Which is not the most awful of picks, if only because Energy isn't as critical a post as, say, State or Justice. Still, in areas of fossil fuel use and climate change research, there's plenty of damage Perry can (and likely will) do.
The irony here is that (a) Perry once vowed to abolish the agency if he became President, and (b) this is the agency he famously forgot the name of during a presidential debate.
Perry's focus on oil and gas (oh, look, another one) means that what the DoE has been doing around renewable energy sources is likely to get short shrift. His position on climate change is also not encouraging (deriding "the secular carbon cult").
Indeed, his whole stance on science is … deplorable, especially since the DoE runs energy labs across the nation. As he's put it, "I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects." That coming in conjunction with a witch hunt-style survey sent to DoE leadership by the Trump transition team bodes poorly.
Other miscellany: homophobe, death penalty enthusiast, gun rights activist (A+ from the NRA), and a Dancing with the Stars contestant. None of those are likely to play a major role in his new post, but it's worth mentioning.
He previously denounced his new boss as a "barking carnival act." But, hey, when there's a cabinet post involved, who's going to object at the smell of the greasepaint?
If only I'd known that, as an Obama supporter, I was supposed spot the secret signal to (along with all the disabled people, right?) vote twice in the election. which, of course, was the only way Obama could win. Sorry I didn't do my share, Mr. President!
Yeah, seems like only a few months ago when Republican leaders and strategists were all talking about how they had to stop being ideologically extreme and pursue the interests, and votes, of women, minorities, youth …
So is this massive flurry of GOP activity on abortion, etc., simply reverting to form? Or trying to raise money now before putting back on a "moderate" face next year (or in 2016)? Or a sign that somr of them are worried they might not be around in 2-4 years, and need to pass these laws while they still can?
Whatever it is, I really don't get the sense that they are making much effort to win the hearts and minds of the folks they were all outwardly sure they had to win the hearts and minds of.
Rubio Plans To Introduce Texas-Style Abortion Ban In The Senate
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is planning to introduce a bill in the Senate that would ban abortion after 20 weeks, the Weekly Standard reported on Wednesday. The bill is meant to mirror anti-abortion legislation passed last month by the House of Representatives. Under the plan reportedly being proposed by Rubio, a woman would be unable […]
If you talk to most GOP leadership, they'll demonstrate they know exactly what they need to do to keep their party nationally relevant and capable of winning for the future. And then they get back up in Congress and the campaign trail and say the same thing to their base that has been getting them in trouble with the rest of the electorate.
Quoth Lindsey Graham: 'The South Carolina Republican added: “But if we don’t pass immigration reform, if we don’t get it off the table and in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn’t matter who you run in 2016. We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party. And the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don’t do that, it really doesn’t matter who we run in my view.”'
1. This will not lead any GOP leader, including Lindsey Graham, to openly and vigorously support comprehensive immigration reform. Though they might do so behind the scenes, where the base can see it.
2. It's also kind of a shame that Graham (et al.) are in favor of such things primarily if not solely because it will win elections.
Lindsey Graham: Republicans ‘are in a demographic death spiral’ | The Raw Story
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Sunday that he favored former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) as a 2016 presidential candidate, but no Republican could win unless comprehensive immigration reform was passed because the party was in a “demographic death spiral.” “I think we’re going to have a political …
It would be good for a laugh, but given how many people seriously talk about The Coming Obama Police State Crushing All Dissent Once They Steal Our Guns And Putting Conservatives In Labor Camps, it's not that laughable a matter.
Some on the Right think demographics are on their side over time, as (a) populations continue to migrate to traditional Red states, and (b) religious conservatives tend to have more kids than irreligious liberals. But the conclusions from both those assumptions are fundamentally flawed, because they assume ideology is (oddly simultaneously) genetic and geographic, when everything seems to indicate that's simply not the case.
Infidel753: Demographic delusion
I’ve long made a point of reading right-wing sites. Not compre- hensively or to the point of nausea, but I do read them. The reason is that you can’t understand the other side’s thinking just by readi…
Besides voting overall for Obama, here’s what else went on last night in Colorado (of interest to me, at least):
1. It appears Mike Coffman has clearly beat Joe Miklosi to return to Washington in CO-6. A shame, but on the bright side Coffman has been a proponent of defense budget cuts, which may come in handy in, oh, a few weeks.
Coffman seems to have won in each of the counties in the contest, though it was very close in Adams and Arapahoe. Not surprisingly, Douglas Co. was his biggest supporter (that county went to Romney 65%).
2. In ballot initiative news:
Amendment 64 (Marijuana Legalization) pass pretty handily (55%). This got almost as much national media play last night as the actual presidential contest. How this plays out will be amusing to see.
Amendment 65 (Campaign Finance Reform) passed with high numbers (74%), even though (or perhaps because) it has no actual effects, but only acts as a guide to congressional and state legislators.
Amendment S (Civil Service Reform) also passed (56%), which is, to my mind, unfortunate (and I really have to wonder how many people actually understood what it was about).
It’s actually remarkable that all three ballot initiatives passed. That doesn’t happen often here.
3. State offices: Both my state representatives, House and Senate, will be GOP. Not surprising, but hope springs eternal. And the Dems hold the overall majority, it seems, in both chanbers.
4. In Centennial, our final “de-Brucing” went permanently in place, which means that in those years when income in certain taxes exceeds expenditure, the city doesn’t have to send refund checks out, but instead can use it to hold crazy parties for the city politicians. Or, y’know, something useful. Whichever, we get to vote the bums out, as we see fit.
First off — Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack against a country at peace. The “war” between the GOP and the Dems (or the Forces of Good White Christian Americans vs Evil Multi-Culti Marxist Atheist Traitors, if you like) has been blazing for some time. And while I realize that you somehow thought (at least you tweeted about it madly) that Romney was going to win over 300 ECV and be in the high 50s of the popular vote, an Obama (et al.) victory is hardly a Pearl Harbor.
Unless you mean that the GOP assumed it was impregnable, parked all its battleships in neat rows, and stupidly left itself open to being taken out for its hubris.
Secondly — maybe you’re being subtle and historical in your note, observing that the US, while engaging with Japan in WWII, made the European Theater is main initial operation (though there were a few important invasions before Normandy, like North Africa and Italy).
But, still, your tweet sort of comes across as, “We got beat by these guys, so now we’re going to start planning our attack on these different guys over here.”
At any rate, it’s reassuring to know that some things never change, and that, having been rejected by a slender majority of the American people (spread out across a wide enough geography to represent a significant portion of the electoral college), your next thought is to think in terms of armed conflict, of having been betrayed and treacherously attacked, and how you can regroup and unleash your own mighty war engines against your implacable enemies. No namby-pamby “Let’s see how we can run this country together and deal with the problems we are all facing” for you, Bryan. Instead, it’s Cry Havoc, and You Realize, This Means War, and Evil Liberals Delenda Est.
Good to know things are back to business as usual.
Okay, so I know Ron Paul is against the War on Drugs and all that, but it was still amusing to see a van drive through downtown Denver with signs in favor of our marijuana legalization ballot measure, the proponents of which say that marijuana can be controlled through similar laws as are used for alcohol.
So the van was festooned with stickers and signs that said:
RON PAUL 2012
and
YES ON 64 REGULATION WORKS!
… becuase … y’know … it’s funny because the guy’s for Ron Paul … and also for how government regulation works … and …
Since I definitely have a political position in this current election, and have not hesitated to go on, at length (and even longer), about it, it's probably only fair to offer up a dissenting viewpoint.
Submitted for your entertainment, and possibly as an inspiration to get out there and vote (though for whom might not be what Mr. Walsh thinks), a different view on what this election is all about.
Embedded Link
Crush Them
Michael Walsh writes on NRO: Conservatives have a rare opportunity tomorrow to do something they signally failed to do in the landslide elections of 1972 and 1984: finish the job. Nixon’s victory was …
While "If we don't change our course, God will smite this great nation" rhetoric from the zany Right, Glenn Beck (yes, he's still alive) bumps up the rhetoric.
"When you watch Barack Obama, you can just see he is angry. When you watch Mitt Romney, you can see he is not. We are not an angry nation. We don’t listen to demagogues like that. It doesn’t work. No matter how much power he has amassed, no matter how many friends in the media he has, Americans know. And if they reject it this time, if they’re so dead inside – that’s a possibility – if they’re so dead inside that they can no longer see the difference between good and evil, we have to be destroyed because we will be a remarkable evil on this planet."
Didn't Beck criticize Jeremiah Wright for that kind of rhetoric?
Quotes on an Election Day | ***Dave Does the Blog
Thoughts on Election Day: For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each of us — recording whether in our brief s…
Their reasons are sort of backhanded, but interesting nonetheless.
The Economist: "Obama’s shortcomings have left ample room for a pragmatic Republican, especially one who could balance the books and overhaul government. Such a candidate briefly flickered across television screens in the first presidential debate. This newspaper would vote for that Mitt Romney, just as it would for the Romney who ran Democratic Massachusetts in a bipartisan way (even pioneering the blueprint for Obamacare). The problem is that there are a lot of Romneys and they have committed themselves to a lot of dangerous things."
The Financial Times: "The more serious objection to Mr Romney is that he has gone through so many contortions to win his party’s nomination that it is hard to see how he would govern in practice. His wishlist includes an aspiration to raise Pentagon spending by a fifth while cutting everyone’s taxes and still somehow balancing the books. Such fiscal alchemy is an exercise in evasion, not a recipe for sustainable economic recovery."
These guys really don't want to vote for Obama, but they simply don't feel Romney — who has run as the financial pragmatist who can lead the country forward, economically — has any credibility in that area.
Presidents affect things in the Now. If they are lucky, their agenda lives a few years past their term, referred to in (one hopes) nostalgic or precedent-setting ways, but utterly at the whim of the new incumbant, of whichever party.
But one thing a president can do that will live long after him — court appointments, especially to the US Supreme Court.
Romney has Robert Bork as a chief judicial advisor, and has said that he will turn to Bork when it comes to justice selections. He's declared he's looking for justices in the mold of Thomas, Alito and Roberts.
If there was nothing else, that, in itself, would be sufficient to cause me to cast my vote (and donate money) for Obama.
(Mon05) I voted for Barack Obama because nothing is more important to me than the preservation and expansion of the rights of my daughter. While I don’t believe that any president can fix the economy or ensure the safety of 285 diplomatic facilities 24 x 7 x 365, I do believe that a president can change the composition of the Supreme Court and reduce the rights of my daughter.
My father was a state senator in Hawaii, and I saw him stand up for what he believed in—including when it cost him his reelection. I’m now fifty-eight years old, and it’s time to follow his most -xcellent example.
I’m thankful that I live in a country where people can disagree on politics but still come together when it matters. At the very least we can agree to disagree. No matter who you support, cast your vote, and let's get to work because we have lots to do.
President Barack Obama walks down the Colonnade with his arms around daughters Malia and Sasha, right 3/5/09. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
(This post applies to folks here in the US, of course. Please don’t feel obliged to go to your local polling place in Toronto, Cardiff, Carrickmacross, or Addis Ababa.)
While I’d prefer you vote for Obama/Biden over their competition, I’d rather you vote for a member of that competition than skip voting tomorrow.
I am not an unabashed Obama fan. There are areas he’s disappointed me (being far more of a budget centrist/pragmatics/deal-maker than I’d like, whether it’s caving on taxes or on any sort of single payer or public option in the health care reform debate). There are areas where he’s royally pissed me off (homeland security executive fiat at home, kill lists without due process for American citizens abroad).
HOPE faded ... but you can still see it.
While, net-net, I think the past four years are a positive (and certainly no man has accomplished so much in the face of obstructionist opposition from his opponents), I’m certainly not as happy as I thought I would be when Obama was elected in 2008.
That said, I think Romney would be a net negative for this country. I think that because, honestly, I have no real sense of his opinions or plans or policy du jour. Are we talking liberal-moderate Massachusetts Romney of less than a decade ago? Or hard-conservative GOP Primary Romney of a few months ago? Or kinder, gentler, compassionate centrist Romney of recent squeak-to-the-finish general campaign weeks?
Like Joe Isuzu, Mitt promises you all sorts of things. You have his word on it.
I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows. I don’t think Romney knows. Because what I actually think Romney is, is an excellent salesman. Not a leader. Certainly not a true believer. Look at his Bain career — that sort of thing is all about selling. And today he is out to sell himself as President. To that end, he will tell whatever audience he has whatever he thinks they want to hear in order to close the deal.
And that’s meant he’s felt free to lie. And not just exaggeration-the-record or laying-calumnies-on-the-other-guy kind of stuff. Out and out not-true stuff. You can find the laundry lists in a dozen places (not just here). And we won’t even talk about the differences between what he says in public, to different groups, and what he says in private.
Now, all politicians do that, to at least some degree. But they do tend to have identifiable constituencies. And policies. Philosophies, even. You can trust them, or not, or like them, or not, or agree with them, or not, but there’s something there there.
I don’t know that Romney really knows what he plans to do when he gets to the White House. Except, maybe, begin his next campaign for President in 2016, and make his decisions on that basis. That’s really how I see the man.
Maybe Romney will be like Bush, in a not-quite-horrific way
Which means, that, like Dubya, he could turn out to be a relatively moderate (or certainly not as conservative as he campaigned) President. Sure, I think Dubya did a lot of stupid things, and things I strongly disagree with — but he certainly didn’t push the Evangelical Christian position, as policy, as hard has he’d promised. He could have been far worse.
So maybe Romney will be like that — giving lip service and minor benefices to the Cause, but trying to govern more toward the middle(ish) in order to win in four years.
Or maybe not. If he thinks it will net him the nomination, I think he’ll do pretty much anything to benefit his business supporters, as well as the Religious Right that doesn’t quite yet trust him. The Senate may restrain his worst excesses, but with the House in his pocket and a close-to-majority in the Senate (with a dozen or so Blue Dogs to lend him a hand), there’s a lot of damage he could do.
Ryan and Romney, establishing fiscal austerity cred
Romney’s also one of those guys that I find I watch out for as much for the people he surrounds himself with rather than the things he says himself. Randian uber-budget-cutter Paul Ryan is a good example. Robert Bork as a top judicial advisor. The gang of Neo-Con zanies (starting with John Bolton) he has advising him on foreign policy. And the whole Christian Right Culture Warriors he has at his back calling for outlawing abortion, recriminalizing homosexuality, getting rid of those pesky voting rights and employment rights and sexual equality rights and all the other things that have damaged some mysterious set of Traditions and Family Values that you can’t ever actually point to an era of US history believing in.
All of which sounds more like I’m anti-Romney than pro-Obama. That’s not quite true. I am pleased Obama got health care reform enacted (even though it’s about as private-insurance friendly a health care system as you could imagine, leaves some people still uncovered, and left itself open to bizarro challenges like the contraception mandate). I think the Dodd-Frank bill, which Obama supported, is a good thing, and I remain frustrated by the (mostly) GOP efforts to keep it from being fully enacted. I think the additional stimulus that Obama pushed for can truly be critiqued only for being too small and too short. I think there are a lot of things that Obama has done right (and certainly better than McCain would have).
And, yet, somehow, despite the predictions and bad Photoshopping, we don't yet live in a Muslim, Socialist, Atheist, Kenyan, Marxist Regime.
But, yes, my views about Obama are a lot more tempered than they were four years ago, even if somewhat buoyed by vengeful resentment at the Right Wing’s attempts to smear, stymie, demonize, delegitimatize, and otherwise try to completely block his presidency. If nothing else, I think he deserves four more years for all the Muslim / Kenyan / Atheist / Marxist crapola that’s been flung at him since the 2008 campaign.
My views toward Romney are far more inchoate, given his elusive nature and lack of applicable track record (since he’s essentially disavowed everything about his time as governor, except when he’s bragging about it). I can only go based on what he’s said (especially during the craziness that was the GOP Primaries), and the people he’s surrounded himself with.
So, I’ll be voting for Obama. And against Romney. And I hope I win on both counts.
So either join me (huzzah!) or cancel my vote out (lesser huzzah!). But vote!
We have only three on the state-wide ballot — here's a list of 20 others that didn't make it, from Personhood, to Same-Sex Marriage, to Concealed Carry, to eliminating all property taxes.
Embedded Link
Colorado 2012 ballot measures – Ballotpedia
There are 19 hours left until polls open on November 6, 2012. Ballot measure, state legislative, state executive official, and congressional previews are available here. Colorado 2012 ballot measures….
Meet the "Americans for Responsible Leadership," a "social welfare" charity (i.e., tax-exempt and sponsor-exempt) organization out of Arizona, which has garnered its biggest publicity by unexpected dumping huge sums of money into California's political races.
I got a call from them last night. On my mobile phone. "Hi, this is a call from Americans for Responsible Leadership, this is Jessica …"
"This is my mobile phone. It is dinner time. And I don't accept political calls. Please take me off your list."
Fifteen second later, my phone rings again. "Hi, this is a call from Americans for Responsible Leadership, this is Jessica …"
I may have been less polite the second time around, but no less brief. I did not get a third call, but did note down the name. And, hey presto, ran across it in the news this morning.
I'd like to think I would object to these kind of tactics regardless of the partisan politics behind them. This particular list is nothing new, but a good summary of Husted's actions this political season (though it leaves out his earlier casting deciding votes in a GOP-leaning fashion for individual counties that were considering early voting hours – https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/08/16/a-level-if-low-playing-field-in-ohio.html).
Having elections run by partisan politicians, of any party, seems a guaranteed way to ensure problems with fair elections.
