People looking for work, temporary or full time, shouldn't look at DuPage County for available summer positions. Those were filled without any advertising. In fact, many of those positions went to the children of county employees. So much for the clarity of government.
During a Tuesday county finance committee meeting, County Commissioner Debra Olsen revealed that at least 20 of the nearly 200 summer jobs the county offers were filled by relatives of current county employees. Olsen sad it wasn't fair qualified candidates didn't have the opportunity to apply for the positions.
Not only were the positions filled without advertising, some of the seasonal hires were allowed to begin working before the hires were approved by the county board.
DuPage County commissioners need to ensure hiring practices are fair and open to everyone. Kudos to Commissioner Olsen for revealing the nepotism running through the county.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Roskam rightly argues for repeal of the estate tax (death tax)
Last week U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Il., rightly denounce the House Ways and Means Committee for refusing to debate the necessity of the estate tax. Roskam argues, and rightly so, that a repeal of the estate tax, also referred to as the death tax by conservative, will benefit small businesses and will help stimulate the national economy.
Roskam called the estate tax an "albatross around the neck" of small business owners and entrepreneurs. A repeal of this tax will help create prosperity, he said. A video of Roskam's argument can be found here.
Currently the estate tax is set to sunset next year, although that would be temporary. It will come back the next year.
Proponents of the estate tax argue the tax on inheritance will prevent the perpetuation of wealth in one family. But put more simply, proponents of the estate tax do not believe money belongs to the people, money belongs to the state. These people believe money should not simply be handed from one person to another without the state getting another taste through taxation. They argue that it is income and should be taxed as such -despite the fact it was already taxed when it was first made.
Following this logic, one can make a Swiftonian argument that the allowance a parent gives his child should be taxed because that's income to the child. Or birthday money should be taxed because that's income to the birthday boy or girl.
Ending the estate tax is the right measure to take. Eliminating the estate tax will allow small businesses to expand at a greater rate. Because of the current rate, many small business owners would rather spend their profits rather than reinvest them back into the company.
Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said in a Los Angeles Times column the "high estate tax rates provide small-business owners with a powerful incentive to limit the size of their companies. Why would a business owner want to expand his or her company beyond a certain size if the end result will be a large "death tax" bill that will negate much of the hard work and sacrifices the owner and the owner's family made over the years?"
Holtz-Eakin cites a study conducted for the American Family Business Foundation, that analyzed the reactions of small businesses to past tax changes. He said they found eliminating the estate tax would "increase the climate for wealth accumulation, ultimately increasing wealth in the United States by $1.6 trillion. Small-business investment would rise by more than 3% annually. That in turn would increase small-business payrolls by as much as 2.6%, adding roughly 1.5 million jobs to the economy, or nearly half the number President Obama hopes to save or "create."
Hopefully Congress will listen to reason rather than tax everyone to death - and beyond.
Roskam called the estate tax an "albatross around the neck" of small business owners and entrepreneurs. A repeal of this tax will help create prosperity, he said. A video of Roskam's argument can be found here.
Currently the estate tax is set to sunset next year, although that would be temporary. It will come back the next year.
Proponents of the estate tax argue the tax on inheritance will prevent the perpetuation of wealth in one family. But put more simply, proponents of the estate tax do not believe money belongs to the people, money belongs to the state. These people believe money should not simply be handed from one person to another without the state getting another taste through taxation. They argue that it is income and should be taxed as such -despite the fact it was already taxed when it was first made.
Following this logic, one can make a Swiftonian argument that the allowance a parent gives his child should be taxed because that's income to the child. Or birthday money should be taxed because that's income to the birthday boy or girl.
Ending the estate tax is the right measure to take. Eliminating the estate tax will allow small businesses to expand at a greater rate. Because of the current rate, many small business owners would rather spend their profits rather than reinvest them back into the company.
Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said in a Los Angeles Times column the "high estate tax rates provide small-business owners with a powerful incentive to limit the size of their companies. Why would a business owner want to expand his or her company beyond a certain size if the end result will be a large "death tax" bill that will negate much of the hard work and sacrifices the owner and the owner's family made over the years?"
Holtz-Eakin cites a study conducted for the American Family Business Foundation, that analyzed the reactions of small businesses to past tax changes. He said they found eliminating the estate tax would "increase the climate for wealth accumulation, ultimately increasing wealth in the United States by $1.6 trillion. Small-business investment would rise by more than 3% annually. That in turn would increase small-business payrolls by as much as 2.6%, adding roughly 1.5 million jobs to the economy, or nearly half the number President Obama hopes to save or "create."
Hopefully Congress will listen to reason rather than tax everyone to death - and beyond.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Renaming Democratic Party is a foolish priority
The Republican National Committee is meeting this week and the results of that meeting are likely to be disastrous for the party rather than beneficial.
Rather than focusing on the two national electoral smackdowns, the party powers that be want to focus on a name calling agenda item. What's this item - it's to rename (in GOP speak) the Democratic Party to "The Democrat-Socialist Party." Not only is this a waste of time, but it will further isolate the national GOP from mainstream voters. This tells voters that the national Republican Party isn't interested in smaller government, fiscal responsibility, national defense, health care, or any other issue important to the people. Rather, the party is only interested in labels. This move will not help a single national candidate win an election, and in fact, could hurt the chances of state and local candidates. Nor will this labeling of the Democrats help with fundraising or new voter registration. According to a Washington Post poll published last week, the number of self-identifying Republicans stood at 21 percent. That's not a number to be proud of.
Calling Democrats socialists also leaves the national GOP wide open to criticism since the past eight years of national Republican leadership led to the biggest expansion of the federal government in decades. It's not a legacy for the party trumpeting fiscal responsibility and smaller government to be proud of.
If Republicans want to break the stranglehold of the the Democrats on Washington, D.C. and many state capitals, the party needs to focus on engaging the voting public rather than alienating it.
Rather than focusing on the two national electoral smackdowns, the party powers that be want to focus on a name calling agenda item. What's this item - it's to rename (in GOP speak) the Democratic Party to "The Democrat-Socialist Party." Not only is this a waste of time, but it will further isolate the national GOP from mainstream voters. This tells voters that the national Republican Party isn't interested in smaller government, fiscal responsibility, national defense, health care, or any other issue important to the people. Rather, the party is only interested in labels. This move will not help a single national candidate win an election, and in fact, could hurt the chances of state and local candidates. Nor will this labeling of the Democrats help with fundraising or new voter registration. According to a Washington Post poll published last week, the number of self-identifying Republicans stood at 21 percent. That's not a number to be proud of.
Calling Democrats socialists also leaves the national GOP wide open to criticism since the past eight years of national Republican leadership led to the biggest expansion of the federal government in decades. It's not a legacy for the party trumpeting fiscal responsibility and smaller government to be proud of.
If Republicans want to break the stranglehold of the the Democrats on Washington, D.C. and many state capitals, the party needs to focus on engaging the voting public rather than alienating it.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Hypocrite Stroger owes back taxes
Isn't it funny how the folks who want you to pay more in taxes are often the ones who don't pay their own taxes. Americans have seen several of President Obama's appointments derailed due to failure to pay income taxes. How unpatriotic of them. I mean, according to Vice President Joe Biden, paying taxes is one's patriotic duty.
Now the chickens have come home to roost, so to speak. Cook County Board President Todd Stroger owes the federal government $12,000 in back taxes. According to federal documents, the IRS put a lien on Stroger's home on March 23 for $11,668.10 in unpaid income taxes.
As a public servant, Stroger earns about $170,000 annually, according to the Daily Herald. A Stroger spokesman told media outlets that the Stroger family made arrangements to pay off the debt. But that's beside the point. Stroger is adamant in his defense of Cook County's high taxes that they're for the public good. Obviously though it's not necessary for Stroger to contribute his money for the public good. Stroger talks the talk, but refuses to walk the walk. It would behoove Cook County voters to send Stroger walking in the next election.
Now the chickens have come home to roost, so to speak. Cook County Board President Todd Stroger owes the federal government $12,000 in back taxes. According to federal documents, the IRS put a lien on Stroger's home on March 23 for $11,668.10 in unpaid income taxes.
As a public servant, Stroger earns about $170,000 annually, according to the Daily Herald. A Stroger spokesman told media outlets that the Stroger family made arrangements to pay off the debt. But that's beside the point. Stroger is adamant in his defense of Cook County's high taxes that they're for the public good. Obviously though it's not necessary for Stroger to contribute his money for the public good. Stroger talks the talk, but refuses to walk the walk. It would behoove Cook County voters to send Stroger walking in the next election.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Cook County Board should override Stroger's veto and repeal the tax hike
Cook County President Todd Stroger says repealing a sale tax increase would put the county in a $250 million hole. He vetoed the county board's decision to roll back the tax.
Last week, the county board voted 12-3 to rollback the tax from 1.75 percent to .75 percent. A majority of board commissioners who supported the repeal have said the shortfall could be made up by better budget management, including scaling back patronage hiring. Stroger said the board doesn't have the votes to override his veto.
Stroger told the Sun Times that eliminating a full percent from 1.75 percent to .75 percent would result in closing down health clinics that serve the uninsured. To further the populace in the public opinion battle, Stroger said the number of patients coming to county health facilities with no insurance or no ability to pay is up 10 percent this year.
Last week, the county board voted 12-3 to rollback the tax from 1.75 percent to .75 percent. A majority of board commissioners who supported the repeal have said the shortfall could be made up by better budget management, including scaling back patronage hiring. Stroger said the board doesn't have the votes to override his veto.
But Stroger doesn't think so. Of course Stroger is well known for hiring political cronies and putting his family members on the county payroll. Stroger has his supporters, but the truth of the matter is Cook County is taxed too high. Numerous county residents travel to DuPage County to shop so they can save money on sales taxes. In the April elections, residents of three Cook County municipalities supported a non-binding resolution to leave Cook County because of the high taxes.
County board members would do well to remember that taxes are going up across the state because government is out of control. Tell Stroger no and repeal the tax.
DuPage Board rightly rejects imposing limits on churches
The DuPage County Board of Commissioners rightly rejected a decision that would impose strict limitations on where churches can build. According to the Daily Herald, board members said they initially wanted to control church construction and growth in residential areas. But, they said the proposed zoning changes went beyond what the commission intended when the issue of controlling church construction was first broached. The board said they wanted to control the growth of churches in residential areas after they received petitions to turn several single-family homes into a religious facility.
The proposal would have required new churches to build on at least five acres, which opponents complained would limit churches to only parcels along highways or industrial parks. But that would also limit new church construction and expansion of existing churches. Property in DuPage County is at a premium, especially in the eastern portions of the county. New churches would have to rent empty theaters or seek empty strip mall spaces.
Considering DuPage County already has ordinances in place to prevent the construction of religious sites or places of assembly if the site is deemed to have traffic, parking or other site-specific problems. But it is wise to block the turning of single-family homes into places of worship and perhaps a property tax dodge. But penalizing church construction is not the right answer to addressing this problem.
The proposal would have required new churches to build on at least five acres, which opponents complained would limit churches to only parcels along highways or industrial parks. But that would also limit new church construction and expansion of existing churches. Property in DuPage County is at a premium, especially in the eastern portions of the county. New churches would have to rent empty theaters or seek empty strip mall spaces.
Considering DuPage County already has ordinances in place to prevent the construction of religious sites or places of assembly if the site is deemed to have traffic, parking or other site-specific problems. But it is wise to block the turning of single-family homes into places of worship and perhaps a property tax dodge. But penalizing church construction is not the right answer to addressing this problem.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Board members refuse to recuse themselves
Typical bought politicians. Members of the College of DuPage board who were elected in large part due to funding from an education political action committee based on the college campus and funded by a teachers union.
The Daily Herald is reporting the four members of the board (three new and the current chairman) refuse to recuse themselves from negotiations over college faculty salaries. During Monday's board meeting, outgoing member Kory Atkinson displayed two oversized checks totaling $100,000. The checks symbolized the amount of money spent by the teachers union on the election of the board members. College of DuPage Friends of Education helped Kim Savage, Nancy Svoboda and Sandy Kim win seats on the board last month.
Because the issue of taxpayer money is at hand, should the board members be beholden to a teachers organization - especially when it comes to the board voting on faculty salary. All citizens have a right to lobby their government, but if the members of the government are beholden to a small segment of the population, it leads to an appearance of a conflict of interest when it comes to legislation concerning that segment.
The board members must recuse themselves from voting on faculty salaries or the stain of corruption will smear this board.
The Daily Herald is reporting the four members of the board (three new and the current chairman) refuse to recuse themselves from negotiations over college faculty salaries. During Monday's board meeting, outgoing member Kory Atkinson displayed two oversized checks totaling $100,000. The checks symbolized the amount of money spent by the teachers union on the election of the board members. College of DuPage Friends of Education helped Kim Savage, Nancy Svoboda and Sandy Kim win seats on the board last month.
Because the issue of taxpayer money is at hand, should the board members be beholden to a teachers organization - especially when it comes to the board voting on faculty salary. All citizens have a right to lobby their government, but if the members of the government are beholden to a small segment of the population, it leads to an appearance of a conflict of interest when it comes to legislation concerning that segment.
The board members must recuse themselves from voting on faculty salaries or the stain of corruption will smear this board.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Buchanan talks about the future of the GOP
In his latest column conservative pundit Pat Buchanan offers a glimmer of hope for the national Republican ticket. It's only a glimmer though.
Unlike many pundits, Buchanan says the GOP should not abandon its stance on social, moral and cultural positions. He says that was part of the downfall of Sen. John McCain's candidacy.
Buchanan left the Republican Party in 1999, but returned to the fold in 2004 endorsing, perhaps reluctantly, George W. Bush. Buchanan has been a vocal critic of the neoconservative movement, which he blames for the many ills of the GOP.
It's clear the Grand Old Party got it's backsides handed to them in 2008. President Obama's supporters delivered him to Washington on a tidal wave of support. What will it take for the Republicans to become a national contender again? Right now it's hard to say, especially with the infighting the party is seeing. It's difficult to say what the GOP can do to have a shot at the White House. Regardless of the plan, it will start with a strong candidate and a cohesive message.
Unlike many pundits, Buchanan says the GOP should not abandon its stance on social, moral and cultural positions. He says that was part of the downfall of Sen. John McCain's candidacy.
"When African-Americans, who gave McCain 4 percent of their votes in California, gave Proposition 8, prohibiting gay marriage, 70 percent of their votes, why would the GOP give up one of its trump cards -- not only in Middle America but among minorities?
A conservative who could have sharpened the social, moral and cultural differences might, from the exit polls, have done far better."
A conservative who could have sharpened the social, moral and cultural differences might, from the exit polls, have done far better."
Buchanan left the Republican Party in 1999, but returned to the fold in 2004 endorsing, perhaps reluctantly, George W. Bush. Buchanan has been a vocal critic of the neoconservative movement, which he blames for the many ills of the GOP.
It's clear the Grand Old Party got it's backsides handed to them in 2008. President Obama's supporters delivered him to Washington on a tidal wave of support. What will it take for the Republicans to become a national contender again? Right now it's hard to say, especially with the infighting the party is seeing. It's difficult to say what the GOP can do to have a shot at the White House. Regardless of the plan, it will start with a strong candidate and a cohesive message.
College of DuPage board members should recuse themselves over conflict of interest
Newly elected College of DuPage Board members Sandy Kim, Kim Savage and Nancy Svoboda along with new board chairperson Kathy Wessel should recuse themselves from future negotiations with the teachers union over salary. After all, their campaigns for last month's election was partially funded by the union.
The issue raised it's head during a board meeting this week. The Illinois Education Association spent $34,000 to support these four candidates through a political action committee called Friends for Education.
So, having been elected partially due to support from educators, how can these board members honestly negotiate a contract worth approximately $100 million without a sense of impropriety? But that's not all. According to the Illinois State Board of Elections website, Friends for Education has an address on the College of DuPage campus! This means a PAC owned by an education union is headquartered in a taxpayer funded school. So, these folks working out of a government office are fundraising for a union that is promoting elected candidates - candidates who will then vote on salary contracts. Certainly sounds like a conflict of interest and the board members would best serve the people of this county by recusing themselves from salary negotiations.
This conflict of interest at the College of DuPage, the third largest single-campus community college in the nation, is a microcosm of conflicts of interest and pay to play politics that permeate Illinois.
The issue raised it's head during a board meeting this week. The Illinois Education Association spent $34,000 to support these four candidates through a political action committee called Friends for Education.
So, having been elected partially due to support from educators, how can these board members honestly negotiate a contract worth approximately $100 million without a sense of impropriety? But that's not all. According to the Illinois State Board of Elections website, Friends for Education has an address on the College of DuPage campus! This means a PAC owned by an education union is headquartered in a taxpayer funded school. So, these folks working out of a government office are fundraising for a union that is promoting elected candidates - candidates who will then vote on salary contracts. Certainly sounds like a conflict of interest and the board members would best serve the people of this county by recusing themselves from salary negotiations.
This conflict of interest at the College of DuPage, the third largest single-campus community college in the nation, is a microcosm of conflicts of interest and pay to play politics that permeate Illinois.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Second Amendment forum tomorrow night
Tuesday night's planned forum on the second amendment is getting a lot of press today in The Daily Herald, especially with those who fully support the right to bear arms.
The event was planned following an April forum that was about gun control. Pro-second amendment folks packed the room but weren't allowed to speak. In fact, they were threatened with forcible expulsion by the police if they got out of hand. But tomorrow night it's their turn to take center stage at Wheaton Town Hall. The organizers say this event was set up to make sure both sides of the argument about firearms can be heard. If those citizens who support gun control show up, will the organizers of this event allow them to be heard? That was the complaint last month. Let's hope so. It's far better when people are given the chance to share their views and concerns in an orderly manner rather than it become a shouting match.
The forum will be at Wheaton Town Hall beginning at 6 tomorrow night.
The event was planned following an April forum that was about gun control. Pro-second amendment folks packed the room but weren't allowed to speak. In fact, they were threatened with forcible expulsion by the police if they got out of hand. But tomorrow night it's their turn to take center stage at Wheaton Town Hall. The organizers say this event was set up to make sure both sides of the argument about firearms can be heard. If those citizens who support gun control show up, will the organizers of this event allow them to be heard? That was the complaint last month. Let's hope so. It's far better when people are given the chance to share their views and concerns in an orderly manner rather than it become a shouting match.
The forum will be at Wheaton Town Hall beginning at 6 tomorrow night.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Second second amendment forum held in Wheaton next week
The second amendment will take center stage in Wheaton for the second time in just a matter of weeks. A group of high school students will be leading a pro-second amendment forum.
The forum is in response to a previous forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters that pushed for the prevention of gun violence, which is often code for "gun control." The original forum, held April 21, was initially aimed at a Wheaton High School group. However, word spread around town and over 200 people turned out to listen to the LWV's message. That message though was lost quickly when event organizers said they would brook no disruption from the crowd and anyone who caused a disruption would be escorted out by police - in other words oppose the groups gun control message and be silenced by the police. The forum, held in a public venue, ended quickly without allowing any public comments.
But now the other side of the argument will get their chance on Tuesday. The featured speaker is a co-coordinator of the Illinois chapter of The Second Amendment Sisters.
The latest forum is being conducted properly. Event organizers are planning on allowing comments from the audience - both those who support or prefer limits, even draconian, on the Second Amendment. That's the right way to engage the community.
The event will be held from 7-9 pm on Tuesday at Wheaton City Hall. It should be interesting.
The forum is in response to a previous forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters that pushed for the prevention of gun violence, which is often code for "gun control." The original forum, held April 21, was initially aimed at a Wheaton High School group. However, word spread around town and over 200 people turned out to listen to the LWV's message. That message though was lost quickly when event organizers said they would brook no disruption from the crowd and anyone who caused a disruption would be escorted out by police - in other words oppose the groups gun control message and be silenced by the police. The forum, held in a public venue, ended quickly without allowing any public comments.
But now the other side of the argument will get their chance on Tuesday. The featured speaker is a co-coordinator of the Illinois chapter of The Second Amendment Sisters.
The latest forum is being conducted properly. Event organizers are planning on allowing comments from the audience - both those who support or prefer limits, even draconian, on the Second Amendment. That's the right way to engage the community.
The event will be held from 7-9 pm on Tuesday at Wheaton City Hall. It should be interesting.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Illinois Democrats: I'll keep my raise thank you very much
Illinois Democrats are showing their true colors when it comes to a nearly $12 billion budget hole.
On Wednesday House Democrats blocked a GOP sponsored measure to prevent an annual 2.8 percent cost of living increase in lawmakers' salaries. The preventative measure would save the state about $2 million a year, according to Rep. Bill Black, a Danville Republican who sponsored the legislation. With a near $12 billion budget gap, an annual savings of $2 million isn't going to do much, but, as many struggling families know, every little bit helps. And that was the point of Black's proposition. Black told the Chicago Tribune he knew the measure would not help the budget much, but said it would show the people that lawmakers are doing their part.
But House Democrats did not see it that way. Black's measure failed 64-50 along party lines. While Democrats weren't willing to part with a pay raise, they're perfectly willing to ask the people of Illinois to shoulder the budget responsibility with talks of increased taxes. While 9.1 percent of the Illinois population is out of work, lawmakers are going to earn more money out of our pockets.
On Wednesday House Democrats blocked a GOP sponsored measure to prevent an annual 2.8 percent cost of living increase in lawmakers' salaries. The preventative measure would save the state about $2 million a year, according to Rep. Bill Black, a Danville Republican who sponsored the legislation. With a near $12 billion budget gap, an annual savings of $2 million isn't going to do much, but, as many struggling families know, every little bit helps. And that was the point of Black's proposition. Black told the Chicago Tribune he knew the measure would not help the budget much, but said it would show the people that lawmakers are doing their part.
But House Democrats did not see it that way. Black's measure failed 64-50 along party lines. While Democrats weren't willing to part with a pay raise, they're perfectly willing to ask the people of Illinois to shoulder the budget responsibility with talks of increased taxes. While 9.1 percent of the Illinois population is out of work, lawmakers are going to earn more money out of our pockets.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
I am an extremist according to DHS
Do you dislike an expanding federal government?
Do you worry about the loss of U.S. sovereignty?
Are you concerned about issues like abortion and illegal immigration?
Do you talk about this publicly?
If so, you’re in the cross hairs of the federal government for being a “right-wing extremist.”
A Department of Homeland Security document released earlier this week (and also a rehash of a 2001 document) stated that "Many right-wing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearm ownership and use.”
Sounds like DHS is describing the tenets of the Republican Party. So, like our ancestors did when we cast off the yoke of the British crown, stand up and proclaim to the government that you are a right-wing extremist. Contact your elected officials and announce your extremist tendencies. Tell them you are concerned about immigration, about high taxes and that you believe the federal government has become too large. Tell them your extremist views must be addressed or something extreme will happen - like voting them out of office.
Do you worry about the loss of U.S. sovereignty?
Are you concerned about issues like abortion and illegal immigration?
Do you talk about this publicly?
If so, you’re in the cross hairs of the federal government for being a “right-wing extremist.”
A Department of Homeland Security document released earlier this week (and also a rehash of a 2001 document) stated that "Many right-wing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearm ownership and use.”
Sounds like DHS is describing the tenets of the Republican Party. So, like our ancestors did when we cast off the yoke of the British crown, stand up and proclaim to the government that you are a right-wing extremist. Contact your elected officials and announce your extremist tendencies. Tell them you are concerned about immigration, about high taxes and that you believe the federal government has become too large. Tell them your extremist views must be addressed or something extreme will happen - like voting them out of office.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Guilty until proven innocent, or not?
It's disturbing when you find out someone you've known personally or professionally has been accused of committing a vile act. This week it's happened to me.
I've been on vacation back in my beloved North Carolina. I went to visit my friends and former colleagues at The Wilson Daily Times on Monday. It's been 10 months since I've seen some of them and two years since I've seen most of my former colleagues. During my visit to the paper my former editor asked me if I knew a certain English teacher at Wilson Community College. See, I taught history there part time for many years. The teacher in question, and I'll decline to mention his name in my blog, but will link to the article, has been arrested in connection to the rape and molestation of a 12 year old boy in Pennsylvania.
I served on a committee with the accused teacher and never did I think this man had such vileness inside him. Of course, we don't typically think that of any of our friends and neighbors. Oftentimes you'll hear the same old mantra of "he was a quiet neighbor" or some such blather when someone is charged with a heinous crime. But this time it's happened to me.
In this society one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but human nature works the opposite way, one is guilty until proven innocent. It's interesting because just this week I saw the Academy Award nominated film Doubt, about a priest who may or may not have molested a child at the parish school. There were no answers in that film, it was up for the audience to decide the answer. Currently I'm in that same boat regarding the man I knew.
While I certainly hope the charges against the man I know are false, notions of guilt are already slipping into my head. And even if he is proven to be guiltless, his reputation is forever destroyed.
I've been on vacation back in my beloved North Carolina. I went to visit my friends and former colleagues at The Wilson Daily Times on Monday. It's been 10 months since I've seen some of them and two years since I've seen most of my former colleagues. During my visit to the paper my former editor asked me if I knew a certain English teacher at Wilson Community College. See, I taught history there part time for many years. The teacher in question, and I'll decline to mention his name in my blog, but will link to the article, has been arrested in connection to the rape and molestation of a 12 year old boy in Pennsylvania.
I served on a committee with the accused teacher and never did I think this man had such vileness inside him. Of course, we don't typically think that of any of our friends and neighbors. Oftentimes you'll hear the same old mantra of "he was a quiet neighbor" or some such blather when someone is charged with a heinous crime. But this time it's happened to me.
In this society one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but human nature works the opposite way, one is guilty until proven innocent. It's interesting because just this week I saw the Academy Award nominated film Doubt, about a priest who may or may not have molested a child at the parish school. There were no answers in that film, it was up for the audience to decide the answer. Currently I'm in that same boat regarding the man I knew.
While I certainly hope the charges against the man I know are false, notions of guilt are already slipping into my head. And even if he is proven to be guiltless, his reputation is forever destroyed.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama's call to reach moderate Taliban is really a placation of the hard left in the U.S.
President Barack Obama claims he will reach out to "moderate" members of Afghanistan's Taliban to bring the war in that nation to a close.
But there's a simple flaw in Obama's logic - there are no moderate members of the Taliban - at least not using the westernized definition of political moderate. The Taliban is comprised of hard line Islamists. Their reputation as fundamentalist Muslims is well earned. The Taliban enforced a strict interpretation of Sharia law. During their rule, public floggings and executions were common. Television and the Internet were banned, as was something as frivolous as kite flying.
Then of course is the treatment of women. Under the Taliban women were treated as chattel and routinely beaten and disfigured for "lewd" behavior.
This is the mentality of the people President Obama wants to reach out and find a moderate. It's not probable.
Taliban expert and former official Waheed Mozhdah told Reuters that Obama's comments resemble a dream.
Another Mid East analyst, Qaseem Akhgar, also told Reuters that a moderate member of the Taliban is akin to a moderate killer.
So with no moderate member of the Taliban in sight, who was Obama talking to? The international community might give a nod to his comments, but even the most timid of French leaders knows there's no such thing as a moderate member of the Taliban. Besides, they know that Obama is sending 17,000 more troops to lend support to the 38,000 U.S. troops already serving there.
So that leaves a significant portion of the American voting populace as the target of Obama's rhetoric. Obama's comment was certainly aimed at the anti-war members of his own party. He wants to show this segment of the voting population that he is dedicated to ending the war in Afghanistan. Even while he sends more troops to fight the government that harbored the terrorists who attacked this nation in 2001, he's placating the ardent anti-war crowd, nothing else.
But there's a simple flaw in Obama's logic - there are no moderate members of the Taliban - at least not using the westernized definition of political moderate. The Taliban is comprised of hard line Islamists. Their reputation as fundamentalist Muslims is well earned. The Taliban enforced a strict interpretation of Sharia law. During their rule, public floggings and executions were common. Television and the Internet were banned, as was something as frivolous as kite flying.
Then of course is the treatment of women. Under the Taliban women were treated as chattel and routinely beaten and disfigured for "lewd" behavior.
This is the mentality of the people President Obama wants to reach out and find a moderate. It's not probable.
Taliban expert and former official Waheed Mozhdah told Reuters that Obama's comments resemble a dream.
Another Mid East analyst, Qaseem Akhgar, also told Reuters that a moderate member of the Taliban is akin to a moderate killer.
So with no moderate member of the Taliban in sight, who was Obama talking to? The international community might give a nod to his comments, but even the most timid of French leaders knows there's no such thing as a moderate member of the Taliban. Besides, they know that Obama is sending 17,000 more troops to lend support to the 38,000 U.S. troops already serving there.
So that leaves a significant portion of the American voting populace as the target of Obama's rhetoric. Obama's comment was certainly aimed at the anti-war members of his own party. He wants to show this segment of the voting population that he is dedicated to ending the war in Afghanistan. Even while he sends more troops to fight the government that harbored the terrorists who attacked this nation in 2001, he's placating the ardent anti-war crowd, nothing else.
Monday, March 9, 2009
GOP knows they must appeal to new voters, the question is how
The Grand Old Party isn't so grand anymore. After two straight beatings in federal elections, party leaders are struggling to find a way to appeal to a broad base of voters.
Republicans must return to the message that veteran campaigners like former President Ronald Reagan and former Sen. Jesse Helms used. The modern GOP must be able to appeal to voters across the aisles like these two stalwarts of conservatism did. While both could be polarizing individuals, both were able to draw support from Democrats. But right now the party is not in such a position. Allow a clarification please - I don't mean for divisive politics by using Reagan or Helms (although as a colleague points out, Helms was quite divisive) but to design a message of fiscal and personal responsibility that can appeal across party lines.
To the average voter the party is fractured highlighted by a squabble between Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. While this type of perceived infighting can be damaging to the party, it can also be cathartic as well. The party must organize and return to grassroots efforts in order to retake the White House and the halls of Congress. But the question is how.
During a Lincoln Day Dinner in DuPage County last month, Steele called for the Republican Party to tailor its message to all voters, not just conservative voters. Steele said the party message must be something that would appeal to voters who most likely would align themselves with Democrat candidates.
Republicans must return to the message that veteran campaigners like former President Ronald Reagan and former Sen. Jesse Helms used. The modern GOP must be able to appeal to voters across the aisles like these two stalwarts of conservatism did. While both could be polarizing individuals, both were able to draw support from Democrats. But right now the party is not in such a position. Allow a clarification please - I don't mean for divisive politics by using Reagan or Helms (although as a colleague points out, Helms was quite divisive) but to design a message of fiscal and personal responsibility that can appeal across party lines.
To the average voter the party is fractured highlighted by a squabble between Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. While this type of perceived infighting can be damaging to the party, it can also be cathartic as well. The party must organize and return to grassroots efforts in order to retake the White House and the halls of Congress. But the question is how.
During a Lincoln Day Dinner in DuPage County last month, Steele called for the Republican Party to tailor its message to all voters, not just conservative voters. Steele said the party message must be something that would appeal to voters who most likely would align themselves with Democrat candidates.
We need a new approach that assures Republicans play in every state; take nothing for granted. We may not win everywhere we play, but we certainly won’t win if we don’t play everywhere we can... Once again, we need to speak directly to the hopes, concerns and aspirations of Americans. So let’s stop telling Americans what we’re against and instead articulate a compelling vision of what we’re for, how we’ll lead and where we want to go.
During last week's Conservative Political Action Committee meeting in Washington, D.C., Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty made a similar call. Pawlenty said the GOP must appeal to what he calls “Sam’s Club voters,” socially right-leaning middle-class voters who may have once belonged to a union, and who now care more about whether they will see their next paycheck than about issues like abortion or gay rights. Like Steele, Pawlenty said the GOP needs to do a better job appealing to voters who are not rank and file Republicans.
“We don’t have a big enough party to be throwing people overboard, and so while we may not agree all the time, if somebody agrees with us most of the time, they need to feel welcome, and there needs to be a spot at the table for them, too,” Pawlenty said. “You don’t win elections and you can’t govern and you can’t make a difference if you aren’t able to get a majority. So you have to be adding people, not subtracting people.”
The problem has been identified, but now comes the hard part - implementing the change.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Limbaugh, Steele fight over GOP while Democrats laugh
So, who is the top bull elephant in the Grand Old Party?
Is it Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele?
Is it radio show host Rush Limbaugh?
It's an interesting question and since so much of politics is about perception, it's a question that deserves to be answered. First look at the reality of the RNC. The RNC exists to provide national leadership to the Republican Party, including the development of a national platform, coordinating fundraising efforts and promoting electoral strategies. The RNC works with Republican leadership in the 50 states.
Limbaugh is the host of the biggest, and perhaps most influential, conservative radio program in the nation. During the Clinton years Limbaugh was called the "voice of conservative principles" by National Review. Limbaugh is enjoying high ratings now thanks to being targeted by the Obama administration following his comments that he hopes Obama fails.
There's where perception comes into play. With the attention Limbaugh is receiving from Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, he is the chief target of the Democrats, which gives him more power within the party than he actually had. according to multiple news sources, On Sunday, Emanuel called Limbaugh "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party," on CBS’ “Face The Nation." On Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs described Limbaugh as "a national spokesperson for conservative views and many in the Republican Party." In January Obama urged Republican leaders in a private meeting to quit listening to Limbaugh.
While Limbaugh is enjoying relevancy during the Obama years, it's clear the majority of Republicans don't acknowledge him as the leader. According to Rasmussen Reports, an independent polling organization, only 11 percent of Republicans believe Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party while 81 percent disagree. But when it comes to Democrats, 44 percent say Limbaugh is the party leader while 41 percent disagree.
When it comes to those identifying themselves as conservatives, moderates and liberal, without the party moniker, "76 percent of self-designated conservatives do not see him as the Republican leader. Fifty-two percent of moderates share that view, but the plurality of liberals,45 percent do see Limbaugh as calling the shots for the GOP."
While Rush may not be the leader of the Republican Party, he sure is a powerful voice in its ranks. So far no high ranking elected Republican lawmaker has spoken out against Limbaugh. And here's the reality of that - Limbaugh speaks to millions of people each day. Steele does not have that kind of voice. Limbaugh can urge people to not give contributions to the RNC as well. But would he do that in electoral times when every vote counts toward victory?
This is clearly something GOP officials want to go away and they're attempting to make it happen. According to a Wednesday article in The Hill, GOP lawmakers are stressing that people are more concerned with the state of the economy than they are with Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele.
Is it Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele?
Is it radio show host Rush Limbaugh?
It's an interesting question and since so much of politics is about perception, it's a question that deserves to be answered. First look at the reality of the RNC. The RNC exists to provide national leadership to the Republican Party, including the development of a national platform, coordinating fundraising efforts and promoting electoral strategies. The RNC works with Republican leadership in the 50 states.
Limbaugh is the host of the biggest, and perhaps most influential, conservative radio program in the nation. During the Clinton years Limbaugh was called the "voice of conservative principles" by National Review. Limbaugh is enjoying high ratings now thanks to being targeted by the Obama administration following his comments that he hopes Obama fails.
There's where perception comes into play. With the attention Limbaugh is receiving from Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, he is the chief target of the Democrats, which gives him more power within the party than he actually had. according to multiple news sources, On Sunday, Emanuel called Limbaugh "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party," on CBS’ “Face The Nation." On Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs described Limbaugh as "a national spokesperson for conservative views and many in the Republican Party." In January Obama urged Republican leaders in a private meeting to quit listening to Limbaugh.
While Limbaugh is enjoying relevancy during the Obama years, it's clear the majority of Republicans don't acknowledge him as the leader. According to Rasmussen Reports, an independent polling organization, only 11 percent of Republicans believe Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party while 81 percent disagree. But when it comes to Democrats, 44 percent say Limbaugh is the party leader while 41 percent disagree.
When it comes to those identifying themselves as conservatives, moderates and liberal, without the party moniker, "76 percent of self-designated conservatives do not see him as the Republican leader. Fifty-two percent of moderates share that view, but the plurality of liberals,45 percent do see Limbaugh as calling the shots for the GOP."
While Rush may not be the leader of the Republican Party, he sure is a powerful voice in its ranks. So far no high ranking elected Republican lawmaker has spoken out against Limbaugh. And here's the reality of that - Limbaugh speaks to millions of people each day. Steele does not have that kind of voice. Limbaugh can urge people to not give contributions to the RNC as well. But would he do that in electoral times when every vote counts toward victory?
This is clearly something GOP officials want to go away and they're attempting to make it happen. According to a Wednesday article in The Hill, GOP lawmakers are stressing that people are more concerned with the state of the economy than they are with Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele.
"This is nothing more than a distraction created by the administration to take people’s attention away from the fact that they’re going to raise taxes and grow the size of government,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Wednesday following a weekly GOP policy meeting.“The White House started this … I was in the room, going back to the day after the Inaugural, and it just kind of escalated from there."
Boehner has it right. It's a non issue, yet the Democrats will encourage infighting in the GOP as often as possible. Remember, there's always an election around the corner and fractured opposition is much better than a united opposition.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
A return to Reaganism is what conservatives, voters want
Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the United States is generally considered to be the standard bearer for the Republican Party.
The ideals espoused by Reagan are what a large portion of the voting populace - both Democrat, Independent and Republican - want, according to Rasmussen Reports. According to the polling organization, 83% of Republican voters around the country still agree with Reagan along with 40% of Democrats and 60% of those not affiliated with either major party. The Reagan ideal is what voters want to see in modern Republicans. Fifty-nine percent of voters still agree with Reagan's stance that government is the problem.
In 1981 Reagan said:
Reagan's words still resonate today despite the seemingly opposite tack taken by the Obama administration.
The ideals espoused by Reagan are what a large portion of the voting populace - both Democrat, Independent and Republican - want, according to Rasmussen Reports. According to the polling organization, 83% of Republican voters around the country still agree with Reagan along with 40% of Democrats and 60% of those not affiliated with either major party. The Reagan ideal is what voters want to see in modern Republicans. Fifty-nine percent of voters still agree with Reagan's stance that government is the problem.
In 1981 Reagan said:
"From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.”
Reagan's words still resonate today despite the seemingly opposite tack taken by the Obama administration.
People suffer but Daley's friends prosper
The Daley administration is spending $55 million on public relations according to the Chicago Sun Times.
Of course the Daley administration has complained about a lack of funds for all kinds of city services. But there's funds for a tightly controlled public relations campaign. This is the 11th PR contract the city has awarded, each worth $5 million. All this during a time he city has a $50 million budget hole for 2009. Because of the budget crisis, Daley laid off 420 city employees, eliminating 1,600 vacancies, slowing police hiring and raising taxes, fines and fees by $52.5 million.
How many jobs could the latest $5 million have saved? How can Mayor Daley justify raising taxes to save city programs yet spend this kind of money on public relations?
Business as usual in Chicago. The mayor's friends get city money and the people get the short end of the stick. That's the Chicago way.
Of course the Daley administration has complained about a lack of funds for all kinds of city services. But there's funds for a tightly controlled public relations campaign. This is the 11th PR contract the city has awarded, each worth $5 million. All this during a time he city has a $50 million budget hole for 2009. Because of the budget crisis, Daley laid off 420 city employees, eliminating 1,600 vacancies, slowing police hiring and raising taxes, fines and fees by $52.5 million.
How many jobs could the latest $5 million have saved? How can Mayor Daley justify raising taxes to save city programs yet spend this kind of money on public relations?
Business as usual in Chicago. The mayor's friends get city money and the people get the short end of the stick. That's the Chicago way.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Illinois Democrats play hardball with one of their own, could benefit GOP
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn is calling for a special election for the U.S. Senate seat if its current occupant Roland Burris does not step down within two weeks.
Appearing on WGN radio this morning, Quinn said he believes the state can enact a special election that will force Burris out of office. Under Illinois law, appointments to Senate vacancies last until the next federal election, which is scheduled for next year. Burris was appointed by three weeks after Blagojevich’s Dec. 9 arrest on federal criminal charges of allegedly trying to sell the Senate seat for personal or political gain. But Attorney General Lisa Madigan suggested the appointment to the Senate is temporary until the next election. Lawmakers are proposing to move up the 2010 election for the Senate seat to May. Unlike his Democratic colleagues, Quinn supported holding a special election for the seat given up by President Barack Obama.
Since taking office Burris has been under a cloud of ethical scrutiny concerning his relationship with the disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Practically since Burris went to D.C., and not in the tradition of Jefferson Smith, Illinois leaders have demanded Burris resign his seat.
The special election could cost the state between $20 and $50 million. According to the Chicago Tribune, Sen. Matt Murphy (R-Palatine), who is sponsoring special-election legislation, said the balloting could cost half that amount or less and said the state could subsidize the costs to local election authorities by tapping $15 million set aside in the current budget for pork-barrel projects.
If a special election is held, Illinois Republicans will benefit in two ways. First, Quinn will not be able to appoint another Democrat to hold the seat. Secondly, Republicans can win the seat, provided the campaign of likely replacement Rep. Peter Roskam or Rep. Mark Kirk capitalizes on the corruption of the Democratic Party. Republicans need to hammer the Democratic establishment over supporting Blagojevich, failing to hold a special election instead of allowing the disgraced Blagojevich to name Burris to the Senate seat. Republicans could also benefit if a group of black Chiacgo aldermen keep their threat and buck the Democrats for supporting the ouster of Burris - although that threat is unlikely to be held in a general election.
House Minority Leader Tom Cross said a special election will restore trust to the people of Illinois.
Appearing on WGN radio this morning, Quinn said he believes the state can enact a special election that will force Burris out of office. Under Illinois law, appointments to Senate vacancies last until the next federal election, which is scheduled for next year. Burris was appointed by three weeks after Blagojevich’s Dec. 9 arrest on federal criminal charges of allegedly trying to sell the Senate seat for personal or political gain. But Attorney General Lisa Madigan suggested the appointment to the Senate is temporary until the next election. Lawmakers are proposing to move up the 2010 election for the Senate seat to May. Unlike his Democratic colleagues, Quinn supported holding a special election for the seat given up by President Barack Obama.
Since taking office Burris has been under a cloud of ethical scrutiny concerning his relationship with the disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Practically since Burris went to D.C., and not in the tradition of Jefferson Smith, Illinois leaders have demanded Burris resign his seat.
The special election could cost the state between $20 and $50 million. According to the Chicago Tribune, Sen. Matt Murphy (R-Palatine), who is sponsoring special-election legislation, said the balloting could cost half that amount or less and said the state could subsidize the costs to local election authorities by tapping $15 million set aside in the current budget for pork-barrel projects.
If a special election is held, Illinois Republicans will benefit in two ways. First, Quinn will not be able to appoint another Democrat to hold the seat. Secondly, Republicans can win the seat, provided the campaign of likely replacement Rep. Peter Roskam or Rep. Mark Kirk capitalizes on the corruption of the Democratic Party. Republicans need to hammer the Democratic establishment over supporting Blagojevich, failing to hold a special election instead of allowing the disgraced Blagojevich to name Burris to the Senate seat. Republicans could also benefit if a group of black Chiacgo aldermen keep their threat and buck the Democrats for supporting the ouster of Burris - although that threat is unlikely to be held in a general election.
House Minority Leader Tom Cross said a special election will restore trust to the people of Illinois.
“This (will) give the people of Illinois an opportunity to be involved,” Cross said at a news conference. “They don’t trust us, and one of the ways we can restore trust with them is to give them the opportunity to be involved in this process.”
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Jindal dropped ball during presidential response
Tuesday night's response to President Barack Obama's Congressional address was not an auspicious introduction to the nation for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
The response to the president is usually given to a rising star in the party. This year was Jindal's turn.
It's clear that Jindal is not ready for prime time national politics. It's not that he's not a capable politician, he's certainly doing a fine job as governor of Louisiana. Navigating that bayou cesspool of corruption is just as difficult as navigating the "stinky onion" cesspool in Illinois. So far Jindal has done a good job at the helm of his state.
He's done such a good job that he's often named as a possible presidential candidate for the Republican Part in 2012. He was on Sen. John McCain's short list for vice president in 2008. But if his response to the president is any indication, Jindal is not ready for the national stage.
His argument was stale. It's the same mantra Republican candidates have been using for years, but it's a mantra that is ringing hollow with the average citizen. Likewise the way he delivered the response was all wrong as well. Jindal spoke at the American people instead of speaking to the American people.
Conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter described Jindal's response:
Also the stagecraft of Jindal's response was poor. He should not have approached the camera from a hidden area like he was hiding, nor should the piece have been shot in front of the grand staircase of the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge. If the GOP wants to appeal to average folks, a mansion isn't the spot to make such an address.
The response to the president is usually given to a rising star in the party. This year was Jindal's turn.
It's clear that Jindal is not ready for prime time national politics. It's not that he's not a capable politician, he's certainly doing a fine job as governor of Louisiana. Navigating that bayou cesspool of corruption is just as difficult as navigating the "stinky onion" cesspool in Illinois. So far Jindal has done a good job at the helm of his state.
He's done such a good job that he's often named as a possible presidential candidate for the Republican Part in 2012. He was on Sen. John McCain's short list for vice president in 2008. But if his response to the president is any indication, Jindal is not ready for the national stage.
His argument was stale. It's the same mantra Republican candidates have been using for years, but it's a mantra that is ringing hollow with the average citizen. Likewise the way he delivered the response was all wrong as well. Jindal spoke at the American people instead of speaking to the American people.
Conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter described Jindal's response:
There was a cheesy, salesman-like quality to the response that I don't think connected with the Rick Santelli-inspired anger so many Republicans are feeling right now. And, I'm pretty sure he's going to be SNL's next target. His speech tempo was just, so weird. Enough complaining from me. He didn't pass the prime time test and it makes me sad. I don't want to dwell.
Also the stagecraft of Jindal's response was poor. He should not have approached the camera from a hidden area like he was hiding, nor should the piece have been shot in front of the grand staircase of the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge. If the GOP wants to appeal to average folks, a mansion isn't the spot to make such an address.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Houston credit plan is nanny state madness
The mayor of Houston proposed a plan of pure insanity that rewards bad financial behavior. This is a microcosm of Porkulus, the $787 billion spending behemoth of President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Mayor Bill White proposed the city dole out grants up to $3,000 to individuals who are trying to qualify for mortgages through the city’s home buyers assistance program. According to the Houston Chronicle, the "Credit Score Enhancement Program" was aimed at helping people who fall 10 to 20 points shy on their credit application use the money to pay off debt and raise their scores. The funds would be used from a left over from a city appropriation of funds to repair homes following Hurricane Ike. This money would be used for people to pay off credit card debt and car loans! This plan realizes the idea of wealth redistribution - using taxpayer money to help people pay their debts is nothing short of insanity. It gives even more rise to the idea of allowing the state to take care of people rather than having the people take care of themselves.
Mayor Bill White proposed the city dole out grants up to $3,000 to individuals who are trying to qualify for mortgages through the city’s home buyers assistance program. According to the Houston Chronicle, the "Credit Score Enhancement Program" was aimed at helping people who fall 10 to 20 points shy on their credit application use the money to pay off debt and raise their scores. The funds would be used from a left over from a city appropriation of funds to repair homes following Hurricane Ike. This money would be used for people to pay off credit card debt and car loans! This plan realizes the idea of wealth redistribution - using taxpayer money to help people pay their debts is nothing short of insanity. It gives even more rise to the idea of allowing the state to take care of people rather than having the people take care of themselves.
Whatever happens, Burris' legacy has been sealed with the stimulus vote
Everyone and their mother is calling for the resignation of Sen. Roland Burris, the latest in a long line of corrupt Illinois public officials.
He arrived in the Senate under a cloud and has remained under that cloud during his short stint. While Burris hasn't been in the U.S. Senate long enough to line his pockets or cement himself in other nefarious traditions, he's been there long enough and the damage has been done. Burris was there to pass Porkulus, the so called $787 billion stimulus plan. According to Sun Times columnist Lynn Sweet, Burris first told Senate leaders Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that there was more to his appointment than met the eye. According to Sweet:
Passed with exactly the number of votes needed. No wonder President Obama pushed for Burris to be seated after his appointment. Burris. Without Burris in office, Porkulus was in danger. With Burris in office, Porkulus was unleashed on the taxpayers.
While it's imperative that Burris leave the Senate and return that seat to the people, the damage has been done to the nation. If the people are allowed to elect his successor, perhaps that vote will block future irresponsible spending packages.
He arrived in the Senate under a cloud and has remained under that cloud during his short stint. While Burris hasn't been in the U.S. Senate long enough to line his pockets or cement himself in other nefarious traditions, he's been there long enough and the damage has been done. Burris was there to pass Porkulus, the so called $787 billion stimulus plan. According to Sun Times columnist Lynn Sweet, Burris first told Senate leaders Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that there was more to his appointment than met the eye. According to Sweet:
Burris dropped the news when Reid and Durbin were on the Senate floor whipping the roll call for the stimulus bill, which passed with exactly the number of votes needed.
Passed with exactly the number of votes needed. No wonder President Obama pushed for Burris to be seated after his appointment. Burris. Without Burris in office, Porkulus was in danger. With Burris in office, Porkulus was unleashed on the taxpayers.
While it's imperative that Burris leave the Senate and return that seat to the people, the damage has been done to the nation. If the people are allowed to elect his successor, perhaps that vote will block future irresponsible spending packages.
Monday, February 23, 2009
RNC Chairman Steele offers new hope for GOP
RNC Chairman Michael Steele wowed DuPage Republicans Friday night with his call to return the party to its traditional tenets of fiscal conservatism.
Steele, who was the keynote speaker at the 48th annual Lincoln Day dinner, said the Republican's inability to hold to those tenets were the reasons for losses in 2006 and 2008.
“We learned one important lesson from the 2006 and 2008 elections; you can’t please everyone all the time, but you can anger everyone at the same time,” Steele said.
Steele said the GOP lawmakers who went to Washington forgot the principles of the 1994 Contract with America and “began drinking that Potomac River water” and got drunk off the perks of being in charge of the nation. Steele said the party deserved the setbacks in the previous elections, but now it’s time to rebuild and refocus on core conservative values.
"We got an old-fashioned whooping and we deserved it because we walked away from the good old-fashioned principles that defined us for 150 years," he said. "We're in the 12-step recovery program and we've got a brand new attitude. There’s a lot of fight left in this party.”
, Steele laid out his hopes for a more responsible and effective Republican Party. Steele said Republicans need to expand their base and target voters who may lean more to voting Democrat. He said the party has a duty to package traditional Republican ideals in a way that will appeal to those voters. Steele said the Republican Party can take a lesson from Howard Dean, Steele’s Democrat opposite, by adopting a 50 state strategy and target vulnerable seats in those states. Steele lauded Dean’s plan because it won Democrats seats in traditionally Republican states, like Montana, Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina.
Steele said the first challenge for Illinois Republicans is the seat of embattled Sen. Burris. With the possibility of Burris losing that seat and a special election to replace him, Steele said this is the race Republicans need to win.
Pointing out problems for the party is the first step on a long road to recovery, but the proof will be in implementing plans to restore the viability of the Republican Party.
Steele, who was the keynote speaker at the 48th annual Lincoln Day dinner, said the Republican's inability to hold to those tenets were the reasons for losses in 2006 and 2008.
“We learned one important lesson from the 2006 and 2008 elections; you can’t please everyone all the time, but you can anger everyone at the same time,” Steele said.
Steele said the GOP lawmakers who went to Washington forgot the principles of the 1994 Contract with America and “began drinking that Potomac River water” and got drunk off the perks of being in charge of the nation. Steele said the party deserved the setbacks in the previous elections, but now it’s time to rebuild and refocus on core conservative values.
"We got an old-fashioned whooping and we deserved it because we walked away from the good old-fashioned principles that defined us for 150 years," he said. "We're in the 12-step recovery program and we've got a brand new attitude. There’s a lot of fight left in this party.”
, Steele laid out his hopes for a more responsible and effective Republican Party. Steele said Republicans need to expand their base and target voters who may lean more to voting Democrat. He said the party has a duty to package traditional Republican ideals in a way that will appeal to those voters. Steele said the Republican Party can take a lesson from Howard Dean, Steele’s Democrat opposite, by adopting a 50 state strategy and target vulnerable seats in those states. Steele lauded Dean’s plan because it won Democrats seats in traditionally Republican states, like Montana, Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina.
Steele said the first challenge for Illinois Republicans is the seat of embattled Sen. Burris. With the possibility of Burris losing that seat and a special election to replace him, Steele said this is the race Republicans need to win.
Pointing out problems for the party is the first step on a long road to recovery, but the proof will be in implementing plans to restore the viability of the Republican Party.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Higher taxation coming to Illinois in the name of benevolence
OK, let me get this straight. Tax and spend politicians love to hype the mantra of government aid to those who can't help themselves, or any number of pet projects. That hue and cry is especially loud now with the state of the economy. Most every household is concerned about the economy and the reduction of cash flow. Thousands of people are losing their jobs each day across this nation. People are spending less money and this nation's consumer driven economy is reeling. Everyone can agree that the average citizen is highly concerned with their individual money flow.
And it's rather common knowledge that most states are concerned about the lack of money in their coffers and the prospect of less money in the coming year due to less income and purchases. Look at California with nearly a $40 billion deficit. My beloved North Carolina is facing a nearly $3 billion shortfall and here in Illinois the state is facing a $9 billion deficit.
So, we have to truisms - the people are hurting financially and the state is hurting financially.
But here is where things get so stupid that only tax and spend types seem to understand. The state is hurting financially, so in order to pay for existing programs )and usually new programs) the solution is to tax the people who are hurting financially. So, take money from people who don't have money, only to return a tiny portion of that money in some kind of service.
Sounds crazy, but that's exactly what Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, is proposing. In an interview with the Daily Herald, Cullen said everything from a 16-cent gas tax hike to taxes on Internet purchases and an income tax increase is on the table. Count on that gasoline tax hike being passed. Illinois currently has one of the highest gasoline taxes in the nation, and it's going to get higher - especially since gasoline is down to around $2 a gallon. The Democrat controlled legislature is counting on the people to just accept the tax hike on gasoline since it's more affordable now. He even said so to the Daily Herald:
Sadly, he's probably right. People will roll over and take the tax increase without so much as a whimper. It's up to the people to rise up and prove this arrogant tax and spend politician wrong. Rise up and vote these tax and spend villains out of office.
Government can provide excellent services, but that doesn't mean it should financially rape its ever increasingly poorer citizens to pay for these services. It only increases the numbers of people who will become increasingly dependent on the government.
And it's rather common knowledge that most states are concerned about the lack of money in their coffers and the prospect of less money in the coming year due to less income and purchases. Look at California with nearly a $40 billion deficit. My beloved North Carolina is facing a nearly $3 billion shortfall and here in Illinois the state is facing a $9 billion deficit.
So, we have to truisms - the people are hurting financially and the state is hurting financially.
But here is where things get so stupid that only tax and spend types seem to understand. The state is hurting financially, so in order to pay for existing programs )and usually new programs) the solution is to tax the people who are hurting financially. So, take money from people who don't have money, only to return a tiny portion of that money in some kind of service.
Sounds crazy, but that's exactly what Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, is proposing. In an interview with the Daily Herald, Cullen said everything from a 16-cent gas tax hike to taxes on Internet purchases and an income tax increase is on the table. Count on that gasoline tax hike being passed. Illinois currently has one of the highest gasoline taxes in the nation, and it's going to get higher - especially since gasoline is down to around $2 a gallon. The Democrat controlled legislature is counting on the people to just accept the tax hike on gasoline since it's more affordable now. He even said so to the Daily Herald:
"After it is imposed, I bet people are not even going to know," Cullerton said of the fluctuation in gas prices.
Sadly, he's probably right. People will roll over and take the tax increase without so much as a whimper. It's up to the people to rise up and prove this arrogant tax and spend politician wrong. Rise up and vote these tax and spend villains out of office.
Government can provide excellent services, but that doesn't mean it should financially rape its ever increasingly poorer citizens to pay for these services. It only increases the numbers of people who will become increasingly dependent on the government.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Burris should resign from U.S. Senate
Illinois Republicans are taking the right stance in calling for Sen. Roland Burris to resign.
Burris perjured himself before an Illinois House committee when he said he had no contact with former Gov. Rod Blagojevich before he was approached by the governor about the appointment to the Senate. On Saturday Burris filed an affidavit stating he was in contact with Blagojevich several times prior to his nomination to fill President Barack Obama's empty Senate seat. According to the Chicago Sun Times, Burris now acknowledges having contact with five representatives of Blagojevich regarding his appointment to the U.S. Senate seat. Burris also confirmed that Robert Blagojevich, the since-ousted governor’s brother who headed his campaign fund, had solicited him for campaign cash. Burris also says he talked to the governor's office about a position in state government for his nephew.
Prominent Republicans are speaking out in calling for the senator to resign for the good of the people of Illinois. Sen. Dan Cronin, R- DuPage, called for Burris to step down, saying:
Andy McKenna, chairman of the Illinois GOP, said Burris is continuing to bring embarrassment to the state of Illinois. McKenna said the continued ethical shenanigans of the Blagojevich administration and obstructionists provided an object lesson in why Democrats should have stripped Blagojevich of his appointment powers and kept their promise to people of Illinois to hold a special election."
House Republicans are calling for Burris to resign and are urging the state's attorney in Springfield to investigate Burris for perjury.
Rep. Jim Durkin, R- Western Springs, told the Sun Times Burris is continuing to bring shame to the state of Illinois.
While the Illinois GOP will push for Burris' ouster, they may have an unlikely ally in Senate leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. Reid did not want to allow Burris to take his seat because of Blagojevich's taint of corruption and this may fuel the powerful senator to urge Burris on his own to step down from that august body.
Burris perjured himself before an Illinois House committee when he said he had no contact with former Gov. Rod Blagojevich before he was approached by the governor about the appointment to the Senate. On Saturday Burris filed an affidavit stating he was in contact with Blagojevich several times prior to his nomination to fill President Barack Obama's empty Senate seat. According to the Chicago Sun Times, Burris now acknowledges having contact with five representatives of Blagojevich regarding his appointment to the U.S. Senate seat. Burris also confirmed that Robert Blagojevich, the since-ousted governor’s brother who headed his campaign fund, had solicited him for campaign cash. Burris also says he talked to the governor's office about a position in state government for his nephew.
Prominent Republicans are speaking out in calling for the senator to resign for the good of the people of Illinois. Sen. Dan Cronin, R- DuPage, called for Burris to step down, saying:
In light of everything citizens of Illinois been through with the corrupt administration of Blagojevich and with the public demand for honesty and open government, I firmly believe Sen. Burris needs to step down. Roland Burris was not honest and forthcoming in the process and there need to be consequences, which include him stepping down from his position.
Andy McKenna, chairman of the Illinois GOP, said Burris is continuing to bring embarrassment to the state of Illinois. McKenna said the continued ethical shenanigans of the Blagojevich administration and obstructionists provided an object lesson in why Democrats should have stripped Blagojevich of his appointment powers and kept their promise to people of Illinois to hold a special election."
House Republicans are calling for Burris to resign and are urging the state's attorney in Springfield to investigate Burris for perjury.
Rep. Jim Durkin, R- Western Springs, told the Sun Times Burris is continuing to bring shame to the state of Illinois.
While the Illinois GOP will push for Burris' ouster, they may have an unlikely ally in Senate leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. Reid did not want to allow Burris to take his seat because of Blagojevich's taint of corruption and this may fuel the powerful senator to urge Burris on his own to step down from that august body.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Blago's corruption keeps on a comin'
Seems like the corruption of the disgraced former Illinois governor is continuing with the Washington Post's revelation that U.S. Sen. Roland Burris lied about prior contact with the ousted Rod Blagojevich prior to his appointment to the senate seat.
According to the Post, Burris filed an affidavit last week that Blagojevich contacted Burris several times last year - starting in October - asking Burris to raise money for the governor. Burris also said he talked with John Harris, Blago's chief of staff, about the Senate seat back in October - prior to President Barack Obama's victory. Burris also said he asked Harris about a state job for his nephew.
Who knows if the affidavit filed by Burris is truthful, after all, he did swear in a previous affidavit he had no contact with the governor prior to his appointment to the seat.
The Illinois House is calling for an independent investigation into Burris' perjury.
Not only is Burris' revelation more mud on the name of clean politics in Illinois, it's also egg on the face of President Obama who, along with others, urged Senate leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to allow Burris to take the seat. With the latest revelations, it's possible Reid will seek retribution and seek to have Burris step down from the Senate - of course that will hurt the Democrat's numbers in the Senate if they were to lose any of their majority.
Illinois Republicans will surely use this to their advantage in the 2010 elections. While the nation called for change from GOP leadership in 2008, the people of Illinois may do the same in the next election by giving Republicans a chance to clean up the state.
According to the Post, Burris filed an affidavit last week that Blagojevich contacted Burris several times last year - starting in October - asking Burris to raise money for the governor. Burris also said he talked with John Harris, Blago's chief of staff, about the Senate seat back in October - prior to President Barack Obama's victory. Burris also said he asked Harris about a state job for his nephew.
Who knows if the affidavit filed by Burris is truthful, after all, he did swear in a previous affidavit he had no contact with the governor prior to his appointment to the seat.
The Illinois House is calling for an independent investigation into Burris' perjury.
Not only is Burris' revelation more mud on the name of clean politics in Illinois, it's also egg on the face of President Obama who, along with others, urged Senate leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to allow Burris to take the seat. With the latest revelations, it's possible Reid will seek retribution and seek to have Burris step down from the Senate - of course that will hurt the Democrat's numbers in the Senate if they were to lose any of their majority.
Illinois Republicans will surely use this to their advantage in the 2010 elections. While the nation called for change from GOP leadership in 2008, the people of Illinois may do the same in the next election by giving Republicans a chance to clean up the state.
Friday, February 13, 2009
New Illinois Senate leader typically seeks to raise taxes rather than cut pork
Illinois residents have been breathing a little easier with gasoline below $2 a gallon. But that is likely to change if Senate President John Cullerton gets his way. In an interview with the Associated Press on Wednesday, Cullerton said one possible answer to the state's budget woes is to hike the gasoline tax.
The Illinois tax on gasoline is already among the highest in the nation at 57.9 cents per gallon. Purchase gasoline in the city of Chicago and you can add another 12.75 cents per gallon to the gasoline tax. Add to that rate the federal gasoline tax rate of 18.4 cents per gallon and you're talking some real money each time you hit the pump. Cullerton did not offer the Associated Press an idea of how much of an increase on the gasoline tax.
Basically the Senator wants the residents to shoulder the burden of the state's financial crisis rather than lawmakers creating a fiscally sound budget. No mention of examining unnecessary programs or programs with a bloated budget. No, instead Cullerton believes the people must shoulder more of the burden in this tough economy. Of course with so many people out of work, it's a plan that is flawed from the beginning.
The Illinois tax on gasoline is already among the highest in the nation at 57.9 cents per gallon. Purchase gasoline in the city of Chicago and you can add another 12.75 cents per gallon to the gasoline tax. Add to that rate the federal gasoline tax rate of 18.4 cents per gallon and you're talking some real money each time you hit the pump. Cullerton did not offer the Associated Press an idea of how much of an increase on the gasoline tax.
Basically the Senator wants the residents to shoulder the burden of the state's financial crisis rather than lawmakers creating a fiscally sound budget. No mention of examining unnecessary programs or programs with a bloated budget. No, instead Cullerton believes the people must shoulder more of the burden in this tough economy. Of course with so many people out of work, it's a plan that is flawed from the beginning.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Freshman lawmaker asks $64,000 ethics question
Illinois Sen. Dan Duff, R-Lake Barrington, posed a question during the Blagojevich impeachment hearing that has puzzled many people across the nation:
"How is it that the majority in this chamber, the same people who have presented this case reflecting years of corruption, are the same people that have praised the governor by giving him three pay raises over the past two years?"
Duffy posed his question in the waning moments of Blago's trial. Duffy primarily targeted Senate Democrats who supported Blago's election re-bid and his various programs. But some Republicans will also have to take note of Duffy's reminder. The state lawmakers who supported Blagojevich will be marked men in the 2010 campaigns. Election opponents - both primary and general election - will surely bring up any hint of political shenanigans that has the stench of Blagojevich on it.
Duffy had no fear in making his presence known in the Senate in his first speech. He told the Daily Herald:
My speech and my comments were about corruption. I ran on a campaign platform that I feel very passionate about, (which) is ending any type of corruption in Illinois politics, and that's what I talked about. It wasn't a Democratic thing. It wasn't a Republican thing. It was a corruption thing. I think we need more transparency in government. And we need to do everything we can to end any type of corruption that's going on right now in our government.
Illinois needs more lawmakers like Duffy. He plainly addressed a severe problem in Illinois - a problem that's long been given the old "wink and nod" act. But now that Blagojevich has brought shame to the state of Illinois politics, it will take men like Duffy to bring some sunshine to the ship of state in Springfield. Keep telling it like it is Sen. Duffy!
Friday, February 6, 2009
Ethics rule ignored as Panetta cruises to appointment
Looks like it's clear sailing for former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta.
According to a report in The Hill, Panetta cruised through the second round of questioning before a Senate panel regarding his appointment to head the Central Intelligence Agency. The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Diane Feinstein, is using kid gloves in vetting Panetta, who has, shall we say, limited experience in intelligence work (except in his dealings with them as a member of Congress and as White House chief of staff).
While his lack of intelligence work is a concern, another flag for Panetta is his former lobbying work for companies that deal with national security - a clear violation of the ethics policy implemented by President Barack Obama.
Seems like this executive order is being ignored left and right by the new administration. So much for change.
According to a report in The Hill, Panetta cruised through the second round of questioning before a Senate panel regarding his appointment to head the Central Intelligence Agency. The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Diane Feinstein, is using kid gloves in vetting Panetta, who has, shall we say, limited experience in intelligence work (except in his dealings with them as a member of Congress and as White House chief of staff).
While his lack of intelligence work is a concern, another flag for Panetta is his former lobbying work for companies that deal with national security - a clear violation of the ethics policy implemented by President Barack Obama.
"The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president."
Seems like this executive order is being ignored left and right by the new administration. So much for change.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
No lobbyists in my administration will work on anything they lobbied for - what about Leon Panetta
Another of President Obama's top nominees is running afoul of the president's lobbyist rule.
Let's review Obama's ethics rules he installed his first day in office:
We've already seen some sliding on this position regarding William Lynn, who Obama wanted as an Undersecretary of Defense.
The latest round of letting a former lobbyist slide is Leon Panetta, the White House's nominee for Director of Central Intelligence. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Panetta earned $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008. Some of the companies that paid Panetta are troubled banks and companies that deal with national security. So, if we're to take President Obama at his word, then Panetta, if hired, will not be able to work on national security issues. So that leaves what kind of role for the DCI?
This either indicates that Obama is ignoring his own rules, which means he is playing the populace for suckers, or he hasn't properly vetted his appointees. This latest black eye on the administration's appointments comes on the tail of two appointees having to bow out of the top level positions because they failed to pay their income taxes - which according to the logic of Vice President Joe Biden, means these folks are not patriotic.
So, is loading the top positions in Washington D.C. with lobbyists and unpatriotic tax cheats the kind of change the Obama administration is going to bring?
Let's review Obama's ethics rules he installed his first day in office:
"The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president."
We've already seen some sliding on this position regarding William Lynn, who Obama wanted as an Undersecretary of Defense.
The latest round of letting a former lobbyist slide is Leon Panetta, the White House's nominee for Director of Central Intelligence. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Panetta earned $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008. Some of the companies that paid Panetta are troubled banks and companies that deal with national security. So, if we're to take President Obama at his word, then Panetta, if hired, will not be able to work on national security issues. So that leaves what kind of role for the DCI?
This either indicates that Obama is ignoring his own rules, which means he is playing the populace for suckers, or he hasn't properly vetted his appointees. This latest black eye on the administration's appointments comes on the tail of two appointees having to bow out of the top level positions because they failed to pay their income taxes - which according to the logic of Vice President Joe Biden, means these folks are not patriotic.
So, is loading the top positions in Washington D.C. with lobbyists and unpatriotic tax cheats the kind of change the Obama administration is going to bring?
How will stimulus package fare in the end?
There has been a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle (and from the periphery too) about the massive stimulus package proposed by President Barack Obama and his legislative cronies (read Pelosi and Reid). As the package undergoes more and more examination, more concern is being voiced about the proposed billions of dollars in expenditures.
Today, The Hill is reporting that a coalition of Blue Dog Democrats (fiscally conservative Democrats) sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi complaining about the size of the bill. The Blue Dogs support an idea in the Senate to toss out much of the spending plan.
All of this occurs on the heels of Obama and Pelosi claiming it's imperative for the nation that the bill is passed as quickly as possible. Pelosi claimed if the package isn't passed, then 500 million Americans will lose their jobs - of course there's only about 304 millions Americans according to the census.
Regardless of Pelosi's gaff, the economy is in shambles. While it's as certain as spring following winter that some kind of package will be passed, how much will be in that final bill remains to be seen. But it's likely that much of the proposed $800 + billion will be removed, especially if fiscally minded lawmakers from both sides of the aisle work to make it so.
Today, The Hill is reporting that a coalition of Blue Dog Democrats (fiscally conservative Democrats) sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi complaining about the size of the bill. The Blue Dogs support an idea in the Senate to toss out much of the spending plan.
All of this occurs on the heels of Obama and Pelosi claiming it's imperative for the nation that the bill is passed as quickly as possible. Pelosi claimed if the package isn't passed, then 500 million Americans will lose their jobs - of course there's only about 304 millions Americans according to the census.
Regardless of Pelosi's gaff, the economy is in shambles. While it's as certain as spring following winter that some kind of package will be passed, how much will be in that final bill remains to be seen. But it's likely that much of the proposed $800 + billion will be removed, especially if fiscally minded lawmakers from both sides of the aisle work to make it so.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Michael Steele has big task ahead of him
It was announced on Monday that newly elected Republican Party chairman Michael Steele will be in Dupage County later this month as the keynote speaker at the GOP Lincoln Day Dinner.
Steele, a former lieutenant governor of Maryland, is the first black leader of the Republican Party. Steele won his post after six rounds of voting last week. Following his election, Steele hit the Sunday talk shows and began to sketch plans of what he hopes to accomplish. Does this mean taking the party in a new direction, or continuing the same message that failed in the last two elections? Steele is a more moderate Republican. He helped found the Republican Leadership Council which favors gay rights and is more pro-choice.
On Fox News Sunday, Steele said he intends to hit the ground running to make up some of the seats the GOP lost in 2008.
Steele, a former lieutenant governor of Maryland, is the first black leader of the Republican Party. Steele won his post after six rounds of voting last week. Following his election, Steele hit the Sunday talk shows and began to sketch plans of what he hopes to accomplish. Does this mean taking the party in a new direction, or continuing the same message that failed in the last two elections? Steele is a more moderate Republican. He helped found the Republican Leadership Council which favors gay rights and is more pro-choice.
On Fox News Sunday, Steele said he intends to hit the ground running to make up some of the seats the GOP lost in 2008.
We're going to be on the ground and engaged in all of those campaigns that are going to be important opportunities for us to re- establish the brand for the party, number one, but most especially, reacquaint ourselves with the voters and help them appreciate exactly what we stand for and what we believe, putting good candidates in a position to win.
That's my job, is to put good candidates in a position to win. Now, we're not going to win all of them, but we're going to start to win again in important races that matter, and we've got three of them coming up this year.
That's my job, is to put good candidates in a position to win. Now, we're not going to win all of them, but we're going to start to win again in important races that matter, and we've got three of them coming up this year.
Steele recognizes that the GOP failed to act like conservatives while the party held power the bulk of this century. He said that's the primary reason the GOP lost their seats.
They moved away from us because we behaved badly. We came to Washington, and we became like the people we were sent here to replace, and they replaced us.
But how will he accomplish this turnaround, that remains to be seen. Hopefully he will share his plans and energize the party when he comes to Illinois.
Friday, January 30, 2009
A new morning brings a new governor, but ethics still a concern
Following a unanimous Senate vote Thursday afternoon, Rod Blagojevich is no longer governor of Illinois. A governor was cast out of office for the first time in Illinois history.
On Thursday Blagojevich appeared before the Senate to plea for his job. He addressed some of his accomplishments as governor, but never talked about the allegations of attempting to sell the former Senate seat of President Barack Obama. Even if he had, it wasn't going to matter. Blago was, as Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass calls him, "Dead Meat."
But, once the House impeached Blagojevich for corruption, his dismissal was a foregone conclusion. Blagojevich had few political allies and powerful enemies within his own party. House Speaker Michael Madigan and his daughter, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan are known foes of the governor and it's no secret that the elder Madigan wants his daughter to seek the state's highest political seat. Around the state though, Blago's removal has been soundly approved by most citizens. Even the cast of Spamalot got into the impeachment action with several Blago jokes inserted into the script during last night's performance.
But just because Blago is gone, that doesn't mean corruption in Illinois is over. On the contrary, corruption is still a real part of Illinois politics. It is up to the people to continue to watch the politicians and make sure they to the line. Gov. Pat Quinn, who was sworn in Thursday afternoon, has made a start by creating an independent ethics panel while he was still lieutenant governor. Ultimately though, it's the responsibility of the people to fight for clean and open government.
On Thursday Blagojevich appeared before the Senate to plea for his job. He addressed some of his accomplishments as governor, but never talked about the allegations of attempting to sell the former Senate seat of President Barack Obama. Even if he had, it wasn't going to matter. Blago was, as Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass calls him, "Dead Meat."
But, once the House impeached Blagojevich for corruption, his dismissal was a foregone conclusion. Blagojevich had few political allies and powerful enemies within his own party. House Speaker Michael Madigan and his daughter, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan are known foes of the governor and it's no secret that the elder Madigan wants his daughter to seek the state's highest political seat. Around the state though, Blago's removal has been soundly approved by most citizens. Even the cast of Spamalot got into the impeachment action with several Blago jokes inserted into the script during last night's performance.
But just because Blago is gone, that doesn't mean corruption in Illinois is over. On the contrary, corruption is still a real part of Illinois politics. It is up to the people to continue to watch the politicians and make sure they to the line. Gov. Pat Quinn, who was sworn in Thursday afternoon, has made a start by creating an independent ethics panel while he was still lieutenant governor. Ultimately though, it's the responsibility of the people to fight for clean and open government.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Blagojevich has one weapon left, names
Sometime this week Gov. Rod Blagojevich is going to be out of a job - that's about as close to a sure bet as anything I know. He's angered his constituents and he's angered his fellow Democrats. Earlier this week he told the world that this impeachment was about a plan to get rid of him in order to pass an income and sales tax hike on the people. While he was chastised by Mayor Richard Daley - a fine upstanding citizen leader - for being cuckoo, that may have been the first shot from Blago's last arsenal in his defense, names.
Being on the inside of a corrupt political machine, Blago may have to resort to something we speculated upon when the impeachment controversy broke last month - naming every corrupt deal and deal maker in this state. No one will ever accuse Blago of being noble if he does this, it's the last desperate attempt to save his political hide. But if he does drop names, then he will have finally done something for the people of this state other than implement open-road tolls.
Blago is not going to be at the impeachment trial that begins tomorrow, instead he's going to be making the talk show rounds to appeal to a national audience. Maybe this will be the forum he uses to finally shed some light on the back room deals in this state. I certainly hope this is something he does, but if he does damn the torpedoes and drop names, there's no telling how far this could reach, perhaps even into the White House itself. After all, the president, his chief of staff and the education secretary nominee are all part of the Chicago machine - the very machine that got Blago elected.
Being on the inside of a corrupt political machine, Blago may have to resort to something we speculated upon when the impeachment controversy broke last month - naming every corrupt deal and deal maker in this state. No one will ever accuse Blago of being noble if he does this, it's the last desperate attempt to save his political hide. But if he does drop names, then he will have finally done something for the people of this state other than implement open-road tolls.
Blago is not going to be at the impeachment trial that begins tomorrow, instead he's going to be making the talk show rounds to appeal to a national audience. Maybe this will be the forum he uses to finally shed some light on the back room deals in this state. I certainly hope this is something he does, but if he does damn the torpedoes and drop names, there's no telling how far this could reach, perhaps even into the White House itself. After all, the president, his chief of staff and the education secretary nominee are all part of the Chicago machine - the very machine that got Blago elected.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Blago seeks to sway public opinion by hiring PR firm
Get your DVRs ready for Monday morning. Impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich is taking his defense to the national media - apparently hoping that will sway the members of the Illinois Senate who will begin to try him next week. Blago will be interviewed on Good Morning America, The View and Larry King Live on Monday.
Also, the governor hired a Public Relations firm to help him with his image - not his legal defense mind you, but his image - according to a report in the Chicago Tribune. This is the same firm that represents former Bollingbrook police officer Drew Peterson, who is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife. Blago's only hope is to gain sympathy from the public, but it's doubtful how much sympathy he is going to get. On Friday Blago said he was the victim of a conspiracy of the legislature. In Blago's mind, the legislature wants to remove him from power in order to have Pat Quinn, who will become governor upon Blago's ouster from office, raise taxes. Blago wants the people of Illinois to believe he is the only one standing between them and a tax increase - of course this is the same man who proposed the biggest business tax increase in Illinois history.
Instead of a PR firm, Blago should have legal representation in the Senate Chamber next week. But those fellows (in a PR move that's not helping Blago) are refusing to attend the hearings because they claim the hearings are unfair.
Also, the governor hired a Public Relations firm to help him with his image - not his legal defense mind you, but his image - according to a report in the Chicago Tribune. This is the same firm that represents former Bollingbrook police officer Drew Peterson, who is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife. Blago's only hope is to gain sympathy from the public, but it's doubtful how much sympathy he is going to get. On Friday Blago said he was the victim of a conspiracy of the legislature. In Blago's mind, the legislature wants to remove him from power in order to have Pat Quinn, who will become governor upon Blago's ouster from office, raise taxes. Blago wants the people of Illinois to believe he is the only one standing between them and a tax increase - of course this is the same man who proposed the biggest business tax increase in Illinois history.
Instead of a PR firm, Blago should have legal representation in the Senate Chamber next week. But those fellows (in a PR move that's not helping Blago) are refusing to attend the hearings because they claim the hearings are unfair.
Looks like Obama is already backsliding on ethics rules
CNN and NBC are both reporting that President Obama is already backsliding on the "change" he brought to Washington, DC regarding ethics.
A day after being sworn in to the presidency, Obama signed an executive order on ethics.
A day after being sworn in to the presidency, Obama signed an executive order on ethics.
"The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president."
But, Obama is already seeking exceptions to that rule. Obama is seeking a waiver for William Lynn, a former lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon. Obama wants Lynn to be a deputy secretary of defense - a violation of the executive order he signed the other day. Color us so surprised. Oh sure, Obama's cronies in the Senate are attempting to add stipulations to Lynn's confirmation, saying he would recuse himself for a period of one year whenever something comes up with his former employer. It seems the change Obama is bringing to D.C. has a Chicago kind of flavor.
If Obama is willing to backslide on change so quickly, what else will his administration attempt to circumvent.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Blagojevich says impeachment is a plot to have new governor raise taxes
Gov. Rod Blagojevich finally spoke out on his impending impeachment, which begins next week.
Earlier this morning he talked with morning radio hosts on WLS-AM. Playing the victim card, Blago said this impeachment proceedings are nothing more than a plot to raise income and sales taxes on the people of Illinois by May. Blago claimed that Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn has cut a deal with the Democrats in charge of the legislature to get rid of the embattled governor. Of course earlier this month Blago told the press the House has conspired against him because they didn't like the way he was trying to help the common man.
It is entirely possible the Democrats in Springfield are conspiring against him. It's no secret that Blagojevich and Democratic leaders in the legislature, particularly House Speaker Mike Madigan, have a poor relationship. However, it is more likely the Democrats want to get rid of Blagojevich because he is an ineffective governor and chances are there will be a backlash in the next gubernatorial election which could return Republicans to the governor's office.
Blagojevich did not address any of the charges against him - like attempting to sell the Senate seat of President Barack Obama (now Roland Burris), pay to play scams and threatening the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune.
In an interview on Thursday, Blagojevich is also claiming the impeachment proceedings are unfair and unconstitutional because he will not be allowed to call witnesses who would refute the charges he was attempting to sell the Senate seat. In fact, Blago's own attorneys are refusing to represent him in the impeachment proceedings because they are claiming the proceedings are unfair as well.
Blago believes he is the victim of apolitical conspiracy, but in reality the victim is the population of Illinois which deserves good, open government - something that will be a long time coming given the state of politics in Illinois.
Earlier this morning he talked with morning radio hosts on WLS-AM. Playing the victim card, Blago said this impeachment proceedings are nothing more than a plot to raise income and sales taxes on the people of Illinois by May. Blago claimed that Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn has cut a deal with the Democrats in charge of the legislature to get rid of the embattled governor. Of course earlier this month Blago told the press the House has conspired against him because they didn't like the way he was trying to help the common man.
It is entirely possible the Democrats in Springfield are conspiring against him. It's no secret that Blagojevich and Democratic leaders in the legislature, particularly House Speaker Mike Madigan, have a poor relationship. However, it is more likely the Democrats want to get rid of Blagojevich because he is an ineffective governor and chances are there will be a backlash in the next gubernatorial election which could return Republicans to the governor's office.
Blagojevich did not address any of the charges against him - like attempting to sell the Senate seat of President Barack Obama (now Roland Burris), pay to play scams and threatening the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune.
In an interview on Thursday, Blagojevich is also claiming the impeachment proceedings are unfair and unconstitutional because he will not be allowed to call witnesses who would refute the charges he was attempting to sell the Senate seat. In fact, Blago's own attorneys are refusing to represent him in the impeachment proceedings because they are claiming the proceedings are unfair as well.
Blago believes he is the victim of apolitical conspiracy, but in reality the victim is the population of Illinois which deserves good, open government - something that will be a long time coming given the state of politics in Illinois.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Obama sets tone for openeness, but will it last?
Apologies for the time lapse between postings, but I'm back now.
Since my last post we now have a new president - Barack H. Obama. Like millions I watched the inauguration and some of the news coverage, but after a while I found it repetitive and an orgy of love for the new POTUS. Don't get me wrong, it was news and the swearing in of our nation's first black president was historic, but after about two hours I was glad for cable television and the DVR.
Obama hit the ground running on his first day (as all presidents do) and the love continued from the media. One of Obama's first actions was to promise a more open government. That was enough to set the news staff at CNBC cheering.
Since my last post we now have a new president - Barack H. Obama. Like millions I watched the inauguration and some of the news coverage, but after a while I found it repetitive and an orgy of love for the new POTUS. Don't get me wrong, it was news and the swearing in of our nation's first black president was historic, but after about two hours I was glad for cable television and the DVR.
Obama hit the ground running on his first day (as all presidents do) and the love continued from the media. One of Obama's first actions was to promise a more open government. That was enough to set the news staff at CNBC cheering.
“For a long time now there’s been too much secrecy in this city,” Mr. Obama said at a swearing-in ceremony for senior officials at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House. He added, “Transparency and rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” (From a New York Times article)
No one disputes the need for a transparent government. One of the monumental roles for journalists is to be a government watchdog for the citizenry. So the cynic in me wonders if this move by Obama was something offered as a bone to a media that has been very friendly to the Chicago native. When Obama decides something is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, how will the media act. Will they cut him some slack because of his proclamation? If so, that's a brilliant move on Obama's part to placate some of his biggest fans. Time will tell on this. Obama said the people must hold government accountable. And if he does not follow through on his call of openness, then he must be called on it.
I must laud something that Obama said on his first full day on the job. At a White House press conference he told the assembled reporters that public service is a "privilege" and not about advancing yourself, your friends or your corporate clients. Truer words were never spoken. The men and women who represent their friends, neighbors and total strangers in the halls of the legislature would do well to remember that being a public service is a privilege and a tremendous responsibility.
Monday, January 12, 2009
What kind of moral message does this really deliver?
Maybe Grease really isn't "the word." Maybe the word should be whoa.
We've all seen Danny and Sandy dance around the silver screen pining for each other all while singing really catchy ditties. The memorable music often overshadows the storyline, which sends a really bad message to people, particularly young girls.
Last night my wife and I saw a stage production of the musical with some other couples. I've seen the film version with John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John several times. It's been 30 years since the film was released. And while the film has often served as background noise, I've never really paid that much attention to the story. It took a friend of mine who has never seen the film or the stage production to make me re-examine the story. Sure, it's about rock-n-roll and the sexual revolution. That's simple enough to gather. It's also about teen angst and acceptance. But acceptance at what kind of cost?
Now, it's been a while since I felt the pressures of being a teenager and trying to fit in at school. But the story has undertones of changing who one is in order to fit in. At the end of the musical Sandy has tarted herself up in order to win her man Danny (who would have accepted her as she was - after all he did fall for her over the previous summer when she was more proper). So now Sandy acts like the very thing she was upset at Danny for making her out to be - an "easy" girl.
There is also the lesser relationship between the characters of Kenickie and Rizzo. The two begin a sexual relationship and suddenly Rizzo finds that her period is late. Thinking she's pregnant, she rebukes Kenickie. But of course at the end of the production when she finds out she was not pregnant and everything is alright between the two of them and they can be together - as if nothing happened. Now that is somewhat realistic with the irresponsibility of many teenagers, but don't we want our youth to be more responsible?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no moral arbiter, but it is funny how beloved stories can be glossed over without a real examination of their themes.
We've all seen Danny and Sandy dance around the silver screen pining for each other all while singing really catchy ditties. The memorable music often overshadows the storyline, which sends a really bad message to people, particularly young girls.
Last night my wife and I saw a stage production of the musical with some other couples. I've seen the film version with John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John several times. It's been 30 years since the film was released. And while the film has often served as background noise, I've never really paid that much attention to the story. It took a friend of mine who has never seen the film or the stage production to make me re-examine the story. Sure, it's about rock-n-roll and the sexual revolution. That's simple enough to gather. It's also about teen angst and acceptance. But acceptance at what kind of cost?
Now, it's been a while since I felt the pressures of being a teenager and trying to fit in at school. But the story has undertones of changing who one is in order to fit in. At the end of the musical Sandy has tarted herself up in order to win her man Danny (who would have accepted her as she was - after all he did fall for her over the previous summer when she was more proper). So now Sandy acts like the very thing she was upset at Danny for making her out to be - an "easy" girl.
There is also the lesser relationship between the characters of Kenickie and Rizzo. The two begin a sexual relationship and suddenly Rizzo finds that her period is late. Thinking she's pregnant, she rebukes Kenickie. But of course at the end of the production when she finds out she was not pregnant and everything is alright between the two of them and they can be together - as if nothing happened. Now that is somewhat realistic with the irresponsibility of many teenagers, but don't we want our youth to be more responsible?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no moral arbiter, but it is funny how beloved stories can be glossed over without a real examination of their themes.
Friday, January 9, 2009
House impeaches Blago
The Illinois House voted 114-1 to impeach Gov. Rod Blagojevich this morning. Not that this is any surprise to anyone - least of all to Blago. At his post impeachment press conference this afternoon, the disgraced governor said the animosity between him and house leaders (read Speaker of the House Michael Madigan) has been brewing for years and an impeachment was something expected.
Regardless of why it happened, the House allowed the problem to become fodder for national pundits and talk show comedians. Illinois is embarrassed. The people of Illinois are embarrassed. And more than Blago is to blame for his alleged crimes. The entire culture of corruption in Illinois should be put on trial. While Blago bears the guilt for his impeachment - after all, personal responsibility is an admirable trait - but the entire culture of corruption that has permeated the political landscape of Illinois contributed to the arrogance of Blago and his predecessors in thinking they could get away with whatever they wanted. For too long many Illinois lawmakers believed they could do what they wanted to line their pockets all while ignoring the the duties of the office they were elected to. Sadly it took the arrogance of the helmet-haired one to have the beacon of light shine into the dark nooks and crannies of the Illinois culture of corruption.
And speaking of lawmakers not doing their jobs, what in the world was Ill. Rep. Milt Patterson, D-Chicago, thinking when he voted against impeachment. According to a comment issued to the Chicago Tribune after the roll call vote for impeachment, Patterson said it was not his job to impeach Blago. What did he mean by that statement? Unfortunately he did not talk any more to the Tribune. Whether or not Rep. Patterson is part of the culture of corruption remains to be seen, but I imagine his past will be investigated after a comment like that.
Regardless of why it happened, the House allowed the problem to become fodder for national pundits and talk show comedians. Illinois is embarrassed. The people of Illinois are embarrassed. And more than Blago is to blame for his alleged crimes. The entire culture of corruption in Illinois should be put on trial. While Blago bears the guilt for his impeachment - after all, personal responsibility is an admirable trait - but the entire culture of corruption that has permeated the political landscape of Illinois contributed to the arrogance of Blago and his predecessors in thinking they could get away with whatever they wanted. For too long many Illinois lawmakers believed they could do what they wanted to line their pockets all while ignoring the the duties of the office they were elected to. Sadly it took the arrogance of the helmet-haired one to have the beacon of light shine into the dark nooks and crannies of the Illinois culture of corruption.
And speaking of lawmakers not doing their jobs, what in the world was Ill. Rep. Milt Patterson, D-Chicago, thinking when he voted against impeachment. According to a comment issued to the Chicago Tribune after the roll call vote for impeachment, Patterson said it was not his job to impeach Blago. What did he mean by that statement? Unfortunately he did not talk any more to the Tribune. Whether or not Rep. Patterson is part of the culture of corruption remains to be seen, but I imagine his past will be investigated after a comment like that.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Porn producers want federal bailout too!
Apparently you people are not doing enough to stimulate the economy. At least that's the position of Larry Flynt and Joe Francis - two giants in the adult entertainment industry.
Flynt, who publishes "Hustler" magazine, and Francis, who created "Girls Gone Wild" are planning to appeal to Congress for a $5 billion bailout. According to an NBC report, sales of adult videos are down 22 percent and the pornographers are hurting financially.
Flynt, who publishes "Hustler" magazine, and Francis, who created "Girls Gone Wild" are planning to appeal to Congress for a $5 billion bailout. According to an NBC report, sales of adult videos are down 22 percent and the pornographers are hurting financially.
Congress must "rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America," Flynt said.
If Congress caves in to the demands of the flesh peddlers, then this nation is truly doomed. If adults want to look at pornography, that's certainly their right. But this is not an industry that needs to be subsidized by the federal government. Besides, there's plenty of free XXX material available on the Internet.
Senate set to back down on Burris appointment
It seems the U.S. Senate Democrats are prepared to cave on the Senate appointment of Roland Burris. After President-elect Barack Obama met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., earlier this week and the Senate Democrats backed down from their refusal to allow Burris to take the seat he was appointed to.
It's an outcome that was almost assured from the get-go. Burris was appointed by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich who has been accused of attempting to sell that seat to the highest bidder. Now it is true that Burris donated money to the Blago gubernatorial campaign, according to an article in Sunday's Chicago Tribune, but Burris has not been accused of any wrongdoing. And Blago, as corrupt and ineffective as he seems to be, is still governor of Illinois and it is in his legal power to appoint a replacement for Obama.
Several things were at play in the Senate's backing down. First, Reid, who prior to Blago's Dec. 9 arrest, pushed for someone other than Burris to receive the appointment, does not want to start off the new session with a hostile relationship with the Obama administration. Obama took a personal interest in his former seat, and Reid is not going to go against the wildly popular president-elect.
Secondly there are legalities involved. Election law experts told ABC news that senators may not have the constitutional power to refuse to admit Burris into the Senate without some indication that his appointment was corrupt. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. House must seat Adam Clayton Powell who was accused of corruption. The high court ruled the House did not have the authority to refuse his entry because he was legally elected to the House.
Thirdly, race plays a big role in the appointment of Burris. Obama was the only black member of the U.S. Senate. Burris is black. Democrats do not want to refuse to seat a black man who has not been accused of any wrong doing. The political backlash could create a rift between Democrats and the black community who overwhelmingly vote Democratic. U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Il., a former Black Panther, urged the Senate to allow Burris' appointment because of his race. Of course Rush backed a white politician for the seat when Obama ran for it, which negates his call for the need of a black man in the Senate. But this is politics where the winds of change are constantly blowing - especially for people who have no principle.
So look to Burris being the next U.S. Senator from Illinois. Of course he most likely won't keep his seat when it is up for grabs in 2010. Democrats and Republicans alike are salivating for that fight.
It's an outcome that was almost assured from the get-go. Burris was appointed by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich who has been accused of attempting to sell that seat to the highest bidder. Now it is true that Burris donated money to the Blago gubernatorial campaign, according to an article in Sunday's Chicago Tribune, but Burris has not been accused of any wrongdoing. And Blago, as corrupt and ineffective as he seems to be, is still governor of Illinois and it is in his legal power to appoint a replacement for Obama.
Several things were at play in the Senate's backing down. First, Reid, who prior to Blago's Dec. 9 arrest, pushed for someone other than Burris to receive the appointment, does not want to start off the new session with a hostile relationship with the Obama administration. Obama took a personal interest in his former seat, and Reid is not going to go against the wildly popular president-elect.
Secondly there are legalities involved. Election law experts told ABC news that senators may not have the constitutional power to refuse to admit Burris into the Senate without some indication that his appointment was corrupt. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. House must seat Adam Clayton Powell who was accused of corruption. The high court ruled the House did not have the authority to refuse his entry because he was legally elected to the House.
Thirdly, race plays a big role in the appointment of Burris. Obama was the only black member of the U.S. Senate. Burris is black. Democrats do not want to refuse to seat a black man who has not been accused of any wrong doing. The political backlash could create a rift between Democrats and the black community who overwhelmingly vote Democratic. U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Il., a former Black Panther, urged the Senate to allow Burris' appointment because of his race. Of course Rush backed a white politician for the seat when Obama ran for it, which negates his call for the need of a black man in the Senate. But this is politics where the winds of change are constantly blowing - especially for people who have no principle.
So look to Burris being the next U.S. Senator from Illinois. Of course he most likely won't keep his seat when it is up for grabs in 2010. Democrats and Republicans alike are salivating for that fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
