26
Nov
Being the kind of guy I am, I’m gonna help Mr. Brownstein and MSNBC out. A president SIGNS legislation. It’s up to Congress to present and pass legislation. If there is no legislation, there is very little a president can do. Sure, he can pass policies for agencies to adhere to, but as far as telling the average consumer what they have to do to save the planet, that’s for Congress. Congress is what’s stalling right now, not the President. That would be Nancy Pelosi particularly since she is in charge of Congress’s agenda.
What substantial legislation has come out of Congress that Bush has vetoed? That would be where “the Bush administration” is getting left behind. As it stands, since MSNBC will allow no criticism of Pelosi, and figure everything is Bush’s fault, people will never know to point criticism where its really due. And, in the process, never put pressure where it will actually result in something substantial.
That’s what ya get if you rely on MSNBC. Lots of rhetoric and absolutely nothing else.
I want legislation. I want Bush to sign it. As long as the Ronald Brownstein’s and Keith Olbermann’s keep misguiding the public, it will never happen.
26
Nov
Trent Lott is apparently going to retire before year’s end. According to the story, his primary concern is he needs to make more money. Now, being somewhat experienced in that aspect of DC politics, I can say for certain that is an honest concern. If a congressman’s sole income is his position in DC, he ain’t gonna make a whole lotta money. He’ll live ok, but he won’t get rich by any stretch of the imagination. Some peeps like to look at the raw numbers and make it sound like they’re all getting rich. However, the reality is the position comes with a lot of built in expenses that gossip org pages don’t ever take into consideration. Now, SOME congressmen do try to get rich solely from their position. However, that’s illegal and they sometimes get caught trying. Lott’s not willing to go that route apparently. His wife is apparently tired of all the demands and none of the security. The one thing he can count on, if he keeps his nose clean, is a good pension. Combine that with a fat lobbying income and he’ll do just fine. That’s the reality of the situation, contrary to what the common perception is. I have long advocated we pay our members a lot more than we do. Granted some lawmakers are duds, but they can be voted out. My problem is we keep losing good ones who know how to get things done. Having a bunch clueless idiots in DC does the country no good at all. Once again, that’s contrary to a lot of people’s opinions. But, it’s a fact. Some people think a totally grid-locked Congress is a good thing. I don’t. Having a productive Congress that addresses real issues and looks at them intelligently is what we need. However, at the pay scale we offer now, those people make a LOT more money in the private sector. Congress therefore usually only gets lawyers and the like. Those people LOVE the law process. What they usually do not have is experience with much of anything else. But, I am going off on a tangent right now. This post is about Trent Lott.
I didn’t particularly care for Trent’s style. I didn’t particularly care for the direction he pushed the Republican Party when he was in control. He pushed it too far to the right where a lot of his own party members didn’t belong. I think his demise in 2002 as leader was in large part because the people who could protect him didn’t. Lip service was given, but that’s all. Trent went down. Unfortunately, his replacement was worse and the party continued to drift. By the time Trent decided to retire, there was really nothing he was doing to lead as the #2 guy in the party. That is when it’s a good time to retire. If you’re not gonna do what it takes to better your party, at least make your wife happy. That’s a much more satisfying thing to do anyway.
And, unlike the usual masses who don’t take five minutes to figure out that lobbying is perfectly legal and ethical, I hope Trent does well lobbying and makes millions doing it.
I’m gonna bet this is the only place you’ll hear that too.
- Michelle Malkin has a good synopsis of what others are saying.
- I like Captain’s synopsis as well. He goes into more detail of why I didn’t like Lott’s leadership. I will disagree with Captain on one small, easy to make assumption. I don’t think this makes the Republican Caucus’s season any more difficult. If anything, illustrating it is now the party of change and the Democrats have refused to do so will help the party. Mississippi’s a strong Republican state. That seat’s not going anywhere.
26
Nov
Mike Huckabee had this to say in what I think is a response to the gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia:
Ten years? This I gotta see. I think I’m gonna vote for Huckabee now just to see how he pulls this off. Now, I chastised John Edwars for making what appeared to be a purely election minded announcement to open the federal reserve. There was nothing to support his statement. However, this is what Huckabee has had to say in the past on energy policy:
Seems fairly consistent. Not sure I’m willing to write this one off as purely rhetoric.
However, it ain’t gonna happen in ten years. We do have the resources to do it, we just don’t have the resolve to do what it takes. That’s not Huckabee’s fault. However, it is Huckabee’s reality.
John Edwards is now calling upon Bush to tap into the federal natural gas reserves to combat skyrocketing prices. Citing prices in New Hampshire, he had this to say:
“American families are facing skyrocketing home heating oil and gasoline prices, while big oil companies earn massive profits…..”
“We need to stand up to the oil companies, increase the use of renewable energy and create affordable choices for regular families.”
Now, the problem I have here is manyfold. First of all, expanding LIHEAP wildly doesn’t stand up to oil companies, it gives them exactly what they want. They just charge whatever they want and the government softens the blow by paying for it. There will be no outrage when your bill is subsidized. People will not be motivated to conserve energy. People will turn their themostats back up a few degrees. It won’t hurt.
Secondly, where does the oil in the reserves come from? You guessed it, the same big oil companies sticking it to the little guy. The amount in the reserves is so minor compared to daily US usage it won’t mean squat. At 689 million barrels, and the US using about 21 million per day, it wouldn’t have a whole lot of impact for very long. Plus, knowing that the US government would have to re-stock eventually, it probably wouldn’t have any impact at all on the price of crude coming from OPEC.
Thirdly, if Edwards wants to stand up to oil companies putting the screws to the little guy, open ANWR and restrict production to domestic companies. That’ll knock out the BP’s and Citgo. Bid out the entire field to the absolute lowest bidder. That’ll knock out the Exxon’s as they are too beholden to OPEC. You won’t see Edwards going that route.
What Edwards is doing is politically expedient in that’s convenient. He didn’t think this up. It’s been tossed around and used in the past. It acomplished nothing then. Why does Edwards suddenly think it’ll accomplish anything now? It won’t. It just sounds good.
My buds at Independent Sources so nailed this issue I just suggest going there and reading it. A synopsis:
…….but reading this story about Brazil’s recent discovery of a deep water oil field of 5,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 barrels of oil made me think of it…….
……but when the US has a known field of 25 to 50% greater size which is easier to extract it’s exploitation will do nothing to lower prices or decrease foreign oil dependence.
Ditto. Methinks there’s a lot more to ANWR than simple economics.
Almost lost in the midst Hillary being labeled a “bitch” and whether or not Barack properly poses during the National Anthem was this major headline on Fox:
High School Cheerleaders Suspended for Flashing Crowd During Britney Spears Routine
I immediately had flashbacks to my high school days. Now, our cheerleaders fit the stereotypes to a T. Not terribly bright, and the least temptation and their clothes fell off. So, needless to say, I had pre-conceptions of what had happened here. I mean, what does EVERYONE think when they are “flashed”? So, needless to say, I clicked. What I found there was just a scintillating:
Click here to watch a video of the cheerleader’s risque routine in the Modesto Bee.
So, I did.
I wasn’t flashed.
This is so incredibly lame I had to blog about it.
Six girls were suspended from school for bearing the bottoms of their uniforms. Not THEIR bottoms, but the bottoms of their uniforms. Not lacy panties. Their uniforms. There is nothing risque here folks. There certainly isn’t any flashing.
I was incredibly disappointed.
But, beyond that, I have to wonder what the Ripon High School BoE is thinking by suspending these girls for showing a part of their uniform that is visible every single time they do a cartwheel or flip?
How many lawyers are there in Ripon? I can imagine six are chomping at the bit right now.
But, it just strikes me that Leo Zuber of the Ripon BoE is setting yet another horrific example for his kids. It’s no wonder so many kids come out of high school completely clueless to what’s important and what’s not.
What’s the drop-out rate at Ripon? What’s the college graduate rate for Ripon High students? How many former Ripon students are in jails? Worry about that stuff Zuber. Teach them what’s important. Picking on students that are socially active and meeting the responsibilities it takes to be on the cheerleader squad is sending the wrong message. Especially to those kids that won’t graduate, won’t go to college, and will wind up in jail. It tells them that you can try hard and be punished, or not try at all and not be.
Think about that Leo.
And someone PLEASE give the definition of “flashing” to Fox.
House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion Iraq war bill that would require President George W. Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.
Now, this is where it gets really silly. Bush was already bringing troops home. Confused yet? Let Nancy clarify it for you:
“The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option.”
But Nancy, they’re already coming home? So why the legislation? And why stick it in a defense appropriations bill? And, why guarantee something we do need will be vetoed because it tramples all over the US Constitution? ( Where IS the outcry? )
Bush will veto this, Harry doesn’t have remotely the votes to over-ride the veto, and we’ll have another waste of taxpayer time and money while the Senate argues over it and tries to figure someway to get their commitments covered.
All because Nancy Pelosi thinks she’s president.
Got me realy curious. If Hillary does win this thing next fall, will Nancy still think she’s president or will Hillary take her out?
Bottom line, this vote was a political stunt only. And quite frankly, I think it’s ill-advised on just about every front. But, that’s only IF the Republicans educate the public on why. If they don’t, and the media doesn’t care. Then Nancy gets exactly what she wanted even if this bill goes nowhere. My odds are on Nancy with that one.
14
Nov
One of my favoritest bloggers right now, Jon Swift, posted this pic:
Now, Jon went in to great detail about what this is all about. Best I can tell, it’s a bunch of bridge players who went to a foreign land to display their pride in the fact that they didn’t vote for the President of the country they came from. Not sure if they voted at all. The commenters on Jon’s blog get VERY in-depth over one’s right to free speech, etc..
I really don’t care. They can say whatever they want. Just two points I got out of this pic:
- If they are in a foreign land, did they stay there for good?
- Talk about RED, HOT, LIBERAL, BABES!
12
Nov
Got this via email. Not sure how accurate it is 
