The GOP at the Trough

By Robert D. Novak Monday, May 19, 2008; The Washington Post

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, 38 and having served less than five terms, did not leap over a dozen of his seniors to become the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee by bashing GOP leaders. But an angry Ryan delivered unscripted remarks on the House floor last Wednesday as the farm bill neared passage: "This bill is an absence of leadership. This bill shows we are not leading." (link)

Commentary: The story of Republican complicity and lack of leadership on the farm bill is reason for any conservative to be disgruntled and disgusted. The Farm bill is a bad bill. It raises spending by 44% above last year’s level. It contains non-farm pork spending, it subsidizing multimillionaire farmers, it increases food prices to the consumer, it undermines American leadership on trade, and puts farmers in undeveloped countries at a competitive disadvantage and keeps poor countries poor. The Republican leadership has shown no leadership on this bill.

According to Novak, President Bush has promised to veto the bill but let it be known that it would be OK if Republicans “voted their districts.” Apparently Republicans are not going to be pushed hard to sustain the veto.

In the Senate, Republican leader Mitch McConnell is not only supporting the bill but got a provision added to the bill giving special tax breaks to horse farms in his state of Kentucky. In the House, Minority Whip Roy Blunt voted for the bill. In the House, Republicans voted for the bill 100 to 91 and in the Senate, 35 Republicans voted for it and only 13 opposed it.

When Republicans vote like Democrats, why should one care if Republicans lose elections? Maybe it is time for Republicans to take a major beating, do some major soul searching, regroup, and rediscover why they are Republicans.

Ehem..

Uh... where did all my bloggers go!?

Michael Yon and Michael Moore

Kind of on the same note, Michael Yon takes aim at Michael Moore: Many readers have complained that Michael Moore, in the conduct of his latest crusade against whatever he is against this month, has illegally used one of my photos on the banner of his website [It's the right-most photo in Moore's banner above]. Mr. Moore is not the first to have done so, and my readers can get pretty upset when it happens.

Later in Yon's post, he writes probably one of the most powerful paragraphs I've read in quite some time:

When someone’s grandmother disseminates the photo of Major Beiger cradling a dying girl in his arms, I allow the usage because I feel she is trying to share the human tragedy. When Michael Moore puts that same photo on his web site, alongside images of George Bush, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, the clear implication is that Farah’s death is their fault. That is a misrepresentation of the facts on the ground, as well as the story of the photo. Farah was killed by a suicide car bomb in Mosul on May 2, 2005. Major Bieger and other soldiers literally risked their own lives to save many children and adults that day, but Farah didn’t make it. Michael Moore apparently does not understand-or refuses to acknowledge-the moral distinction between a man who would murder innocent people, and a man who would sacrifice himself to save them. The photo, as I took it, is the truth, but Moore uses it-illegally-to convey falsehoods. His mind is that of a political propagandist who sees Farah’s death not as a human tragedy, but a tool.

Read the whole thing (linked above... it's interesting stuff.

German Visitors and Pride

My family is welcoming in a German family in America for a week to see the country. My mom knew them in college, as the mother, Stephie, was an exchange student. They are now on their way from JFK to our house. I'm sure I'll talk at length about conversations with them in later posts, but for now, I'd like to talk about American pride.


We spent the better part of this morning cleaning our house in preparation for these people. I've been vacuuming and mopping all morning. I, personally am doing it to keep my parents happy. But at a deeper level, I think, is a sense of pride instilled in all Americans. On my trip to Ecuador, our guide literally walked into random homes and ask if the family had time to see us. For starters, no one turned us down. But even more than that, at no point did they try to excuse or apologize for their messy homes or cluttered rooms. At all levels, they simply wanted us to take them for face value, see who they really were.

But Americans prepare for hours, even days for visitors. They want to display the best of the best, the pinnacle points in life as an American. It's an inner American pride, I think, that drives this. For better or worse, it's a uniquely American characteristic.

John McCain and the Dirty Dozen

Today John McCain was trying to woo the conservative base of his party, which is a good idea since in today's North Carolina primary 27% of Republicans voted against the guy, even though he has a lock on the nomination.

McCain promised to appoint "conservatives" to the Supreme Court, saying that his
“ nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power."

Cool—but I wonder if he will appoint a justice inclined to overrule McConnell v. FCC, where the Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold Act, which was the single greatest abridgment of free speech since the Civil War—giving political speech less protection than burning the flag.

I don't think that Honest John is much of a reader, but it would be a good idea if he took a look at The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom .

In the book, Robert Levy and William Mellor explain why Alexander Hamilton was wrong when he opined that the Judiciary was the weakest of the three branches of the federal government.

The book is about twelve Supreme Court cases that changed the course of American history by expanding the power of the federal government far beyond that enjoyed by King George , and gutting the civil rights and liberties which were the reason we fought a revolution.

One of the profiled cases is McConnell v. FCC.

I wonder if a President McCain would want a Justice who would overrule Wickard v. Filburn which stands for the proposition that under the interstate commerce clause the federal government can regulate virtually anything, which now includes making a terminally ill patient a criminal for using medical marijuana, grown and distributed in a single state, taken under a doctor's prescription, in accordance with state law.

Or does McCain favor federalists of convenience, like Antonin Scalia—who are always able to find the inherent drug or national security exception to the Constitution?

How about Bemmis v. Michigan? The Supreme Court allowed a wife to lose her half interest in the family car in a civil forfeiture proceeding because her husband had used the vehicle as a convenient place to get a blowjob from a hooker.

While McCain is, at best, a johnny come lately to the view that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, it is not at all clear that he understands that the reason is because the Constitution has absolutely nothing to say about abortion—not because he might be personally against abortion, or many of the voters he is wooing are.

I rather doubt that a President McCain will appoint a justice willing to take on Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell where the Supreme Court decided that when the drafters of the Constitution wrote "No State shall ... pass any ... law impairing the obligation of contracts" they meant essentially the opposite.

Or how about the Japanese internment cases, which stand for the “national security exception” which was the rationale for holding Jose Padilla, an American citizen, in a military brig for years without bringing criminal charges.

Would he have the courage to appoint a justice who was at least willing to chip away at Helvering v. Davis , and the rest of the New Deal decisions, which through the “general welfare” clause, gave the federal government unlimited power to tax, spend and control every crook and cranny of an individual's life.

Honest John ticked off liberals because they don't care what the Constitution says when it comes to their pet projects. He pleased the type of people who nowadays consider themselves “conservatives” because he was implicitly endorsing their two primary pet projects—no abortions and plenty of capital punishment.

I'd like to know John McCain's thoughts on The Dirty Dozen.

Attention Hippy-Crites

I just read this article (thanks to Glenn Reynolds) on the Hollywood left's hypocritical loonies (this article calls them hippy-crites, but I'm sure we can come up with something better than that). Anyway, I thought I would take this opportunity to rant and rave about these nut jobs.

Here's the thing. I love liberal hippies. The long haired, global warming obsessed tree-hugger liberals honestly make the world go round. Those who walk their talk, and smoke it too. They are, quite truly, some of the most simple living and happiest people in the world. I also believe we need people around to tell us when we're messing with the environment too much. (I think environmental issues are important, I just think, for the most part, government restrictions aren't necessary because these are issues that can be dealt with in the private sector. Again, for the most part, for all those about to call me out.) These environmental prophets are good people; honest people. We need them in our world.

It's the gas-guzzling liberals that get to me. Really, come on. If you're going to scream and yell about the environment, don't fly the private jet every flight, just make it once or twice a month. At least make it sound like you care about the issue you've decided to knock my block off about. These celebrities (ehem, stage right) dominate the television with their nonsensical gibberish, but don't manage to practice what they preach. And their prominence is what keeps them in the spotlight. They are like cockroaches; they disturb everyone and make the world a crappier place; they never go away. They use their power and wealth and prestige to keep themselves on ET and NBC to continue their nonsense. Then they find themselves on Oprah and The View, where they wave to a group of brainwashed blind bats cheering them and their private 747 on. And then they shove unwanted information into my ear hole via television. They rape my ear.

No means no.

Shame on John McCain...

For shameless pandering on the gas tax.

Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain are proposing to suspend the federal gas tax as a response to rising gas prices; despite the fact that most economist and energy experts think that this is a counterproductive proposal. Obama deserves credit for not joining in the pandering. He has rightly called it a “silly idea.”

I am more disappointed in McCain than Clinton; I didn’t expect better from Hillary. It is not that I think Hillary Clinton is so dumb that she really thinks suspending the gas tax is a good Idea; I think she is so unprincipled and ambitions that she will do whatever it takes to be elected. I expected more from McCain. In the past he talked sense about energy independence, ethanol, and global warming. McCain has to know this is a stupid idea and I thought he had more integrity than to pander with the best of them.

The federal tax on gas is 18.4 cents per gallon. What happens if we cut the tax? For one thing, the price will fall temporarily, which will increase demand for gasoline and result in another increase in price, then when the 18.4 cents is added back, the resulting price will be higher than it otherwise would have been. Another thing that will happen is that not all of the 18.4 cents will be passed on to the consumer. The oil companies will keep part of it.

The reason prices are so high is neither due to an Arab oil embargo nor greedy oil companies. It is primarily due to the increase in demand. The people of India and China are beginning to drive private automobiles. It is basic Economics 101. Demand is exceeding supply and prices are increasing. Another reason is the slide of the dollar. It takes more dollars to trade for the same amount of other currencies and therefore anything we import cost more.

Every administration since the late seventies has talked about energy independence and instead we have steadily moved toward greater dependence. Americans continue to drive more and consume more gasoline every year than they did the year before. Urban sprawl continues and people move further from urban centers. Instead of choosing energy efficient vehicles, people choose to drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What are the negative effects of increased gas consumption?

(1) We finance our enemies. It is an unfortunate accident of geology that the countries with the most oil are ruled by fanatics and despots. Saudi Arabia is officially an ally, but it has a Muslim population that takes seriously the mandate of their faith to give alms. So, American dollars flow to Saudi Arabia, some of which ends up the pockets of devout Muslims and they give to the clerics who build Wahhabi Muslim schools throughout the world where people are taught the most violent and radical strain of the Muslim religion. Every time you fill up your SUV you are contributing to the radical Muslim cause and the training of terrorist. Also we are financing the anti-Americanism of the Venezuelan dictatorship.

(2) We are increasing the rate of Global Warming. Despite all of the concern about global warming and all the talk about combating it, we have not yet decreased the rate of increase in CO2 emissions. Feel-good environmental measures and exhortations to properly inflate your tires and change light bulbs and wear a sweater are not going to be sufficient to curtail global warming. It is going to take some pain and sacrifice.

In today’s newspaper there was an article, Small-car sales help Nissan end April with gain. The article said that while U. S. auto sales were declining that the sale of the Nissan Altima and subcompact Versa was showing gains. Honda, Toyota and Volkswagen are also posting increased sales. Americans are starting to fall out of love with their gas-guzzlers and to prefer small fuel-efficient cars.

In yesterday’s newspaper there was an article that said "Demand for gas eases slightly as more carpool.” Markets work. Supply and demand is not right-wing dogma. it is as true as gravity. People cannot change their behavior overnight however but we are starting to see a decrease in demand. If gas prices were high and people thought they would stay high we would see greater reductions in consumption. Overtime, the American vehicle fleet would shift to more fuel-efficient cars. and we would start to see a lessening of urban sprawl. The cost of gas would enter into the equation in many decisions consumers make. Conservation would be cost effective is prices were expected to stay high. Investment in alternative fuels and alternative technologies would be worth the investment if there were not an expectation that gas would stay high. If we want to continue the trend of reducing gasoline consumption then we do not want to lower gasoline prices.

It is best if we do nothing about high gas prices and let the demand for gas fall.

Hillary, I didn’t expect better from you. John McCain, shame on you.