Powell Should Follow Specter Out the Door: If Anyone Has a Right to, He Sure Does

I do think that Colin Powell should follow Arlen Specter out the door and follow his example, by joining the Democratic Party.

But it's not for the reasons that Limbaugh has stated, which are that he endorsed Obama solely based on race.

I have no comment on that point.

No, Powell should join the Democrats because the Bush Administration royally screwed him during the build-up to the Iraq War, using Powell to press the case for military action against Iraq and sending him before the U.N. Security Council with false information. CIA did Colin Powell no favors and set him up, when they knew they didn't have the evidence that Powell was pressing for to show that Iraq possessed WMDs.

If anyone has a right to be p.o.'ed by what was done to him, it's Powell. I wouldn't blame him if he never appeared at a GOP event again. Who wouldn't be angry by being set up like Powell was by his own party and his own President?

Powell will always be remembered as the Secretary of State who sat before the Security Council and told them that Iraq had WMDs and offered proof of mobile weapons labs, which U.S. and U.K. intelligence services had already discounted but didn't tell Powell about.

On the political side, he belongs to the Democratic wing of the Republican Party. I think he's burned too many bridges to simply go back and continue on as if his endorsement never happened. His pro-choice leanings are incompatible with what has been a pro-life party. He's got more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans these days; I'm surprised he didn't switch when he endorsed Obama.

I don't know if he'll ever be able to live down his actions as Secretary of State. I'm also uncertain if he'll ever return to politics, so his switching sides won't damage the Republicans any more than they already are.

Arlen Specter Joins the Democratic Party: All Pro-Choice Republicans Do the Same Thing

Pro-choice Republicans should follow Senator Arlen Spectre out the door and join the Democratic Party.

They're closet Democrats anyways.

The only part of his defection that I disagree with is that he isn't resigning his seat and running under his new party's banner, as a few others have done in the past.

The following senators decided to switch parties and resigned before running for the same seat under their new party (and won the special election):

Wayne Morris (Oregon)
Strom Thurmond (South Carolina)

The following Representatives did the same thing:

Albert Watson (South Carolina)
Phil Gramm (Texas)

Specter was getting killed in the polls against his primary challenger, so this may be a large part of why he's doing this now. And for giving the Democrats their supermajority, they may have offered a deal to Specter in exchange for his defection.

Good riddance.

Democrats Should Keep Their 15% Approval Rating in Mind: With Fewer Republicans Around, They're in the Hot Seat

Before they get too carried away, the Democrats need to keep their approval rating in mind. As of a CBS poll from last week, Congressional job approval stands at 15%, which is half of what President Bush's is.

And with fewer Republicans around to blame, and a Democrat preparing to move into the White House on January 20th, the Dems will be squarely in the hot seat.

It will be interesting to see if they succumb to the same pressure that the Republicans did, with one-party in control of the Congress and the White House.

If anything, the Democrats are even more vulnerable, as their party is a sewn-together coalition of competing factions. There's a few triggers that we've already seen will cause the Democratic Party to splinter; remember when Pelosi and Reid decided to knuckle under to President Bush and his war budget last year? The anti-war Democrats nearly rioted in the aisles.

We'll see how this goes.

GOP Platform Looks Good; Few Items of Concern

The 2008 GOP platform is now complete and is available on their web site. They have a lot of good stuff in it, not the least of which are:

• Support for the First Amendment right of association that protects the Boy Scouts of America and other similar organizations who are under attack from liberals.
• Support for appointing judges with a strict view of the Constitution to the federal bench and not political activists who believe in the "living document" crap.
• Support for the 2nd Amendment to keep and bear arms.
• Support for human rights, religious freedom and economic freedom overseas.
• A strong pro-life stance in the abortion debate.
• A commitment to maintain our friendship with Israel.
• Calls for an end to earmarking.
• Calls for a balanced budget amendment, except during times of war.
• A ban on human cloning and stem cell research which involves the destruction of embryonic human life, and the creation of human embryos for research purposes.
  
• A massive expansion of stem-cell research in those areas that do not involve the destruction of embryonic human life.
• Preserving property rights.
  

I'm not in full agreement with everything in their platform.

• They still refuse to recognize habeas corpus as a right as described in the United Nations charter and is an international right, not just an American one.
• They're maintaining their support of the death penalty as a party.
• I also don't believe that the Republicans will stop runaway government spending. The moderates who hold a majority in the party will keep spending and expanding the debt unless conservatives get in control of the party. THEN we'll see dramatic reductions. Not before.
• Global warming hubris. Where exactly does the science end and the politics begin?
  

They're also debating the 2012 primary system. Looks like two states will again enjoy primacy at the expense of all others; I had hoped they would get rid of this unfair system after two states--Michigan and Florida--rebelled against this system for the 2008 primary season. I think every state in the union needs to follow Michigan's and Florida's example and hold their primaries early in 2012. This issue needs to be forced; both parties are reluctant to go there.

Here's the platform.

Constitution Party Launches Media Campaign to Attract Disaffected Conservatives in GOP: Before Jumping Ship, Conservatives Should Investigate Further

I was listening to the "Big Show" on WJIM-AM out of Lansing the other day and heard Michael Patrick Shields interviewing someone from the Constitution Party on the current state of affairs in the Republican Party.

The interview itself was interesting, but I think that before conservatives consider jumping ship from the Republican Party to the Constitution Party that they investigate things a little more. I looked at the Constitution Party a few months ago as I saw which direction things were going to go in the GOP. And after doing that research, I rejected supporting the Constitution Party for the following reasons:

Their national platform and web site looked great. I think that if it were the standard for the entire party that conservatives could jump ship without reservations. But sadly, that's not how the Constitution Party is organized.

I got to the Michigan part of the site and discovered that the site had been taken over by the Michigan Militia, which I don't recognize or support.

The Michigan site began by identifying it's members as Warrior Christians and that their goal was to have two million men under arms by mid-2008. What in the name of Sam Hill for? Last time I checked, Canada wasn't preparing to invade Michigan; nor is the United Nations preparing to take over. So why do we need a standing army of two million men under arms and not taking orders from either the State of Michigan, or the United States government?

So I decided to ignore this party as it was an obvious front for the Michigan Militia, which I am in agreement with on protecting the Second Amendment, but am in serious disagreement with on just about everything else. I do NOT recognize them as being the "well-regulated militia" spoken of in the U.S. Constitution. That's the National Guard, which evolved from the Revolutionary War militias and elements of the Continental Army.

The problem with the Constitution Party is that they lack national cohesion. They're called different parties in different states. Each chapter has it's own rules, with it's own focus. And that's how the Michigan Militia holds sway over the Michigan chapter.

I won't support the Constitution Party as long as the militias are in charge.

Two million men, my afterburner.

If McCain and Clinton are to be the Choices in November, How Much Change Can We Realistically Expect?

Little to none. It'll be business as usual except that there will either be a pure liberal living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, or a liberal-minded "conservative" there.

That's why I think that one of the people running from outside Washington would be a better agent of change, if the candidates are serious about changing the tone of politics there. Insiders like McCain and Clinton are too involved there to be effective at changing the nasty tone in Washington.

And since both are the preferred choices of the liberal news media, that's another major reason to be concerned about this hypothetical John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton match-up.

I don't like the idea at all.

Michigan Voters Told Their Vote is Worthless in One Party's Primary and Only Worth Half A Vote in the Other: Tell Me Again Why We Should Vote on 1/15?

The Michigan primary is coming up on January 15th, and the ballot is still a mess.

One party has completely disenfranchised Michigan's voters, while the other has stripped Michigan of half of its delegates to the party's national convention, effectively turning every vote into a half-vote.

The Democratic Party added insult to injury when most of the Democratic candidates decided to withdraw their names from the ballot and announced that they were boycotting Michigan's primary. Not one of them had the guts to come into the state and announce it in person.

As far as I'm concerned, the candidates that withdrew their names shouldn't be able to fundraise here for their primary campaigns either. They should be writing refund checks out to every Michigan voter who has contributed money to their campaigns from the time that they announced their candidacy to today.

They can go to the Federal Election Commission web site to figure out who to write the checks to. In the meantime, they can go play in traffic.

On the GOP side, the Republican National Convention stripped Michigan of half of it's delegates to their convention, along with all the other January primary states. Following that same formula, the GOP candidates should also return 1/2 of the money raised here. They can take my half-vote and stick it where the sun don't shine.

So, since our votes are worthless in the Democratic Party, and worth a half-vote in the GOP, why exactly should Michigan voters show up on January 15th?

I'm not voting on the 15th; and I'm voting 3rd party in the fall. And all because the two National Committees chose to defend the current system and punished states that dared to buck the system to protest the inherent unfairness of the current primary system. There should be one national primary day, with all states being treated equally, not four of the states being elevated at the expense of all others.

It would be poetic justice if there was a tie in the electoral college in November, and it all fell to Michigan to cast the deciding vote. That won't happen, of course, but then, who figured that it would all boil down to Florida in 2000, which both parties have chosen to disenfranchise as well as Michigan? They really ought to think about that.

S-CHIP Nonsense: Program Doesn't Need to Have Budget Doubled: Just Kick the Adults Off and Into Medicaid and Use the Savings to Help More Kids---DUH!!

I'm getting fed up with this S-CHIP insurance nonsense.

Kick the adults off of it and put them into Medicaid. Then there'll be plenty of money to take care of kids. 700,000 adults are in the S-CHIP program; yet 500,000 eligible children are not.

DUH??!

Recall Efforts Begin Against Members of Michigan's Legislature Who Voted for Tax Increases

An anti-tax group has launched recall efforts against five Democrats and five Republicans for their support of an increased income tax as part of Michigan's continuing budget crisis.

The governor has also not been formally targeted for recall yet, but at least two web sites are calling for it. Should be interesting to watch.

Michigan Government Shuts Down, Then Opens for Business After Budget Deal Reached

Michigan shut down for a few hours early on Monday morning before a budget deal was reached at around 4am this morning.

It's about time!

Under the deal, the income tax will be increased, and some services will be required to charge a 6% state sales tax.

Now, then, I think that every member of the state house and senate should not run for re-election. Their utter stupidity and failure to communicate brought us to the brink of not having a government running the day-to-day operations of the state. Posturing for brownie points for MONTHS, blaming the other side, accepting no blame for their own actions--it's a political problem that requires action.

They should redeem themselves by not running for office again. The current officeholders are unworthy of the authority that the voters have bestowed on them. This should have been agreed to weeks or months ago, not four hours into a SHUTDOWN OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT.

Shame on ALL OF THEM!

Michigan Government STILL Without a Budget; 10 Days to Government Shutdown

I think serious attention needs to be paid to what's happening with our Michigan government and how it's being run.

They've been working on a budget for eight months, and they've wasted time on unnecessary political posturing, delays, and outright refusal to budge on their established positions to score points on the other side.

In ten more days, this government WILL shut down if they don't have their act together and a balanced budget. Do we need to chain the state senators and representatives to their desks and lock the doors to get these people to move, or what?

Is Alan Greenspan Running for Something?

With former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's new book about to be released on Tuesday, some of the media outlets--most notably CNN and 60 Minutes--obtained copies early and were quoting passages from the new book almost incessantly. The only thing that got him out of the headlines were the antics and arrest of OJ Simpson in Las Vegas.

Some of the most-quotes passages (quoted, I might add, with the same kind of reverence shown to the Bible during Sunday services) included Greenspan's opinion that the Iraq War was largely over oil, about how the Republicans had sacrificed principles for power, and that the Republicans deserved to lose as badly as they did in the last election.

This sounds like Greenspan is running for something at the same time that he's promoting his book. I don't think this is the end of this story.

Broken House Computer Adds to Trouble in House: Some Members Have Interesting Comments on This

A computer that displays live vote tallies while House voting is in progress malfunctioned today, leading to more tension on top of yesterday's disgraceful actions in the House of Representatives.

One representative complained that he couldn't possibly vote because he couldn't see what his party was doing. Here's a thought: why don't they forget about fixing that machine, and vote based on their own beliefs and values, not their party's??!

If they can't do their jobs, why don't they resign and let someone with more guts make the tough calls?

There was a reason that President Washington spoke out against political parties during his farewell address of 1796:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

I think Washington's words ought to be considered carefully by politicians who need a machine to tell them how their party is voting before they cast their own vote.

More Incompetence on the Hill: House Flies Apart at the Seams

The Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives are raising their childish antics to new lows.

I'm not completely sure what happened, but the Republicans claimed an immigration vote went their way late last night by a count of 215-213. The Democratic speaker and his aides claimed that the vote was tied 214-214 and failed. Following the close of the voting time, votes started to change, which according to this article, was "strange." The Democrats then announced that the "actual vote" was 216-212.

The hollering started almost immediately; the Democrats offered to do a re-vote, and all hell broke loose. Both parties starting screaming "shame" at one another, it degenerated into a full-scale farce. Republicans stormed off the House floor in protest, and the original vote disappeared off the record as if it had never happened. What the??!

While both parties have played tricks on one another to pass legislation in the past, last night's attempted theft of a straight up-and-down vote was disgraceful, and so was the purging of the record of the vote.

Both parties share the blame in this disgrace; and I hope it doesn't happen again.

What would happen if national elections were to be held like this? We vote on November 7th from when the polls open at 7am to when the polls officially close.

If elections were held the way that last night's vote in the House was done, we'd be going back in and changing our votes after they had been cast, hours after the polls had closed. And then, after the storm of protest from people over laws being violated, those in authority erased all records of the election, leaving total chaos.

This is just more proof that this Congress is broken.

And one note to Congressional leaders: just because the other party did it to you doesn't mean YOU have to do it to them. Shame on all of you!

Some Candidates Want to Substitute One War for Others: What's the Point?

A lot of the Presidential candidates have come out opposed to the war in Iraq, but have made some comments in recent weeks and months about starting wars elsewhere.

Obama wants to send troops into Pakistan to fight al-Qaeda. This could easily translate into a seizure of Pakistan's nuclear weapons if radicals capture control of the government of Pakistan while U.S. troops are in the country hunting for bin-Laden. While doing that may not be a bad thing, it would be inserting U.S. forces into an already complicated situation.

Dodd is open to using force against Iran. So is Clinton, Edwards (while pushing for a nonaggression pact with Iran), Obama (who has also said that it would be a "profound mistake to initiate war with Iran"), Giuliani (who might use a first strike option with nuclear weapons), McCain, and Romney.

I don't like this idea of pulling troops out of Iraq and sending them straight after Pakistan or Iran. If we're going to pull the troops out, they should do it, then retool and rebuild the military first. Sending a weary army into Iran against an enemy who's spoiling for a fight is not a good idea.

I think they ought to postpone the tough talk and deal with problems we already have, not talking about making more problems.

Immigration Bill Dies Again: Now They Can Write a Better Bill

The debate to end the debate on the incredibly bad immigration bill failed in the Senate yesterday by a comfortable margin. So now they're saying that immigration won't be taken up until there is a new President and new members of Congress get seated. GOOD!!

The majority of Republicans refused to vote for it as President Bush had wished, but he's on the wrong side in this debate. So were the GOP'ers who voted with Ted Kennedy.

Now they can quit treating this thing like a hot potato and write a better bill that isn't as big a joke as this last one was.

Democrats Rule By Opinion Poll: This is Worse Than Trying to Replace Something With Nothing

The Democrats appear to be heading in an unprecedented direction in their control of both houses of Congress. And many Republicans are following their example. And it's going to come around and bite them when they least expect it.

I speak of opinion polls. Many in Congress are bending like reeds in the wind when they hear what the latest opinion polls are. John Kerry was notorious for this during the 2004 Presidential election, refusing to say where he stood on issues until he saw which direction the wind was blowing first.

Many other Democrats did this too, refusing to say where they stood until they figured out which direction their voters were leaning, then all of a sudden coming up with all kinds of sound bites that their people wanted to hear.

Politicians are well aware of this, but the public needs to learn that opinion polls reflect the feelings of people based on the information that they've been made aware of. In other words, it's stuff on the surface. Imagine a lake:

Nice and calm on the surface. Just what we like to see.
But when it gets nasty, this is all that we see:

Waves, turbulence, and uncertainty.
Yet look at what's happening underneath the surface:

My point is that information coming out of Iraq is like a lake. We don't see everything except what is presented to us by the media (the surface information). We don't hear stories of what's happening in other parts of Iraq where there is no insurgency, or the situation is vastly different (the information underneath the surface) than Baghdad or the Anbar province, where most of our casualties have happened.

It's a vicious cycle. The Democrats came to power with help from the liberal-media complex that steered the conversation toward what was happening in four of eighteen Iraqi provinces. They don't dare go into any depth on the rest of Iraq that returning soldiers continue to tell stories about. Good news in Iraq is bad for the anti-war people in Congress.

Leaders should develop their platforms based on their beliefs, then lead the nation in that direction, not base their leadership decisions on opinion polls that are reflective of the surface situation that any idiot with a TV set can see. Leaders should LEAD.

And sooner or later, politicians who don't lead will be Kerry-ized, with the same result as the Bush-Kerry campaign. Based on that point, I don't think we've seen the end of tumultuous turnovers in Congressional power. I think power in Congress is going to change hands a lot in the future.

Republicans Are Learning a Lesson on What Happens When Majority Party Tries to Ban Minority Party Tactics

I seem to recall criticizing the Republican majority for trying to do away with the filibuster and other minority-party rights as the (then) minority Democrats were obstructing several Republican measures and votes on Presidential choices for federal judges.

They're paying for their arrogance as they are now in the minority and the Democrats are stomping all over them. And the only thing the Republicans can do is cry about not having a voice in much of the new legislation that is being ram-rodded through Congress.

Take your medicine, GOP, and learn from your very costly mistakes.

Hopefully if they regain their majority they will remember that they might need the very political weapons that they tried to ban if there's a repeat of the 2006 mid-term elections.

They got thumped on Election Day, and they've been getting thumped by the Democrats who are using Republican tactics to get their way ever since.

Political OWNAGE!!

Democrats Take Over House: GOP Did This To Themselves

It appears that the Democrats did very well for themselves this time around, capturing control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

How bad the GOP did is still in the air and will be for some time to come as a number of Senate races are still too close to call.

President Bush and the GOP did this to themselves by not doing what they were supposed to over the last year with regards to illegal immigration, spending, fighting corruption and improving the situation in Iraq. They allowed election year politics to interfere with doing their j-o-b-s.

In some cases, moderate Republicans were defeated by conservative Democrats. That's not an altogether bad thing.

It will be interesting to see how this shapes up in the coming weeks and months. But if the Democrats go too liberal on the issues, they may make themselves as vulnerable as the GOP was in this election for the next time around.