From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
That ethics reform package dems wanted to push through seems to have stumbled in the Senate. A few dems joined pubbies in upsetting the ole freebie fruit basket.
And dem leaders are not too happy about it.
Where's the hype now, you might ask?
It's alive and well - especially in the Senate back-room.
Looks as if Mr. Reid et al aren't too keen on relinquishing all the hidden perks and legislative earmarks they campaigned to reveal AND/OR stop.
It's not as if dems can get around to every campaign promise on a 2-3 day work-week. Eliminating rotten apples, perks and restricting "pork barrel" legislation takes time, doncha ya know?
So much for ethics and the clammer to increase minimum wage rates for everyone ..... Unless, of course you work for two companies in Pelosi's district.
Two tuna processing companies in San Francisco are exempt from wage increases. Convenient.
The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws. One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
Mitt Romney participated in a podcast with Glenn and Helen yesterday -- not only to counter Youtube videos from his 1994 challenge to Teddy Kennedy, but to address the social issues which will be staple policies in his presidential bid. You can listen to the podcast HERE.
There's a touch of humor in how the media and dems are rushing to judgment over the President's pending speech tonight -- led by Tubby Teddy Kennedy, no less. Kennedy's threats to re-write the Constitution (curtailing executive powers) should play out mightily over the next few months.
Can't wait for the fall-out. Or the fall-in. Or whatevah.
What will the President say? Does it really matter? Even if he said what dems wanted to hear, they'd still find fault. Blame it on Bush Derangement Syndrome. They can't help it. It's a blinding fever. A creeping virus. A contagious bug.
What's so amazing and amusing about all of this is that if you (dems) don't have an alternative suggestion or know what you (dems) want, it's easy to be critical!
Those who underestimated Mitt Romney's appeal to contributor purse strings had to be utterly amazed at the amount of money (6.5 million) pledged yesterday to support his candidacy for President in 2008.
Toldja.
Unless something (or someone) totally unforeseen appears on the political horizon within the next few months, Mitt Romney will be the candidate everyone will be watching.
Newly elected -- more moderate -- democrats have set their own legislative parameters, putting Speaker Nancy Pelosi on notice. A corp of "Blue Dog" democrats will not be supporting all the initiatives in Pelosi's agenda.
Will she heed the warning? Probably not.
If she doesn't -- my prediction that disagreements amongst democrats may become a highlight during the next two years.
And that will not only make President Bush look even better, but may become a "plus" for Mitt Romney.
Why?
No other candidate for President in 2008 has Romney's history (a Republican Governor in a liberal state) for working successfully with bipartisan initiatives.
We've been forewarned about Pelosi's plans for the first 100 days of her tenure as Speaker of the House. With dissension within her party, however, those plans may have been placed on hold had she not implemented a surprise twist to House Rules ....
What she orchestrated was a ruling to disallow Republicans from entering debates or allowing them to offer amendments to the plethora of bills Dems want to pass -- without the process of committee review.
What can stop this parliamentary steam-roll?
Unless Republicans can come up with a twist of their own (unlikely), only the President's veto.
This should be interesting ....
Suggested Pelosi Theme Song:
99 bottles of ..... days to go 99 days to go Turn a calendar page See the BDS rage -- 98 days to go ....
[Continue singing rounds until "1 day to go" then repeat "99 days" sequences for the next two years.]
.... sitting down while wearing high-heeled shoes, no less!
Today Sen. Joe Biden shared a different perspective on what constitutional leverage Congress actually has over the President, however --
MR. RUSSERT: ...there's really little Democrats can do. Why not cut off funding for the war?
SEN. BIDEN: I've been there, Tim. You can't do it.
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
SEN. BIDEN: You can't do it. It's--what--because it made sense in the Constitution when you said you could cut off funding when you had no standing army. We have a standing army with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. You can't go in and, like a tinker toy, and play around and say, "You can't spend the money on this piece and this piece and"--he--able--he'll be able to keep those troops there forever constitutionally if he wants to.
MR. RUSSERT: Why not have legislation then that would cap the number of troops in Iraq?
SEN. BIDEN: Because it's very difficult to--it's constitutionally questionable whether or not you can do that. I think it is unconstitutional to say, "We're going to tell you you can go, but we're going to micromanage the war." When we wrote the Constitution, the intention was to give the commander in chief the authority how to use the forces, when you authorize them, to be able to use the forces. And so... the only way this is going to change, Tim... is when a majority of Lindsey's colleagues, Republicans, say to the president, "Mr. President, enough. We are not going to support you any more," that's when the president will begin to change his policy.
The count-down has begun, may we assume?
Wait.
Maybe Speaker Nancy should not start that clock until Dems themselves are on the same page .....
While admiring John McCain's service on two fronts, I've never felt he had the mentality, stability or qualities befitting a President of the United States. Obviously, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Folks over at Carpetbaggers have joined their dubious TV personality in revealing a few of McCain's cavings. There will likely be more to come.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans "deserved" the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell's debate coach.)
* McCain used to oppose Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn't want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he "would taint the image of the 'Straight Talk Express.'" Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
And now McCain has gone from insisting that the war in Iraq would be easy to insisting that he's always said the war in Iraq would be hard. And yet, you'll still find most of the political establishment arguing that McCain's strength as a candidate is his credibility.
I don't relish using liberal research to support my preferred candidate for president -- but, hey -- if the shoe fits, let someone else tromp around in it first!
Newly elected -- more moderate -- democrats have set their own legislative parameters,