1 - 10 Next
In response to:

It's Not Over Yet

ITSTLN Wrote: Jul 11, 2014 5:44 PM
As the article notes, McDaniel has thus far offered no substantiation of voter irregularity. More to the point-relevant to the comments on this line-the GOP needs the seat. The visceral "we'll show them and elect a Democrat" response is inane:. Translated:we're mad at Thad, so let's keep Harry Reid in power. That is a mush head exercise.
Best point: it isn't about our feelings. The visceral right has to coalesce around effective candidates (no more Sharon Angles), McDaniel was questionable in that regard. Replacing tired time servers makes sense. Replacing them with ineffectual losers doesn't (see Indiana).
Pavlich clearly misquotes the email. It says "refer to exam" NOT refer HIM to exam. The difference is significant: Lerner is, as I noted earlier, likely (in her role as head of the tax exempt IRS division) most likely referring to the agency providing the invitation. The referral attorney's subsequent response references both possible tax perspectives ( from an agency and personal liability), and obviously implying the question was ambiguous from his perspective-which it really wasn't. Not even Lerner would stupidly assert an undelivered invitation would be sufficient to justify investigating a sitting Senator. That excuses neither Lerner's partisanship and her precipitate inquiry, nor her obvious lack of tax law knowledge. But it clearly makes "targeting" Grassley a refutable and likely inaccurate allegation.
The suit is essentially a political gesture. No jurist in his right mind will take as framed.
As head of the exempt organizations division Its far more likely she was suggesting an audit of the inviting organization, rather than Grassley personally (it would have been obvious even to her that an invitation-which he didn't even receive -was no basis for suggesting an audit). Its also obvious the premise she "targeted" an elected representative has more political juice as a conservative political assertion i.e. more churn capacity with your audience and the general media. But her ignorance of the applicable law is very surprising, and its clear she had a political agenda which was transparently partisan.
Lerner's email demonstrates a surprising lack of knowledge about tax provisions. But there was no "him" in the email (as quoted by the columnist). It seems much more likely-particularly given her titular position-that she was suggesting an exam for the agency doing the inviting.She shoudn't have needed the subsequent legal instruction and known the invitation itself didn't remotely constitute a violation.. Even she isn't dumb enough to suggest auditing a sitting Senator on such a flimsy basis. Of course suggesting she targeted a sitting Senator makes for better publicity-as the GOP media outlets-which includes Town Hall- certainly understand. At any rate its obvious she has a partisan agenda-which is the key point.
In response to:

10 Reasons to Vote for Rep. Raul Labrador

ITSTLN Wrote: Jun 17, 2014 11:59 AM
Good column. Real world. Labrador has a shot to eliminate the visceral i.e. loud right as an agent of irrationality, while promoting an effective conservative agenda.
Good observations. However I believe the left might attempt to require a couple to have some minimal civil service (in lieu of mere religious matrimony registration-the current standard) in addition to a religious one, for the marriage to have civil status. In effect substituting legally the status of civil union as the only recognized legal methodology.That will fail as a national agenda, but may succeed in selected states-see California. Barber is -like many of the radio babblers-compelled to churn his audience for promotional effect. He certainly is aware that Denmark is an inappropriate example, and we are not next. The cake sale thing is significant in the sense it will be expanded legally if it can be: the accomodations laws were always dubious but necessary in the civil rights era. They will be used as an analogy to obtain cultural endorsement at the edge for the gay rights cause.
In response to:

Wrong Lessons from Cantor Defeat

ITSTLN Wrote: Jun 13, 2014 3:32 PM
Brat didn't win because of his particular immigration position, or any other for that matter. And he certainly didn't win because of the TEA party, which was not particularly visible institutionally. (Noteworthy: Brat has gently stepped back from both of those media assertions, which are more promotional for those reporting them than factual statements of Brat's own opinions-which are vague on specifics. A luxury Cantor didn't have.)CANTOR LOST. He had become toxic to a substantial portion of his base electorate because he was a long term incumbent who didn't appropriately attend to district business. A substantial number of party regulars, who helped put him in office in the first place, were viscerally annoyed at his district and constituent support. Every election is a sort of job interview, and Cantor showed up late and unprepared. And that's the difference between him and Graham.
This was an anti incumbent election.Brat didn't win because of his ideology. And Cantor didn't lose because of a specific issue or ideological preference (he has a 95% conservative voting history). Cantor lost because he neglected district business: he was more interested in institutional advancement within the party than representing his constituents.It was perhaps shocking to the media (although even there I'm dubious-both the left and right have an audience to churn and interpret accordingly)) but it wasn't shocking to him: that's why he spent a million in the preceding month: his internal polls were very realistic. Brat it should be noted has already begun to gently distance himself from the media created TEA party persona, and I suspect many of those who voted for him could not give a coherent summary of any specific position he has on any particular issue issue.
1 - 10 Next