House Speaker Frisco Nan is about to step up to the legislative plate for strikeout number three- backing a bill to set a timetable for US forces to withdraw from Iraq.
The gist of the current situation is that Pelosi's own erstwhile candidate for House Majority Leader, John Murtha of Pennsylvania, is leading his ultra-liberal, anti-war contingent to demand that any resolution the House now passes on Iraq be binding and cut off funding for the war, mandating withdrawal.
Whereas some cowardly Republicans would have run for cover in 2008 by voting for the original Pelosi non-binding resolution, they can safely retreat from Pelosi's new, Murtha-mandated version.
According to Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, in her excellent Friday column on this matter, Nan was unable to muster the House's radical left caucus of 70 Representatives, leaving her the unpalatable option of treating with the Minority's John Boehner to pass any Iraq war resolution.
Instead, she is moving left (yet again, as with the minimum wage fiasco, and the recent card check embarrassment), and planning to attach various pork items (funny, didn't Nan tell us that era was dead? oh, well.....) to lure the centrist, newly-elected Blue Dog House Democrats to vote for Iraq withdrawal and a funding cutoff.
As Ms. Strassel wrote in her column,
"The joke is that even if Ms. Pelosi can buy the moderate wing to her side, her proposal still might go...poof. And why? Her liberal wing, of course. After all the speaker's concessions, anti-war critics were still griping yesterday that the withdrawal proposal left Mr. Bush too much flexibility over the timing. Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Ms. Lee introduced their own amendment to the legislation that would demand a complete withdrawal by year-end."
At this point, I have to ask- don't any of these people recall what happened in Vietnam, when the Democratic Congress sank the prospects for salvaging any time of safety for Vietnam by publicly mandating a pullout by a known date? The North simply outwaited the withdrawal, attacked, and brutally conquered the South. Won't Murtha, Lee and Woolsey be proud when that happens to Iraq?
But, back to Frisco Nan's dilemma. Once again, she's caught between the wings of her party's House delegation. The new, majority-providing centrists Democratic Blue Dogs cannot risk, nor do they even philosophically support, Iraqi withdrawal. Meanwhile, Nan's own ideological kindred group, the ultra-left liberals in the House, won't support any moderation, now that they have finally retaken power after a decade in the wilderness.
Welcome to the big leagues, Nan. Maybe if you focused on the national interest, instead of purely partisan, fringe-group politics, you'd have better results. But, then, that would mean you'd be an above-average Speaker. And that's likely not in the cards for this hack in a skirt.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Friday, March 9, 2007
Liberal Democrats & School Choice
The Wall Street Journal recently printed an editorial by Clint Bolick, president of the Alliance for School Choice. In it, Bolick discussed a now-familiar phenomenon- Democratic Senators, Vice Presidents and/or Presidents who have opposed school vouchers/choice, but send their own children to expensive private schools in the District of Columbia.
The list reads like a Who's Who of Democratic Presidential contenders: the Clintons, of course, John Edwards, Al Gore (himself educated in private school by his own Senator father), and, potentially, Obama Bin Baden. The last is somewhat of a mystery, in that his children attend private Chicago school, but he hasn't yet had the opportunity to oppose a voucher bill in Congress.
Ironically, former Presidential candidate Tom Vilsack, governor of Iowa, sent his children to public schools, and supported school choice legislation in his state. And, unbelievably, at least to me, Joe Biden of Delaware sends his children to private school, but supported school choice for the general public.
It continues to amaze me how prevalent this Democratic behavior is. It seems to me to be near the height of arrogance, for so-called populists to stiff arm their constituents on getting to choose a quality education for their children, but then removing their own precious children from the D.C., or home state/city public school system, and safely enrolling them in an expensive private institution.
If memory serves, when Mary Landrieu, Democratic Senator from Louisiana, was accosted by a constituent who asked her why she also did this, Landrieu responded with something like, 'because you might get confused and make a bad choice for your own child.'
If you're going to try to rebuild the social welfare state, at least look like you feel it's good enough for your own family to participate. But sending your children to private school while opposing any choice whatsoever for the poor, allegedly downtrodden voters you claim to champion seems awfully curious.
Let's hope that in the next election cycle, this serious hypocrisy comes home to roost with all the relevant, guilty liberal Democratic candidates, for Senate or the White House.
The list reads like a Who's Who of Democratic Presidential contenders: the Clintons, of course, John Edwards, Al Gore (himself educated in private school by his own Senator father), and, potentially, Obama Bin Baden. The last is somewhat of a mystery, in that his children attend private Chicago school, but he hasn't yet had the opportunity to oppose a voucher bill in Congress.
Ironically, former Presidential candidate Tom Vilsack, governor of Iowa, sent his children to public schools, and supported school choice legislation in his state. And, unbelievably, at least to me, Joe Biden of Delaware sends his children to private school, but supported school choice for the general public.
It continues to amaze me how prevalent this Democratic behavior is. It seems to me to be near the height of arrogance, for so-called populists to stiff arm their constituents on getting to choose a quality education for their children, but then removing their own precious children from the D.C., or home state/city public school system, and safely enrolling them in an expensive private institution.
If memory serves, when Mary Landrieu, Democratic Senator from Louisiana, was accosted by a constituent who asked her why she also did this, Landrieu responded with something like, 'because you might get confused and make a bad choice for your own child.'
If you're going to try to rebuild the social welfare state, at least look like you feel it's good enough for your own family to participate. But sending your children to private school while opposing any choice whatsoever for the poor, allegedly downtrodden voters you claim to champion seems awfully curious.
Let's hope that in the next election cycle, this serious hypocrisy comes home to roost with all the relevant, guilty liberal Democratic candidates, for Senate or the White House.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The Democrat's Card Check Vote for Unions
Last Friday's Wall Street Journal contained an editorial by Kim Strassel about the House Democrat's recent assault on the secret ballot in voting for union representation in the workplace. Rather than vote secretly, merely signing a card to request a union vote would become the vote. And it is not hard to see how this would become a way for Big Labor to physically intimidate workers into voting for union shops. The law would give labor
"an unfair advantage in organizing by eliminating the secret ballot in union elections and instead allowing thugs to openly bully workers into joining up. Americans understand and despise this, with polls showing 90% of the public thinks card check is a racket."
As I predicted in earlier posts about Frisco Nan, such as this one, here, regarding her minimum wage legislation, she is fast losing credibility and an ability to keep the Democrat's centrist coalition together.
According to Strassel, Nan and her supporters had hoped for 290 votes, but could only muster 241. Many Democratic Representatives, sitting or running in the last election, agreed to back Big Labor's quest for this law, figuring it wouldn't matter when they were in the minority, anyway. Strassel writes in her piece,
"The problem came when Democrats won, and they had to stand behind their previous support."
Pelosi was forced to ram the vote through. As Strassel further notes,
"And all this, meanwhile, for a vote that was largely symbolic. President Bush has vowed that a card check law is dead on arrival. And that assumes the legislation could even make it through a Senate filibuster- which it can't. As low points go, this was the lowest the new majority has had so far.
The issue for Ms. Pelosi is that this will undoubtedly not be the only low point. The card check is instead the first illustration of the biggest dilemma Democratic leaders will face over the next few years. Savvier party members understand the threat special interests pose to Democrats' ability to commune with more of America. Yet the party is completely dependent upon those left-wing interest groups to finance and man their electoral victories. They want a return on their investment."
So I am not alone in seeing Frisco Nan's future already clouding over. She's now torn between the predictable poles- her own liberal base, and her party's need to be centrist if it is to have any hope of retaining its slim plurality in the House, come 2008.
Sit back, grab some popcorn, and prepare to be entertained with more legistlative antics as Nan and her crew try to navigate between their liberal electoral base, and a more sane and centrist nation.
"an unfair advantage in organizing by eliminating the secret ballot in union elections and instead allowing thugs to openly bully workers into joining up. Americans understand and despise this, with polls showing 90% of the public thinks card check is a racket."
As I predicted in earlier posts about Frisco Nan, such as this one, here, regarding her minimum wage legislation, she is fast losing credibility and an ability to keep the Democrat's centrist coalition together.
According to Strassel, Nan and her supporters had hoped for 290 votes, but could only muster 241. Many Democratic Representatives, sitting or running in the last election, agreed to back Big Labor's quest for this law, figuring it wouldn't matter when they were in the minority, anyway. Strassel writes in her piece,
"The problem came when Democrats won, and they had to stand behind their previous support."
Pelosi was forced to ram the vote through. As Strassel further notes,
"And all this, meanwhile, for a vote that was largely symbolic. President Bush has vowed that a card check law is dead on arrival. And that assumes the legislation could even make it through a Senate filibuster- which it can't. As low points go, this was the lowest the new majority has had so far.
The issue for Ms. Pelosi is that this will undoubtedly not be the only low point. The card check is instead the first illustration of the biggest dilemma Democratic leaders will face over the next few years. Savvier party members understand the threat special interests pose to Democrats' ability to commune with more of America. Yet the party is completely dependent upon those left-wing interest groups to finance and man their electoral victories. They want a return on their investment."
So I am not alone in seeing Frisco Nan's future already clouding over. She's now torn between the predictable poles- her own liberal base, and her party's need to be centrist if it is to have any hope of retaining its slim plurality in the House, come 2008.
Sit back, grab some popcorn, and prepare to be entertained with more legistlative antics as Nan and her crew try to navigate between their liberal electoral base, and a more sane and centrist nation.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Hillary's Call For US Capital Flow Controls
Hillary Clinton's interview on CNBC Thursday, seen here on the CNBC website, marks another low point in economic understanding among Democratic Presidential candidates. I opined on it, from a business perspective, here, in my companion blog.
From a political standpoint, that clip, the one within the CNBC on-air discussion of Hillary's remarks, is going to be around for a long time. It probably won't matter in the Democratic primaries, because I expect all of those liberals to basically feel the same way. But wait til the Republican candidate uses it to bash the senior windbag from New York state.
I honestly cannot believe Hillary's handlers let her get out in front of them, unscripted, on this. No less a person than Ben Bernanke contradicted her matter-of-factly last week. She looks like the economic idiot and numbskull she is.
Perhaps the silver lining here is a loss of most potential business support for her, as they see what economic conditions could well be like under a Hillary regime- capital flow controls, the end of international trade and growth as we know it, economic recession and worse.
Surely, no one could have convinced the electorate, nor thinking Americans, that Hillary would be capable of believing, and saying, what she said last week on camera. You just cannot make this stuff up.
As I have written before, the long presidential campaign is actually a good thing. It brings these sorts of incredible gaffes to light early, forcing each candidate to live with the cumulation of their boneheaded pronouncements throughout the elongated campaign season.
From a political standpoint, that clip, the one within the CNBC on-air discussion of Hillary's remarks, is going to be around for a long time. It probably won't matter in the Democratic primaries, because I expect all of those liberals to basically feel the same way. But wait til the Republican candidate uses it to bash the senior windbag from New York state.
I honestly cannot believe Hillary's handlers let her get out in front of them, unscripted, on this. No less a person than Ben Bernanke contradicted her matter-of-factly last week. She looks like the economic idiot and numbskull she is.
Perhaps the silver lining here is a loss of most potential business support for her, as they see what economic conditions could well be like under a Hillary regime- capital flow controls, the end of international trade and growth as we know it, economic recession and worse.
Surely, no one could have convinced the electorate, nor thinking Americans, that Hillary would be capable of believing, and saying, what she said last week on camera. You just cannot make this stuff up.
As I have written before, the long presidential campaign is actually a good thing. It brings these sorts of incredible gaffes to light early, forcing each candidate to live with the cumulation of their boneheaded pronouncements throughout the elongated campaign season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
