by

News/Politics 9-14-13

What’s interesting in the news today?

First up, Colorado.

From Denver/CBSLocal  “Officials in Boulder are urging people to stay away from Boulder Creek, which is still running at dangerously high levels on Friday.

The flooding has destroyed several residences in Boulder County, officials said Friday morning. They don’t have a specific number of homes that have been destroyed yet, and it’s not clear so far where the worst damage is in the county.”

““We are asking people to avoid driving in Boulder, avoid being in areas where water is rising or where creeks are crossing intersections or streets. If you should happen to fall in those waters it would be very difficult to get out and in some cases you might not be able to get out,” Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said. “We are asking people not to come to Boulder unless absolutely necessary because if you get here you might not be able to get out.”

_________________________________________________

Next, sure they are, but they’ll screw it up.

From Politico  “Republicans are now leading Democrats on handling several key issues,  according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.

The poll, released Friday, shows more Americans think that the  Republicans are doing a better job on the economy, foreign policy and reducing  the federal deficit.

The GOP has an edge of 7 percentage points over the Democrats on the issue of  foreign policy. This is up from 2006, when the GOP was behind by 9 percentage  points.”

_________________________________________________

This has to be killing Emanuel.

From TheDailyCaller  “Gun owners in Chicago no longer have to register firearms with local  authorities, the New York Times reports.

Chicago’s City Council reluctantly voted Wednesday to end the decades old  registration policy in the wake of the new law allowing Illinois residents the  right to carry concealed weapons in public. The modification follows the United  States Court of Appeals for the 7th District December ruling that stated Illinois’s ban  on public concealed carry was unconstitutional. So far, the Democratic-majority  Legislature has struggled to balance the perceived needs of the people with the  court ruling.”

“Despite this seemingly revolutionary change, Chicago is far from encouraging gun  ownership. The Council strengthened other gun regulations, even as it struck down  the registration law.”

Sure, because their methods and ideas on gun control have worked so well up until now. 🙄

_________________________________________________

Strange that they would only do this for certain Pastors. OK, not really.

Also from TheDailyCaller  “Attorney General  Eric Holder and IRS officials advised black ministers on how to engage in  political activity during the 2012 election without violating their tax-exempt  status.

Holder, then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, and Peter Lorenzetti, a senior  official in the scandal-plagued agency’s exempt organizations division,  participated in a May 2012 training session for black ministers from the  Conference of National Black  Churches at the U.S. Capitol hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).  Holder spoke at the event.

“We’re going to, first of all, equip them with the information they need to  know about what they can say and what they cannot say in the church that would  violate their 501(c)(3) status with the IRS,” said then-CBC chairman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver,  a Democrat from Missouri. “In fact, we’re going to have the IRS administrator  there. We’re going to have Attorney General Eric Holder there…the ACLU.”

They used these churches to push Obama and his agenda. The IRS targets the Tea Party, yet enables this. Sad.

_________________________________________________

The Senate is up to more nonsense. And the best part is they want our totally non-partisan DoJ to decide who gets journalistic protections and who doesn’t. Freedom of the Press, for officially approved Press anyway. I bet the recent change to anti-propaganda laws is related.

From Breitbart  “Who would decide who fell within these guidelines? A “judge of the United States” can “exercise discretion to avail the persons of the protections of this Act.” But in the first instance, the DOJ would have the discretion to determine whether a person is a “journalist” for purposes of the law. Instead of focusing on acts of journalism, the law would identify people by employment status.

 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that it should not matter to citizen journalists if new protections extended to a special class of journalists created by the government, since the First Amendment does not grant any right to protect sources in the first place. “When we’re discussing the issue of adding a privilege, the issue of taking away someone’s First Amendment rights just isn’t engaged….All we’re doing is adding privilege to existing First Amendment rights, so there is, logically, zero First Amendment threat out of this,” said Whitehouse, ignoring the fact that a massive institutional advantage would be handed to approved government outlets, thereby perverting the entire system of a free press.

 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) launched into the proposed bill, which he said could “have the effect of excluding certain persons from enjoying the added First Amendment protections the bill would provide.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) agreed, stating, “Essentially as I understand this amendment, it protects what I would characterize as the ‘corporate media.’…But it leaves out citizen bloggers….I don’t think any protection should treat citizen bloggers who are meeting the underlying test of being primarily engaged in gathering news to report it I don’t think they should be excluded because they don’t happen to work for a media corporation.”

_________________________________________________

And last for today, this one. 🙂

From TheCompetitiveEnterpriseInstitute  “Today, teachers in Kenosha, Wis., voted to decertify their union, the Kenosha Education Association, by a margin of nearly two to one. Only 37 percent of the teachers opted to retain the union in an election made possible by the labor reforms enacted under Gov. Scott Walker (R). The result goes to show that when workers have a choice on whether to join a union instead of being forced into one by law, they often choose to vote down the union.”

_________________________________________________

50 thoughts on “News/Politics 9-14-13”

  1. There was an interesting interview of Dana Perino on Fox News last night. She said that Putin did not write that op-ed in the NYT. Russia has professional consultants in America who do that sort of thing for them. (Probably all the countries do; she didn’t say that.) She said that Putin’s English was not that good. He was not the author, but likely had it passed by him.
    Yesterday, some were agitating Rush to write a counter op-ed for the NYT. Rush doubted that they would print it.

    Like

    Reply

  2. Chas, I heard that same interview on the radio driving home from work. I thought it was also interesting that she mentioned some folks from the former administration (which is still getting publicly criticized by the current administration) had been offering behind-the-scenes to help out in the situation over the past couple weeks.

    Like

    Reply

  4. And I missed the specifics about what the latest public slap was against the Bush administration (my radio signal dips out for several seconds at a time — downside of satellite radio when you go through a “no signal” zone).

    But honestly, they really need to just stop doing that, it’s making them look petty, partisan and vindictive.

    Time to get over it already.

    Like

    Reply

  5. IRS — the Tea Party, evangelicals, etc should take a page from the black pastors book and invite the IRS to give a presentation on how to keep their 501 status. This way they have same knowledge and information as the black churches. By banging their heads against authority, they make it really easy for the authority to pick on them.

    Teacher’s Unions — if anyone looks to yesterday’s page, they should know Im rather well paid with great benefits. And this isn’t because the school boards like to be generous. Unions are necessary to make it a level bargaining field and teachers in Ontario no matter their political opinion understand this. And having a well paid workforce is good for the public system …. it attracts bright young people and gives the profession some prestige. As a result faculty of educations are full, supply teacher lists are full, and school boards can sift through 100s of applicants for just one position.

    Chas — From what I read, Putin’s column was originally written by Putin in Russian and then translated. Minor changes were made by consultants to make it more relevant and understandable. ( different idioms, examples, grammar changes etc) Almost every country with representatives in the US has hired PR and lobbying firms for that type of work. They understand how American politics work: hire someone with connections to play golf with a few Senators and you get what you want.

    It would be no surprise that Bush administrators are also working for Obama. Both party elites have a similar mindset and Obama has essentially followed Bush’s foreign policy. As for slapping each other — thats for public consumption and their bases, it keeps up the illusion of differences.

    Like

    Reply

  6. IRS … But we’re Americans, we’re (wisely) raised to keep a wary eye on our government. Banging our heads against authority is in our genes. 🙂

    I’d guess that Putin is the original author, more or less, of the op-ed and that it was translated and polished by someone who is fluent in English. It was undoubtedly a group effort.

    My view is that the Obama administration is one of the most partisan we’ve had in many years. They rarely miss a chance to issue a “dig” — and, no, I don’t think it’s for public consumption, I think it speaks to a mindset.

    Like

    Reply

  7. Actually most Americans are fairly complacent especially if they are told a certain idea is socialist. And in general most of the West is quite similar — give them a case of beer and football on a Sunday afternoon (gridiron or soccer) and they are quite willing to accept whatever they are told,

    Democrats and Republicans differ on domestic policy and “social” issues and there’s where rancor emerges from supporters on both sides of the fence. As for partisan, the Republican House has deliberately blocked most of Obama’s agenda even when they were originally for it; now that’s partisan.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZadmGoZB2to

    Like

    Reply

  11. I’d toss it back to the president — who has made little if no effort to cultivate relationships on the other side of the aisle. Reagan and Bush both realized the importance of this. So did Bill Clinton.

    A good leader? Hardly. Obama’s done nothing but snub Congress from the start.

    And on many of the issues, Republicans simply have a principled difference of opinion. Regarding being against the Syrian invasion, in case you haven’t noticed there’s a growing libertarian strain within the GOP — opposing the president’s wish to get involved there is completely consistent to their beliefs.

    Like

    Reply

  12. And he misses no opportunity to throw out a dig against the other side in his public remarks. Really, it’s getting old and tiring.

    Three more years? Ugh.

    I say this knowing I wouldn’t have liked her a lot either, but Hillary Clinton would have been a much more capable leader than Obama. But when people lose their heads, well, they lose their heads.

    Like

    Reply

  19. bob — bang on article, Getting rid of vocational schools as a cost saving measure was a horrible decision. The continued reliance on group work allows boys to drift and coast on the girls work. A return to individual competitive tasks would help but that’s not what the administrators and curriculum writers want. My school board has a preferential hiring policy for k-3 male teachers; the theory is that young boys need an older male mentor. However, by middle school I find the gender of the teacher is not the issue but shared interests.

    Like

    Reply

  20. Christie has challenges, to be sure. He’s leaned liberal on social issues (perhaps more than “leaned”) which poses a problem in wooing more socially conservative voters (who make up a sizable chunk of the GOP).

    Not saying it can’t be done, but he’s perhaps strayed a bit too far to find his way back on those issues. As a known “straight shooter,” he’ll not be able to switch positions without losing major credibility.

    And he’s also something of a loose cannon. The same personality that can make him so appealing can get him into big trouble if he doesn’t learn to control the temper and a tendency to shoot from the hip before thinking.

    Depending on how the rest of the Obama term plays out — and he could recover, but he’s now in deep waters on a number of fronts and his approval ratings have plummeted (which in a final term are hard to reverse, frankly). If he doesn’t regain whatever footing he once had, at least in “perception,” Hillary then has to find a way to distance herself from it all.

    She left in good time, but still has Benghazi to answer for.

    And, yes, age will be a factor as it was with McCain. If the GOP nominates anyone under 50, the contrast will be striking.

    Like

    Reply

  21. The bottom line in 2016 will be how people feel the past 8 years have gone.

    And, so far, I suspect Obama won’t be seen has having had a wildly successful term in office.

    If that’s the case, voters typically are more than ready to give the other party a shot.

    Like

    Reply

  22. Sometimes voters judgment of the past eight years matters little. Clinton left office with the highest ratings for the end of term presidency yet this couldn’t get Gore elected. (Mind you nobody got elected that year)

    The economy is in slow recovery mode and should be alright by 2016, Obama’s foreign policy has been quite successful despite the Syrian misstep. Using the WMD excuse reminded too many people of Bush (and the fact that his foreign policy resembles Bush just better at it)– I imagine he thought he could use the same playbook as he did in Libya — air intervention through NATO. By 2016, this misstep should be a memory especially if Obama learns the right lesson from this.

    Christie’s position on social issues may pose a problem in the primary but not in the general election in fact it may be to his advantage.

    Clinton’s age will roughly similar to Reagan. Benghazi will not be an issue except with people who would never vote for her anyway.

    Like

    Reply

  23. Yeah, but Clinton isn’t Reagan. 🙂

    The GOP’s main problem, I think, will be in the new libertarian strain that’s gaining strength and influence. I think we saw that internal conflict in the past election cycles — maybe it will be muted because everyone’s so “war-weary” right now that all the but hard-core hawks in the party may be willing to concede on the foreign involvement issue for now.

    For the Dems, they need to find some young talent rather than just sitting back and putting all their hope in one aging party pol.

    I think Hillary’s best chance was in ’08, I suspect she’s not going to be as formidable as everyone thinks, especially following 8 years of Obama. Unless he finds a way to make Obamacare sail through seamlessly (and lower everyone’s health costs) — and unless he figures out a way out of the box the Russians and Syria have stuck him in — well, he’ll probably not end with flying colors.

    Like

    Reply

  25. I’m sorry to say Hillary is an overwhelming favorite. First, the liberal media feels a little guilty about the way they treated her in 2008. They don’t regret their Pro-Obama actions. After all, he was black and to Hillary’s left of foreign policy. However, they feel they “owe her one” after being so instrumental in the defeat of the first serious woman contender for the presidency.

    The demographics are not good for Republicans. In a reversal of 1980, the Democrats have the young people. Some may wise up, but most have been brainwashed in the public schools.

    The Republicans will need to find a good candidate. Christie is a chubby version of Romney. If they nominate a conservative, they have no chance in the Northeast, the West Coast and most of the Midwest.

    Like

    Reply

  27. ricky, the Dems have always had ‘young’ people (they had me once upon a time). That’s the case in most elections. And the GOP has never (in recent years) had much of the west or northeast. Again, that’s been the pattern for decades now (yet Republicans have still won the WH more often than not).

    I will say that the libertarian strain appeals mostly to young people, however — and you find the young within the GOP embracing that. While I think there are themes commending the libertarian movement, in general I’m distrustful of it and think it’s simply an impractical way to govern. It also is a very amoral way to govern, which is probably my biggest gripe about it. I do think government exists to be a moral force. Ours has obviously lost that vision.

    Actually, I think both parties have lost a vision — both for themselves and for the nation at large.

    Like

    Reply

  28. Donna, In 1980, Reagan won 18-25 year olds by the largest margin. Carter did better as voters got older. It is true that voters tend to get more conservative as they get older.

    Democrats have won 4 of the last 6 presidential elections. They have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. The Dems’ 4 wins were blowouts. Little Bush’s two “wins” were squeakers to say the least. Reagan won California twice. Since California and the rest of the West Coast turned firmly Democratic it has been tough for Republicans to win.

    Like

    Reply

  30. I think Reagan (1980) in many ways was an anomaly. He also was running against Jimmy Carter.

    And hey, remember that almost all-red map from only a decade ago? Just sayin’ that politics, if nothing else, are always in flux.

    Like

    Reply

  31. Chiming in with my boilerplate…

    If we’re discussing possible Republican candidates, and we’re mentioning Christie as a possible guy, we’re in trouble; in fact, if we haven’t learned our lesson about just looking to win, we’re doomed. In the short term, Obama is considerable worse than Romney would have been…*maybe.* But in the long term, the trajectory would have been identical.

    Christians, we need to quit shooting ourselves in our collective foot, compromising just to get into office. Vote only for good candidates. It’s the Biblical thing to do!

    Like

    Reply

  37. rickyweaver: Essentially, I think he would have done, like, 75% of the garbage Obama has done. So, for example, while he wouldn’t have enacted a version of Obamacare, he would have done something (not even gonna surmise what, exactly) that was 75% as crappy.

    KimHH: The correct way to phrase it is: There are Republicans and Democrats, and then there is a second party candidate.

    Like

    Reply

  38. DonnaJ: Nobody, so far as I know. Not even Rand Paul. In either of the last two elections, I would have (and did) say RP. But we lost our chance at him. Truly is our loss.

    Isn’t it weird to look back at how conservatives found Ron Paul so repulsive? Good one, guys.

    Like

    Reply

  40. SolarPancake, We are in agreement on Romney and Obama. If you just look at the 2nd term, I don’t think there would have been any difference. Romney would have cut a tax increase deal very much like Obama’s. Country club Republicans like Romney and the Bushes are not conservatives. The Bushes did as much to repeal Reagan’s reforms as did Clinton and Obama.

    Donna J is right. Reagan was an anomaly. Romney, McCain, the Bushes, Ford, and Nixon – none of them were conservatives. None were much different from Carter or Clinton.

    Like

    Reply

  42. Donna J, I agree, but that cuts both ways. Obama’s lack of political ability has allowed the Rs to prevent him from passing any major new socialist initiatives since they won the midterm elections in 2010. Romney (who is essentially a Mormon Bush) might well have used his political skills to ram through something like Little Bush’s No Child Left Behind or Medicare Part D. In foreign policy, Romney’s political skills and neo-conservative advisers might have us in a war in Syria.

    Like

    Reply

  43. Reagan was a corporate stooge much like Bush jr just far better at talking. Plus he was president at a time when people were tired of welfare-state liberalism so he came across as fresh air.

    Foreign policy rarely changes just the effectiveness and to a certain extent the methodology. Obama was more effective than Bush and Romney would probably follow Obama`s lead. He might be as Ricky suggests more aggressive as opposed to Obama who likes to be more subtle and has less support for aggression from his base.

    I doubt Romney would have done anything different than the ACA as its not much different than what he did in Mass, and the Republicans have yet to articulate a serious alternative.

    Libertarianism appeals to middle class boys. I used to read Ayn Rand myself. Once the reality of life hits them they usually change their opinion. Its an immature outlook lacking a central principal other than being selfish. Even Ayn Rand realized that as she grew old and collected social security.

    Like

    Reply

  45. I think libertarianism is concerned primarily with freedom (a good thing), but tends to dismiss the role of a corporate morality reflected in government.

    That said, I believe morality must come from the bottom up — and I fear the problem we have as a society in the U.S. and the west in general is that we’re somewhat now bereft of moral anchors.

    Like

    Reply

  49. Wait, I was quoting you there :). How do you mean “[Libertarianism] tends to dismiss the role of a corporate morality reflected in government”? In your ensuing comments, it sounds like you think that’s not a bad thing.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to rickyweaver Cancel reply