Fantastic news! The liberal Republican in NY-23 has dropped out of the Special Election for Congress which sets up the likelihood of a great victory by Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman.
Top Stories
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Missive from the Davidson County GOP listserv on the Matt Collins affair
By Kleinheider
Posted on October 29, 2009 at 6:46 pm, Nashville Post
On Tuesday night, the Davidson County GOP moved against one of its more controversial party officials. Wednesday, the story broke. On Thursday, Republican bloggers reacted to the story — but not on their blogs. (link)
Comment: Let this be a lesson. Don't post anything on a listserv that you do not want to see published in the newspaper. Actually there is nothing to be embarrassed about in these exchanges. Actually, I am surprised that the Post found these email exchanges newsworthy.
I do, however, feel that a trust was violated and that someone forwarded what we thought were private conversations to the press.
Top Stories
Thoughts on the ousting of Matt Collins
I attended the Davidson County Republican Party Executive Committee meeting Tuesday night and was present for the unpleasantness of the Party beginning the process of ousting the Vice Chairman, Matt Collins . I am not a member of the Executive committee and am still not sure how I would have voted if had I been. I don't criticize those who voted for the motion to begin the ouster process. I have great respect for our Chair Kathleen Starnes and I am sure she felt she had no choice but to pursue this course of action. If I had of been on the Committee, I may have been so unhappy with Matt's conduct that I might have also voted with the majority. Not privilege to all that has gone on informally however, I see this as a premature action. The process should have been slowed down.
If I had of been a member of the Committee, I think I would have moved to recess until the next night or the next week in order to give time for people to reflect on their pending vote, or I would have moved to defer one meeting. Or, I would have moved to amend the motion on the table with a substitute motion that censured Mr. Collins and officially asked him to discontinue his offending actions and conform to the rules established for members of the Executive Committee. Had those motions failed however, I would have probably voted with the two members who voted to abstain.
It is not that I do not think that Matt Collins has been nit-picky, disruptive, uncooperative and acted in ways that are inappropriate. I tend to agree with the list of particulars. The party cannot have the Vice Chairman going out of his way to be rude to Republican candidates for governor and using his position with the party to attack our fine Senator. We need to be fighting Democrats, not our Republican office holders and candidates. Nevertheless, I think less drastic actions could have been taken.
I think Matt has every right to express his opinion, but when one serves in a position of leadership in the Party, I think one must conduct oneself in ways that do not reflect poorly on the Party. There are bylaws that govern what a member of the Executive Committee may and may not do. As far as I can determine, Matt violated those rules. Matt has positions of authority with other political organizations where his advocacy of his point of view is entirely appropriate. I do not think they are appropriate for the Vice Chairman of the Party. At a minimum, if he is going to attack other Republicans, he should not associate his opinion with his position of leadership in the Party. Rather than holding a position of leadership in the Party, Matt might better be suited to sitting at a computer and blogging out "anything he damn-well pleases."
What I wish would happen at this point is that Matt would agree to quietly resign without putting the Party in the embarrassing position of ousting him. Alternatively, I wish he would be contrite and agree to be more circumspect and cooperative in the future and the party would accept that and simply issue a statement that an internal dispute had been resolved in an amicable manner. I don't excuse Matt's conduct, but I was once young and somewhat dogmatic myself. I would like to give him one more chance.
I only got involved in the party this year. I have lived in Nashville most of my adult life and even served in public office for eleven year and actually never even knew there was a Davidson County Republican Party until recently. To say the least, the Party has had a very low profile. This year the party has attracted more members than in its history. There is even consideration of the Party holding a County primary for the first time in any one's memory. There is a new enthusiasm among party activist.
This development to oust the Vice Charmian is certainly bad PR. The press loves conflict. The press will do all they can to keep a good fight going. If it is a slow news day, the hearing may wind up on the 6 O'clock News. This will be the first time that many people have ever even heard of the Davidson County Party. We are a very small minority in this county and we are fighting among ourselves. Is that the image we want to project? That is not a good plan for growth. Maybe, it had to come to this; I don't know, but I hate it.
I know that many of those who are new to the party are Ron Paul supporters and many consider themselves libertarians. I am not in the Ron Paul camp but I think the party is big enough to accommodate that branch of the Party. We don't want to make that faction feel unwelcome. We should be a "big tent" party. If anyone agrees with us on most things, they should be welcome. We do not grow the Party by excluding people. Many will see the move to oust Matt Collins as an attempt to purge the party of Ron Paul Republicans. I don't see it that way, but fear many will.
I still wish there was some way to delay action and resolve this without a public hearing on the 6 o'clock news and splitting the Party.
Top Stories
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Davidson County Repubs move to oust libertarian leader
Published on October 29, 2009 in Local and Politics, The Tennessean.Com
The Davidson County GOP said overnight that it has taken the first step toward removing First Vice Chairman Matt Collins, a leader within the party’s libertarian wing, from office.
Collins has been at odds with mainline Republicans. Over the summer he slammed two of the party’s candidates for governor, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp and Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam, and publicly feuded with Chairman Kathleen Starnes over a plan to hold a town hall debate with Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper on health care. (link)
Top Stories
Davidson County Republican Party Moves to Oust Vice Chairman
At its monthly meeting on Tuesday, October 27, The Davidson County Republican Party (DCRP) Executive Committee passed a motion to remove Matt Collins from his position as First Vice Chairman of the DCRP and his membership on the DCRP Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee’s motion for removal was “for cause” as defined in the Tennessee State Party’s Bylaws and specified by the committee as “conduct unfit for a member of this body.” Of the 21 voting members in attendance, 14 voted yes for the motion to remove Collins; five voted no and two abstained.
Collins was cited for behaviors not supportive of the Republican platform including unprofessional actions and words and use of his DCRP title when expressing personal opinions that were often “derogatory to and disrespectful of Republican candidates or elected officials.” It was noted that his personal stances were undermining the credibility of the local and State parties. Although Collins often included disclaimers on his personal statements that his comments were his own, the use of his title created an impression that he was speaking for the Republican party.
The vote for a motion to remove Collins from his position does not constitute immediate removal. A separate vote for removal would take place following a hearing at a later date.
Collins was elected First Vice Chair on Saturday, April 4, 2009 during the Davidson County Republican Party Convention.
Comment: The above was posted on the DCRP official website.
Davidson County GOP Moves To Oust Ron Paul-Supporting Vice Chair
By Kleinheider Posted on October 28, 2009 at 8:42 pm, Nashville Post
[Excerpt] Collins has had a tumultuous relationship with the party stemming from his associations with small “L” libertarian groups and the Ron Paul for President campaign. Collins was elected First Vice Chair of the party on April 4 of this year after losing a bid to become chairman of the party in a process that included a deadlocked March 7 election and a subsequent revote. (link)
Top Stories
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Support wine sales in Tennessee retail food stores
Support wine sales in Tennessee retail food stores http://e2ma.net/go/2512120491/2289420/86296818/4560/goto:http://www.redwhiteandfood.com
The Tennessee General Assembly has created a special study committee to evaluate many of the state's liquor laws -- including selling wine in retail food stores. The 10-member committee will hold an organizational meeting and public hearing on Wednesday, Oct. 28. It's important the committee hear from as many of the 20,000 Red White and Food members as possible as they begin deliberating.
Please take a few minutes to contact each of the legislators below about your reasons for supporting wine in retail food stores. Your voice can influence this debate.
Senate
Chairman Bill Ketron Phone (615) 741-6853 http://us.mc565.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sen.bill.ketron@capitol.tn.gov&subject=
.
Sen. Mike FaulkPhone (615) 741-2061 http://us.mc565.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sen.mike.faulk@capitol.tn.gov&subject=
.
Sen. Joe HaynesPhone (615) 741-6679 http://us.mc565.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sen.joe.haynes@capitol.tn.gov&subject=
.
Sen. Mark NorrisPhone (615) 741-1967 http://us.mc565.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sen.mark.norris@capitol.tn.gov&subject=
.
Sen. Reginald TatePhone (615) 741-2509 http://us.mc565.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sen.reginald.tate@capitol.tn.gov&subject=
House
Chairman Curry Todd Phone (615) 741-1866 http://us.mc565.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?
.
Rep. Ulysses JonesPhone (615) 741-4575 http://us.mc565.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rep.ulysses.jones@capitol.tn.gov&subject=
.
Rep. Richard MontgomeryPhone (615) 741-5981 http://us.mc565.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rep.richard.montgomery@capitol.tn.gov&subject=
.
Rep. Charles SargentPhone (615) 741-6808
.
Rep. Harry TindellPhone (615) 741-2031
http://us.mc565.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rep.harry.tindell@capitol.tn.gov&subject=
The hearing is open to the public if you are in Nashville and want to attend. Below is the time and location.
Joint Study Committee on Wine in Grocery Stores
The hearing is open to the public if you are in Nashville and want to attend. Below is the time and location.
Joint Study Committee on Wine in Grocery Stores
Oct. 28, 2009 10 a.m. - Noon
Legislative Plaza Room 16
You can also watch the meeting live online. Go to http://e2ma.net/go/2512120491/2289420/86296607/4560/goto:http://www.legislature.state.tn.us and select the Live Video link in the right column. As always, Red White and Food will tweet from the hearing. Follow us at http://e2ma.net/go/2512120491/2289420/86296608/4560/goto:http://www.twitter.com/redwhitefood for updates.
.
New Political Action Committee
The campaign launched the Red White and Food Voters Political Action Committee (RWFPAC) several weeks ago. Thanks to our members who have made contributions to date.You can find much more information about the RWFPAC on our website. Please consider giving today -- even as little as $5 helps -- and tell your friends about the PAC. Thanks to everyone for all your support.
A toast to success,
Red White and Food Team
Comment: Maybe next year is the year we finally come out of the dark ages and be allowed to buy wine in the grocery store like civilized people. Maybe, just maybe, we can also modernize some of our other archaic alcoholic beverage laws.
Up until the 70's, the coalition of bootleggers and Baptist kept much of our state "dry." Now the coalition of Baptist and liquor lobbyist keep wine out of grocery stores.
While I would not let how a legislator votes on this single issue be the only factor in whether or not I supported a particular candidate for office, it will be an important factor. I might support a good Democrat who votes for wine in the grocery stores over a Republican who votes against it. This issue is primarily however a rural/urban issue more than a Democrat/Republican issue, yet in the past some legislators have clearly voted contrary to the wishes of their constituents. I hope some investigative reporter will follow the money and tell me who gets how much money from the liquor industry. I wonder how the good Baptist who praise their legislators for keeping wine out of the grocery store whould feel it they knew their legislator was receiving large contributions from the liquor industry.
Up until the 70's, the coalition of bootleggers and Baptist kept much of our state "dry." Now the coalition of Baptist and liquor lobbyist keep wine out of grocery stores.
While I would not let how a legislator votes on this single issue be the only factor in whether or not I supported a particular candidate for office, it will be an important factor. I might support a good Democrat who votes for wine in the grocery stores over a Republican who votes against it. This issue is primarily however a rural/urban issue more than a Democrat/Republican issue, yet in the past some legislators have clearly voted contrary to the wishes of their constituents. I hope some investigative reporter will follow the money and tell me who gets how much money from the liquor industry. I wonder how the good Baptist who praise their legislators for keeping wine out of the grocery store whould feel it they knew their legislator was receiving large contributions from the liquor industry.
We can't match the cash cow of the liquor industry, but I will be sending a contribution to RWFPAC and will be following this issue closely.
Top Stories
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Lamar Alexander to White House: Don't create an enemies list.
October 21st, 2009 - WASHINGTON - U.S Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) spoke on the Senate floor this morning regarding the White House’s “enemies list.” A transcript of his remarks follows:
In 1969 and during the first half of 1970, I was a wet-behind-the-ears, 29-year-old staff aide in the West Wing of the Nixon White House. I was working for the wisest man in that White House whose name was Bryce Harlow. He was a friend of President Johnson, as well as the favorite staff member of President Eisenhower and President Nixon's first appointee.
Based upon that experience and my 40 years since then in and out of public life, I want to make what I hope will be taken as a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House, and it is this: Don't create an enemies list.
As I was leaving the White House in 1970, Mr. Harlow was heading out on the campaign plane with Vice President Spiro Agnew, whose job was to vilify Democrats and to help elect Republicans. The Vice President had the help of talented young speechwriters, the late Bill Safire and Pat Buchanan. In Memphis, he called Albert Gore, Sr., the ``southern regional chairman of the eastern liberal establishment,'' and then the Vice President labeled the increasingly negative news media as ``nattering nabobs of negativism.''
These phrases have become part of our political lore. They began playfully enough, in the back and forth of political election combat. But after I had come home to Tennessee, they escalated into something more. They eventually emerged into the Nixon's enemies list.
In 1971, Chuck Colson, who was then a member of President Nixon's staff and today is admired for his decades of selfless work in prison reform, presented to John Dean, the White House Counsel, a list of what he called ``persons known to be active in their opposition to our administration.'' Mr. Dean said he thought the administration should ``maximize our incumbency ..... [or] to put it more bluntly''--and I am using his quotes--``use the available Federal machinery to screw our political enemies.''
On Colson's list of 20 people were CBS correspondent Dan Schorr, Washington Star columnist Mary McGrory, Leonard Woodcock, the head of the United Auto Workers, John Conyers, a Democratic Congressman from Michigan, Edwin Guthman, managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, and several prominent businessmen, such as Howard Stein of the Dreyfus Corporation, Arnold Picker, vice president of United Artists. The New York Times and the Washington Post were made out to be enemies of the Republic.
Make no mistake, politics was not such a gentlemanly affair in those days either. After Barry Goldwater won the Presidential nomination in 1964, Daniel Schorr had told CBS viewers that Goldwater had ``travel[led] to Germany to join up with the right wing there'' and ``visit[ed] Hitler's old stomping ground.'' Schorr later corrected that on the air. What was different about Colson and Dean's effort, though, was the open declaration of war upon anyone who seemed to disagree with administration policies. Colson later expanded his list to include hundreds of people, including Joe Namath, John Lennon, Carol Channing, Gregory Peck, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Congressional Black Caucus, Alabama Governor George Wallace. All this came out during the Watergate hearings. You could see an administration spiraling downwards, and, of course, we all know where that led.
The only reason I mention this is because I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we are beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing in the Obama administration.
According to Politico, the White House plans to ``neuter the United States Chamber of Commerce,'' an organization with members in almost every major community in America. The chamber had supported the President's stimulus package and defended some of his early appointments, but has problems with his health care and climate change proposals.
The Department of Health and Human Services imposed a gag order on a large health care company, Humana, that had warned its Medicare Advantage customers that their benefits might be reduced in Democratic health care proposals--a piece of information that is perfectly true. This gag order was lifted only after the Republican leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, said he would block any future nominees to the Department until the matter was righted.
The White House communications director recently announced that the administration would treat a major television network, FOX News, as ``part of the opposition.'' On Sunday, White House officials were all over talk shows urging other news organizations to boycott Fox and not pick up any of its stories. Those stories, for example, would include the video that two amateur filmmakers made of ACORN representatives explaining how to open a brothel. That is a story other media managed to ignore until almost a week after Congress decided to cut ACORN's funding.
The President himself has not stopped blaming banks and investment houses for the financial meltdown, even as it has become clear that Congress played a huge role, too, by encouraging Americans to borrow money for houses they could not afford. The President was ``taking names'' of bondholders who resisted the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts. Insurance companies, once allies of the Obama health care proposal, have suddenly become the source of all of its problems because they pointed out--again correctly--that if Congress taxes insurance premiums and restricts coverage to those who are sicker and older, the cost of premiums for millions of Americans is likely to go up instead of down. Because of that insubordination, the President and his allies have threatened to take away the insurance companies' antitrust exemption.
Even those in Congress have found ourselves in the crosshairs. The assistant Republican leader, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, said to ABC's George Stephanopoulos that the stimulus plan wasn't working. The White House wrote the Governor of Arizona and said: If you don't want the money, we won't send it. Senator McCain said this could be perceived as a threat to the people of Arizona.
Senator Bennett of Utah, Senator Collins, Senator Hutchison and I, as well as Democratic Senators Byrd and Feingold, all have questioned the number and power of 18 new White House czars who are not confirmed by the Senate. We have suggested this is a threat to constitutional checks and balances. The White House refused to send anyone to testify at congressional hearings.
Senator Bennett and I found ourselves ``called out,'' as they say, on the White House blog by the President's communications director.
Even the President, in his address to Congress on health care, threatened to ``call out'' Members of Congress who disagree with him.
This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants. It is a mistake for the President of the United States and for the White House staff. If the President and his top aides treat people with different views as enemies instead of listening to what they have to say, they are likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them. And, as those of us who served in the Nixon administration know, that can get you into a lot of trouble.
This administration is only 10 months old. It is not too late to take a different approach, both at the White House and in Congress. And here is one opportunity: At the beginning of the year, shortly after the President's inauguration, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, addressed the National Press Club. He proposed that he and the President work together to make Social Security solvent.
Senator McConnell said he would make sure the President got more support in that effort from Republicans than President George W. Bush got from Democrats when he tried to solve the same problem.
President Obama held a summit on the dangers of runaway costs of entitlements. I was invited and attended. Every expert there said making Social Security solvent is essential to our country's fiscal stability. There is still time to get that done.
Or on clean energy, Republicans have put forward four ideas--build 100 nuclear plants in 20 years, electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years, explore offshore for low-carbon natural gas and for oil, and double energy research and development for alternative fuels. The administration agrees with this on electric cars and on research and development. We may not be so far apart on offshore exploration. At his town meeting in New Orleans last week, the President said the United States would be, in his words, ``stupid'' not to use nuclear power. He is right since nuclear power produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity.
So why don't we work together on this lower cost way to address clean energy and climate change instead of enacting a national energy tax?
On health care, the White House idea of bipartisanship has been akin to that of a marksman at a State fair shooting gallery: hit one target and you win the prize. With such big Democratic majorities, the White House figures all it needs to do is unify the Democrats and pick off one or two Republicans. That strategy may win the prize but lose the country.
Usually on complex issues, the President needs bipartisan support in Congress to reassure and achieve broad and lasting support in the country.
In 1968, I can remember when President Johnson, then with bigger majorities in Congress than President Obama has today, arranged for the civil rights bill to be written in open sessions over several weeks in the office of the Republican leader, Everett Dirksen. Dirksen got some of the credit; Johnson got the legislation he wanted; the country went along with it. Instead of comprehensive health care that raises premiums and increases the debt, why should the White House not work with Republicans step by step to reduce health care costs and then, as we can afford it, reduce the number of Americans who do not have access to health care?
The President and his Education Secretary Arne Duncan have been courageous--there is no better word for it--in advocating paying teachers more for teaching well and expanding the number of charter schools. These ideas are the Holy Grail for school reform. They are also ideas that are anathema to the labor unions who support the President. President Obama's advocacy of master teachers and charter schools could be the domestic equivalent of President Nixon going to China. I, among others, admire that advocacy and have been doing all I can to help him.
Having once been there, I can understand how those in the White House feel oppressed by those with whom they disagree; how they feel besieged by some of the media. I hope the current White House occupants will understand that this is nothing new in American politics--all the way back to the days when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson exchanged insults. The only thing new is today there are multiple media outlets reporting and encouraging the insults 24 hours a day.
As any veteran of the Nixon White House can attest, we have been down this road before, and it will not end well. An enemies list only denigrates the Presidency and the Republic itself.
Forty years ago, Bryce Harlow would say to me: Now, Lamar, remember that our job here is to push all the merely important issues out of the White House so the President can deal with a handful of issues that are truly Presidential. Then he would slip off for a private meeting in the Capitol with Democratic leaders who controlled the Congress and usually found a way to enact the President's proposals.
Most successful leaders have eventually seen the wisdom of Lord Palmerston, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said: We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies.
The British writer Edward Dicey was once introduced to President Lincoln as ``one of his enemies.'' ``I did not know I had any enemies,'' Lincoln answered. And Dicey later wrote: ``I can still feel, as I write, the grip of that great bony hand held out to me in token of friendship.''
In conclusion, here is my point. These are unusually difficult times, with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let's not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list. Let's push the street brawling out of the White House and work together on the truly Presidential issues--creating jobs, reducing health care costs, reducing the debt, creating clean energy.
Top Stories
In 1969 and during the first half of 1970, I was a wet-behind-the-ears, 29-year-old staff aide in the West Wing of the Nixon White House. I was working for the wisest man in that White House whose name was Bryce Harlow. He was a friend of President Johnson, as well as the favorite staff member of President Eisenhower and President Nixon's first appointee.
Based upon that experience and my 40 years since then in and out of public life, I want to make what I hope will be taken as a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House, and it is this: Don't create an enemies list.
As I was leaving the White House in 1970, Mr. Harlow was heading out on the campaign plane with Vice President Spiro Agnew, whose job was to vilify Democrats and to help elect Republicans. The Vice President had the help of talented young speechwriters, the late Bill Safire and Pat Buchanan. In Memphis, he called Albert Gore, Sr., the ``southern regional chairman of the eastern liberal establishment,'' and then the Vice President labeled the increasingly negative news media as ``nattering nabobs of negativism.''
These phrases have become part of our political lore. They began playfully enough, in the back and forth of political election combat. But after I had come home to Tennessee, they escalated into something more. They eventually emerged into the Nixon's enemies list.
In 1971, Chuck Colson, who was then a member of President Nixon's staff and today is admired for his decades of selfless work in prison reform, presented to John Dean, the White House Counsel, a list of what he called ``persons known to be active in their opposition to our administration.'' Mr. Dean said he thought the administration should ``maximize our incumbency ..... [or] to put it more bluntly''--and I am using his quotes--``use the available Federal machinery to screw our political enemies.''
On Colson's list of 20 people were CBS correspondent Dan Schorr, Washington Star columnist Mary McGrory, Leonard Woodcock, the head of the United Auto Workers, John Conyers, a Democratic Congressman from Michigan, Edwin Guthman, managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, and several prominent businessmen, such as Howard Stein of the Dreyfus Corporation, Arnold Picker, vice president of United Artists. The New York Times and the Washington Post were made out to be enemies of the Republic.
Make no mistake, politics was not such a gentlemanly affair in those days either. After Barry Goldwater won the Presidential nomination in 1964, Daniel Schorr had told CBS viewers that Goldwater had ``travel[led] to Germany to join up with the right wing there'' and ``visit[ed] Hitler's old stomping ground.'' Schorr later corrected that on the air. What was different about Colson and Dean's effort, though, was the open declaration of war upon anyone who seemed to disagree with administration policies. Colson later expanded his list to include hundreds of people, including Joe Namath, John Lennon, Carol Channing, Gregory Peck, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Congressional Black Caucus, Alabama Governor George Wallace. All this came out during the Watergate hearings. You could see an administration spiraling downwards, and, of course, we all know where that led.
The only reason I mention this is because I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we are beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing in the Obama administration.
According to Politico, the White House plans to ``neuter the United States Chamber of Commerce,'' an organization with members in almost every major community in America. The chamber had supported the President's stimulus package and defended some of his early appointments, but has problems with his health care and climate change proposals.
The Department of Health and Human Services imposed a gag order on a large health care company, Humana, that had warned its Medicare Advantage customers that their benefits might be reduced in Democratic health care proposals--a piece of information that is perfectly true. This gag order was lifted only after the Republican leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, said he would block any future nominees to the Department until the matter was righted.
The White House communications director recently announced that the administration would treat a major television network, FOX News, as ``part of the opposition.'' On Sunday, White House officials were all over talk shows urging other news organizations to boycott Fox and not pick up any of its stories. Those stories, for example, would include the video that two amateur filmmakers made of ACORN representatives explaining how to open a brothel. That is a story other media managed to ignore until almost a week after Congress decided to cut ACORN's funding.
The President himself has not stopped blaming banks and investment houses for the financial meltdown, even as it has become clear that Congress played a huge role, too, by encouraging Americans to borrow money for houses they could not afford. The President was ``taking names'' of bondholders who resisted the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts. Insurance companies, once allies of the Obama health care proposal, have suddenly become the source of all of its problems because they pointed out--again correctly--that if Congress taxes insurance premiums and restricts coverage to those who are sicker and older, the cost of premiums for millions of Americans is likely to go up instead of down. Because of that insubordination, the President and his allies have threatened to take away the insurance companies' antitrust exemption.
Even those in Congress have found ourselves in the crosshairs. The assistant Republican leader, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, said to ABC's George Stephanopoulos that the stimulus plan wasn't working. The White House wrote the Governor of Arizona and said: If you don't want the money, we won't send it. Senator McCain said this could be perceived as a threat to the people of Arizona.
Senator Bennett of Utah, Senator Collins, Senator Hutchison and I, as well as Democratic Senators Byrd and Feingold, all have questioned the number and power of 18 new White House czars who are not confirmed by the Senate. We have suggested this is a threat to constitutional checks and balances. The White House refused to send anyone to testify at congressional hearings.
Senator Bennett and I found ourselves ``called out,'' as they say, on the White House blog by the President's communications director.
Even the President, in his address to Congress on health care, threatened to ``call out'' Members of Congress who disagree with him.
This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants. It is a mistake for the President of the United States and for the White House staff. If the President and his top aides treat people with different views as enemies instead of listening to what they have to say, they are likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them. And, as those of us who served in the Nixon administration know, that can get you into a lot of trouble.
This administration is only 10 months old. It is not too late to take a different approach, both at the White House and in Congress. And here is one opportunity: At the beginning of the year, shortly after the President's inauguration, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, addressed the National Press Club. He proposed that he and the President work together to make Social Security solvent.
Senator McConnell said he would make sure the President got more support in that effort from Republicans than President George W. Bush got from Democrats when he tried to solve the same problem.
President Obama held a summit on the dangers of runaway costs of entitlements. I was invited and attended. Every expert there said making Social Security solvent is essential to our country's fiscal stability. There is still time to get that done.
Or on clean energy, Republicans have put forward four ideas--build 100 nuclear plants in 20 years, electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years, explore offshore for low-carbon natural gas and for oil, and double energy research and development for alternative fuels. The administration agrees with this on electric cars and on research and development. We may not be so far apart on offshore exploration. At his town meeting in New Orleans last week, the President said the United States would be, in his words, ``stupid'' not to use nuclear power. He is right since nuclear power produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity.
So why don't we work together on this lower cost way to address clean energy and climate change instead of enacting a national energy tax?
On health care, the White House idea of bipartisanship has been akin to that of a marksman at a State fair shooting gallery: hit one target and you win the prize. With such big Democratic majorities, the White House figures all it needs to do is unify the Democrats and pick off one or two Republicans. That strategy may win the prize but lose the country.
Usually on complex issues, the President needs bipartisan support in Congress to reassure and achieve broad and lasting support in the country.
In 1968, I can remember when President Johnson, then with bigger majorities in Congress than President Obama has today, arranged for the civil rights bill to be written in open sessions over several weeks in the office of the Republican leader, Everett Dirksen. Dirksen got some of the credit; Johnson got the legislation he wanted; the country went along with it. Instead of comprehensive health care that raises premiums and increases the debt, why should the White House not work with Republicans step by step to reduce health care costs and then, as we can afford it, reduce the number of Americans who do not have access to health care?
The President and his Education Secretary Arne Duncan have been courageous--there is no better word for it--in advocating paying teachers more for teaching well and expanding the number of charter schools. These ideas are the Holy Grail for school reform. They are also ideas that are anathema to the labor unions who support the President. President Obama's advocacy of master teachers and charter schools could be the domestic equivalent of President Nixon going to China. I, among others, admire that advocacy and have been doing all I can to help him.
Having once been there, I can understand how those in the White House feel oppressed by those with whom they disagree; how they feel besieged by some of the media. I hope the current White House occupants will understand that this is nothing new in American politics--all the way back to the days when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson exchanged insults. The only thing new is today there are multiple media outlets reporting and encouraging the insults 24 hours a day.
As any veteran of the Nixon White House can attest, we have been down this road before, and it will not end well. An enemies list only denigrates the Presidency and the Republic itself.
Forty years ago, Bryce Harlow would say to me: Now, Lamar, remember that our job here is to push all the merely important issues out of the White House so the President can deal with a handful of issues that are truly Presidential. Then he would slip off for a private meeting in the Capitol with Democratic leaders who controlled the Congress and usually found a way to enact the President's proposals.
Most successful leaders have eventually seen the wisdom of Lord Palmerston, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said: We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies.
The British writer Edward Dicey was once introduced to President Lincoln as ``one of his enemies.'' ``I did not know I had any enemies,'' Lincoln answered. And Dicey later wrote: ``I can still feel, as I write, the grip of that great bony hand held out to me in token of friendship.''
In conclusion, here is my point. These are unusually difficult times, with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let's not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list. Let's push the street brawling out of the White House and work together on the truly Presidential issues--creating jobs, reducing health care costs, reducing the debt, creating clean energy.
Top Stories
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Does Obama's communications czar know the bloody truth about Chairman Mao?
By: Mark Tapscott, Editorial Page Editor. The Washington Examiner, 10/17/09
[Excerpt] ...the murderous truth about Dunn's hero. First, Johnson describes Mao's actions in the weeks immediately after winning the civil war: "Mao's first act was to extend his 'land reform,' already begun in the North, to the entire country, It was aimed at 'local bullies and evil gentry' and he urged peasants to kill 'not one or two but a goodly number of each.' At least two million people perished, half of them the tyrannical owners of less than 30 acres."
[Excerpt] During the years between 1951 and 1953, for example, Mao conducted these campaigns with what Johnson describes as "great savagery." Millions died after being convicted as "counter-revolutionaries," an all-purpose criminal classification used to make short work of anybody who came under suspicion. (link)
Comment: There are those on the fringe of the right who believe that President Obama desires to turn America into a totalitarian Communist dictatorship. They see his power grabs, nationalizations, and enemies list as warning signs. I am not yet among those who think President Obama has these grand designs. However, when President Obama appoints an admirer of Mao as his Communications Czar he is feeding the paranoia and the concern of his critics.
Top Stories
Friday, October 23, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
a real life story from a person who spent half of his life in a socialist paradise
Forward to the Past
October 20, 2008
I was born in the Soviet Union, in one of the most beautiful cities in the world, majestic St Petersburg. I knew it was majestic because all the history and guide books were telling the same thing – that St Petersburg is a jewel of the world, it is beautiful beyond imagination and has no comparison anywhere.
My grandfather was telling me about the city as well. How beautiful it was when he came into it in after graduation from the law school in 1916 to practice law. I believed him more than all the history books combined.
In fact, St Petersburg of my youth was a gray, quite boring and enormously dirty city. Al it’s palaces, sculptures and other wonders were covered by a thick layers of dust and corrosion. We lived in a historical center of the city and my grandfather (in Russian you call your grandfather for short “Deda”) often took me around and told me about buildings with marble walls, sculptures on the roofs and grandiose stores that once dominated the area. I loved his narrative about the closest shopping district situated on a street called in my time “Pestelija”. The name was of an aristocrat revolutionary, who took part in the 1825 failed military coup attempt against Tsar. I do not believe the street had the same name under Tsar’s rule.
Deda would take me, a 6-year old boy, by hand and we would walk the street and he would tell: “Here was a great food store where dozens of different kinds of sausages were sold, some from Ukraine, others from Germany and Austria, birth place of the very best sausages in the world. And near them in a cheese department there were at least thirty different types of cheeses, not including cottage cheeses from around Russia, Estonia and Finland. The entrance” – he would reminisce: “… was majestic, at the door I recall there was a huge man in a uniform who would help older clients to climb two stairs up to the store and handed to passing by children small bits of baked goods. In the store were great chandeliers, a lot of light, it was clean, with great smell of bakery and hot chocolate, and there always was someone who would come to you and offer to help to find anything you need or carry goods to your home.” It sounded like a fairy tale, and what child doesn’t like fairy tales?
While Deda was talking to me we were standing in front of the entrance of a crummy and bad smelling food store. On its dirty and broken steps where usually a couple of drunks begging for small change to buy a drink. In the smelly dairy department there were no cheeses from Finland and in the meat department with even stronger smell were no sausages from Germany.
The store was never renovated or repaired since the communist revolution, and was known for its personnel cheating with weights while selling products and chronically under-giving the change. When you would say something about it, the employees of the store would gang up on you, start yelling and practically run you out of the store. To call the police was useless, since they used to give the policeman small presents and the peace officers were always on their side.
Another great Deda’s story was about a famous (during his youth) barbershop with the “best in the whole city” men’s hair stylists. At his time the place had a small private bar (free to the clients), newspapers from around the world can be found there, cigars and a host who would entertain clients while they were waiting in deep leather armchairs smoking cigars, reading newspapers and talking about news and politics.
I knew the place pretty well - I used to go there to get haircuts, but my recollection of the place was somehow different. The barbershop in my time had a smell of a gym; there were four half-broken chairs where you would get a haircut, but no cigars, no leather, no host, no free newspapers and above all no talk about politics. God (& Stalin) forbid! The place was cheap, fast, bad haircuts, no complains, no pleasure. We were told during my childhood that haircuts are not for pleasure; it is a necessity like water. And real Socialists shouldn’t think about such things as personal beauty. Real socialists for example love each other not because of the looks, but because of their mutual interests in social issues, their love to the country & willingness to sacrifice everything to the Greater Good of the fatherland. As a matter of fact, we didn’t have hot water during my childhood for about 3-4 months every year. Every time it happened the government called it “prophylactic works”. Probably hot water wasn’t a necessity, but a luxury and as such the citizens of the greatest Socialistic country in the world didn’t need it all the time.
My Deda died when I was seven. He had a heart attack when he was taken (for the third time) to the KGB headquarters. He was told that he would be proclaimed an “Enemy of the State” and as such will be shot, unless he signs a paper that two of his attorney colleagues approached him and asked to kill a whole bunch of leaders of the communist party of the Soviet Union. Deda didn’t sign the paper – he died instead. The KGB people called my mom and said that her dad (my grandfather) is lying there in the corridor and if she wants she can come inside and pick him up. She did.
Many years past since that time. In 1973 the United States senate voted to attach a little provision to the bill regarding sales of wheat to the Soviet Union. The Jackson-Vanik provision required the USSR to allow free immigration. The Soviets made a deal with the US and allowed about fifty thousand citizens to leave. My family was one of the lucky ones. We remembered words my dear Deda said – if the in the fence surrounding the USSR will open even with a smallest crack, run your heads off. We did. Just before I left, I visited the Pestelija Street. Nothing changed from the days of my childhood. Same dirt, same nauseating smell, same drunks (or may be they were the children of those drunks I knew during my childhood).
Then came Ronald Reagan, destruction of the Berlin wall, end of the Soviet Union. I visited place of my birth and was on Pestelja in 1989, then in 1995. Same dirt, a bit less smell, and a bit more products on the shelves. I was told that the stores, apartments and buildings are being now privatized. People who lived there were afraid that they wouldn’t be able to buy anything on the street. “Those new Russian, those capitalists thinking about themselves and themselves only. We will die without food and goods, they wouldn’t care”, that what I was told by my ex-neighbors. All my words that capitalism is good in producing wealth for everyone were taken with healthy skepticism.
In 2003 I visited the street again. Where are you, my beloved Deda! May be I was dreaming? The walls of almost all the buildings on the street were decorated with marble. The whole block of my childhood was filled with stores, some of which were selling food, some designer clothes, some antiques or electronic gadgets and video games. On the second floors of the buildings were law offices and physical therapy cabinets, offices of travel companies and evening classes for adults. The street was clean, smelled with perfume and filled with families shopping their heads off. On many stores I saw a sign “7x24”. The shopping district worked 7 days a week, 24 hours a day!
At the entrance of the main food store, in front of two perfectly repaired steps was standing a huge Black man in a uniform (where did they found an African in Russia?), smiling to passers buy, helping older people to get in, and handing pieces of baked goods to children. WOW! On top of the building was written in golden letters “Proudly owned by Rybakoff family for 150 years”. And quite suddenly I remembered – I was in the same class with Anatoly Rybakoff who once, we think as a joke, said that his grandfather owned this store. He got it back and now brought it to its past glory. Something that when it was owned by the state no managers and employees were able (or wanted) to do.
I rushed to see the barbershop. Six deep leather armchairs were standing in a beautifully designed waiting room. I didn’t notice cigars, but drinks, newspapers and talk about politics was on and heated as ever. Why is everything that state touches (even when attempting to do good to people) is getting sour, and when a person attempts to make his leaving, when his motivation is a pure greed, it is turning for the good of all?
That got me thinking. For seventy years Russia’s socialist government was saying that it was trying to achieve this Greater Good for all the people. The books and TV programs, lecturers at work and teachers at schools were educating citizens of Russia to help each other, to share, to think about their neighbors and participate in the variety of Common Good programs. They took all the surplus produced by the state and gave it back to the people. They nationalized all the factories, universities, banks, communications and natural resources and distributed profits between the people. And the results were devastating. Actually in all the countries that attempted this experiment of taking property and wealth-producing enterprises from private hands in order to re-distribute among the whole population, was a huge economic and social failure.
When capitalism came back, in less then a decade the world the Soviets lived in for seventy years was magically changed, and all of the society (not only newly rich) benefited from it.
Do not misunderstand what I am saying - I am not happy with what is going on in the new Russia. Many things still didn’t change from the Soviet era. But when I see that one way of doing things produces great results, and another doesn’t, I vote for the way that brings results. And what about you? Which direction you will choose for the United States in November 2008?
When I am asked to change our system of life in order to… change our system of life, I am puzzled. When I am told, “Because this system works badly”, I am looking around. Is there a system that works better?
The system we are offered now by Barack Obama called socialism. It is not new, actually it is quite old and quite proven time after time to be bad to us the people. So I am hoping for the best while repeating an old Chinese proverb “God forbid to be born at the time of major changes!”
How did ancient Chinese know about Obama?
Leon A. Weinstein
http://thecapitalistguidebook.com/
http://us.mc565.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=leon@wam-art.net
Leon Weinstein is an author of "Looking for Hugh: The Capitalist Guidebook." He is available for interviews, comments or speaking arrangements.
Please contact him at (818) 716 7064 or at his email address above.
Please feel free to post/print/publish this story.
Comment: Excellent writing; a good story. I do not necessarily think that the US is on a path to Russian-style totalitarian Socialism. I feel we are on a path however to European-style nanny-state socialism which in my view is a path leading in the wrong direction.
Top Stories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
