1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Dear Mitch

ITSTLN Wrote: Feb 26, 2015 11:11 AM
NOTE:McConnell ran for Senate Majority Leader on a VERY CLEAR and ARTICULATED premise: NO MORE SHUTDOWNS. The Senate just supported his current proposal 98 to 2. So I guess that means virtually every GOP Senator is a "RHINO". Or whatever. I didn't support my local GOP House rep to get into a cross majority fight with the Senate: Even if McConnell and his fellow Senators were inclined to dump the filibuster (an appealing thought) Obama would simply veto the subsequent legislation. Both sides would be blamed for the interruption in normal DHS business activity, but the GOP would bear the brunt of the political fallout, because they initiated the exercise -a point sure to be emphasized by an Obama sympathetic media. Precisely nothing would be accomplished, although the coverage would be a godsend to liberal critics. The solution to this Presidential power grab is jurisprudential, and the GOP statehouses are well on their way to winning in the courts. The House GOP should have presented a unanimous resolution as an amicus brief in support of the 26 states and Texas Attorney General. Instead the House is engaged in a meaningless exercise that essentially has no purpose except an electoral suck up (technical term) to a selected constituency that is more interested in public self congratulation and ideological indulgence than winning. The GOP is known in Washington as the "stupid party": this entire political Kabuki theater is a demonstration of the tactical incompetence of House membership. Hunter's criticism illustrates the mindset of the loser right, as appealing as it may be on the Heritage blog line.
In response to:

McConnell's Gambit Solves Nothing

ITSTLN Wrote: Feb 25, 2015 10:01 AM
Dumb column. True enough McConnell's proposal solves nothing. Equally true of the House bill. Trying to manufacture a political outcome by insisting the Senate -hamstrung by the Democratic filibuster-pass the House bill is a nonstarter. The solution would have to be a suspension or termination of the filibuster rule, and Obama would veto the subsequent legislation anyway. Would he be blamed rather than the GOP? Debatable, particularly given he media bias in presentation. Likely BOTH would be blamed, but the GOP House will get the preponderance of negative feedback because the public would realize this legislation strictly a "base" suckup play (technical terminology) which is a game of political chicken initiated in the House. The premise here-unless you are a legislative idiot who doesn't care about the outcome-is entirely POLITICAL THEATER. The GOP is playing to a component of House conservatives, very likely at the expense of the national party brand. The solution to the President's illegal policy/power grab is already obvious: the court case brought by 26 states which will likely overturn the prospective Executive Order. The House should approve an amicus brief/carefully worded resolution in support of that initiative. The GOP was not elected to play political games, and most specifically to have the majorities in the House and Senate debate EACH OTHER.
In response to:

Is Rudy Right?

ITSTLN Wrote: Feb 25, 2015 9:12 AM
A big cheer for Rudi.What made his thoughts noteworthy is a history as a GOP moderate. He was not and is not part of a fringe right culture, is not a birther, or a proponent of the Marxist Muslim traitor meme. And therein lies his credibility, and the resonance of his commentary: he has said what an increasing number of average Americans feel based on observation at least as much as ideology: Obama is out of touch with reality, and lacks shared values with traditional Americana. Krauthammer also lends credibility to the criticism. And the credibility is exactly why the Democratic left leadership, led by Wasserman Shultz, and media are over the top respondents.
The remedy here is already in process in the courts. And the GOP will win.The DHS funding/defunding issue is ENTIRELY political theater. The Democrats want an excuse to blame the GOP for an ersatz DHS "shutdown"-which the media will hype. The premise of the legislation is indulgence to the GOP House interests most viscerally opposed to Obama's immigration policy. There was never any hope of passage. Even if the Senate were to suspend the filibuster rule (perhaps desirable but unlikely) Obama will veto the GOP initiative. That might or might not provide political advantage to the GOP in the short term-I would presume not. The initiation of the DHS "closure" option-which was never realistic in any sense-it's an exercise in tactical political idiocy. The GOP House has got to stop charging off political cliffs. As the other comments on the blog line indicate the most conservative component of their "natural" electorate doesn't want any practical constraint on its ideological indulgence, and will blame the GOP for failure anyway. And the broader public will-with media help-interpret the legislative initiative as what it is: an impractical sop to its most ideological House members.
In response to:

50 Shades of Cultural Poison

ITSTLN Wrote: Feb 13, 2015 4:16 PM
The books are boring (at last I assume so-I scanned same at the store). Would guess the movies are likely the same. My best guess: bomb city. The Esterhaus films (Basic Instinct etc.) had comparable themes and have essentially passed out of public culture.. I bet half the ladies who bought the books didn't really read them. Davis should probably direct his pen and moral outrage at more visible and less ephemeral targets.
In response to:

The Case For Killing The Filibuster

ITSTLN Wrote: Feb 13, 2015 3:57 PM
The comments on this line indicate the correspondents are marginally familiar with the Senate history and practices (i.e. "reconciliation" can't be used on bills without a fiscal justification, etc.). That said I find myself reluctantly but strongly agreeing with Hewitt. The tradition of moderate bipartisanship which characterizes the Senate essentially died when the reconciliation was used and the ACA passed with no GOP support,and with elimination of the filibuster for judicial nominees-both Reid initiatives. The GOP should take a bold step and charge. Right now the collaboration between the media and the Democratic Party leadership shields the public from any realistic appraisal of what the President is actually doing through executive action. The GOP needs to force a public record, and stop trying to use the appropriation process (which is very ineffective as a tool) to deal with actions which would otherwise be straight forward legislative actions. Indeed forcing legislation to the floor-see Keystone-may have the unintended consequences of freeing Democratic Senators to vote their preferance rather than their party's ideological litmus test. And it will certainly make it easier to undo conferred power in a prior session (see the EPA authorized powers debate).
Good choice Ruth. I'm sure quite a few wish they had followed your example.
The issue here is practically irrelevant: unless Congress wants to cut off funding-which transparently it doesn't-why bother? Because its politically appropriate/preferable for Obama to separate himself from Bush's prior authorization, I assume.. But Bush's authorization was much more in line with the header (rubber stamp perpetual war) than Obama's current request.
The issue here is pretty clear: measles was essentially eradicated because of public school mandate and the undeniable efficacy of the vaccination. And now they suddenly aren't. Paul's commentary is ideological; it has little to do with real world experience. The libertarian cause has validity in a generic sense; that doesn't mean its an absolute. Public health obligations (see the history of the small pox and polio vaccines in particular) can and should be enforced where the cost benefit effect is dramatic and documented. Where and if its abused, it can be disputed, but that's clearly not justifiable in this debate at this time..
Putting aside the analogies' application to this situation (which is obviously absurd), what exactly is the purpose of postulating a current day moral equivalence?
1 - 10 Next