Category Archives: Democrats

UPDATED: Repeal The 17th Amendment

Conservatism, Constitution, Democrats, Elections, Federalism, Republicans, States' Rights

I have a secret hope that due to self-interest, the Republicans may just tackle the 17th amendment, a 1913 abomination that sundered the republican scheme of governance put in place by the Founding Fathers. Why the renewed hope? If senators were elected by the respective state legislatures, as was the original intent, I somehow doubt the Democrats would have retained control of the upper chamber.

Fox News: “Republican candidates in more than a half-dozen states have called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which was ratified in 1913 and which provides for the direct election of U.S. senators. Prior to the amendment, senators were designated by state legislatures.”

“‘People would be better off if senators, when they deliver their messages to Washington, remember the sovereignty of the states,’ Mike Lee, who supports repeal, told reporters recently. Mr. Lee is a Republican running for the U.S. Senate from Utah.”

“Proponents of repeal say the amendment wrecked the founding fathers’ balance between national and state governments, removing one of the last checks to unbridled power in Washington. Opponents counter that direct election of senators, long a goal of the Progressive movement of that era, expanded democracy.”

On the other hand, I think it’s plain that the newly elected Republican majority in the House will go ahead and raise the debt ceiling, even though they could take a stand and refuse to so do.

UPDATE: What else won’t the Republikeynsians do? “Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., likely the next chair of the House Education Committee, has already said that he’s not going to abolish the Department of Education.” John Stossel adds that the same people’s public “Pledge for America” “is modest. It promises no cuts in Medicare, Social Security or the military. That’s where most of the money is. Those programs account for 60 percent of the budget.”

“Divided government historically spends less than governments under one-party control,” observes Stossel, but in the absence of any “clear message on the biggest sources of government spending” from the Republicans, we’re going down.

The American Electorate As Seen By The Left

Celebrity, Democrats, Elections, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Politics, Pseudo-intellectualism, Sarah Palin, The Zeitgeist

“How D.C. Became Hollywood for Semi-Attractive People” is the title of an Esquire blog post by Tom Junod. It is not particularly well-written, or especially thoughtful—this guy is not Christopher Hitchens—but the post got its author on cable today. “Hardball” I think it was. Here is what Junod thinks of you yobbos and your politics:

“The Democrats didn’t think they had to worry about any of this. They weren’t looking for stars because they had the biggest star in the world as their president. He didn’t have a populist bone in his body, but he was a deeply thoughtful man and a galvanic speaker both, and he promised to transcend the bone-grind of American politics. With his promise of one-man racial reconciliation, he was transfixing, but the independents who were transfixed by him needed to keep being transfixed, and on this, he couldn’t deliver. The American public turned against Obama not when it found out he was radical, or wish-washy, or power-mad, or timid, or what have you; it turned against him when he stopped being entertaining. It turned against him when it found out his real secret — that under his professorial mien he was, well, a professor. Outside the enforced electricity of a national electoral referendum, he was dutiful, and he was dull.”

“It is something of an unfair fight now: a party led by a man who clearly thinks too much before he speaks against a party led by a semi-sexy woman who will say anything — hell, whose idea of a debating strategy in 2008 was a table dance. And the Democrats don’t have an answer, because they’ve so deeply misjudged what the American electorate wants and is capable of. They thought that after the trauma of the Bush years, we would want a no-drama president; a regal First Lady; endless pages of necessary legislation, achieved at a political cost that proves the party’s commitment and courage; and a few more women on the Supreme Court who prove the party’s emphasis on excellence and ethnicity over eros. They didn’t realize that what we want is drama and nothing but, and so the Democrats became the CNN to the Repubican [sic] Fox, clueless in their competence, bewildered by their own best intentions.”

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/female-candidates-2010#ixzz12Do5TbPi

Dog Fight

Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Regulation, Republicans

Can you get worked up about the latest fight between the Democratic and Republican bloodhounds and their hangers-on?

“Honing a campaign message,” the WSJ reports, “President Barack Obama and Democratic Party officials have in recent days strongly suggested the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups, including two run by Republican strategist Karl Rove, are illegally using money from foreign nationals or companies to fund U.S. political advertising. The groups have repeatedly denied the charges.”

And if not for this small matter, the elections—this “advance auction sale of stolen goods,” in H. L. Mencken’s words—would be just dandy.

UPDATED: ‘How Do You Create A Job?’ (Hint: Food Stamps)

Business, Democrats, Economy, Free Markets, Socialism

In the Connecticut Senate debate, Republican Linda McMahon floored Democrat Richard Blumenthal with this simple question: “How Do You Create A Job?” Via the Free Republic: “Blumenthal stammers like an idiot. When he gets done, Linda McMahon schools him on the correct answer.” Writes David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner: “If you’re willing to suffer through Blumenthal’s answer, the response is pretty good”:

McMahon touches on the most important part of the production process: profits.
“Profits are the street signs of the free market—without profits there’d be no products.” [That’s Mercer, not McMahon.]

McMahon ought not to have used the active form of the verb, “create,” as it suggests that a central planner is involved in the creation of jobs. Her response, however, was instructive and refreshing. She might have also taken the opportunity to point out that production and jobs begin with savings and capital accumulation; not spending, as the DC establishment will have you believe.

But for an impromptu turning of the tables on a vile opponent (which is what McMahon’s performance was); she did a good job.

UPDATE (Oct. 7): Want to boost the employment prospects? “Do food stamps and unemployment insurance,” says Nancy Pelosi: “It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance — the biggest bang for the buck.”

Repeating the line twice was a form of self-persuasion.

Hot Air explains the liberal calculus whereby you forcibly take money from producers and hand it over to consumers and it magically multiplies:

“Pelosi, for her part, continues to insist that food stamps and unemployment stimulate the economy, and claims that every dollar spent in food stamps returns $1.79 to the economy. She floated this notion earlier this summer while trying to defend more borrowing to pay for yet another extension on jobless benefits rather than funding it through monies already authorized in Porkulus. That argument assumes that the $1 food stamp in question got plucked off the food-stamp tree at no cost to the government, rather than costing the full dollar plus the administrative costs of distribution and accountability. Even then, that dollar won’t generate a 79% ROI as it travels through the retail sector; if that were true, investors would put their money into nothing else.”