Archive for May 9th, 2012

Americans Continue To Show Their "Center-Right-edness"

Item 1: North Carolina, as expected, put the definition of "marriage" into their state Constitution, so that judges and legislator alike who seem to have forgotten it could be reminded. When the Left insists on redefining words, don’t be surprised when the Right meets you on that battlefield, with common sense armed and ready.

Item 2: The Tea Party has been tarred with the charge that they are just Republicans mad at having a black, Democratic President. And yet, in Indiana, the Tea-Party-backed candidate for US Senate challenged and handily beat the white, Republican 36-year veteran in the party’s primary. It is not, and has never been, about race or party. It has always been about policy. If it was about party, running the perennial favorite is what they would have done. But Richard Lugar has lost touch with conservatives in Indiana, and with the Tea Party in full swing, they did something about it.

News/Blog items:

Tea Party Senate Candidate Richard Mourdock Wins; Gay Marriage Loses

Mourdock victory = Tea Party victory

A Terrible, No Good, Awful Night for Barack Obama

Six-term Senate veteran Lugar defeated in Indiana primary

N.C. to add marriage amendment to its constitution

A Modest Proposal: Campaign Finance Reform

The regrettable Mr Edwards, whom the Democrats just recently discovered, is something of a slime-weasel, is in the news as he is accused of campaign finance “irregularities.” Additionally, the left is up and arms over the high court’s rejection of restrictions on corporate contributions to campaigns. Additionally, we have a problem with our deficit. I have a solution for all three.

Let’s get rid of all campaign finance restrictions. Campaign contributions will be considered, in my proposal, as a contribution directly to the person who is running. He can use those funds however he might see fit, for vacations in the South Pacific, an extension on his house, or for campaign ads, campaign gewgaws and literature, or other campaign related activities. This will have several benefits.

  1. No silly court related cases like the above.
  2. People will think twice about contributing to people of low character.
  3. Contributions will be taxed as income (likely as aggressively as lottery income), and as a result, will have a positive impact on our deficit far greater than the “tax-the-rich” proposals on the table.

So, there you go. Campaign finance irregularities. Solved. Everybody can go home happy now.

Or not.

Things Heard: e220v3

Good morning.

  1. Starting on a lighter note
  2. Moving to a patriotic one, albeit not for my country but the sentiments translate (literally).
  3. Which leads to my question, not exactly about any particular point made by the linked essay, but on the same topic. So many people, and they might be right for all I know, equate political success directly with campaign spending. How does that work? Just about every ad I’ve seen for candidate A (bought by/paid for by candidate A) shifts me more toward the other side. Every call from candidate A makes me more annoyed with him than not. So how then does spending translate into votes?
  4. Love your neighbor dude. Try it.
  5. Choice.
  6. Can you imagine? Government obstruction? Golly.
  7. More here, of a different sort.
  8. Ho hum? I didn’t see this in any papers. Have you? How about on your other news sources? Why? Why not?
  9. Right on the heels of Mr Obama’s speech announcing victory over al-Qaeda.
  10. That pay disparity.
  11. And some more maths fun.
  12. One way to cool your thirst on a long ride. Not the usual way however.
  13. A bookend, back to the light with a contrast of sorts.