith, particularly on the main points of knowledge of criminal activity and efforts to cover up. Judge Gerace may well have come to the same conclusion that many observers have; namely that there really is no evidence of a crime here. I think there's a fair chance that he may dismiss the case.
Bad Judgment?
Speaking about bad judgment. Ben Roethlisberger is, at the very least, guilty of that. His being accused of sexual misconduct twice in eight months makes you wonder. He's 28 years old. Why is he drinking at college bars and (to euphemize) "chatting-up" co-eds? I hope he didn't do it, but either way, I've lost a lot of respect for him. He felt the need to hire the attorney who got Ray Lewis out of his murder accessory rap. Wow! Talk about keeping good company.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Reform Over Our Dead Bodies
Despite overwhelming polling showing that Americans do not want health care "reform" as delivered in the current bill being debated in Washington, it appears that President Obama and Democrat Congressional leaders are determined to cram it down our throats.
Frankly, Obama and company have taken their statist, paternalistic views on government to their logical extreme. They "know" better than we do what is "good" for us, and, by God, they are going to give it to us whether we want it or not. I only hope that Republicans, Conservatives, and Independents pay attention to what is going on and call these arrogant "aristocrats" to task in November.
This is a very real problem that transcends the health care reform bill. Its an issue regarding the consent of the governed. There was a recent poll which indicated that less than 30% of Americans believe that our current government has the consent of the people. Meanwhile, the same poll found that approximately two-thirds of the members of Congress believe that it does have the people's consent. There is an obvious disconnect between our views and the views of those in power (plus, what does this say about the one-third in Congress who believe that the government they are part of does not have the consent of the governed; as one pundit put it "they apparently are not bothered by being tyrants"). Here's a video which discusses the poll and the book by Scott Rasmussen about the consent of the governed.
Seriously, we the people have the ultimate power; the power of the ballot box. The question is whether or not we will exercise it. If we don't do it soon, it may never happen. The changes being sought by Pres. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are intended to dramatically (and possibly, irrevocably) increase the power of government over our lives. The Tea Party movement appears to be a reaction to this arrogant power grab by the statists in Washington (as well as those in Albany, Sacramento and some other state capitols).
Are enough people involved? Can the movement be maintained? Let's pray that the answer is yes.
UPDATE: Sen. Brown gets it. See and hear his address on health care "reform". Here's an excerpt:
“Maybe you remember what President Obama promised in his State of the Union address. He said he was going to finally focus on jobs and the economy for the remainder of this year. I applauded him for that. Well, here it is, it’s almost spring. And what is he out there talking about again? That same 2,700-page, multi-trillion dollar health care legislation.
So, an entire year has gone to waste. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and many more jobs are in danger. Even now, the President still hasn't gotten the message.
Somehow, the greater the public opposition to the health care bill, the more determined they seem to force it on us anyway. Their attitude shows Washington at its very worst – the presumption that they know best, and they’re going to get their way whether the American people like it or not.
And, when politicians start thinking like that, they don’t let anything get in their way – not public opinion, not the rules of fair play, not even their own promises. "
Look at the whole address, its pretty much on point.
Frankly, Obama and company have taken their statist, paternalistic views on government to their logical extreme. They "know" better than we do what is "good" for us, and, by God, they are going to give it to us whether we want it or not. I only hope that Republicans, Conservatives, and Independents pay attention to what is going on and call these arrogant "aristocrats" to task in November.
This is a very real problem that transcends the health care reform bill. Its an issue regarding the consent of the governed. There was a recent poll which indicated that less than 30% of Americans believe that our current government has the consent of the people. Meanwhile, the same poll found that approximately two-thirds of the members of Congress believe that it does have the people's consent. There is an obvious disconnect between our views and the views of those in power (plus, what does this say about the one-third in Congress who believe that the government they are part of does not have the consent of the governed; as one pundit put it "they apparently are not bothered by being tyrants"). Here's a video which discusses the poll and the book by Scott Rasmussen about the consent of the governed.
Seriously, we the people have the ultimate power; the power of the ballot box. The question is whether or not we will exercise it. If we don't do it soon, it may never happen. The changes being sought by Pres. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are intended to dramatically (and possibly, irrevocably) increase the power of government over our lives. The Tea Party movement appears to be a reaction to this arrogant power grab by the statists in Washington (as well as those in Albany, Sacramento and some other state capitols).
Are enough people involved? Can the movement be maintained? Let's pray that the answer is yes.
UPDATE: Sen. Brown gets it. See and hear his address on health care "reform". Here's an excerpt:
“Maybe you remember what President Obama promised in his State of the Union address. He said he was going to finally focus on jobs and the economy for the remainder of this year. I applauded him for that. Well, here it is, it’s almost spring. And what is he out there talking about again? That same 2,700-page, multi-trillion dollar health care legislation.
So, an entire year has gone to waste. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and many more jobs are in danger. Even now, the President still hasn't gotten the message.
Somehow, the greater the public opposition to the health care bill, the more determined they seem to force it on us anyway. Their attitude shows Washington at its very worst – the presumption that they know best, and they’re going to get their way whether the American people like it or not.
And, when politicians start thinking like that, they don’t let anything get in their way – not public opinion, not the rules of fair play, not even their own promises. "
Look at the whole address, its pretty much on point.
Tickle Fights? 'Nuff Said!
Eric Massa denied charges he "groped" male staffers by telling Larry King that all he ever did was engage in "tickle fights" with his staff.
I'm happy to let that be the last word on the quickly becoming little-lamented end of former Congressman Eric Massa's tenure.
I'm happy to let that be the last word on the quickly becoming little-lamented end of former Congressman Eric Massa's tenure.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Massa Resignation Fallout
Well, Eric Massa has gone from not running for re-election to resigning in the space of 3 days.So much for the "health scare" theory. It's pretty clear that Democrat leaders did not want Massa staying in office for the rest of the year, threatening to turn his sexual harrassment problem into a "Foleygate".
More interesting to me is the flurry of interest from so many politicians, in both parties, to become the person who replaces Massa. Local contenders include David Koon, Susan John and Sandy Frankel on the Democrat side and Maggie Brooks, Randy Kuhl, and Brian Kolb from the GOP. There is also lots of interest by Democrat and Republican office holders in the Southern Tier, as well.
I initially wondered why Maggie Brooks would be interested in this spot when the likely result (after the Census is reviewed) will be the elimination of the 29th Congressional District. From that perspective, it might seem that Randy Kuhl is a more obvious choice, since he is already at the end of his career. Maggie Brooks, on the other hand, seems to have more of a potential future (although GOP prospects in New York do not seem good in the longer term).
Maggie would be a great candidate and a great Congressperson. She can raise money with the best of them and altthough she's relatively unknown in the Southern Tier, she has both a warm and dynamic personality which would quickly win over support. She would be an articulate and effective spokesperson for our district.
There is some risk in such a run, however. If Maggie were to run unsuccessfully, it could damage her prospects in seeking re-election as County Executive. Another potential consequense of a run by Maggie, could be a succession controversy with regard to the County Executive slot. Several names have bubbled up as possible replacements, including Cheryl DiNolfo and Joe Robach, among others.
The fact that we will now have a special election makes the situation all the more interesting. The 29th should be a GOP seat. Massa won it due in large part, to "Bush fatigue". Randy Kuhl had been a very staunch supporter of the President's Iraq policy. The seat should go back to GOP hands due to both the enrollment advantage and the clearly growing "Obama remorse" factor.
All in all, it makes for an exciting time in local politics!
More interesting to me is the flurry of interest from so many politicians, in both parties, to become the person who replaces Massa. Local contenders include David Koon, Susan John and Sandy Frankel on the Democrat side and Maggie Brooks, Randy Kuhl, and Brian Kolb from the GOP. There is also lots of interest by Democrat and Republican office holders in the Southern Tier, as well.
I initially wondered why Maggie Brooks would be interested in this spot when the likely result (after the Census is reviewed) will be the elimination of the 29th Congressional District. From that perspective, it might seem that Randy Kuhl is a more obvious choice, since he is already at the end of his career. Maggie Brooks, on the other hand, seems to have more of a potential future (although GOP prospects in New York do not seem good in the longer term).
Maggie would be a great candidate and a great Congressperson. She can raise money with the best of them and altthough she's relatively unknown in the Southern Tier, she has both a warm and dynamic personality which would quickly win over support. She would be an articulate and effective spokesperson for our district.
There is some risk in such a run, however. If Maggie were to run unsuccessfully, it could damage her prospects in seeking re-election as County Executive. Another potential consequense of a run by Maggie, could be a succession controversy with regard to the County Executive slot. Several names have bubbled up as possible replacements, including Cheryl DiNolfo and Joe Robach, among others.
The fact that we will now have a special election makes the situation all the more interesting. The 29th should be a GOP seat. Massa won it due in large part, to "Bush fatigue". Randy Kuhl had been a very staunch supporter of the President's Iraq policy. The seat should go back to GOP hands due to both the enrollment advantage and the clearly growing "Obama remorse" factor.
All in all, it makes for an exciting time in local politics!
Monday, March 1, 2010
Comment Problems Continue
As I wrote back in December, I was having problems with "spam comments". I went to word verification in an effort to stop it. Last week I encountered a new problem. A comment posted on the blog turned out to be a gateway to Asian pornography sites.
Since I really do not want to expose anyone to anything offensive (other than my opinions), I have gone to comment moderation. I will review the comments before they appear so as to block offensive material.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. Please note that I will not block critics. Frankly, I enjoy the contrary points of view most of all.
Since I really do not want to expose anyone to anything offensive (other than my opinions), I have gone to comment moderation. I will review the comments before they appear so as to block offensive material.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. Please note that I will not block critics. Frankly, I enjoy the contrary points of view most of all.
Monday, February 22, 2010
That Was Fast!
Did you notice the letter to the editor in this morning's Democrat & Chronicle criticising the "Gang of 41"? The author of the LTE complained about these GOP Senators who sit around and do nothing but "say no" to everything.
I realize that the Democrats intend to paint the GOP as "the party of no", but isn't a little quick to go after the "Gang of 41"? The gang has only existed for about a month. I don't think there have been any major votes in the Senate since Senator Brown was sworn in.
Maybe when Democrat operatives distribute talking points to their minions, they ought to put dates on them so that the criticism doesn't come before the conduct being complained of.
I realize that the Democrats intend to paint the GOP as "the party of no", but isn't a little quick to go after the "Gang of 41"? The gang has only existed for about a month. I don't think there have been any major votes in the Senate since Senator Brown was sworn in.
Maybe when Democrat operatives distribute talking points to their minions, they ought to put dates on them so that the criticism doesn't come before the conduct being complained of.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Consolidation Panacea
This week's Messenger Post newspapers contained an editorial that lauded the consolidation of Nazareth Academy and Aquinas schools and indicated the belief that consolidation of schools and churches, like that of government, was a wise and good thing. This view is shared by the Democrat & Chronicle editorial board which last week had its own editorial in support of the Rochester Catholic Diocese's decision to consolidate schools. The D&C similarly noted that the school consolidation was a good example for local governments to follow.
The missing fact from these stories is that the reason for consolidation of churches and schools in the the Catholic Diocese is declining enrollment. There are too many churches and schools for the community that wants them. The consolidations in the Diocese include the closure of unneeded or under-utilized schools and churches. The analogy to government is not clear.
Is there really a decline in the need for public services? Not really. The impetus behind consolidation efforts in our area has been, and remains, the fact that the City of Rochester is a failing (failed?) entity that cannot afford the services (most notably, police services) that it wants to provide to its citizens. Consolidation is a way to capture the tax revenues of suburban communities and transfer those revenues to the City.
How will this be accomplished? Very simply. The public services now enjoyed by those suburban communities will be reduced. In my Town of Gates, for example, the 4-5 police cars which currently patrol Gates 24/7, will be reduced to 1 or 2 per shift under consolidated government. Those other cars will be moved to parts of the community which have a "greater need". Unfortunately, the savings which are promised by consolidation advocates will be negligible, because, unlike the Diocese example, services and personnel are not being cut; for the most part, they will be shifted.
Don't misunderstand me. I believe there are many opportunities for consolidation of municipal governments. I can think of little reason for the existence of certain special districts which encompass entire towns. It is likely that water, sewer and lighting districts could be absorbed by town or county governments and some administrative savings might result. Fire and ambulance districts often overlap and some duplicate services. Where there are obvious duplications, consolidation may be warranted.
My problem with consolidation advocates is that they imply that New Yorkers will no longer be over-taxed if we just got rid of these unneeded local goverments. That's nonsense! We are overtaxed because of our bloated, inefficient, partisan and self-interested State government. Moreover, the proponents of consolidation never admit that they have the ulterior motive of transferring tax revenues and services to the failing entities (usually cities) and away from largely successful and prosperous ones (usually towns and villages). Further, people have the right to as much service as they are willing to pay for. Consolidation advocates want to take that right away from people and create larger regional governments that will "do what's best" for a greater number of people. That's code for taking my money and giving it to someone else.
I wish the consolidation debate was an honest one. Let people understand that the choice is somewhat lower costs along with a greater loss of services. More than that, I wish consolidation advocates could acknowledge that as long as there is no reform in Albany, New York's taxation and spending problems will remain serious and that the savings from the merger of a couple of municpal governments will be a drop in the bucket.
The missing fact from these stories is that the reason for consolidation of churches and schools in the the Catholic Diocese is declining enrollment. There are too many churches and schools for the community that wants them. The consolidations in the Diocese include the closure of unneeded or under-utilized schools and churches. The analogy to government is not clear.
Is there really a decline in the need for public services? Not really. The impetus behind consolidation efforts in our area has been, and remains, the fact that the City of Rochester is a failing (failed?) entity that cannot afford the services (most notably, police services) that it wants to provide to its citizens. Consolidation is a way to capture the tax revenues of suburban communities and transfer those revenues to the City.
How will this be accomplished? Very simply. The public services now enjoyed by those suburban communities will be reduced. In my Town of Gates, for example, the 4-5 police cars which currently patrol Gates 24/7, will be reduced to 1 or 2 per shift under consolidated government. Those other cars will be moved to parts of the community which have a "greater need". Unfortunately, the savings which are promised by consolidation advocates will be negligible, because, unlike the Diocese example, services and personnel are not being cut; for the most part, they will be shifted.
Don't misunderstand me. I believe there are many opportunities for consolidation of municipal governments. I can think of little reason for the existence of certain special districts which encompass entire towns. It is likely that water, sewer and lighting districts could be absorbed by town or county governments and some administrative savings might result. Fire and ambulance districts often overlap and some duplicate services. Where there are obvious duplications, consolidation may be warranted.
My problem with consolidation advocates is that they imply that New Yorkers will no longer be over-taxed if we just got rid of these unneeded local goverments. That's nonsense! We are overtaxed because of our bloated, inefficient, partisan and self-interested State government. Moreover, the proponents of consolidation never admit that they have the ulterior motive of transferring tax revenues and services to the failing entities (usually cities) and away from largely successful and prosperous ones (usually towns and villages). Further, people have the right to as much service as they are willing to pay for. Consolidation advocates want to take that right away from people and create larger regional governments that will "do what's best" for a greater number of people. That's code for taking my money and giving it to someone else.
I wish the consolidation debate was an honest one. Let people understand that the choice is somewhat lower costs along with a greater loss of services. More than that, I wish consolidation advocates could acknowledge that as long as there is no reform in Albany, New York's taxation and spending problems will remain serious and that the savings from the merger of a couple of municpal governments will be a drop in the bucket.
Friday, February 12, 2010
When Will We Ever Learn?
Have you seen the report that President Obama is now "agnostic" regarding taxing incomes under $250,000?
Has there ever been a presidential candidate who promised to cut or restrain taxes who did not break that promise due to "the realities" of being President? George H.W. Bush told us "read my lips, no new taxes"; two years later he was "forced" to raise taxes to reduce deficits. Bill Clinton said that he'd give a "middle class tax cut"; he wasn't in office three months before he told us that despite trying as hard as he could, he just could not find a way to keep that promise.
Candidate Obama repeatedly and adamantly promised no taxes on incomes under $250,000. Instapundit has video of the pledge here. Now, President Obama is appointing a "blue-ribbon" panel to deal with the budget. "Everything has to be on the table", according to the President, so apparently, if his panel tells him he must raise taxes across the board, he will be compelled to do so.
In the future, I certainly hope that no one casts his/her vote on the basis of a tax promise, unless, that is, the promise is like the one Walter Mondale made, to raise taxes. That's a promise that would have been kept!
Has there ever been a presidential candidate who promised to cut or restrain taxes who did not break that promise due to "the realities" of being President? George H.W. Bush told us "read my lips, no new taxes"; two years later he was "forced" to raise taxes to reduce deficits. Bill Clinton said that he'd give a "middle class tax cut"; he wasn't in office three months before he told us that despite trying as hard as he could, he just could not find a way to keep that promise.
Candidate Obama repeatedly and adamantly promised no taxes on incomes under $250,000. Instapundit has video of the pledge here. Now, President Obama is appointing a "blue-ribbon" panel to deal with the budget. "Everything has to be on the table", according to the President, so apparently, if his panel tells him he must raise taxes across the board, he will be compelled to do so.
In the future, I certainly hope that no one casts his/her vote on the basis of a tax promise, unless, that is, the promise is like the one Walter Mondale made, to raise taxes. That's a promise that would have been kept!
The Kennedy Seat
This morning's Democrat & Chronicle contains a report that Patrick Kennedy won't run for re-election to his Rhode Island House seat. Kennedy said "his life is taking a new direction" outside of politics.
Philbrick at Mustard Street has what I think is an accurate take on the story here. He thinks Kennedy knows Democrats are going to be vulnerable everywhere, even in Rhode Island, come this Fall. By dropping out, he can avoid a difficult and costly (and possibly losing) race and he can move back to Massachusetts and position himself for a run at Scott Brown in 2012.
I don't think the Kennedy's were happy to see a Republican replace Teddy. Trying to retake the seat held by his father has to be too big a pull for Patrick to ignore.
Philbrick at Mustard Street has what I think is an accurate take on the story here. He thinks Kennedy knows Democrats are going to be vulnerable everywhere, even in Rhode Island, come this Fall. By dropping out, he can avoid a difficult and costly (and possibly losing) race and he can move back to Massachusetts and position himself for a run at Scott Brown in 2012.
I don't think the Kennedy's were happy to see a Republican replace Teddy. Trying to retake the seat held by his father has to be too big a pull for Patrick to ignore.
Real World Hard on Repoman
I'm sorry that I haven't posted much over the past month. Work has been very busy and I think I was burned out after our tough local election campaign in the Fall.
I appreciate the fact that a couple of people actually miss reading my ramblings (I know, hard to believe). I really enjoy blogging so I'm going to make more time for it.
Don't give up on me yet!
I appreciate the fact that a couple of people actually miss reading my ramblings (I know, hard to believe). I really enjoy blogging so I'm going to make more time for it.
Don't give up on me yet!
Monday, January 18, 2010
Pathetic Displays in Washington and Massachusetts
The growing possibility that Republican Scott Brown might upset Democrat Martha Coakley in the special election to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, has Democrats in Congress scrambling for strategies to pass the Obama Health Care "Reform" Bill before he can be seated and has the Coakley campaign wallowing in the mud, using any tactic to derail Brown.
This morning's Democrat and Chronicle outlined the frenzied efforts to come up with ways to pass "Obamacare" without the 60 seat super majority the Democrats now enjoy in the Senate; and which they would lose if Brown is elected. One of the possibilities is to hurry the vote while Massachusetts election officials drag out the certification of Brown's election. Democrats in Washington acknowledge that such an obvious defiance of the voting public would bring a "firestorm of criticism". Apparently, however, their agenda is more important to them than democratic principles like honoring the will of the people.
Meanwhile, in Massachussets, the Coakley campaign reached pathetic, desperate depths. One campaign ad claimed (falsely) that Brown would refuse emergency room treatment for rape victims. The PowerLine posts linked here, here, and here, and the related links in those posts, outline the state of the race in the Bay State.
Frankly, this election and the ridiculous spectacle of the "negotiations" to pass a health care bill (which have included what amount to "bribes" to certain states to secure their Senator's vote, at the expense of other states) are among the things driving the growing "tea party" movement.
More and more people have come to realize that our elected representatives do not really feel a need to represent our interests as opposed to the intersts of their political parties, special interest groups and their personal agendas. These officials have become a modern aristocracy whose arrogance and disdain for the average guy has become monumental.
Scott Brown may be a harbinger of the awakening of the American people to the dangers of yielding too much power to statists and special interests. If he does win, it would be appropriate that the first shot in this new revolution was fired in the same state from which "the shot heard 'round the world" was fired.
This morning's Democrat and Chronicle outlined the frenzied efforts to come up with ways to pass "Obamacare" without the 60 seat super majority the Democrats now enjoy in the Senate; and which they would lose if Brown is elected. One of the possibilities is to hurry the vote while Massachusetts election officials drag out the certification of Brown's election. Democrats in Washington acknowledge that such an obvious defiance of the voting public would bring a "firestorm of criticism". Apparently, however, their agenda is more important to them than democratic principles like honoring the will of the people.
Meanwhile, in Massachussets, the Coakley campaign reached pathetic, desperate depths. One campaign ad claimed (falsely) that Brown would refuse emergency room treatment for rape victims. The PowerLine posts linked here, here, and here, and the related links in those posts, outline the state of the race in the Bay State.
Frankly, this election and the ridiculous spectacle of the "negotiations" to pass a health care bill (which have included what amount to "bribes" to certain states to secure their Senator's vote, at the expense of other states) are among the things driving the growing "tea party" movement.
More and more people have come to realize that our elected representatives do not really feel a need to represent our interests as opposed to the intersts of their political parties, special interest groups and their personal agendas. These officials have become a modern aristocracy whose arrogance and disdain for the average guy has become monumental.
Scott Brown may be a harbinger of the awakening of the American people to the dangers of yielding too much power to statists and special interests. If he does win, it would be appropriate that the first shot in this new revolution was fired in the same state from which "the shot heard 'round the world" was fired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
