Saturday, May 31, 2008
You see "ideological cleansing" is a tactic of the MoveOn.Org (or the MODORGs as I like to call them). It shouldn't be ours. We are better than that. We need, according to Ms Pryce, to let the Modorgs keep their party in line while we compromise our principles, you know, so "we" can govern. Who are "we," Ms Pryce?
And apparently, Ms Pryce is confusing leadership with servitude. "To serve them, (her constituents) we must attempt to reflect their views - not antagonize them..." So she is one of those politicians who must take a poll before casting every vote, and is damn proud of it. You see, Congresswoman, they voted for you. You reflect their views by virtue of their having voted for you. When you cease reflecting their views, as your colleague Mr. Gilchrest did years ago, they will cease voting for you.
Finally she rubs salt in the wound that drove Pat Toomey into the Club's warm embrace, advising that if he was so sure of his principles, how could he possibly lose to that ideological chameleon Arlen Specter. Ma'am, with all due respect (if any is due at this point) Mr. Toomey came within a hair of beating Mr. Specter, the senior senator from PA. In fact he probably lost by one Rick Santorum-stump-speech. Or one President Bush stump speech. Yes, he ran on a conservative agenda, was not supported by his party and was up against an incumbent and he still almost won!
I would say that it sounds like Rep. Pryce is next up in the CFG's hit parade, but it seems she is not seeking another term. Bravely, she hurls invective over her shoulder.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Please see that Mr. Leopold gets the following message:
Dear Mr. Leopold,
The following is a rough idea of what my 10-year-old daughter along with most of the 4th-Graders from Oak Hill Elementary School wrote to you recently at the request of her teacher.
"If there were less teachers there would be bigger classes and it would be harder to learn..."
After counting to 10, I calmly asked her how she knew that it would be harder to teach. She said her teacher told her. I wondered how much time the teacher spent indoctrinating her pupils in the politics of the teachers union. I then lectured my daughter on the difference between a scientific fact and the driving force behind a union.
I told her that it is was not a scientific fact that smaller classes lead to more learning. However, I said, it is indeed a scientific fact that if you divide a single class into two you will have created a new teaching position. And what does this mean? I asked her. "More money for the teachers?" No, I said. The teachers will make the same union scale whether there are one or one thousand of them. It will mean more money for the Union. So you see dear, I continued, It doesn't really matter what the kids learn. What matters is how many dues-paying teachers there are in the union.
Now, I find it disturbing that the teachers union, once again, is using the children to gain a political advantage for itself. I wouldn't mind so much if they were truly interested in the children's education. But as I explained to my 10 year-old, and as I have explained to many an adult, this is simply not the case, and anyone who believes it is is either an officer of the Union or has been so deluded by union propaganda as to be incapable of thinking for themselves anymore.
So please ignore these letters you are receiving from elementary school children such as my daughter. And please strenuously object to the teachers spending time on the taxpayers' dime, to spread union propaganda to our impressionable kids.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Well, this is his latest, even more ironic stand:
"Last week, liberals in Congress voted for the equivalent of a $150 billion tax increase. They voted to make your next trip to the gas station more expensive; to make your next airplane ticket more expensive; to make heating your home more expensive -- even to make feeding your family more expensive.
How did they do it? By voting to block environmentally sound production of U.S. energy in favor of continuing to be held hostage to oil from foreign dictatorships. I'll explain in a minute."
Newt wants us to "Drill Now, Drill Here" and without even looking at the roll I can bet that Gilchrest was one of the few Republicans who voted to block the drilling, as he has done on many occasions over the years. [OK, so it was a Senate bill. So what? Apparently Newt would elevate Gilchrest to the Senate anyway. And there's bound to be a House version of this same bill....no?]
In case you are wondering, yes, I am going to continue highlighting the hypocrisy of the former Speaker until he comes clean and admits he was a fool to have nearly caused the reelection of Wayne Gilchrest.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The president of the Maryland State Teachers union explains this posture by asking "what has changed" since keeping "neutral" on this issue over the last 10 years? Indeed nothing has changed. Ater last contract was signed with the county union (TAAAC), with its salary increases, the Annapolis Kapital declared that we have seen the last of the annual squabbling over teachers salaries. This lasted barely a year, and I predicted that it is not the business of teachers unions to stop squabbling over money and power, especially money; that the union could never be satisfied until every employee of the school system was a due-paying union member with a guaranteed pension at 100 percent of their current salary, free medical insurance and a class size of two perfect children.
"Half of all future slots revenue- estimated in the hundreds of millions within several years - would be dedicated toward public education..." through a trust fund, according Clara Floyd MSTA President. This reveals her ignorance of the state constitution which makes no provision for "dedicated" revenue. All state revenue goes into the General Fund. She panders to the Ann Arundel County school system by asking us to "imagine" how all that money would go to clearing a backlog of school construction and maintenance and hiring a slew of new union members, er , teachers.
I would rather imagine how all that money would go to decreasing our taxes, you know, since all that slots revenue would surely be offset by lower taxes, yes? Uh, no. Not a word about that in all the "deliberations, discussions, debates" the union endured to reach this difficult decision. Instead "we will continue to fight for" increased corporate taxes and "state investments in productive industries," whatever that means. Taxes are "the only major source of revenue" that will allow the union to fight for more money for less work.
The Kapital has since been forced to print letters to the editor from teachers who are appalled at their union pro-slots stance. The Kapital even ran a humours guest column by Stanley R. Baker, a Gambrills resident, and self-declared anti-slots-when-Ehrlich-was-governor and now a retired union member, I mean teacher. His Slots-for-Tots! program would take the Union stand a step further by actually installing slot machines in the schools. But the program he imagines is needed because we, the evil, money-grubbing citizenry have a bad attitude about keeping taxes low "...and damn the consequence."
Now comes this from Washington State Teaching Hacks:
"Teachers' Unions seem to be having an increasingly tough time hiding the fact that they really don't care about what's best for teachers, or kids for that matter. Washington state's teachers unions have refused a $13 million grant that would have gone to help teachers of Advance Placement course. Why? Because teachers would have been rewarded if their kids test scores improved. Read the whole sorry story here."
HatTip - Dad
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
The Republicans are showing poorly in all the polls, on the issues, nobody likes Bush, etc. Also, how can poor John McCain possibly keep up his obvious popularity while the GOP burns? So what should Republicans do to burnish their image with the party faithful? Stop schmoozing with liberal Democratic party leaders? No. Start voting consistently for conservative initiatives, show some spine with the war on terror? No. Build the fence? No. What Newt believes we should be doing is to....not attack the Democrats.
"The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins), anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail."
So we should run a campaign for the Democrats? See, this has been McCain's secret weapon, and we are going to spoil things if we point out that Obama consorts with bigots, racists and domestic terrorists or that Clinton is, well, Clinton!
He quotes a Washington Post poll to support his thesis that the GOP need to be nicer to the liberals:
"A February Washington Post poll shows that Republicans have lost the advantage to the Democrats on which party can handle an issue better -- on every single topic.The Washington Post. Next to the NYT, the Post is the most agenda-driven pack of newsprint hacks in the world. Al-Jazeera has more journalistic integrity.
"Americans now believe that Democrats can handle the deficit better (52 to 31), taxes better (48 to 40) and even terrorism better (44 to 37). This is a catastrophic collapse of trust in Republicans...."
Earth to Newt....maybe those Republicans lost in Illinois and Louisiana simply because they could not bring themselves to articulate a conservative message. Kind of like, hmmmmmmm Wayne Gilchrest. You remember. Ol' Wayne? He would vote AGAINST every single one of your 9-step program's measures.
1. Repeal the gas tax AND pay for it with spending cuts. First, the notion of "paying" for a tax cut reveals the thoroughly debunked belief that tax cuts lead to lost revenue; when every single tax cut in the history of taxes has shown the opposite. If Gilchrest voted against this, as he will, he should do so because of this fact. But he won't vote for it because it is a tax cut.
2. Sell strategic petroleum reserves on the open market. He would vote no simply because the rest of the "sheep" are voting yes.
3. A "more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill" No, because he doesn't understand it...neither do I. This is not an initiative, it's a string of politically correct slogans.
Oh...it just goes on and on like this. Pure. Unmitigated. Gall.