Author: Jonn Lilyea

Two stories this morning, one by Charles Hurt in the Washington Times, the other by Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray in the Washington Post are reporting on the absolute cowardice in Congress.

Hurt recounts how Senators who were for the surge are suddenly against it;

“We don’t have enough troops in Iraq,” Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said in 2005.
    In 2004, he told NBC’s Tim Russert some things he believes “very deeply.”
    “Number one, we cannot fail,” Mr. Kerry said. “I’ve said that many times. And if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that’s what we have to do.”

Now, Joe Biden;

 In June 2005, he said, “There’s not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency.”
    “They’re going to need a surge of forces,” he said in another interview.
    By last week, Mr. Biden had reversed his war strategy.
    “The president and others who support the surge have it exactly backwards,” he told reporters.

Linguine-spined Harry Reid;

“If it is for a surge — that is, two or three months and it’s part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year — then sure I’ll go along with it,” said the Nevada Democrat who voted for the war in 2002. “If the commanders on the ground said this was just for a short period of time, we’ll go along with that.”
    After Mr. Bush laid out his plan to increase troops, the Democratic leader flatly rejected it.
    “The surge is a bad idea,” Mr. Reid said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

Of course, the Washington Post, in keeping with it’s unwritten editorial policy of focusing on rifts among Republicans titles their piece “For GOP, Discord In Dissent on Iraq”, but the misleading title leads to a story about Republicans scrambling to come together with Democrats in a way that would support the “surge”. Oh, yeah they mention a couple of the “usual suspects” like Specter, Snowe, Sununu who are doing their best to act like Democrats all of the time, but generally their are comments like this;

“The worst thing would be for the Senate by 60 votes to express disapproval of a mission we are sending people to lay down their lives for,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), a member of the Republican leadership.

I understand that Republicans are trying to waterdown the nonbinding resolution, but they ought to just let the Democrats write the whole damn thing and vote a partyline vote against it and let the Democrats stand there with egg on their stupid ghastly faces when “the surge” is successful.

Democrats, who are united in their desire to stop the escalation, are regarding the Republican divisions with some glee. “You cannot have a resolution that is both meaningless and undercuts the troops. That’s impossible. Their position is totally inconsistent,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), a member of the House Democratic leadership.

Let them be gleeful for now. As long as they suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, let them party their stupid asses off for two years. They’ll look like idiots the day after the election.

 

  

According to AP (by way of Fox News Channel), Arlen Specter (R-INO) is challenging the President’s decision-making powers;

“I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider,” Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Congress’ war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy. “The decider is a shared and joint responsibility,” Specter said.

I would suggest to Mr. Specter that he read Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution, whereas;

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices….

And when he gets done reading it, he can pass it on to Russ Feingold;

“The Constitution makes Congress a coequal branch of government. It’s time we start acting like it,” said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who is chairing a hearing Tuesday on Congress’ war powers and forwarding legislation to eventually prohibit funding for the deployment of troops to Iraq.

It doesn’t say a word in Constitution about Congress having war powers (Article I), short of cutting off funding. So if thats what he wants to do, do it already. Show your true colors – shit or get off the pot.

Reading Charles Hurt from the Washington Times this morning, I see Teddy Kennedy, one of the richest men in Congress*, is pissed about trading tax cuts for a minimum wage increase;

“How many more billions of dollars do we have to give you, Mr. Republican?” the Massachusetts Democrat shouted. “How many more dollars do we have to give you to get an increase in the minimum wage? It is shocking. It is disgraceful.” 

Who is “we”, Teddy? Is it coming out of your pocket? Small businesses will be hit hardest by a minimum wage increase (well, actually, new hires will be hit hardest because they won’t get hired if small businesses can’t afford to pay them), so how much sense does it make, since Congress is hell-bent on imposing this unfunded mandate on employers, that Congress give those employers who will still hire new workers despite the hike a break?

“Senator Kennedy complains about $8.3 billion in tax relief out of one side of his mouth, while asking for $8.5 billion in pork-barrel spending out of the other,” said Wesley Denton, spokesman for Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican.
    “He wants to have it both ways, and that’s exactly what this debate has been about. He says he wants to help people get out of poverty, but then proposes a one-size-fits all federal mandate that actually prevents people from getting their first job,” Mr. Denton said. 

Where was Teddy Kennedy’s concern for the American worker when he voted for the 1993 tax hike that raised EVERYONE’S taxes – including retirees on Social Security? Where was Teddy Kennedy’s concern for the American worker when he voted against President Bush’s tax cut in 2001 when about half of low-income workers were either given a thirty-three percent tax cut or moved entirely off the tax rolls.

And, by the way, Fat Boy, where is all of this “bi-partisan cooperation” I’ve been hearing about? You complained for twelve years that Republicans weren’t compromising with you (despite the fact that President Bush asked you to help him write the “No Child Left Behind” bill) – what do you think compromise means, Mumbly Joe?

* According to the Wall Street Journal, Kennedy earned $161,000 in 2005.

Major assets: Five family trust funds, $6 million-$30 million; two blind trusts, $1 million-$5 million

Major sources of unearned income: Income from family and blind trusts $1.1-$6 million

The rally I should have attended yesterday, instead of spending an hour standing in the cold with witless “tens of thousands”, was at the Marriot. Jeb Bush (my wife’s new heart throb) spoke to fellow conservatives at National Review Institute’s conference and told them why I haven’t pryed my wallet open for them in two years;

“Don’t take offense personally if I get mad at Congress,” the Republican former Florida governor began. “It’s important for us to realize we lost, and there are significant reasons that happened, but it isn’t because conservatives were rejected. But it’s because we rejected the conservative philosophy in this country.”

He added, “If the promise of pork and more programs is the way Republicans think they’ll regain the majority, then they’ve got a problem.”

Bush’s speech prompted three standing ovations from the audience….

As well it should have. If Republicans want to remain the party of conservative thought, they need to turn loose of the same elitist, tax grabbing, wasteful government spending of the their Democrat forebearers. While the Democrats are focused on tearing apart our national defenses (the President with his veto has our backs on that issue), the Republicans should be formulating a policy of REAL fiscal restraint.

The first order of business should be dismantling the Congressional pension system. Not only would it discourage a class of professional lawmakers who’ve lost touch with the people they should be serving, it would save millions of dollars every year. It would result in Congress-critters who term limit themselves.

Their salaries and staffs should be cut in half to attract people who are only interested in serving their constitutents and not people who’re looking for an easy career of yapping incessently about nothing important and people who would do their own research rather than depending on a pack of undereducated suck-ups to think for them.

And they can get to work folding redundant government agencies into each other. Like the International Trade Administration and the International Trade Commission. They could fold the Education Department into another agency (it used to be part of Health and Human Services – then it was Health, Education and Welfare) since the only thing the Education Department does is hand out money to States. Maybe with the savings, States could raise their own taxes and stop depending on handouts from Uncle Sugar.

I’d like to see them rescind the XVIIth Amendment, too;

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Originally, Senators were chosen by the State Legislatures to represent the interests of the several States, but since the XVIIth Amendment, Senators no more represent their States than I represent all portly middle-aged men. They’re just a smaller, more-windy version of the House. They represent themselves and their own selfish issues (I should post a picture of Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry here, but you get the idea). Perhaps if they were beholden to the State Legislatures, they’d take their jobs more seriously and the Federal government could remember that there’s a Xth Amendment, too.

Well, that’s my wishlist, anyway. If the Republicans want my money and support, they need to start thinkng of ways to make the government better instead of ways to be more like Democrats. As long as idiots and morons like Hagel and Brownback think that Republicans lost Congress because of the war, it’s pretty doubtful that Republicans will change their evil ways, though. That’s the problem with government, though. They listen to the Fourth Branch of Government – the main stream media – instead of the People.

Of course, it’s not as brave of them as some might think. Why would al Qaeda attempt to kill their greatest allies?