National Journal has come out with their rankings of political ideology of the 2005 Congress, based on their votes.

Among the rankings, the three Congressional Representatives of the Republican CT delegation came out as follows:

- 2nd District, Rob Simmons (R):
Conservative score: 49.2
Liberal score: 50.8

- 5th District, Nancy Johnson (R):
Conservative score: 48.2
Liberal score: 51.8

- 4th District, Chris Shays (R):
Conservative score: 46
Liberal score: 54

So you see what I have to deal with. Johnson is my Congresswoman. But all three rate higher as Liberals than Conservatives. So essentially, I have no representation in Congress when it comes to advocating my point of view. Well hey, that's the deal. If I want to continue to live in CT, I have to face the fact that I'm in the minority. Many like-minded folks choose not to and move to States that are more Conservative in their overall philosophy. I can't say that it's not tempting.

But Liberals tend to overlook the fact that - nationally - they are in the minority. And rather than live with it and urge their elected officials to try and work with the majority to achieve something that they can support, most of them chose to descend into moonbattery and attack rather than propose. Rather than be part of the process, they choose to be part of the problem.

And in my own State, a serious and well-respected Democrat Senator is being chased out of his own party for not kow-towing to the extremists who are calling the shots these days. Rather than respectfully disagree with Joe Lieberman on some issues, they've decided to challenge his seat this year from within the party.

For the Left-wing loony-toons of the CT Democrat party, Lieberman isn't Liberal enough, notwithstanding his own 65.7 "Liberal" rating by National Journal. Diversity of opinion is not tolerated among Democrats. The idea of being the "Big Tent" party disappeared from their ranks over a generation ago.

I can personally attest that is sucks to be in the minority. But if Democrats are going to keep this up, they'd better get used to it.

Posted by: Gary at 02:18 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Man, Let's be honest. With Lieberman, it isn't a left-right thing. (If so, why do you guys love him so much.) It's a loyalty thing. At the end of the day, Joe carries water for the GOP. You know that. I know that.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT at February 26, 2006 08:10 PM (gnlmm)

2 Why is it that when John McCain or Chuck Hagel or Olympia Snowe break with the GOP caucus on critical votes they're called "mavericks" who vote their conscious but Lieberman "carries water for the GOP"?

Posted by: Gary at February 26, 2006 08:42 PM (IGv1j)

3 Good God man! It's not about a vote or two. It's about message. Lieberman is a consistent echo of "Republicans=Good, Democratic Base=Bad". And can you give me a critical vote that your so-called "mavericks" have executed against BushCo? If the R moderates depart the Party line, it is usually with leadership's permission.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT at February 26, 2006 09:57 PM (gnlmm)

4 I'll give you seven votes: The Gang of 14. Or how about Lincoln Chafee's no vote on Alito (despite his yes vote for cloture - now that's courage). Or ANWR drilling? I could go on but I'm sure these are enough to qualify as directives from the "evil BushCo".

Posted by: Gary at February 26, 2006 10:47 PM (IGv1j)

5 I wouldn't put too much faith into rankings like this without seeing the methodology - how, for example do they define "social" issues as opposed to "economic" issues? And what about those (very) few members of congress who have a libertarian streak? The traditional con/lib spectrum doesn't fit.

Posted by: KG at February 27, 2006 12:36 PM (SZsz5)

6 Certainly it should be looked at more as "guideline" but, honestly, are there any real surprises on the list?

Posted by: Gary at February 27, 2006 02:27 PM (PLHs9)

7 Democrats' problem with Joe Leiberman is that he's on the "wrong side" of the war. On the socio-economic issues he's a liberal. (Though he does tend to rustle feathers by being open to the idea of allowing individuals to privatize a small percentage of their social security funds if they so choose.) I'd say that Joe, from what I see, represents the views of "middle Americans" who tend to be social liberals, economic moderates and foreign policy conservatives.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at February 27, 2006 08:05 PM (1/f73)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

George Will has a column today that looks at a recent poll about "happiness". The Pew Research Center poll reveals that its Conservative respondents are happier than their Liberal counterparts and significantly so. A student of the Social Sciences can spend a lot of energy sifting through the various factors that might explain this but Will makes the observation that a primary difference has to do with the philosophies themselves.

For example, Conservatives tend to be more pessimistic which in and of itself is a paradox (and I think the word "realistic" is much more apt). But looked at another way:

Conservatives think the book of Job got it right (``Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward''), as did Adam Smith (``There is a great deal of ruin in a nation''). Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile -- touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones.

Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

But these days, a major factor in the unhappiness of Liberals is an underlying rage that overrides any possibility of happiness. Will explains:

Normal conservatives -- never mind the gladiators of talk radio; they are professionally angry -- are less angry than liberals. Liberals have made this the era of surly automobile bumpers, millions of them, still defiantly adorned with Kerry-Edwards and even Gore-Lieberman bumper stickers, faded and frayed like flags preserved as relics of failed crusades. To preserve these mementos of dashed dreams, many liberals may be forgoing the pleasures of buying new cars -- another delight sacrificed on the altar of liberalism.

But, then, conscientious liberals cannot enjoy automobiles because there is global warming to worry about, and the perils of corporate-driven consumerism which is the handmaiden of bourgeoisie materialism. And high-powered cars (how many liberals drive Corvettes?) are metaphors (for America's reckless foreign policy, for machismo rampant, etc.). And then there is -- was -- all that rustic beauty paved over for highways. (And for those giant parking lots at exurban mega-churches. The less said about them, the better). And automobiles discourage the egalitarian enjoyment of mass transit. And automobiles, by facilitating suburban sprawl, deny sprawl's victims -- that word must make an appearance in liberal laments; and lament is what liberals do -- the uplifting communitarian experience of high-density living. And automobiles ...

You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

The LA Times has an article this morning about the current financial troubles of "Rock The Vote".

The organization, founded in 1990, operates under the stated goal of registering millions of new voters and is aimed at the 18-25 year old demographic - the "MTV" generation. However, with most of its funding coming from the entertainment industry and promoted by celebrities who are pretty clear about their dislike of President Bush and Republicans in general, a more accurate stated goal would be to register millions of new Democrat voters. In more recent years, its activities have been more focused on the development of millions of young Left-wing activists.

Now in its 16th year, the first wave of the youths that it targeted are now well into their thirties. But "Rock The Vote" has found itself in dire financial straits:

Saddled with about $700,000 in debt, the group has cut its staff from more than 20 people in 2004 to just two today. Its president, who left last summer amid disagreement about the organization's direction, has yet to be replaced. And last month, Rock the Vote was sued for the second time in just eight months.

In 2004, in association with MTV's "Vote Or Die" campaign, RTV waged an aggressive campaign against the President prouncing a second Bush term as the beginning of the end for today's youth. Bush won reelection anyway. In 2005, it joined with the AARP to fight Social Security reform on the premise that Republicans wanted to take away this generation's guaranteed retirement benefits - "guaranteed" if you believe the Federal Government's false promises that the money is actually going to be there if we don't fix the system, that is. Dan Lips looks at RTV's activities in a column he wrote for National Review last March:

Rock the Vote, while reliably backing leftist causes, has at least masqueraded as non-partisan in its decade-long campaign to urge younger Americans to register to vote. Last year, such champions of democracy as Leonardo DiCaprio and Justin Timberlake took to the airwaves to stress the importance of voting. The message: If the younger generation doesn't vote, the environment would be destroyed, America would soon have a draft, and government funding for higher education would be eliminated.

But with its preemptive strike against President Bush's proposal, Rock the Vote has finally chosen to wear its partisan stripes with pride. The group plans to launch a seven-figure campaign, including public-service announcements, billboards, and online advertising opposing reform. "We are opening the door to be the defender of young people's policy interests," explained Hans Reimer, Rock the Vote's political director, "This is a great issue to do it."

Despite their efforts, most of today's young people are smart enough (and perhaps cynical enough) to see "Rock The Vote" for what it is - Liberal propaganda packaged and sold by the "cool" heroes of pop culture. And it hasn't been translating to meaningful results on election day. And the further Left it goes, the more irrelevant it becomes. The LA Times poses the question: Will "Rock The Vote" survive?

[RTV Founders] Ayeroff, Goldring and others say yes, as long as they can jump-start fundraising. Board members are meeting with donors, and the group has brought in a successful television executive, Lawrence Lyttle, to fix what's broken for a salary of $1 a year.

But Lyttle says he has no fundraising experience. And the group's political director has announced he may take time off in the coming year. Unless more staff members are hired, Rock the Vote will be left with only one full-time employee: its webmaster.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 746 words, total size 5 kb.

Democrats are all juiced up over the idea that American voters will revolt against the GOP in November. And while, honestly, voters should be pissed off at the current system and how it affects both parties their expectations are that neither party holds a monopoly on honesty and integrity. The system needs to be reformed and the only chance of that is if the GOP makes it a priority to do so. Electing Rep. John Shadegg as the new House Majority Leader would be a good start.

But as far as the election goes, Rasmussen polls show a high level of apathy when asked about the current stories about lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.

Just 15% of Americans believe Abramoff did anything different than what lobbyists typically do. Forty-seven percent (47%) say Abramoff's actions were the norm while 38% are not sure.

A slight majority of Americans (52%) believe the Abramoff scandal involves members of both parties in Congress. Seventeen percent (17%) say it involves Republicans while 5% say it involves Democrats.

As an election issue, people say that political corruption in important, but they don't see a clear solution. Just 31% believe there will be less corruption if Democrats win control of Congress. That figure is offset by 24% who say there will be more corruption with Democrats in power. A plurality (39%) say nothing much would change.

As you would expect, there are tremendous partisan differences on responses to that question. Among those who are not affiliated with either major party, 49% say corruption would remain about the same if the Democrats are put in charge.

You see, incumbents have voted themselves so many advantages that voters wind up with almost no viable alternatives. Most political observers are familiar with the litany of freebies to which incumbents take advantage: radio and TV studios used to beam messages back home, mass mailings to voters. But the real advantage incumbents in Congress have is power. A large part of that power is the trillions of dollars they spend, some in slices of pork they can send back home, and for which they take full credit.

But their power doesn't just stop there. Congress also has the power to regulate. Congress can make or break any business in America. Got a competitor? Congress has regulations! We're talking power that is worth trillions more. Good, negotiable power. So, is it surprising that interested parties would hire lobbyists to protect themselves or advance their own economic agenda?

There are a lot of Democrat voters who'd like to believe that their party holds the moral high-ground when it comes to integrity. The problem is there aren't nearly enough people that share this idealistic view to put Democrats back in charge. So instead of trying to find a reason for people not to vote for Republicans, they're only real hope is to try to come up with reasons to vote for Democrats.

Which means they have no hope.

Posted by: Gary at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.

Twenty-five years ago today, Ronald Wilson Reagan took his first oath of office and the Conservatives came to town.

That day represented the high-water mark of Democrat control in Washington, D.C. For Democrats, it all went down hill from there. It was a gradual process, granted. And power shifted back and forth for a while, ebbing and flowing until 1994 when the GOP firmly took over both chambers of Congress.

During those twenty-five years, a shift occurred among the American electorate. Conservative ideas were listened to and, in many cases, accepted. The editors of OpinionJournal.com take a look this morning at the lasting effect of the ideas once derided as "Reaganomics" that have since been vindicated by a quarter century of evidence.

The Gipper's critics have written an economic history of the 1990s that they portray as a repudiation of Reaganomics. In this telling--known as Rubinomics--the Clinton tax hikes of 1993 ended the budget deficit, which caused interest rates to fall, which produced the boom of the mid- to late-1990s. In fact, the budget deficit hardly fell at all in the immediate aftermath of the tax hike, and while long-term interest rates fell in 1993, they shot back up again in 1994 almost precisely through Election Day (rising by some 230 basis points from October 1993 to November 1994).

On that day, voters repudiated the Clinton tax hikes and the specter of HillaryCare and gave Republicans control of Capitol Hill to govern on the Reaganite agenda of lowering taxes and shrinking runaway government. Both the stock and bond markets turned upward precisely on Election Day in 1994, beginning a whirlwind six-year rally. By 1998, growth and fiscal restraint delivered a budget surplus for the first time in nearly 30 years. In 1997 President Clinton signed a further reduction in the capital gains tax, which propelled investment and the stock market to even greater heights.

The latest chapter of this story is the 2003 income and investment tax cuts enacted by the current President Bush. As in 1981, opponents insisted those tax cuts would harm the economy by increasing the deficit and driving up interest rates. But in the two and a half years since those tax cuts passed, the economy and tax revenues have both surged.

Where Republicans have most strayed from the Reagan vision has been on controlling federal spending. But most still adhere to his tax-cutting lessons, with a few prominent exceptions (notably Senator John McCain). They should all recall the Gipper's words in his inauguration speech 25 years ago: "It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government."

Posted by: Gary at 10:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

Famous Washington socialites "outed" by their own son:

The Washington couple at the heart of the CIA leak investigation had their cover blown by their small son as they tried to sneak away on vacation on Thursday.

"My daddy's famous, my mommy's a secret spy," declared the 5-year-old of his parents, former diplomat Joe Wilson and retired CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Posted by: Gary at 04:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Over the Defense Appropriations bill in the Senate. Democrats are threatening a filibuster. Why? Because it contains a provision that would once and for all authorize drilling in ANWR.

Democrats are stuck between a rock and a hard place on this. If they don't filibuster, the enviro-whackos of their base will lose their minds and they'll lose a campaign issue. If they do, they'll take away the funds necessary for supplying our troops. Either way, they lose. And Sen. Ted Stevens, who is in charge of the Appropriations Committee, is prepared to keep the Senate in session through the end of the month to get this bill passed.

But it's not just the Dems you have to watch. Michelle Malkin reminds us to keep an eye on those squishy Republicans from the Blue States who take big money from the Environmental Groups. They'll also be on the hot seat. And Cheney cut short his Middle-East trip to be on hand to break a tie.

Matt Margolis at GOP Bloggers:

Democrats have used very heated rhetoric in the past about reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil and the high gas prices. Drilling in ANWR addresses both those problems. The bill itself contains dozens of environment protections, which should be satisfactory to them, such as barring drilling during the summer or when caribou are calving...

Yet, despite their opposition to this defense appropriations bill, the Democrats accuse Republicans of shortchanging our troops. Well, with no good reason to oppose this bill, we know which party truly support our troops, and which party is abandoning them.

Posted by: Gary at 09:04 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Or "Being Surrounded By Donkeys On Thanksgiving".

Many of us who are Conservatives and/or Republicans and live in "Blue States" will be going to visit relatives tomorrow. And many of us will come into contact with relatives who are Liberals and/or Democrats openly hostile to President Bush, the war or the GOP in general.

more...

Posted by: Gary at 02:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

Sweet! The House GOP has called for a vote on Rep. Murtha's demand for a "cut and run" strategy in Iraq.

The GOP leadership decided to act little more than 24 hours after Rep. Jack Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops. By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position - whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.

From the Hotline: GOP Tries To Call Murtha's Bluff

UPDATE: Drudge is reporting that the vote is scheduled for tonight between 5:45 and 7:45pm.

Posted by: Gary at 04:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I sure hope this isn't some coming out of the closet moment for the Ex-Donkey!! YIKES. j/k brah... saw the video and thought of ya in some weird sort of evil twin brother sort of way...

Posted by: Peakah at November 19, 2005 03:17 AM (LxGm9)

2 I love what you titled this post. It is perfect!

Posted by: Wild Thing at November 20, 2005 09:36 AM (tj1zH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

New Jersey's results are not really a surprise. The Dem machine owns that state. NYC, again no surprise. Bloomberg is popular and Ferrer is a weak opponent. The California initiatives? Didn't follow them all that much, but in a state dominated by Democrats, even parental notification wasn't a shoo-in.

Now Virginia. A lot of spin will be made this morning about how this bodes badly for the GOP in 2006. I'm not buying it. This was basically Gov. Mark Warner's reelection by proxy. Kaine is his Lt. Gov. and Warner's approval ratings are in the 70's. From what I understand, Kilgore ran a negative campaign that probably turned off a lot of independents (both parties can learn a valuable lesson here).

Three points:
1) After last night, the Democrats have a net increase in Governorships in the amount of...zero.

2) A Democrat Governor in a "Red" state doesn't mean a whole heckuva lot. Connecticut has a Republican Governor, Jodi Rell. She is currently finishing out the term of John Rowland who resigned because he was both corrupt and stupid. Despite the fact the CT is as "Blue" a state as your granny's wig (stole that one from Pam Meister), she is favored to be elected in her own right in 2006).

3) Steve the Llamabutcher points out an interesting trend in Virginia:

Nationally, it just really doesn't mean that much: since 1989, the Virginians have elected a governor of the opposite party of the president elected the year before. 1988-Bush (R) 41, 1989-Wilder (D); 1992 Clinton (D), 1993-Allen (R); 1996 Clinton (D), 1997 Gilmore (R); 2000 Bush (R) 43, 2001 Warner (D); 2004 Bush (R), 2005 apparently Kaine (D).

One other thing, though. This result is a major boost for Mark Warner in his expected bid for the Presidency in 2008. Hillary was hoping to avoid a nasty primary battle, but with Warner hitting her on the right, she'll need to rally the moonbats, which should make for a lot of fist-pounding and high-pitched shrieking in here speeches. Good enough for archiving and playing back during the general election.

UPDATE: 9:30am
John Podhoretz in the NY Post puts Virginia in perspective:

Now, it's true that George W. Bush won Virginia by 8 percentage points in 2004, while Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore appears to have lost by 5 points. But if you think Kilgore's loss reflects Bush's weakness and a nightmare for the GOP in 2006, consider this:

Bush won Virginia by eight points in 2000, too — and the following year Democrat Mark Warner became governor with a 5-point margin of victory. The next year, in 2002, Republicans won a stunning midterm victory, taking four Senate seats and expanding their majority in the House of Representatives.

Those results suggest that the outcome of the Virginia governor's race will have nothing whatsoever to do with what happens in November 2006.

Posted by: Gary at 07:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

Unless you live in New Jersey, Virginia, California or NYC, you don't have any statewide offices or ballot initiatives to vote for or against.

But chances are in your town or city there are municipal elections. Turnout for these races is always low. It's ironic that the people who never vote, complain that they don't feel like their vote makes a difference and most of the people who do vote, only cast their ballots in elections where they actually have the least amount of influence.

You vote counts, even if you are in the political minority where you live. It is a right that brave men and women are fighting for every day. It is also a responsibility. And to take the right and responsibility lightly or to ignore it altogether is an insult to the armed forces past and present who gave all to defend it. And keep in mind the Iraqi citizens who risked their very lives to cast their vote (many for the very first time) a couple of weeks ago.

I'm not one to lecture, so I'll back off the pedantic tone. But consider how much time it takes to stop and gas up your car before work, run over to Wal-Mart on your lunch hour to pick up diapers or go out of your way to the grocery store on you way home because you're running low on milk or orange juice. That's about how much time it takes to vote. A lot of times it takes less time than those tedious errands.

Don't you think casting a vote is worthy of the same amount of your time that it would take you to stop by the post office to mail some bills that have to go out that day?

Now stop being a whiny, bitching pussy and go do it. ;-)

Posted by: Gary at 07:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

Wow, has it really been a year already? I'm not going to analyze to death November 2, 2004 but I will make some personal observations about that election.

Prior to 2000, your typical Presidential election was decided by no later than 11pm EST on election day. In fact, if you looked at the right polls you could pretty much put money down on who was going to win. Guessing the popular vote margin and the number of Electoral Votes was the real challenge.

But in 2000, all that went out the window.

(More below the fold...) more...

Posted by: Gary at 09:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 861 words, total size 5 kb.

John Podhoretz is his column today about the Fitzgerald investigation:

That's all, folks. The grand jury in the most hotly watched Washington political-legal investigation since Whitewater concluded its business yesterday by returning charges against one man and one man alone — who, the grand jury alleges, didn't tell the truth about when and how he discovered a piece of classified information.

Scooter Libby was not charged with the misuse of that information, or with the unlawful exposure of an undercover agent, or with involvement in a conspiracy to reveal her identity. He is, it is worth repeating, charged only with lying about his knowledge of it.

"This is one of the biggest scandals to rock the White House in America's 229-year history."

It didn't matter what the result of this investigation was, the Moonbat's knee-jerk response was always going to be the same: "The American people must know this important truth: Today's indictment is about a cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq." Yadda, yadda, yadda. Whatever guys.

Posted by: Gary at 08:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

Why is it that whenever some outfit - like USAToday, A/P, CBS/NYTimes or Pew - does a poll that asks "adults" (which means basically whomever picked up the phone regardless of whether or not they're even a U.S. citizen) if they have a positive or negative view of the President and the results look bad for Bush, you see it as the lead story everywhere? Even Drudge (when he's not monitoring hurricanes) usually has it as his top story.

And then, when you get a poll that actually uses a legitimate methodology and samples "likely voters" (i.e. people who are paying attention to the news and taking the time to not only register to vote, but to actually got out and vote) like this one and it shows Bush's approval rating higher than the others, you have to go to a Canadian website to find it? Anyone else see this today?

As I've said before, it doesn't really matter what Bush's approval rating is. He's not running for President anymore. Or anything for the matter...ever. But it's ridiculous the "pack" mentality that the MSM has on this subject. Basically, if it's good news, ignore it. But if it's bad news - regardless of the quality of the poll - run with it. What a bunch of shit. I know the bias is there, but it never ceases to amaze me just how blatant it is, like they're not even trying to hide it.

Posted by: Gary at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 1 kb.

Rick Moran of Right-Wing Nuthouse puts the Miers debate in the context of prior Republican in-fighting in his contribution to The American Thinker today. And he takes a cold, hard look at the potential long-term damage that could result.

For the conservative “true believers” however, this is the crisis of the Bush presidency. No amount of stroking by Bush aides is going to assuage their disappointment. In this respect, it remains to be seen if these disappointed activists will fall on their swords once again in a futile gesture of defiance by staying home on Election Day, 2006. If they do so, and if they hand the election to the Democrats, there could be a real bloodletting among conservatives that could split Republicans for a generation and perhaps even give impetus to the creation of a third party.

Any way you look at it, the President has his work cut out for him. And if Harriet Miers falters or comes up short in any way, the coalition that has elected 3 out of the last 4 Presidents could finally collapse in flurry of recrimination and anger.

Ugh.

Posted by: Gary at 07:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Here in the U.S., we scratch our heads at the multi-party systems of European governments (and even Canada's), seeing them as so different from our own. It seems to us that a two-party system makes things so cut and dried, either one party is in power or the other - two opposing sides.

In Parliamentary systems, the winning party often does not constitute a majority and must rely on "coalitions" with other parties to make up a majority. It's a concept that at first glance seems so foreign to Americans. The assumption, however, that voters identify themselves as only Republicans or Democrats or consistently vote for one or the other if they are not affiliated is inaccurate.

In the two-party system, coalitions are very much alive and well. Remember that fully one-third (or more) of the electorate does not belong to a specific political party. The reality of party organization and funding - not to mention the Electoral College - makes it near impossible to form a successful third party. But that does not mean one could not attract enough support to alter an election's outcome. There are many examples in American history: Ross Perot's Reform Party, George Wallace's American Independent Party, Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, to name a few. more...

Posted by: Gary at 09:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 818 words, total size 5 kb.

OpinionJournal.com has some background on Ronnie Earle, the prosecuter who has been dogging Tom DeLay for so long:

Mr. Earle had indicted three other DeLay associates in the same case in September 2004, just six weeks before the last election. Followers of the case have speculated that, as he saw his legal bills mount, one of those three may have decided to testify against Mr. DeLay.

The Majority Leader also deserves the presumption of innocence because of Mr. Earle's guilty past. A liberal Democrat, he has a history of indicting political enemies, Democrat and Republican, on flimsy evidence that didn't hold up in court. In the mid-1980s, he indicted Attorney General Jim Mattox, a rival of his ally Ann Richards, on bribery charges. Mr. Mattox was acquitted and won re-election.

In 1993, he indicted Kay Bailey Hutchison, who'd just been elected to the U.S. Senate, on charges of misconduct and records tampering. Mr. Earle was forced to drop the case even before it went to trial. Earlier this year, the prosecutor delivered a widely criticized speech at a Democratic fund-raiser in which he compared his prosecutorial targets to "Mussolini and his fascists" and all but declared that he had Mr. DeLay in his sights.

Posted by: Gary at 09:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like there's a new behind-the-scenes examination of the John Kerry Presidential Campaign coming out soon. The film, titled "Inside The Bubble", reportedly presents a harsh view of the French-looking Massachussetts Senator (who, by the way, served in Vietnam) and his political operatives. A press release for the film calls the Kerry campaign:

..."a disorganized, contentious, self-absorbed team that thought they could win by 'not making mistakes,' and keeping their candidate in the public eye without clarifying a position on anything."

Posted by: Gary at 09:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

OK, I can understand the rationale for Clinton giving Sheehan the time of day. She's got plenty of Left-wing nuts pressuring to do so.

But McCain?!? This is the guy who spent five years at the Hanoi Hilton while war protesters back home gave support and comfort to the enemy? He's meeting with this moonbat?

Now I know McCain is a media hound and suffers from an irrational desire to be liked by everyone. But this should have other Vietnam Veterens' blood boiling. I can only hope that he's taking this as an opportunity to verbally bitch-slap her and try to shame her for her bull-shenanigans.

I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Gary at 07:16 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Jayson at Polipundit makes the case for the White House backing Lincoln Chafee for reelection.

Chafee votes for cloture on every bill and every appointment, and his voting record on the merits is very similar to that of putative “conservative Democrat” {cough} Ben Nelson of Nebraska. But a Rhode Island Democrat taking over that seat would be an automatic loss of one net vote – on every issue – to the Boxer/Kennedy/Leahy/Kerry wing of the MediaCrat Party.

Posted by: Gary at 12:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.