Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Well it took a lot of lawyers, cracked and broken election boxes, and some interesting handling of ballots during a recount but the Democratic machine managed to get the result they were looking for:

A Worcester Superior Court judge is ordering a new election for a contested Massachusetts House seat after ruling the November contest ended in a tie.

The ruling by Justice Richard Tucker means Democratic incumbent Geraldo Alicea of Charlton will again face off against Republican challenger Peter Durant of Spencer.

An earlier recount of had placed Durant one vote ahead.

But Tucker ruled a single uncounted vote for Alicea should be included in the official tally, ending in a tie.

Of course the democratic legislature might just choose to steal the election outright:

Representative Michael T. Moran, a Boston Democrat who co-chairs the Legislature’s Election Laws Committee, said the judge’s ruling would now be reviewed by a special House committee of two Democrats and one Republican.

The committee will make a recommendation about next steps to House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, he said. “The strongest option is to have a reelection,’’ Moran said. “But you have to look at everything.’’

“It’s fair to say this is extremely, extremely rare, and it poses a whole set of different issues and problems,’’ Moran said.

Red Mass. Group:

The correct answer for Moran would have been, “we have asked the Secretary of State to schedule the election for as early a date as possible.” He did not say that. Leaving the door open to the seating of Alicea.

Speaker Deleo and the rest of the Legislature should know that we the people of Massachusetts will march on the State House if they pull this again. As recent events in the Middle East have shown 2011 is a whole lot different than 2000 or 2001. Through the internet we can easily organize demonstrations, and they will be held.

This is what happens when you have a one party state. Remember we have done this to ourselves.

…yesterday with the reports that he will not run for president this year:

Three sources close to Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana tell CNN they are told he will announce he is not running for president in 2012 and will instead begin exploring a run for governor.

These sources say he has been flattered by the efforts to nudge him into the GOP presidential race but, as one of the sources put it, “he is a realist and kept coming back to questions about the fund-raising.” The second source said some around Pence also have reminded him of the difficulty of mounting a presidential campaign from the House, and noted that, at age 51, he would have a better platform to explore a presidential run if he first was elected governor.

There is a fair amount of disappointment in the CPAC community over this today but I think this is a great development. The easiest way for a non-conservative to win the Republican primary is for too many strong conservatives splitting the vote. I suspect that some good conservatives who have no prayer of winning are going to find themselves well-financed early by people who want that vote divided to allow an establishment candidate some space. That’s how you win a nomination with only 35-40% of the vote.

I think this is good news for us. Of course we haven’t heard the actual announcement so this could all be smoke.

Penny wise Pound Foolish

Posted: January 27, 2011 by datechguy in politics
Tags: ,

A lot of people on the left are upset that the filibuster rules in the senate:

They could have recently used the “Constitutional Option” at the start of this new Congress to rewrite the Senate rules to either eliminate the filibuster outright or at least make staging a filibuster more difficult. Yet, due to a combination of a greedy refusal to give up any individual power, and a pitiful cowardice about a potential future in which the voters reject them, Senate Democrats collectively chose to throw away this opportunity. By doing nothing, they effectively voted to give Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell total veto power over everything.

Byron York explains that’s its just not future minorities that are the issue

Why did Democrats give in? Two reasons. One, they know they might soon need the filibuster themselves — not in a few years, but in a few months. Republicans now have 47 votes in the Senate. If they can peel away four Democrats on any given piece of legislation — say, the repeal of a portion of Obamacare — they could be stopped only by a Democratic filibuster. The Democrats who are now denouncing the filibuster when it’s used by Republicans might soon be employing it themselves to fend off GOP challenges to Obamacare and other Obama initiatives.

I’ve already pointed out that Harry Reid needs to give democrats the ability to vote against Obamacare, is there is no filibuster then he can only give that ability to three of them. (With Biden breaking a tie)

If the Filibuster exists then he can give this to as many as 12. But lets not also forget that the Senate was designed to slow things down as this story states:

“Why,” said Washington, “did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking it?”

“To cool it,” said Jefferson; “my throat is not made of brass.”

“Even so,” said Washington, “we pour our legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”

I think the filibuster is a good thing, I think it should stay right where it is no matter who is in charge of the senate.

Libertarian Leanings notes this message from the NYT

…one thing seems clear to Ms. Stolberg. The public is deeply confused and should be ignored as this debate goes forward. Americans hardly ever know what’s good for them, so often voting against their own best interests. Didn’t they just do it again when they put a Republican majority in the House of Representatives last fall? It would hardly do to consider anything so unreliable as American public opinion when government programs may be at stake. If there are any besides Medicare and Social Security.

Yeah who needs the people in a representative republic.

This actually is part of a theme where every liberal outlet is calling for republicans to announce their cuts in Medicare and social security. This has been constant since the election. The line is basically “if they don’t cut social security or medicare then they are not serious”.

This way they can minimize any cuts they have already announced. Of course if any such cuts come then it will be all about the mean republicans hurting seniors. The moment any such cut comes watch the media turn on a dime. For Example:

GOP leaders may talk tough about deficits and federal spending, but their proposed cuts assiduously avoid any mention of Pentagon programs, Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Since those programs, along with interest payments, consume most of the federal budget, that means Washington politicians will keep fiddling while Rome burns.

Let’s be clear, entitlement cuts ARE necessary and I have no problem moving the retirement age up two years for anyone born after 1960 (that includes me btw) but expect this to be the MSM meme right up until it happens.