Today's blog has a women in politics theme. You know, the ladies are supposed to be liberal Democrats: pro-abortion, anti-gun, big spending entitlement pushers. Maude on methamphetamine.
But then along came Tuesday's primary elections in which pro-business women in favor of down-sizing government, and strong on law and order, carried the day. It means that women are no longer playing the victim game fostered by "progressives."
Ed Garvey, D-Teachers Union, refuses to give the ladies their due. Instead, they are "richies." This is actually a term of denigration among liberals.
That would be true of Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman in California but I'm not aware that Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, or Sharron Angle in Nevada are "richies." Let's mention another winner from Tuesday night: Sarah Palin. Sarah is not a "richie" either but is on her way to becoming one. Good for her.
As I watched beautiful people on cable scream and holler over "ladies night" I couldn't help but wonder what in hell were they thinking.
Ed is hacking on a bone caught in his throat because these are not the right kind of woman. They're not Shirley Chisholm, Gloria Steinem, or Betty Friedan. (Ed misspells each of their names.) In other words, Tuesday's winners are CONSERVATIVE women.
Oh, how the liberal narrative has been upended!
They're also "successful" women
In any case, Fiorina and Whitman are self-made women. No trust funds. No inheritance from a rich, dead husband. And worse, they're CAPITALISTS. (Notice how I capitalized "CAPITALISTS.")
I do a lot of joshing of my friend "Comrade" John Nichols, one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet -- and to the Left of Progressive Dane. It is John's gift to communicate the essence of the European socialist agenda while dressing it up in the tri-cornered hat of the Yankee Doodle drummer.
In today's on-line Capital Times, John attacks "big money" in politics.
While a lot of us are worried about the corrosive effects of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC case, which removes limits to campaigning by big corporations, one of the most unsettling facts of our politics is the reality that wealthy candidates can and do buy nominations with increasing frequency these days.
His particular targets are, of course, Fiorina and Whitman, two Silicon Valley executives who are running for, respectively, senator and governor of California on the (need I say?) Republican ticket.
Criticism of "wealthy candidates" is not something that John or The Capital Times ever levels against, say, Herb Kohl, who is, perhaps, the wealthiest man in the U.S. Senate. Nor was it leveled against Jon Corzine in New Jersey or Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy or John Edwards (the skunk).
Connect the dots, John! If you bemoan the head start a fat bank account gives a candidate -- case law on a candidate's right to spend his own money on his own speech is well settled -- then why decry the Citizens United case?
Citizens United says that corporations and unions -- both voluntary associations of individuals -- can spend members' money on political speech. That helps even the playing field. Poor Joe Schmoe can get help (albeit indirectly) in his race against Daddy Warbucks. Especially when Big Daddy is the incumbent.
Is John forgetting Big Labor's expenditure of $10 million on its hand-picked challenger to Lincoln in the U.S. Senate race in Arkansas? For all the good it did. (Cue sound of toilet flushing.)
BTW: Is the New York Times "big money" in politics? Does the New York Times editorialize? Is Sarah Palin a pit bull with lipstick?
The Divine Ms. Sarah
Ann Coulter writes: "Sarah Palin endorsed three dark-horse candidates in Republican match-ups this year, and all three won their primaries yesterday: Nikki Haley, Sharron Angle, and Carly Fiorina. No wonder Sarah's being stalked by Joe McGinniss."
Hey, I'm like Fox News: I just report. You decide.
Helen Thomas watch
How many of you know that Egypt is also blockading Gaza, not just Israel? William Kristol in the Weekly Standard:
Israel withdrew from Gaza almost five years ago. Three years ago, Hamas took over in a military coup. Since then, Israel and Egypt have blockaded Gaza to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas, which has launched missiles into Israel and which is committed to the killing of Israelis and the destruction of the state of Israel. Last week, Hamas sympathizers sought to break the blockade. Israel acted to stop them. It has nothing to apologize for. The blockade prevents Hamas, and its backer, Iran, from triggering a larger war from Gaza. It isolates Hamas and allows for continued progress on the West Bank.
Hmm, now there is an idea. Germany in WW1 inserted Lenin into Russia from his exile in Switzerland "like a plague bacillus," Churchill has written, to bring Czarist Russia down and take that country out of the war.
Could we not air drop Helen Thomas into Gaza?
Poor Julie Lassa
Crazy has been defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results.
David Obey, the main author of the federal porkulus bill says more government spending may be needed to avoid a double dip recession.
With the stock market dropping more than 1,000 points in the past month, unemployment hovering just under 10-percent, and the private sector creating only 41,000 new jobs in May ... [Superior Telegram 6-9-10: "Obey says second stimulus may be needed."]
Should bring a cheer at the Dems' state convention this weekend in Middleton but a shiver from Julie Lassa, who would like to succeed Obey in the House.
Tea Party anyone?
Which brings us to the event that produced today's revolution against Obey-style Big Government.
The peerless Michael Barone on the economic and moral argument at the foundation of the Tea Party Movement but its founder, CNBC journalist Rick Santelli, just one month into the Obama Administration on February 9, 2009:
"This is America!" Santelli declared. "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"
... Santelli was arguing that the people who, in Bill Clinton's felicitous phrase, "work hard and play by the rules" shouldn't have to subsidize those who took on debts that they couldn't repay.
This was both an economic and a moral argument. Economic, because subsidies to the improvident are an unproductive investment. ... Subsidies just prolonged the agony.
But it's also a moral argument. Taking money away from those who made prudent decisions and giving it to people who made imprudent decisions is casting society's vote for imprudence and self-indulgence. It mocks thrift and makes chumps out of those who pay their own way." [Washington Examiner: 6-9-10]
FACT: The U.S. Treasury Department's "Annual Report on Public Debt" states that our $13-trillion-and-rising national debt now measures out at more than 90 percent of our economy. That will climb to $19.6 trillion by 2015. The Treasury Department report to Congress said the ratio of debt to the gross domestic product would rise to 102 percent by 2015 from 93 percent this year.