Photo of the Day: Woman Scorned

Sean over at Nashville 21 has his photo of the day; here's mine. :)




















(Can't you hear "The Imperial March" from Star Wars in the background?)

Pelosi Doesn't Help Bailout Situation

Congressional Republicans attribute Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech as helping bring about the defeat of the bailout bill. I wonder why...



Where is the bipartisanship? Where's the cooperation? Where's the change? Sounds like the same pattern of Democratic short-sightedness and refusal to accept responsibility for their part in this mess. Rather than being a leader in the effort to pass what had been promoted as bipartisan legislation, Nancy Pelosi decides to go on a blame-Bush rant against the Republicans for the financial crisis. What better way to seek cooperation from the other side of the aisle than to attack them, especially when you could not bring 95 votes from her own party. Wonderful piece of leadership, Madame Speaker.

Running on Autopilot: Joe Biden's Re-election Campaign

Joe Biden is having a good time campaigning for change in Washington, misstating facts, and committing gaffes. But did you know is running for re-election to the U.S. Senate, too?

So what's he doing all over the rest of the country--and not campaigning in the state he represents? Oh, yes: he's running as the experienced half of the Obama ticket.

Obviously Biden is not worried about losing his Senate seat. All he has to do is make sure his name is on all the ballots in Delaware come November 4. He can be on the Left Coast shaking hands and kissing babies while running for vice-president without losing any sleep over it. It's safe and secure, thanks to the hypnotized electorate.

(Biden does have a challenger, Republican Christine O'Donnell, a former journalist and political commentator.)

Delaware Democrats don't seem to worry much about Republican challengers in their elections. It's sad that a state is so one-sided that its voters--without question--pick the candidate who has a (D) beside his name. (There are counties like that in Tennessee, particularly the one where I live.) Biden has held the seat since 1972--thirty-six years! It's equavilent to a mini monarchy. A very good argument for term limits, I think.

It always amazes me when someone in power takes for granted his political office and that it will be there when--and if--he ever needs it. Wouldn't we all like that kind of job security? If this whole Obama/Biden thing doesn't work out, Biden can go back to his day job in the Senate and not miss a beat. So can Obama, and yes, even John McCain.

(Side note: All four candidates already hold elected office, so one wonders who's minding the store while they're gone? The rallies, speeches, press conferences, and interviews on the campaign trail must zap one's energy; does it leave any time to actually legistlate or govern in their off-time?)

But McCain, Palin, and Obama aren't running for re-election at the same time; Biden is. Has he even bothered to campaign in his home state since he accepted the Democratic vice-presidential nomination? I can't say for sure, but after searching state newspapers, I've not seen anything to suggest he has.

People of Delaware, is this really the kind of person you want representing your interests? Is he really committed to the job, or just taking for granted that you will re-elect him for the sixth time? It would be wonderful if voters there would show Joe Biden whose office it really is. But I won't hold my breath--or leave the country.

Democrats in Denial: Financial Crisis Began with Clinton

Democrats have a short attention span, especially when it comes to confessing their political sins and owning up to their blunders.

Conveniently, it never goes beyond George W. Bush's presidency. Everything bad has happened in the past seven-and-a-half years; anything good came about during the Clinton administration. It's pointless for them to look past 1993 because their party has such a terrible record at picking their presidential candidates the past 40 years: John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey. Their one "success" was Jimmy Carter, a one-term disaster who is considered below average among the presidents by scholars and historians and continues to be a national embarrassment as an "elder statesman." I suppose you can't blame Democrats for trying to be forward thinkers rather than look back at their track record of failures.

The current financial crisis is a good example, particularly the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac institutions. When it comes to the blame game, Democrats love to play as long as they don't have to look beyond the Bush administration. When Tennessee Conservative Watch looked back at where it all began, they found a New York Times article dated September 30, 1999 BB (Before Bush) in which the Clinton administration advocated the ease of credit requirements for home mortgages to people with "generally not good enough" credit. Granted, this was not one lone smoking gun in this mess, but it was certainly a contributing factor.

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

Fast forward nine years later and Bill Clinton rejects the insinuation by President Bush in his televised address on Wednesday that the economic problems developed "[f]or more than a decade." Yet he does concede in Clintonesque style that he could be partially to blame:

[Clinton] also acknowledged that there was possible danger in his administration’s policy of pressing Fannie Mae, the mortgage company, to lower its credit standards for lower- and middle-income families seeking homes.

“I think, through the lens of this, it looks like that was true,” Clinton said. “But let's go back to where we were at the time. At the time, they had lots of money, were making lots of money, and I thought too much of the money was being given out in value to the shareholders and compensation to the executives. And, at the time, we had a balanced budget and a surplus and a rapidly growing economy in other areas.”

Regardless whether there was a balanced budget and a surplus at the time or not, pushing banks and financial institutions to accept risky mortgages is just bad business.

Do the Democrats acknowledge any blame at all--even a smidge? Of course not. And the Liberal Media accepts it as gospel and goes on blaming President Bush. At least Fox News has the gumption to show Congressional Democrats for what they really are and show that John McCain has been an advocate for regulatory reform.

Republican Influence in Stolen Election is a Joke

A.C. Kleinheider at Post Politics has a great post about an email distributed to the seven Republican senators who will host a fundraiser for Senator Rosalind Kurita on October 1. It was written by Elizabeth Klein, treasurer for Tim Barnes' senate campaign who happens to be a Republican. The post also dissects the Democrat's argument that Republicans in higher than usual numbers voted in the Democratic primary for Senate District 22 and makes the point that some may have actually supported Barnes rather than Senator Kurita.

“It’s not that we didn’t want Republicans voting in the primary,” Klein told Kleinheider. “We just didn’t want, and state law is against, the Republican Party interfering actively in the primary, telling people who to vote for. We wanted people to vote their conscience.”

Tim Barnes admits that Republican friends voted for him in the Democratic primary, yet he describes Republican support for Senator Kurita as a "concerted effort by [Republican] party leaders" to lobby votes for her. Mr. Barnes certainly wouldn't deny anyone that can legally do so the right to vote, would he? Mr. Barnes, there was no Republican candidate for state senate on the ballot. Who else could a Republican in Montgomery, Cheatham, and Houston counties vote for except yourself or Kurita?

The whole argument that Republican influence led to an "incurably uncertain" election and justified handing over the Democratic nomination to Mr. Barnes is ridiculous. Pete Kotz over at the Nashville Scene suggests Tennessee Democrats try something a little more original. I hope Senator Kurita's lawsuit is successful and Mr. Barnes and the Democratic party find themselves trying to organzie their own write-in campaign in a major hurry.

Rosalind Kurita Takes Democrats to Court

Senator Rosalind Kurita has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Nashville to reinstate her name on the November 4 ballot as the rightful Democratic candidate for Senate District 22. The suit lists as defendants the Tennessee Democratic Party; every member of the Tennessee Democratic Party's executive committee that overturned the primary election; the candidate who benefited from it, Tim Barnes; Robert E. Cooper Jr., Tennessee attorney general; Secretary of State Riley Darnell; Brook K. Thompson, state coordinator of elections; and the election commission administrators for Cheatham, Houston, and Montgomery counties. Click here for the complete document.

The lawsuit claims that state law TCA 2-17-104 is unconstitutional and "violates the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment." It also asserts there are no provisions specified in the Tennessee Code to settle a disputed election. Because due process was not given to Senator Kurita, the decision of the committee should be overturned and either her name be placed on the November ballot as the Democratic candidate or a special election be held to determine the nominee.

The Tennessee Democratic Party's official response to the lawsuit is laughable:

“We’re disappointed that Sen. Kurita is trying to throw a legal wrench into a political primary process that was conducted under a state law approved by former Republican Gov. Winfield Dunn,” said Gray Sasser, chairman of the Tennessee Democratic Party.

“On the other hand,” Sasser added, “we’re glad that Sen. Kurita appears to be acknowledging that she is, in fact, Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey’s hand-picked candidate in the Tennessee Democratic primary."

"Hand-picked" is a description Democrats would be wise to avoid in this particular election, especially since that is in fact how their anointed candidate, Barnes, was chosen.

The press release continues:

“It’s now abundantly clear that Sen. Kurita has been receiving considerable aid and comfort, both financial and legal in nature, from national Republicans who are bent on interfering in the Tennessee Democratic primary,” Sasser said. “We’re calling on Lt. Gov. Ramsey to get out of the Democratic primary process and put a stop to this legal monkeying by the national Republican Party.”

Memo to Gray Sasser: the Democratic primary is over. There's no primary "to get out of" anymore. The general election is on November 4; contrary to what you think, Republicans can--and will--vote in this election and they can--and should--vote for Senator Kurita.

It's true that Republican leaders support Senator Kurita and she has accepted their assistance in political and fundraising support. One of her lawyers is even a Republican, as blogger Sean Braisted points out. Can you blame her after the way her own party treated her? Who in their right mind would want to be part of a political party that takes away your rightful nomination and gives it to the man you beat?

Meanwhile voters continue to give their opinions both for and against the stolen election in the Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle.

The Tennessee Democratic Party disputes Senator Kurita's claim that she did not know about the rules of the executive committee hearing on September 13 until the morning of the hearing. In his "Pith in the Wind" blog at the Nashville Scene, Jeff Wood writes:

[Tennessee Democratic P]arty spokesman Wade Munday tells Pith that's not the way it went down. “There were all the rules that she agreed to through counsel prior to the meeting that Saturday. The terms were agreed upon prior to the meeting.” Munday adds:

“The executive committee acted in its rightful capacity as the state primary board. All the actions taken were conducted in the open and in accordance with state law established in 1972."

I wrote Mr. Munday myself and asked which state law he was referring to and he kindly sent me the details:
___

2-13-102. Creation of state primary boards.

(a) Each political party shall have a state executive committee which shall be the state primary board for the party.

(b) The state primary board shall perform the duties and exercise the powers required by this title for its party.

(c) The state primary board of each statewide political party created by this section is the immediate successor to the state board of primary election commissioners of each party. Wherever in the Tennessee Code the state board of primary election commissioners of a political party is referred to, “state primary board” shall be substituted.

[Acts 1972, ch. 740, §§ 1, 8; T.C.A., § 2-1303.]
___

It seems to me the Tennessee Democratic Party considers the state executive committee (which is also the state primary board) to be the final authority for choosing their candidate. If this is the case, why should tax dollars and voters' time be wasted on a primary whose result can be overturned on the whim of a political party? Obviously there's no need for one if Democrats have a preference between one or more candidates and will give it to the one they want anyway. (In this case, there was no hiding the fact that Democratic bosses did not want Rosalind Kurita back in the state senate.)

Meanwhile, Senator Kurita will continue her write-in campaign and announced that she will open campaign offices in Clarksville and Ashland City tomorrow and one in Erin soon.

Obama Has Forgotten His Day Job

While he's all wrapped up in trying to become president of the United States, Barack Obama has forgotten that he has a day job. You know, that pesky office he won two years ago and used as a stepping stone to presidential consideration: U.S. Senator from Illinois. Yeah, that job.

John McCain has the same job as a U.S. senator representing Arizona. The nation is in a severe financial crisis and something has to be done to avert potential economic disaster. It's a time like no other in the midst of a presidential election. The Republican nominee has chosen to set aside his aspirations and report back to work in Washington. That's where he should be, representing the interests of Arizona and its citizens. He has suspended his campaign and asked that the first presidential debate on Friday be postponed. It would allow both candidates to concentrate on the more important debate in Washington rather than prepping for the one in Oxford, Mississippi.

“I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself,” McCain said today. “It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.”

Serving the public good above self-interest is genuine change. It's the responsible choice. But Obama, the self-labeled "agent of change," would rather keep running for president instead of serving his constituents and taking part in what's going on in Washington. That would mean getting off the campaign trail. Being one of 100 senators instead of the lone Democrat in the political spotlight. No speeches, no rallies, no attack ads. Pulling up his sleeves and getting down to business instead of just talking a good game as he's done the past two years. Actually doing what he was elected to do by the people of Illinois in 2006.

Both McCain and Obama should be part of the discussion instead of talking about it to win points on the campaign trail. It's what they were elected to do, contrary to what the Democrats in Congress might think. Chuck Schumer says what McCain is proposing is just "a political stunt." Their presence would be a distratction, they claim. But they weren't elected by voters in Arizona and Illinois to run for president: it's their job to be in the middle of the discussion and debate. They're supposed to be there.

Senator McCain, contrary to what Obama and his surrogates believe, does get it. Obama obviously doesn't. McCain knows where he belongs and who he serves. The Liberal Messiah would like nothing better than to be standing alone in Oxford, basking in his political glory but neglecting his constituents.