No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for March 3rd, 2009

Defending the American Dream – Wisconsin announcements

by @ 19:00. Filed under Defending the American Dream.

I truly hope you reserved not only Saturday, March 7, but the evening of March 6. AFP-Wisconsin director Mark Block just dropped me an e-mail with a couple of updates on the Defending the American Dream-Wisconsin summit:

– For the outstate folks, there will be a bus available, starting in Minocqua at Island City Lanes at 5 am Saturday, with stops in Wausau at the Holiday Inn on Imperial Ave. at 6 am and Stevens Point at the Holiday Inn on Amber Ave. at 6:30 am. Do call the AFP-Wisconsin offices at 414-475-2975 for reservations.

– For those that need a hotel room, the Hilton Milwaukee, right across the street from the Midwest Airlines Center at 509 W. Wisconsin Ave., will be offering special rates. Just mention that you are with Americans for Prosperity and are in town for the summit.

– AFP-Wisconsin has teamed with the Conservative Young Professionals of Milwaukee to have a pre-Summit Happy Hour at Bootleggers, 1025 N. Old World 3rd St., Friday at 5:30. The special guest will be Joe Wurzelbacher (better known as Joe the Plumber).

There’s still room, and the price is far better than CPAC at $36 for general admission and $19 for students.

Roll bloat – striking out on his own

by @ 18:03. Filed under The Blog.

If you’ve followed VodkaPundit for any length of time, you have run into Will Collier’s posts. Stephen Green put out the general alert that he has struck out on his own again, so go and put one of the originals on your rolls and in your readers. If you doubt he’s THAT GOOD, Will already got an Instalanche and a NRO Corner mention.

Where does conservatism go from here?

by @ 12:49. Filed under Conservatism.

I know I’ve been promising this since November, but sometimes procrastination is a good thing. I’ve been able to get the benefit of finding out the first almost-two months of complete Democratic rule in both DC and Wisconsin, as well as the initial Repblican and conservative reactions. Most of what I’ve seen has been, frankly, frightening.

First, what the Democrats have made their big push has been, as expected, a complete rollback of the last 28 years of conservative gains, be they economic, social or governmental. It was not a coincidence that one of the first executive orders signed was an overturning of the ban on funding of offshore abortions. It was not a coincidence that almost $800 billion plus interest was the as-signed cost of the Generational Theft Act, or that a stripping of the work-for-benefits rules adopted in the 1990s was a condition of it. It was not a coincidence that a full reversal of the “Drill here, drill now” moves at the end of the Bush Administration was a top priority of the Department of Interior. It is not a coincidence that a rush to adopt a business-crushing environmental regime that vastly expands the power and role of government is a priority in both Madison and Washington. It is not a coincidence that and the death of school choice and the Qualified Economic Offer (which mandates a minimum 3.8% annual increase in the total teachers’ compensation package in exchange for a no-strike rule) is a priority in Madison.

So, what have Republicans and conservatives do in the face of that? I wish I had good news, but the after-hours discussions around CPAC have disabused me of the hope that we’ve learned anything from the last 2 election cycles. Each of the factions are still trying to push the others out of the conservative coalition.

What made the Reagan and 1994 House revolutions successful was that it combined the economic, governmental, and social conservatives into something resembling a majority. I can’t call either a true majority because neither Ronald Reagan nor Newt Gingrich had both the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, but they had enough force to halt and reverse at least some of liberalism’s overreaches.

That force was singularily lacking in the George W. Bush era. While there was, for a significant part of the term, a Republican majority in both the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, very little of what could be called conservatism came out of there, especially on the governmental side. Consequently, the Republicans lost credibility with all the branches and got summarily tossed out the last 2 elections.

One could claim that the liberals and Democrats cribbed that winning formula of unity. They have, but only to a certain extent. They succeeded only because the conservative coalition got divided. Taken individually, the tenents of conservatism, be they social, economic or governmental, are still winners. In California (yes, THAT California), the voters ignored the intimidation from the Left to reject gay “marriage”. In countless communities, when the true cost of big-government/big-spending referenda was revealed, the referenda went down. This past week, on short notice, thousands showed up to protest the high-tax/high-spend/no-freedom moves of the Democrats.

I need to shift focus to Wisconsin for a moment. While there hasn’t really been a broad-based conservative revolution like there was nationally, both school choice and welfare reform did start here under Tommy Thompson. Like the national GOP slide, the Wisconsin one started with a rejection of governmental conservatism; unlike the national one, where big government slowly crept in, it was an explicit rejection of a clarion call by the party elite.

Speaking of the elite, there has been a lot of attacks on those that aren’t part of the Republican Party insider structure. Whether it was attacks on Sarah Palin for not being an Ivy Leaguer and for standing up to the Alaska pork machine, or attacks on Joe the Plumber for being a more-or-less Average Joe rather than a country-club Big Business owner, or attacks on Rush Limbaugh for trying to get the band back together outside the party power structure, they have distressed me, mainly because I am definitely not part of the structure. Nobody has all the answers, and when somebody is wrong, the wrongs do need to be pointed out, but we need to leave the personal attacks on our own to the Left.

I’ve intentionally ignored the notion that conservatives do a “Whigging” to the GOP. While that may well be the best course of action if we had unlimited time, we don’t. The half-looter threshhold is about to be crossed, the entitlement time bomb is rapidly approaching the point of no return, and the state legislatures that are seated in 2011 will (except in states where the courts usurped that authority) will be the ones that draw the districts for the following decade.

I know we’re not likely to get both the majority of the statehouses and majorities in Congress this time around. Therefore, we have to focus on one of those. Because the 2010 Census, which will be flawed, will decide the shape of the various legislative and Congressional districts and likely control of the various statehouses and Congress for the next decade, that focus must be on the state level.

Can bloggers replace journalists?

by @ 10:45. Filed under Press.

(H/T – Charlie Sykes)

In Sunday’s Washington Post, columnist Marc Fischer bemoans the loss of journalists in state capitals. While Fischer asserts that bloggers can’t replace them, instead of actually making a solid case for his thesis, he spends almost all of his column-inches pining for the good old days of ink-stained fingers in dark rooms in the Capitol buildings and making claims that are, for those that actually paid attention to the media, laughable.

Allow me to take a crack at the question. It actually needs to be split into two parts, as there are two types of journalists. Columnists are already by and large being successfully replaced by bloggers. I have been around the blogosphere and have read enough great columnists like the late Mike Royko and George Will to realize that it does take some journalistic skills and a few sources to be even somewhat successful. However, anybody who can rub two brain cells together has an opinion, and at the end of the day, a column is an opinion piece.

Beat journalism, on the other hand, requires a highly-specialized set of skills few people naturally have as well as time that, by and large, can only be gained by making beat journalism one’s full-time profession. Most bloggers do not have the mindset or the sources required to run down even most of the angles on any particular story.

That is not to say that there aren’t bloggers out there that can, at least in part, fill the role of a beat journalist. I have had the pleasure to call some of them friends, like Patrick Dorwin at Badger Blogger, Fred Dooley at Real Debate Wisconsin, Trent Seibert, and Jon Ham at Right Angles. In fact, Siebert and Ham are journalists who have made the full jump from journalism to blogging.

Theoretically, since there are more bloggers than classically-trained beat journalists, bloggers could cover more than the beat journalists can. While the time constraints limit almost all of the bloggers, that has to be weighed against the unfulfilled promise of “unbiased” reporting from the current crop of beat journalists. That makes the question of replacement far harder to answer.

To be honest, even though I’ve taken my fair share of shots at biased reporting, I don’t want to have to fully replace journalists. I use various news sources as launching points for my posts. I also know my limitations; despite having acquired a few sources and worked some events in a journalistic capacity, I do not know whether I could be a full-fledged journalist.

Is Three a Trend?

by @ 9:24. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

One role I had was in marketing for a major wireless provider.   My job was to identify trends and come up with pricing and promotion ideas to increase sales.   There were times were I would trial a concept, see a couple of preliminary successes and make a recommendation to roll the program out market wide.   On more than one occasion as I tried to explain the trend I believed was forming, I would hear from our General Manager something along the lines of “2 points does not a trend make.”

Reports out that TCF bank has decided that the restrictions that come with TARP are more impairing than the loans are beneficial.   Thus, they are looking to pay back their $361.2 million to the Treasury.  

And with that, here  are the lessons to be learned:

Government programs, no matter how well intentioned,  never, ever, ever, ever help businesses run more efficiently.   Don’t believe me?   Ask anyone who has ever had an SBA loan.

and

Government programs, no matter how well thought through, will always, always, always  have unintended consequences that for some period of time, will disrupt and distort the very function they were created to aid.   Again, don’t believe me?   Just ask anyone who receives farm supports.

I know that 2 points don’t make a trend but I’m guessing that three certainly does the trick!

Bipartisanship I can (almost) believe in

by @ 9:21. Filed under Politics - National.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) have an op-ed in today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on bringing the line-item veto to the West Wing to solve the problem of earmarks stuffed into appropriations bills. It sounds nice, but I see a couple problems:

  • Allowing the President 30 days to find line-item vetoes seems to fly in the face of the Constitutional 10-day (excepting Sundays) requirement for Presidential action on full-bill vetoes.
  • While the requirement of positive affirmation of the vetoes by majorities in both Houses of Congress would seem to solve the problem that downed the 1998 line-item veto law, it, and especially the packaging of all the line-item vetoes into a single package, would seem to render the line-item veto powerless. The whole problem is that the earmarks are bundled together; keeping them bundled and requiring a mere 50% (not 50%+1) rejection of the veto message to keep them around is a guarantee that the pork will stay in the pipeline.

In my humble opinion, the proper response to the striking down of the 1998 line-item veto law is not to water it down and hope against hope that it would pass Constitutional muster. It is to make that part of the Constitution.

Tea Party – Tax Day Edition

Because the Tax-And-Spendocrats didn’t get the message the first time, we’re going to deliver it a second time. This time, we’ll deliver it along with our taxes on April 15.

Wisconsin won’t be left out this time. Vicki McKenna and Americans For Prosperity-Wisconsin decided to put together a little shinding at the State Capitol starting at 11 am. They already have the permits, and they’re working on getting buses like they did for the October 2007 rally. Details will be at the AFP-WI site and here as they become available.

Race Cowards

by @ 5:07. Filed under Elections, Politics - National.

Two weeks ago in his first address to his new staff, Eric Holder stated that the United States remains "a nation of cowards" on issues involving race.   The statement created quite a stir.   Folks, especially those on the right, took offense to Holder’s words thinking that he was pointing directly at them and suggesting that the Right was full of redneck racists.   I have to admit I thought that Holder was talking to us on the right but now I know he was talking to the Left.

Today, Dick Durbin took his frustration with Senator Roland Burris’ intransigence and unwillingness to resign his Senate seat to a new level.   In an interview  with the Chicago Sun-Times, reported by UPI, Durbin stated that race was a deciding factor in seating Burris:

Durbin said a combative and racially tinged appearance by African-American U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., at a Dec. 30 news conference called by now-impeached Ill. Gov. Rod Blagojevich to announce Burris’ appointment to the Senate added a racial overtone to the situation, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday.

“My colleague from Illinois, Congressman Bobby Rush, made strong statements along those lines,” Durbin told Chicago radio station WGN. “They were painful and hurtful, and it became part of this calculation.”

What?   Race baiting and racism on the Left?   Say it ain’t so!

Let me see if I have this correct:

  • A leftist, black politician from Chicago, accusing his competitor’s voters of being racists because not all white voters will vote for him while virtually all black voters will, is elected President.
  • Rather than hold an election, the Democrats in Illinois decide to have a Senator  appointed by a corrupt Governor.
  • The corrupt Governor appoints a black replacement Senator largely because the previous Senator was black and he was getting flack from his black constituency.
  • The appointed black Senator goes off to Washington and is refused seating by Harry Reid.   Only after Harry Reid got threats from amongst others, the Congressional Black Caucus, did he roll over.
  • The appointed black Senator turns out to be at best, mentally infirm and is unable to remember specific, pertinent events related to Federal investigation or possibly a perjurer.   In either event, he  has become accustomed to his new positions and doesn’t want to leave.
  • Black leaders are once again lining up to support Burris….because he’s black:

Rev. Willie Barrow, a leader of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, recently said of Burris, “We put him in, and we’re going to keep him in.”

The difference between the Left and the Right’s view of race was perfectly framed by Rush Limbaugh during his speech to CPAC on Saturday:

Let me tell you who we conservatives are:   We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential.

Holder was right, there are a bunch of cowards in the US that are not willing to talk candidly about race.   Unfortunately that cowardice exists throughout the Democrat party and dictates that the value of an individual is based upon the race, sex or sexual preference group they come from.   That cowardice is what  will hold Burris in a role where because of his “distractions” he will be unable to serve the people of Illinois.

The next time Eric Holder wants to talk about race he may want to focus his comments to those who like him, assume race determines a persons value.   That group is predominantly within the Left.

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]