define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true); define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true); No Runny Eggs » Politics

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 the 'Politics' Category

September 13, 2007

Stupid idea of the day

by @ 19:30. Filed under Politics - Milwaukee County.

Because there’s federal money to be spent, and because everybody else has jumped off the cliff, the lemmings on the Milwaukee County transportation board want to spend $124,000 of local cash plus $230,000 yearly in maintenance costs to put bicycle racks on county buses. This comes at a time when cash is so “tight”, fares are going up and service is going down.

Beyond that, why should gubmint subisidize those that overestimate their bicycling abilities at the expense of not only the taxpayers, but the time of the 13 people that ride the bus? Even according to the rose-colored glasses of the transit folks, they’ll only take in $22,000 per year by hauling around 11,000 bikes per year. That leaves $208,000 in maintenance costs paid for by the taxpayers. Who here thinks that they’ll get roughly 11,000 trips that they otherwise wouldn’t get to even collect $22,000, especially since the bicycling season is at best 7 months?

Heck at the Center Right

by @ 7:23. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

First things first; this is a day late and strictly from memory (in my haste, I left the pen in the car), but I’m doing a semi-kiss-and-tell at the request of Mark Block, co-chair of the Center Right Coalition.

No, the title is not a euphemism, but Jay Heck from Common Cause Wisconsin decided to take the trip into the Madison Club yesterday to a less-than-full crowd (a bit unusual because the last couple have been standing-room-only). He opened up with a rather unique personal political history (started off as a Rockefeller Republican, went to work for a Democratic Congressman after the Reagan election, left after a few years because he became disillusioned with the money, came to Wisconsin thinking that politics here was clean, got disillusioned again, and eventually ended up at Common Cause). He then pointed out that he wasn’t Mike McCabe (that came up a few more times as well), and pointed out that he’s tried to keep Common Cause Wisconsin non-partisan and out of policy issues. A couple of examples I remember; they weren’t at the Fighting Bob Fest, and despite pressure from the membership (and unmentioned, opposite the national Common Cause plank), they have not taken any stand on the Iraq War.

The meat of his presentation was how money and its pursuit has become too important in Wisconsin. Jay pointed to three different gubernatorial races; the 1986 race between Tommy Thompson and Tom Loftus, the 2006 race between Mark Green and Jim Doyle, and the 2006 Minnesota race. In 1986, the candidates spent a bit over $3 million. In 2006, Green, Doyle and the special interests spent over $30 million. In Minnesota, the candidates spent just over $10 million, while special interests were essentially barred under Minnesota law.

Jay also pointed out that his group called a bit of shinola on Rep. Sheldon Wasserman’s call to keep those on the budget and Joint Finance committees, and only those on those committees, from being able to raise funds during the budget process. They believe that nobody should be able to raise funds during said process. To complete the story, Wasserman, who is not on either committee, is organizing for a run against Sen. Alberta Darling, who is.

A vigorous, yet friendly, discussion occurred between Jay and Reps. Rich Zipperer and Frank Lasee over Common Cause Wisconsin’s proposed remedy for the influence of money. As I didn’t bring a tape recorder, I’ll let those three decide whether they want to rehash it.

All in all, it was another good hour meeting.

September 11, 2007

Poll housekeeping

by @ 23:51. Filed under NRE Polls, Politics - National.

I somehow failed to include a “none of the above” choice in the “Which Presidential candidate(s) is/are out this month?” poll. It’s now rectified.

If you haven’t voted, do so.

September 8, 2007

Crying River Flood Warning for the DOT and road builders

by @ 15:11. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

Selected excerpts from the latest whine from the ‘Rats that taxes aren’t going up:

Democrats who control the Senate and Republicans who run the Assembly agree that fees for vehicle and truck registration, driver licenses and titles should increase. Lawmakers had hoped to raise many of those fees on Oct. 1, but because of budget delays they likely can’t go into effect until Dec. 1, at the earliest.

That delay translates into $28 million that drivers will save and that the transportation fund will lose, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

That increase is exceptionally dumb. I welcome the lack of the increase, even though my driver’s license is good through 2011, and my car registration is good through next July.

By Oct. 1, the DOT must tell local governments how much state transportation aid they’ll receive in 2008. Without a new state budget, local governments will be told to budget using the aid they got last year, which likely will lead to fewer projects, service cuts or higher property taxes and bus fare hikes, Busalacchi said in his letter.

You mean that Payne & Dolan might not get to spread as much of their inferior product around? Out-fragging-standing! You mean that not as much air might get shuffled around Milwaukee County on buses? Huzzah! You mean that the freeloaders on said buses might be asked to pick up a little more of the cost of transporting them around (and in the case of the public college students, pick up any of said cost)? YES!!! You mean that there won’t be more choo-choos in Milwaukee? Where do I sign up?

“If you don’t pass a budget and you don’t have a bonding level set for what you’re going to do for roads or buildings, then you’ve got to cut way back on what you’re doing,” Doyle told reporters.

If it means less roundabouts, I’ll take that trade. Besides, how many outstate towns are left that don’t have 4-lane bypasses?

Doyle and Senate Democrats want a tax on oil companies, who the governor says have forced Wisconsin drivers to pay unreasonable gas prices. If it became law, and survived an expected court test, it would bring in about $160 million a year.

Keep this number in mind; I’ll bring it up again in a bit. That, plus interest, is what the state the state’s taxpayers will be refunding the oil companies once the courts strike the tax down. Oh yeah; that’s also what the drivers in the state will be paying until said tax is struck down.

“I don’t know why (Republicans) continue to protect big oil,” Decker said.

Allow me to ReWrite™ that for truthfullness – “I don’t know why (Republicans) continue to protect big oil the taxpayers,” Decker said.

Over the past four years, more the $1 billion was moved from the transportation fund into other spending. Doyle moved much of that money by reshaping two budgets with his veto powers….

Doyle’s original budget included $160.8 million in transfers from the transportation fund. The Senate-passed budget had transfers of $73.3 million, and the Assembly budget had no transfers.

SHOCKA! Craps’ latest proposed raid is half his gas tax. It also is essentially the entire agreed-upon-in-principle licensing and registration increases.

As for the $1 billion, you suppose that if it had stayed in the transportation fund, we could get by without tax increases? Instead, we get increases now, and more when that money has to be returned to the transportation fund (think “Social Security ‘Trust Fund'”).

But Decker noted Republican legislators have approved transportation fund transfers in the past.

So, Russ. Just because the Pubbies acted stupid before, they have to continue to be stupid? Sorry, but that’s not how rational people think. Of course, I know I’m probably making the mistake of believing the light at the end of the tunnel is the sun instead of an oncoming train by applying rationality here, but unlike you and your fellow ‘Rats, there is a glimmer of hope for rationality out of the Pubbies.

September 6, 2007

Mary Katharine Ham interviews Bradley Smith

by @ 13:03. Filed under Politics - National.

Smith, for those of you who didn’t know (and I didn’t until today), is a former Federal Election Commission chairman/commissioner who knows campaign finance laws like few others. In a very special treat, the Hammer gives us not one, not two, not three, but four slices of her video with him.

Watch and learn what the decisions announced yesterday mean for blogs, campaigns, and 527s.

Dogs and cats living together, or sheep into the lion’s den

by @ 11:05. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

I don’t know which is more likely when Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, makes an appearance at the September 12 meeting of the Center Right Coalition. As usual, the meeting is at 9 am at the Madison Club (5 E. Wilson next to the Hilton in Madison). If you plan on joining in on this unique meeting, let Mark Block know at markb – at – afphq – dot – org (you ought to know what to do to get that to a proper e-mail address).

I didn’t see the reminder from Mark in the e-mail, but what is said there stays there unless it’s said for attribution. In short, don’t expect a kiss-and-tell from me.

Presidential Pool – end of the summer revisit

by @ 10:42. Filed under Politics - National.

Nothing much has changed on the Dem end of the pool from the first-blush look. Edwards has hung on a bit longer than I thought, but he’s still a distant third, with Obama a distant second, to Clinton. Nobody has yet dropped out, and the DNC is serious about punishing states that leapfrog Iowa/Nevada/New Hampshire/Super-Duper Oversized Tuesday, so that’s the left-end update.

Things, however, are far more interesting on the Pubbie end, with a heap of changes from the first-blush look. I was a bit off in saying Tommy Thompson would be the first out (Jim Gilmore was), though I will claim that he’s the first one I named that departed. Meanwhile, Fred Thompson has finally entered, and it appears likely everybody that’s running is in. ‘Tis time to go through each one rather briefly:

Sam Brownback – Somebody please tell me his platform beyond amnesty and a 3-nation Iraq “solution”. I just don’t know what it is. Oh, and he has no chance.

Mike Huckabee – He’s become the anointed placeholder/dark-horse in the previous absence of Fred Thompson. Unfortunately, he’s a proven tax-hiker, and he supports the 23% 30% “Fair”Tax. Beyond that, he’s vanilla.

Duncan Hunter – Repeating my early analysis, he’s a “mere” Congressman. That, along with a near-invisibility to the press, has doomed his candidacy to failure. I hope he’s at least on the short list for VP because he is without question the most-conservative of the bunch.

Rudy Giuliani – For a conservative, he is truly a one-trick pony. Fortunately for him, that one trick is the GWOT, and he’s not afraid to call out the enemy as “radical” Islam. Also fortunately for him, he is for the moment the most-liberal non-toofer in the race, which means the media is fawning over him. Unfortunately, the rest of his record is anything but good (fee tax-hiker, gun-grabber, pro-abortion, need I go on?), and if he receives the nomination, he would lose all the media at that moment just like John McCain lost them when Giuliani joined the race.

John McCain – I’ll say one thing; he is quoted most often by his opponents. If anything, he is even stronger on the GWOT than Giuliani, even though he wrongly believes that if we don’t torture, the Islamists won’t. Unfortunately, there’s already three strikes against him (4 if you include his extreme dislike for Christian conservatives); an utter refusal to consider tax cuts as a way to shrink government, McCain-Feingold, and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Ron Paul – I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again and again and again until the convention (I don’t see the toofer conceding until then); Paul is in the wrong party and in the wrong era.

Mitt Romney – With the collapse of McCain, the Republican version of Bill Clinton emerged as the early challenger to the media candidate. Almost all of his conservative views have only manifested themselves in the last 13 years. Of course, the fact they manifested themselves that all in Massachusetts is a plus, but not enough in my mind to override my concerns of his earlier liberalism.

Tom Tancredo – I thought he killed his campaign when he called for a full-stop on immigration a couple debates ago, then drew down his staff. Like Hunter and Paul, he’s “only” a Congressman, and he is a one-trick pony on immigration.

Fred Thompson – He’s said the right things in his run-up, but like Romney, he has a few liberal skeletons in his closet. However, do not underestimate the power of height and TV presence.

So, what’s next? The cracked hard-boiled eggshell has Brownback, Hunter and Tancredo all drop out by the end of this month. It is likely that Huckabee will follow them before Iowa as he realizes he was just a placeholder. Beyond Iowa, states are leap-frogging each other too much right now to predict who will have the big mo going into Super-Duper Oversized Tuesday, but I do know that it won’t be McCain or Paul.

Dhimms do not like to hear good news

by @ 1:08. Filed under Politics - National, War on Terror.

(H/T – HotAir Headlines)

Guess it’s time to bring back an oldie-but-good HamNation. As predicted, the DhimmiRATs are already dismissing the not-yet-delivered Petraeus report, prefering their own self-commissioned and -ordered “the war is lost” conclusion.

Fred’s in

by @ 0:25. Filed under Politics - National.

You can watch the webcast announcement either at his new campaign site (www.fred08.com) or on YouTube (thanks for the latter, Ian).

Now, who is going to be out by the end of the month? Don’t forget to vote on the left.

September 5, 2007

Last Pre-Fred! Debate (I promise) live-blog

by @ 19:01. Filed under Politics - National.

With Jim unleashing the doublebarrel live-blog both on bRight & Early and Heading Right, it’s time to unleash my own effort. It will be a half-hearted affair as I’m also live-blogging the Brewer game over at the Bar.

As noted earlier, William Smith will be live-blogging from a bar. I’ll throw in the link to the actual liveblog post once he sets it up.

As a note, I paraphrase heavily, even stuff that’s in quotes. I use quotes to identify what I’m paraphrasing from the candidates. Stuff in italics comes from the moderators, and stuff in parentheses are my own comments. Standard stuff you should be used to by now.

19:13 – Guess I should throw in the specifics. It’s on Fox News Channel and FoxNews.com at 20:00. FoxNews.com will begin streaming in about 16 minutes.

Also, FreeRepublic is on the ball as always.

19:44 – Allahpundit pipes in. There’s at best 2 elephants in that room along with 6 mice.

19:55 – Fred’s “visit my site tomorrow” announcement.

19:59 – Ace checks in – Yep, none of this matters except for the race for #2 on the ticket.

20:00 – Brit’s live. Where’s the fish?

20:01 – Joining Brit, Chris Wallace and Campaign Carl. William’s behind already, only on beer #2.

NH’s GOP chair praising Brownback and his 6 supporters.

Introducing first, Tom Tancredo. Next up, Ron Paul. Batting third, Mike Huckabee. Cleaning up, Rudi Giuliani. Batting 5th, Mitt Romney. In the 6 hole, John McShame. Batting 7th, Sam Brownback. Finally, Duncan Hunter.

Lights and gong is here (noted as “DING DING”). 1 minute for answer, 30 seconds for rebuttal at Brit’s discretion.

20:04 – First question from Brit, Who has made the smart move, you suckers or Fred!. Huckabee takes a whack at Fred. Paul once again proving he’s running in the wrong party. McShame takes another whack; “We’re up past his bedtime”.

20:06 – Romney wants Fred to take more time. Correct Conservative Blogger liveblog link. I didn’t know Rudi was a DA in Manhattan. He pushes experience, and takes the first shot at the DhimmiRATs.

20:08 – To Wallace and illegal immigration. Romney – “Let’s reduce fed funding to sanctuary cities”.

Mary Katharine Ham and Matt Lewis join the live-blogging crew.

To Rudi – Would you continue to protect illegal aliens as President? Rudi – “It was all Clinton’s fault for stopping taking names.” DING-DING!

20:12 – To McShame – Are you and Romney both flip-flopping on immigration? McShame – “No one is for amnesty.” (except you, the DhimmiRATS, and El Jefe Jorge). “Let’s secure the borders first.” (welcome to the party, pal; too bad I don’t believe you.)

20:14 – To Huckabee – Defend calling those who want to toss the illegals out racists. – Deflects by calling to outsource immigration tracking to UPS and FedEx.

20:16 – To Tanc – I double-dog-dare you to call those that agree with you on immigration racists. – “It has nothing to do with racism, it has everything to do with the rule of law.”

20:18 – E-mailed question to Hunter – “What would you do to finish the fence?” Wallace adds that some ranchers don’t want it. – “The fence works. It’s the law. I’ll finish the 800-mile fence in 6 months.”

20:19 – To Campaign Carl at a restaurant and a officer – What good is an unmanned fence? What about those still here? Carl sends it back to Rudi and McShame – How is your plan not amnesty? – Rudi – “Again, it’s all Clinton’s fault. Let’s ID everybody coming in because everybody else is able to do it.” DING DING!

To McShame – “Amnesty is forgiveness” (er, it’s not applying the current rules, jackass).

20:23 – To Romney – “End sanctuary cities using the power of the federal purse.”

20:24 – Wendell brings up the Craig bomb. To Brownback – “He’s taking responsibility by resigning, and he should stick with it…. We shouldn’t stop standing up for family values.” DING DING

20:25 – To Hunter with another e-mail question – Should Craig resign immediately? – “Yes. When Pubbies have ethical problems, they leave. When ‘Rats have them, they often make them chairmen of committees.”

20:28 – Wendell drops the abortion bomb on Romney the flipper – “We need to respect lives of both the mother and the child.” To Huckabee – How do you reconcile your position with Rudi’s – “I’ll let Rudi answer that. Let’s respect life.”

20:29 – To Rudi on gun control, with a couple of Fred! quotes – “I made New York the safest large city in America.” (I note that the gun ban in NYC was in place long before you). And college students carrying? – “That’s up to states.”

20:31 – Wendell to Paul with a misquote on whether airplane passengers should be allowed to carry – “We moved the wrong way on protecting airplanes; it should be on the airlines, not the gubmint” (even a blind squirrel) DING DING

20:32 – Back to Campaign Carl and another gubmint worker – Please don’t ban homosex marriage (shocked, SHOCKED a gubmint employee would take the lieberal position). To Brownback – “Do not redefine marriage from one man and one woman.”

20:35 – BREAK! Eric at RedState’s late and disinterested, and I’m late picking up Michelle; sorry about that.

20:38 – We’re baaaaaack! FoxNews’ token lieberal continues by inviting McShame to attack Rudi on foreign policy. “I knew Rummy’s strategery would fail. The new strategy, which isn’t mine, is working. Oh, and I was a squadron leader.”

20:40 – Chris to Rudi – Defend yourself, and will you finally go to Iraq? – “I hope so by the end of the year. I’m not running on 9/11; I’m running on being mayor of New York City.” DING DING and he continues to run on.

20:42 – Wendell to Romney – You said that we should be all-but-out of Iraq by Feb. Defend. – “I never gave a timeframe, but the surge seems to be working. I don’t envision a permanent role in Iraq.” Token lieberal pushes for a hard date again. Romney dodges.

20:44 – To McCain – “It’s working, not seems to be working, because we have a great general there. The great debate will be in the Senate. I want them home with the right reasons, with honor.”

20:45 – To Paul – What about the bloodbath that would happen if we listened to you and your fellow DhimmiRATs? – “I’m in the wrong party.” (hey dumbfuck toofer, the Islamokazis want us dead not just because of our policy, but because we exist and a couple of them are here, so they consider America part of the Worldwide Caliphate). Hume WHACKS the toofer.

20:47 – Brownback piles on – “Let’s have a political surge.”

20:48 – Wendell points out how the pratfalls of the Brownback 3-state plan (Turkey and Iran taking out the Kurds, the Sunnis rebelling over having no oil) – “We’re going to be there a LONG time.” DING DING!

20:50 – Hume to Huckabee – How do we contininue the surge with the minor American bloodletting going on? – “We broke it, we bought it. I agree with McCain that we cannot leave without honor. Hey Paul, STFU.”

To Paul – “A few neocon fascists went in, not the country.” CATFIGHT! Paul the toofer wants to repeat Vietnam. Hey Paul, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND JOIN THE DHIMMIRATS, YOU COCKSUCKING MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!!!!!! HOW FUCKING DARE YOU!

20:54 – To Hunter (oh, is he in this debate?) – “We leave with victory.” Token lieberal – No matter how long it takes? – “You don’t understand the determination of the US Marines and US Army.”

20:55 – To Tanc – “I hope the surge works. The war is with radical Islam, and Iraq is a battlefield in that war. This is not a war that will end with our departure. We were not attacked because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. We were attacked because Islam is incompatible with the rest of the world.” DING DING

20:57 – Back to Campaign Carl – There was a skirting of the issues.. SHOCKA – Campaign Carl finds another gubmint employee, a deputy sheriff – Romney, how do we end the war in Iraq? (anybody want to still claim that New Hampshire is anything other than a loser lieberal state?) . Romney answers – “People who put their lives on the line are in a league of their own, and we owe them our respect. It’s a global conflict against jihad going on, and we have to win in Iraq because losing has global consequences. We need a global strategy.” Hume – McCain would disagree with you about “looks” versus “is”. Romney – “We don’t have a report yet.”

21:00 – Token to Romney – Would you wiretap mosques even without a court order? – “No. To continue, we have to focus on preventing by every means necessary, including getting court orders to wiretap mosques. The most important civil liberty is the one to stay alive.” To Tanc – Is torture a line you wouldn’t cross? – “Waterboarding isn’t torture. I’ll do whatever it takes to keep the people of this country safe.”

21:03 – Token to McShame – Did Tanc just overreach, and oh, take your anti-torture shots at Boooooosh – “Waterboarding will be used as an excuse by the other side to torture us.” (Think back to the Hanoi Hilton, Johnny boy. Us not torturing the VC and NVA didn’t stop them from torturing you).

21:05 – Token to Rudy – Defend your call to not close Club Gitmo. – “Where do you want them? New York? DC? Oh, and when has a nation won a war when it set a timetable for withdrawal?”

21:06 – Token to Hunter – Would you hold those “freedom fighters” there indefinitely if we can’t convict them? – “Hell yeah. We’ve caught a bunch of them on the battlefield after we thought they were done.”

21:08 – Token to Brownback – “Would you have your VP do what I and my fellow lieberals think Cheney does?” – “No, but I would lean heavily on him.” DING DING

21:09 – Chris finally takes over. McShame, why won’t you say you won’t raise taxes? – “I don’t need no steenkin’ pledge. I’ll focus on the spending.” Chris points out McShame voted against the tax cuts of 2001-2003, McShame tries to claim that he did so because there was no focus on spending.

21:12 – Chris – Sam, my man, shouldn’t McShame sign? – “Yes.” To Rudi – Your record as a fee-hiker is a long one. Why don’t you try to counter that with this pledge? – “I only want to take one pledge, and let’s not focus on the fee hikes.” (fees that almost everybody has to pay IS a tax, dumbshit).

21:14 – Chris to Romney the flopper – Hey Fee-fee. Defend your fee hikes. (damn, but I like that nickname) – “Don’t focus on the fees. Since it’s been an hour since we whacked the Dhimms, that $250 that Breck Girl wants to let middle-class America save tax-free wouldn’t even buy them a Breck haircut.”

21:17 – Chris to Huckabee – FairTax only helps out the very poor and the very rich. Defend. – “The FairTax at 23%…” (STOP THE TAPE – It’s 30%, not 23%) “…would end the underground economy.” (unbelievable bullshit – it would create a nice black market, especially near the border.)

21:19 – Paul is officially off his meds.

21:20 – Back to Campaign Carl for dessert. Finally, not a public employee, but a PolySci student – Rudi, you’re the weakest family values candidate. – “You don’t need to look at my family life.”

21:22 – BREAK! Another Brit scenario special coming up after the commercials (no wonder why the Dhimms, and especially Hiliary, didn’t want to appear on Fox News).

21:25 – Hume’s scenario – The IAEA says that Iran is on the cusp of getting nukes, Iran responds by kicking out the inspectors. Iran’s attacking Iraq. The UN imposes a limited sanctions regime, but won’t use force. Iran increases its rhetoric about vaporizing Israel. What do you do? Paul – “We sing kumbayah.” (get off the fucking stage, fuckwad)

21:28 – Missed what Hume added for Tanc. – “We continue to waffle, but we don’t tie our soldiers’ hands. To Hunter – “I don’t like these hypotheticals, but we would try to do what Israel did in 1981.” (doesn’t solve the problem permanently, and Iran learned from the “all the eggs in one easy-to-strike basket” lesson.)

21:31 – To Huckabee – “I’m not saying, but it would be what I thought would be best for the American people.” To Brownback – “We’re facing it now. Oh, and Iran’s nutjobs don’t care about surviving an exchange with Israel as long as they destroy it.” To Rudy – “It’s different than the Cold War. Iran is the #1 terror sponsor, and we cannot allow Iran to go nuclear. McCain had it right when he said that as rough as going would be, it would would be rougher to not go.” DING DING “Reagan talked to the Soviet Union with 1,000 missiles pointed at them.”

21:35 – To Romney – “We can’t let a nation that talks about genocide and talking about nuclear weapons have nukes. Let’s build consensus because there are good ‘Rats.” (unfortunately, they’re all dead, Mitt). “Let’s get the world behind us.” DING DING “If we have that, they’ll think twice.” (Really? They want a Shi’ite Caliphate or no world at all).

To McCain – “We can’t let Iran have nukes, and we can’t depend on our ‘allies’. I’d employ the Reagan methods he used to get the hostages back.” (you might want to read your history, McShame.)

21:39 – We’re OUT!

Good news for Bloggers

by @ 18:19. Filed under Politics - National.

The Federal Election Commission ruled in two separate cases yesterday that independent internet activity does not violate federal campaign laws. In the Kos case (touched on earlier here), they found that the Daily Kos meets the definition of a media entity not owned by a political party, political committee or a political candidate and thus is exempt from campaign finance laws under the media exemption.

The other case, which I had not heard about, is even more relevant. An individual by the name of Michael L. Grace created a blog to advocate the defeat of Representative Mary Bono (R-California) in the November 2006 election. The FEC ruled that he did not make unreported expenditures, coordinate with her opponent, David Roth, or make an in-kind contribution to Roth’s campaign.

Both Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and Michael L. Grace are lieberal jackasses in the first degree who would probably advocate the death of No Runny Eggs, but I am glad they won their cases.

So I took a month off Presidential politics

by @ 16:54. Filed under NRE Polls, Politics - National.

Nothing much happened besides Tommy “The Other” Thompson realizing he had no chance and Hiliary Clinton following the playbook of her husband and taking $42,000 in illegal donations. That changes tonight with the last pre-Fred debate, which William Smith will not be live-blogging from on-site. He will still be live-blogging, but like me (in between pitches of the Brewer game, that is), it will be beer-aided.

In honor of Fred’s filing tomorrow, it’s time to ask who won’t be a candidate by the end of the month.

Who will no longer be a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination at the end of the day Sept. 30, 2007?

Up to 9 answer(s) was/were allowed

  • Sam Brownback (22%, 20 Vote(s))
  • Duncan Hunter (20%, 18 Vote(s))
  • Tom Tancredo (19%, 17 Vote(s))
  • Ron Paul (12%, 11 Vote(s))
  • Mike Huckabee (8%, 7 Vote(s))
  • John McCain (8%, 7 Vote(s))
  • Fred Thompson (4%, 4 Vote(s))
  • Mitt Romney (3%, 3 Vote(s))
  • None of the above; all will still be a candidate come October 1 (3%, 3 Vote(s))
  • Rudy Giuliani (0%, 0 Vote(s))

Total Voters: 90

Loading ... Loading ...

Ray Nagin may run for governor of Louisiana – update – no run

by @ 14:32. Filed under Politics.

While that in itself is news, what makes it especially delicious is how the media is savaging the Democratic mayor of New Orleans. Case in point, this AP story from John Moreno Gonzalez:

NEW ORLEANS – Mayor Ray Nagin could be days away from announcing he will run for governor of Louisiana "” a move many in this stricken city regard as preposterous.

I’m actually surprised that is the lead sentence. However, the usual presstitute template applies; if Nagin were a Pubbie, it would have read something like this – “Republican Mayor Ray Nagin could be days away from announcing he will run for governor of Lousiana "” a move everybody in this dysfunctional city regard as preposterous.”

If Nagin runs, he will do so on his stewardship of New Orleans. But this is a city in great distress two years after Hurricane Katrina, with large swaths still empty, an appalling murder rate and a painfully sluggish recovery. Nagin’s disapproval rating stood at 65 percent in a recent poll….

I’ll put the the odds of the endorsement of Nagin by Tom “Milk Carton” Barrett at 3-1.

I could continue with the jokes, but I have an overgrown lawn to deal with, after spraying the yard with another couple of cans of Yard Guard, that is. My WMD order from the UN hasn’t come through yet; I knew I should’ve written it in Farsi.

Revisions/extensions (7:45 am 9/7/2007) – Put away the popcorn, Nagin’s not running.

September 3, 2007

I didn’t think that my use of DhimmiRATs would be literal

by @ 8:17. Filed under Politics - National, War on Terror.

(H/T – JammieWearingFool)

DhimmiRAT National Committee Chairman Howard Dean was among the Dhimms that made the pilgrimage to the Labor Day weekend gathering of the Islamic Society of North America in Rosemont, Illinois, and he endorsed their political takeover of America:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told American Muslims gathered in Rosemont to think beyond voter registration drives.

“You need to run for political office,” Dean said Saturday. “The only way you can achieve your goals is to stand up and say who you are and be proud of it.”

Considering that Dean is a doctor, I don’t think he can claim ignorance that the Islamokazis’ goal is a worldwide Caliphate by every means necessary.

September 1, 2007

Who should we retaliate against if the Islamokazis nuke the US (part 2)?

by @ 15:58. Filed under Politics - National, War on Terror.

The question is out there again courtesy Allahpundit, so it’s time to bring the old poll back, but with a twist. Since WP-Poll now supports multiple answers, let’s run it again. This time, you get up to 3 options, and if I still haven’t hit your sweet spot, pipe up.

Who should we retaliate against if the Islamokazis nuke the US (part 2)?

Up to 3 answer(s) was/were allowed

  • After determining which group it was, send the B-52s in for the nuclear Grand Tour of their bases of operations. (21%, 32 Vote(s))
  • We nuke Islam's "holy" sites, no questions asked. (19%, 30 Vote(s))
  • We nuke the supplier(s) of the nukes. (17%, 27 Vote(s))
  • We nuke Waziristan, or wherever the current home of Al Qaeda is at the time, no questions asked. (17%, 26 Vote(s))
  • After determining which group it was, we send the B-52s on a conventional Grand Tour of their bases of operation. (7%, 11 Vote(s))
  • We lay waste to Islam's "holy" sites with conventional weapons, no questions asked. (6%, 9 Vote(s))
  • We wage conventional war on the supplier(s) of the nukes. (6%, 9 Vote(s))
  • No one because that would be "wrong". (4%, 6 Vote(s))
  • No one because we're waving the French battle flag (aka white flag of unconditional surrender). (3%, 4 Vote(s))
  • Something I missed (please explain in the thread). (1%, 2 Vote(s))

Total Voters: 156

Loading ... Loading ...

If you’re wondering what happened last time, let’s review:

Who should we retaliate against if the Islamokazis nuke the US?

Up to 1 answer(s) was/were allowed

  • We nuke Islam's "holy" sites, no questions asked. (32%, 7 Vote(s))
  • After determining which group it was, send the B-52s in for the nuclear Grand Tour of their bases of operations. (23%, 5 Vote(s))
  • After determining which group it was, we send the B-52s on a conventional Grand Tour of their bases of operation. (18%, 4 Vote(s))
  • We nuke Waziristan, the current home of Al Qaeda, no questions asked. (14%, 3 Vote(s))
  • We nuke the supplier(s) of the nukes. (5%, 1 Vote(s))
  • We wage conventional war on the supplier(s) of the nukes. (5%, 1 Vote(s))
  • Something I missed (please explain in the thread) (5%, 1 Vote(s))
  • We lay waste to Islam's "holy" sites with conventional weapons, no questions asked. (0%, 0 Vote(s))
  • No one because that would be "wrong". (0%, 0 Vote(s))
  • No one because we're waving the French battle flag (aka white flag of unconditional surrender) (0%, 0 Vote(s))

Total Voters: 22

Loading ... Loading ...

Photo ID – still not “good enough” for Wisconsin’s polling places,…

by @ 7:01. Filed under Elections, Politics - Wisconsin.

…but good enough for visitors to MPS.

August 30, 2007

Fred’s entry – T-minus 1:58 7 days and counting

by @ 13:32. Filed under Politics - National.

Jeff Emanuel at RedState has the scoop. At 3:30 pm CDT, Fred Thompson will announce he’s entering the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Revisions/extensions (4:21 pm 8/30/2007) – The Fred announcement tour begins on Thursday, September 6, the day he will tell the Federal Election Commission that he is no longer just “testing the waters”.

Doyle to Grandma – Feel my pain so I can raise everybody’s taxes

by @ 12:51. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin, Taxes.

Despite the fact that there is no budget crisis because revenues and spending continues at the rates in the budget (thus automatically increasing the amount available for Medicaid, as well as increasing the amount collected by other various taxes), and the fact there won’t be a Medicaid funding “crisis” until 2009, Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale) has ordered a 20% reduction in Medicaid spending, with plans to spread the self-inflicted pain even further if he doesn’t get the doubling of taxes that he and the Legislative ‘Rats want. If I were healthier, I might have beat Dad29 to the proper analysis:

Which, of course, is the reality. It’s not a question of running short of funds. It’s a question of not getting his way.

So he stamps his foot and pouts.

That’s a helluva way to govern, Darth.

August 29, 2007

I didn’t know there were farms in Manhattan, NY

by @ 10:10. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Slublog)

NRO’s The Cornerhas a very interesting map of those living in Manhattan, NY that are getting farm subsidies. Do note the 5 large dots; they’re people getting more than $250,000 per year in farm subsidies.

Under the House Dhimm farm bill, they’re likely to continue to receive those grants; those making up to $1,000,000 per year are eligible, with loopholes allowing even more-wealthy “farmers” to get in on the trough.

August 28, 2007

Do you still think The Second Sentence or the DOMA amendment was unnecessary?

(H/T – Dad29)

Just to refresh your memory, here is Section 13 of Article XIII of the Wisconsin constitution:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

The California Supreme Court is currently considering a consolidated set of cases where the city of San Francisco and assorted nuts want to force California to recognize gay “marriages”. Before I get to the truly-mind-blowing part of the post, here’s a short history cribbed from VoteYesMarriage.com, an outfit seeking to enshrine marriage into California’s constitution:

– In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, which became Family Code section 308.5, which read in entirety, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Do note that, other than a grammatical anomaly and the substitution of “this state” for “California”, that is The First Sentence. Also, do note that the Family Code is part of California’s statutes, not its constitution.

– Between 2003 and 2005, the California Legislature systematically extended every right traditionally reserved for marriage to same-sex couples under the banner “domestic partnerships”, including forcing private entites who either have government contracts or provide insurance to provide full married benefits to same-sex couples.

– In 2004, San Francisco issued same-sex “marriage certificates” in violation of state law. While California’s Supreme Court voided it, it invited a challenge to Family Code 308.5 on “constitutional” grounds, which was promptly issued.

– In 2005, the California courts held those extensions “constitutional” by declaring that Prop 22/Family Code 308.5 only protected the name “marriage” and not any rights associated it, and then extended the force-feeding of same-sex benefits to all entities that provide public accomodations.

– In 2006, an appellate court ruled that Family Code 308.5 did prohibit same-sex “marriage”. That case is part of a consolidated set of marriage cases currently before the California Supreme Court.

Even before we get to the bombshell, we have “(a) legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage” created in California. Now, on to the bombshell.

On June 20, the California Supreme Court asked the interested parties in the consolidated marriage cases referenced above to answer four questions:

  1. What differences in legal rights or benefits and legal obligations or duties exist under current California law affecting those couples who are registered domestic partners as compared to those couples who are legally married spouses? Please list all of the current differences of which you are aware.
  2. What, if any, are the minimum, constitutionally-guaranteed substantive attributes or rights that are embodied within the fundamental constitutional “right
    to marry” that is referred to in cases such as Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 713-714? In other words, what set of substantive rights and/or obligations, if any, does a married couple possess that, because of their constitutionally protected status under the state Constitution, may not (in the absence of a compelling interest) be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature, or by the people through the initiative process, without amending the California Constitution?
  3. Do the terms “marriage” or “marry” themselves have constitutional significance under the California Constitution? Could the Legislature, consistent with the California Constitution, change the name of the legal relationship of “marriage” to some other name, assuming the legislation preserved all of the rights and obligations that are now associated with marriage?
  4. Should Family Code section 308.5 – which provides that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” – be interpreted to prohibit only the recognition in California of same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state or country or does the provision also apply to and prohibit same-sex marriages entered into within California? Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal Constitution (U.S. Const., art. IV, ?? 1, 2, cl.1), could California recognize same-sex marriages that are entered into within California but deny such recognition to same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state? Do these federal constitutional provisions affect how Family Code section 308.5 should be interpreted?

Both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (RINO-Hollywood and Attorney General Jerry Brown (D-Moon) filed briefs that answered the first 3 questions essentially identically.

Answer #1 summary (identical in both briefs) – There Are No Differences Between the Legal Rights and Benefits or the Legal Obligations and Duties Provided to Married Couples and Those Provided to Registered Domestic Partners Under California Law. Mostly noted above, though Brown’s brief took the added step of noting that even if “marriage” were granted to same-sex couples, it would not be recognized under federal law or by other states.

To that, I say, “Only until the Ninth Circus gets a hold of it.”

Answer #2 summary (Brown’s brief) – Although a Compelling Justification Would Be Needed Before the State Could Forbid a Man and a Woman from Entering into the Essential Relationship We Know as Marriage, Married Couples Do Not Possess Any Substantive Right Or Obligation Under Californa Law That Could Not Be Eliminated by Legislative Action Supported by a Rational Basis. (Schwarzenegger’s brief summary begins after the comma) Of particular note is the last sentence of both briefs (Brown’s brief quoted; Schwarzenegger’s brief essentially identical) – “But the State submits that, except for this essential ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual committment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be aborgated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.”

In short, the only guaranteed right of marriage in California is to choose one’s “life partner” (the phrase is used in both briefs). Before I get to the item that makes even this moot in the eyes of the executive branch of California’s government, I will note that Schwarzenegger urges in his answer to the fourth question that Family Code section 308.5 be interpreted to mean that same-sex “marriages” not be recognized regardless of where they were entered into.

Answer #3 summary (identical in both briefs) – No Constitutional Provision Would Prohibit Changing the Name of the Marriage Relationship to Some Other Name. And thus “marriage” and Proposition 22/Family Code section 308.5 die. I will note that Schwarzenegger’s brief notes that the reference to “marriage” in Prop 22 might mean that any change in the name could require a vote of the people.

In short, without The Second Sentence, and without the protection of being part of Wisconsin’s constitution, The First Sentence would have been utterly meaningless, as it would neither have defended the institution of marriage nor the name of marriage itself.

August 27, 2007

And we’re supposed to trust them on “global warming”?

I don’t recall any of the early-morning forecasts mentioning any possibility of rain today. That’s funny; I saw rain and even heard some thunder about noon. At least I didn’t end up like the golfer killed under a pine tree in Madison when a driving thunderstorm rolled through there about 10 am.

This little piggie part 2; the schools

by @ 13:43. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin, Taxes.

Most of the attacks on revenue limits to the schools have been on the belt-tightening forced upon districts that are shrinking. A story in today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel launches a new front; they find that districts that are have increasing enrollment can’t unilaterally increase taxes and spending by an unlimited amount. They even trot out a line from one of the myriad of front groups for the teachers’ union and school districts, the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future – “One of its criticisms is that under the revenue caps, the amount of money a district may raise from year to year is based largely on enrollment, without regard to cost increases for the services that districts provide.”

Ignoring the fact that school districts can and often do bust the caps with voter approval, there is a basic lie in that statement; there is an automatic adjustment for cost increases in the cap. It may or may not be enough for the teat-suckers of WEAC, MEA and WEA Trust, but it is there.

This little piggie part 1; the municipalities

by @ 13:33. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin, Taxes.

Even though Wisconsin’s forefathers planned for the likelyhood of an unbreakable impasse in the adoption of a new biennial budget by decreeing that state taxing and spending continues at the levels of the previous budget in that event, the not-so-little piggies known as municipal politicans are whining that they don’t know whether they can bust open the tax-and-spend spigot. The editorial-passing-as-a-story money quote: “The general consensus, however, appears to be this: The earlier the resolution, the better. But only if the resolution is a good one.”

August 24, 2007

Replacement Deep Tunnel Awards

With Charlie taking the day off to celebrate the release of 50 Rules Kids Won’t Learn in School, and a bunch of crap floating around (both figuratively and literally), I just couldn’t let another week go by without some noting of it. I have a voice for blogging, so you won’t have the multimedia presentation that the Blogfather usually does every Friday right after the 11:35 traffic, but let’s roll with it anyway. It’s time for the weekly Deep Tunnel Awards, handed out every week Charlie’s on the air Friday plus this week to the person, politician or institution who, like MMSD’s somewhat-almost-not-quite-deep-enough tunnel, was the most full of it.

Third runner-up this week – The Chicago Tribune and various pantywaist envirowhackos, who are about to derail an expansion of BP’s refinery in northern Indiana over a miniscule increase in the amount of crap they would be allowed to dump into Lake Michigan, up to 5,000 pounds per day from 3,500 pounds per day. BP has now promised to not increase their dumpings, even if it means they won’t expand production. Because that BP facility is one of only two that produces our very special blend of Algore/Whitman Memorial RFG, I hope the envirowhackos choke on $5/gallon gas (after I move out of here, that is) while braying the $2/gallon increase for a lake that is 0.000014% cleaner is worth it. Oh, and remember that number; I’ll get back to it.

Second runner-up this week – Michael Vick, who is set to plead guilty to a charge stemming from dogfights he and others participated in. May you try to escape and get an up-close-and-personal visit from a police German Shepherd.

First runner-up this week, in second place – The idiot who rammed Milwaukee County Deputy Kevin Johnson’s squad car as Johnson was cleaning up an accident scene on US-45. Kevin’s younger brother, Tim, was nearly killed doing the same thing back in January. Thankfully, Kevin was still in his squad car and escaped injury. Message to motorists – if you see flashing lights, don’t aim for them.

But the winner this week – Chicago’s Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, which, instead of sending its 243,000 pounds of crap daily down to the Mississippi like it usually does, is sending something north of that into Lake Michigan. Meanwhile, MMSD claims it can dump an average of 11,000 pounds of crap a day. And yet the envirowhackos continue to ignore that and bitch about an additional 1,500 pounds in exchange for something that’s absolutely needed, and about someone who takes a whiz over the side of a fishing boat.

What a load of crappy-crap-crap.

August 23, 2007

Healthy (and Depopulated) Wisconsin HR meeting

Nick got this ball rolling, but he only touched on one possible case. Let’s review a few more cases:

School districts – Absolutely, positively nothing changes with regard to the employee, as the rest of the state picks up through H&DW the difference in cost between the Rolls-Royce plan and what the rest of us suckers get through that plan, and school districts all over the state take advantage of the public-employer-only ability to pay the 4% employee tax. As it would take the form of supplemental insurance, the total cost of insurance will likely be higher than the amount currently paid, even if WEA Trust is one of the providers selected by the H&DW to participate in the main plan.

Other public employers – In most governing districts, again absolutely nothing changes with regard to the employee as said governments raise taxes to pay the cost of the supplemental insurance required to bring the total insurance up to the Bentley plan currently offered and take advantage of the public-employer-only ability to pay the 4% employee tax.

Private union shops – Nothing until the current CBA expires, then it’s Katie-bar-the-door. A main sticking point for those places where the employee contributes less than 4% of pay to health care is the inability of private employers to pay the 4% employee tax.

As an aside, if I read the H&DW plan right, those still covered privately via CBAs do not pay the taxes.

Non-union private shops that offer health insurance where the employer contribution is at or beyond 10% of payroll -In most cases, a reduction in health coverage to the H&DW non-teacher standard as private employers refuse to buy supplemental insurance without an upward change in the rest of the compensation package. For those employers that buy supplemental insurance, a reduction in the rest of the compensation package will occur.

Non-union private shops that offer health insurance where the employer contribution is well below 10% of payrollSee Nick’s analysis.

Non-union private shops that currently don’t offer health insurance – Those that can’t survive losing another 10% of payroll to government will go under. That that can will reduce compensation.

Self-employed – By and large, they will disappear, with nearly all of the lower-net-income entrepeneurs (under $50K/year) seeking greener pastures outside of Wisconsin.

Revisions/extensions (3:55 pm 8/23/2007) – Corrected typos.

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]