one of the most impressive Republicans I know about – Thaddeus McCotter
Well, my State House Representative–Amy Stevens–tried, but it looks like the Democrats still prefer to be able to pay people to keep initiatives off the Colorado ballot.
The House State Affairs Committee killed a bill Tuesday that would have made it illegal to remove a ballot initiative in exchange for compensation of any kind.
Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, sponsored the legislation in response to a 2008 pre-election deal between business leaders and unions that resulted in the removal of four anti-business initiatives from the statewide ballot in exchange for $3 million to the unions.
Now doesn’t that present an interesting situation? Here’s how Jon Caldera described it:
Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, testified in favor of the bill. He was a primary backer of Amendment 49 and told the committee that on the eve of the deadline to remove initiatives from the ballot, he was offered $800,000 to pull the initiative. “What an idiot I was not to take that $800,000,” Caldara said, sarcastically adding he now has incentive to put bad measures on the ballot in order to gain financial benefit.
Wouldn’t some slick little hustler have a field day with this kind of setup – which the Democrats and unions stood up for:
Democrat go-to attorney Mark Grueskin, who served as legal counsel for the unions during the 2008 election, testified in opposition. He argued the bill would violate free speech by banning a monetary exchange for removing a ballot measure. “Like it or not money is speech under both [the Colorado and U.S.] Constitutions,” he said.
The bill was ultimately killed on a 6 to 5 vote, with McCann being the only Democrat to vote in favor. Stephens was disappointed, but said she would continue to pursue the issue. “Now that we know those are the terms, we have a new Chicago-style politics,” she said.
Sen. Mike Kopp, R-Littleton, was the bill’s Senate sponsor and called its defeat the “Blagojevich-ization” of Colorado.
I just love that “money is speech” line from a Democrat Union attorney. These are the ones who want to place restrictions on Republican money and then throw their slush funds behind the latest crook (nee The Messiah) while their oppoents hands are tied.
Anybody want to work to get some union-busting ballot initiative going? We can split the bucks when the thugs come to pay us off.
Marie Coco has an illuminating article today about Obama and “the Right”:
Nonetheless he (Obama) keeps telling congressional Republicans that he will work with them — even though they are among the chief architects of this disaster. Since the Reagan era, Republicans have put tax cuts ahead of all other economic policies, and deregulation a close second. They have stuffed wallets that already were plump, left the broad middle class staggering and allowed the working class to become the working poor. If these politicians that Obama so fervently wishes to engage have such good ideas to offer, why have they not done so? In fact, there are few Washington traditions as annoying as the cultish worship of bipartisanship, for it ignores the simple fact that sometimes one party gets things disastrously wrong.
Although this perfectly illustrates the class-warfare and wealth-creation bashing that is the mindset of “progressives” (and more on that later) – I will agree with her on one thing. Bipartisanship is absolute and utter crap in the context of where America is today.
Any Republican who goes along with this humongous generational theft and Democrat Party re-election slush fund known as the “stimulus” should be cast aside immediately. Any Republican who thinks they will gain anything from “outreach” should have those outreaching arms chopped off at the elbows. The only thing they will gain is to further entrench government dependence and subservience on the American people – which is to say they would further cement the downfall of this once-great nation.
There is absolutely nothing that Barack Obama and his socialist administration wishes to accomplish which would a) help America in the long run or b) further Republican views and aims. Just what part of shutting down Gitmo would make Republicans safer or more electable? “Oh yes, we supported President Bush, but now that the Messiah has come to town we will go along with his idea that quarantining these two-legged beasts where they can no longer work for our downfall is just an icky idea and we see the light”. That will work for them? So when the next election comes around and their Democrat opponent points out just how little they believed in supporting Gitmo and how they “voted for torture” and how they were immoral people with no center – they will not have much to stand on. Or if you thought Gitmo helped make us more secure, why did you then work to shut it down? I know that if I were trying to unseat these twerps who have such “flexible” moral imperatives that would be an easy way to position them for the voters.
And especially on this idiotic trillion dollar plus (above and beyond the $700 billion TARP) monstrosity. Any Republican who supports any of this is simply whistling past the graveyard. The Democrats know that the spending won’t actually take place till just about time for the mid-year elections when that big boost to the economy will allow them to say “see – we saved you from George W. Bush and the Republican’s efforts to destroy your livelihood”. And it won’t matter one whit if some gutless RINOs stand up and try to take credit for some birdge or road or anything. Voters know that if they want goodies, they go to the Democrats. Democrats are the mommy party – and that especially includes “money for nothing”.
And as for Ms. Coco’s economic arguments – this one just kills me:
Another is the mantra that “entitlements” — that is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — are costly, bloated and threaten the nation’s economic future. Obama already has pledged to undertake “entitlement reform,” a phrase that sends a shudder down my spine. With banks and other financial institutions now “entitled” to hundreds of billions in public money to bail them out of disastrous decisions, it is impossible to see why taxpayers who have paid for their future benefits through their payroll taxes should not be “entitled” to receive them. Besides, since there is no immediate crisis in Medicare — and certainly not in the healthier Social Security program — there isn’t even a reason to mention this right now.
Which seems to boil down to three things. 1 – you are paying for Medicare and Social Security (not enough for what is actually needed, but you are paying) 2 – the evil Wall Street bankers got tons of money and 3 – the real problems will happen tomorrow and we can just all Scarlett O’Hara that issue anyway.
And if anything tells you about Democrats and all the huge amounts of spending they plan – that tells you all.
1. Idiot Dictator Quote of the year:
Elsewhere, Chavez found time to defend Venezuela’s human rights record and vaunt his country’s oil reserves, but also gave his views on less weighty matters like fashion, pop music and the British royal family.
Cuba’s Fidel Castro was the world’s most stylish leader, he said (“His uniform is impeccable. His boots are polished. His beard is elegant”), he was aware of the newly-reformed Spice Girls and admired Britain’s Prince Charles.
He also refused to rule out following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s example and posing for topless photographs. “Why not? Touch my muscles,” he reportedly told the supermodel.
2. Hillary Doozy of the Year
ABC News’ Eloise Harper Reports: Senator Hillary Clinton, in an interview with ABC News’ Cynthia McFadden for ABC News’ Nightline, was asked about President Clinton’s controversial comments about race and Senator Obama in the past weeks. Clinton apologized for her husband.
“I think whatever he said which was certainly never intended to cause any kind of offense to anyone,” Clinton said, “if it did give offenses then I take responsibility and I’m sorry about that.”
“Can you control him?” asked McFadden.
“Oh of course,” Clinton replied.
3. The “Reach Out to the Other Side” Quote of 2008
I hate the Republican Party and everything it stands for, including, but not limited to, its interest in denying women reproductive health rights, denying children the right to legally recognized two parent homes if their parents are gay, and their not-so-subtle “be afraid of anyone who isn’t pasty white” message.
But I’ve learned to HATE with a passion that I never knew prior to the November 2000 Election, and I will *never* forget it.
Republicans are Evil, and I hate them.
4. The “I Just Hate People Except for My Six Children” Quote of 2008 – With an Added Bonus Globaloney Warming Kicker
TED TURNER: Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hottest in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there’ll be no more corn grown. Not doing it is suicide. Just like dropping bombs on each other, nuclear weapons is suicide. We’ve got to stop doing the suicidal two things, which are hanging on to our nuclear weapons and after that we’ve got to stabilize the population. When I was born-
CHARLIE ROSE: So what’s wrong with the population?
TURNER: We’re too many people. That’s why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. If there were less people, they’d be using less stuff.
5. “All My Liberal Friends Say I’m Completely Unbiased” Award
“I do like McCain and the people around him, and I consider him still to be a friend. But I have fundamental differences with John McCain on the issues and always have. I don’t have any problem criticizing John McCain….It was no secret to the reporters around me that I have Democratic-leaning views. But they said I was always fair.”
— Former ABC and CBS reporter Linda Douglass, now a spokeswoman for Barack Obama, as quoted by the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz in a June 16 profile.
6. Media Twit of the Year
CBS News journalist Richard Butler said he believes he was kidnapped in Iraq by policemen with sympathies toward the Hezbollah but isn’t entirely sure who held him captive for two months or why.
Butler, a British journalist kidnapped with his interpreter on Feb. 10, was rescued by Iraqi troops on April 14 when he was found with a sack over his head in a house in Basra.
Butler said he felt it was better to be kidnapped in Iraq then taken into custody by Americans in Afghanistan.
“I was pleased I wasn’t being mortarboarded in Guantanamo or being held for six and a half years like an Al-Jazeera cameraman, for instance,” he said.
This provides some wonderfully understandable images that differentiate between socialists (theives) and capitalists (non-theives):
Liberals see a great businessman and think “lucky bastard” or “cheater” – the notion that the man honestly earned his wealth and his success is a possibility that is seldom considered. Rather, they think of the successful businessman as some kind of exploitive tyrant who earned his prize only because he was able to deny it to those beneath him
Liberals don’t even believe that the concept of business risk exists – they view business as a perpetual money pumping, injustice-spewing machine which serves the needs of the few above the many. They never consider the symbiotic relationship between the job providing class and the working class; the idea that jobs have to be created is not one that occurs until an angry, unemployed mob arrives at their doorstop years after the initial advent of socialism. After all, isn’t a job something that each American is utterly entitled to? Jobs are a right, just like health care and an affordable home.
Socialists are merely the crashers at the capitalist dinner party – one capitalist provides the butter, another the wine, another the steak, and then the lone socialist shows up with a knife and fork asking “where’s my fair share, to which I am entitled?”
And after you have paid your federal income tax and state income tax and federal gasoline taxes and state gasoline taxes and state sales tax and county sales tax and local taxing authority sales tax and school property tax and library property tax and county property tax and service provider tax and your road and bridge tolls and your car liscence tax and your driver’s liscence renewal fee and ………
And after all that – the Obamamessiah pops up and says “you bunch over there make too much, I’m just going to take it because I know better and if you object you go to jail”.
At what point does the withdrawal of the consent of the governed occur? We all know that the coming collapse of the Social Security Ponzi scheme wiill make today’s bailout pale in comparison. But was Social Security and the $53 trillion of unfunded liabilities in it even mentioned in the past campaign? Of course not. Democrats did demogague the taxing of health care beneifts and claim McCain was coming for your Social Security benefits at the very end of the campaign, but isn’t that just standard operating procedure?
President Bush tried to put his political capital to work in 2005 on the Social Security issue and got zero support from his own Republicans. Apparently the decision has been made to simply let the thing fall apart and deal with the consequences tomorrow – just like Scarlett O’Hara.
And by that time if the Obmanauts have already stolen every incentive for anybody in America to even try and work, just where are they going to get the money from for all those wrinkly Baby Boomers?