As the biggest dairy consumer I know, this subsidy really ticks me off.
From Chris Edwards, director of tax policy at Cato:
To enforce artificially high prices, the government imposes import barriers on milk, butter, cheese, and other products. Without those barriers, consumers could simply purchase lower-priced foreign goods. Imports of cheese, butter, and dried milk are limited to about five percent or less of U.S. consumption.
All these policies add up to higher prices. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that U.S. policies create a 26 percent "implicit tax" on milk consumers. That "milk tax" is regressive, meaning that it harms low-income families the most.
The Government Accountability Office compared U.S. dairy prices to world prices over the period 1998 to 2004. It found that U.S. prices for butter averaged twice the world price, cheese prices were about 50 percent higher, and dry milk prices were 24 percent or more higher.
So we limit competition, subsidize and restrict imports, all clearly having the effect of increased prices. Then, in order for the poor to afford milk and mac-and-cheese, we’ve got to fund WIC programs and the like.
Shouldn't we stop this? Let's do it "for the children." And me.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Post by Hewitt
On new media, old media, the "outrage" of some lefty bloggers over the appearance by Gen. Petraeus on HH's show, the surge. It is long but worth reading the whole thing. A few excerpts:
"I think such a decision to cater to one party's propaganda outlet renders Petraeus' military independence moot,"[Andrew] Sullivan declared. "I'll wait for the transcript," he continued, before not waiting for the transcript. "But Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I'm beginning to suspect the latter. The only thing worse than a deeply politicized and partisan war is a deeply politicized and partisan commander. But we now know whose side Petraeus seems to be on: Cheney's. Expect spin, not truth, in September."
...
Over at The Carpetbagger Report, a post concluded:
And speaking of Petraeus, what should we expect from him come September? It’s probably best to lower expectations now. Petraeus’ credibility suffered a serious blow this week when he appeared on far-right activist Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, and stuck closely to the White House script. Many of the comments that followed were as vile, an example of which is "Can you call him Betrayus now? He’s just an GOP stooge in a uniform."
....
What surprises me is that the extremists have fallen so deeply into their own narrative that they are wholly unaware of how their call for strict control of the news and their slander of the widely and rightly admired extraordinary hero that is General Petraeus exposes them to the public as deeply unbalanced, anti-intellectual and far, far removed from the mainstream of America. This disconnection from ordinary Americans is always obvious when a leftist resorts to the most foul sorts of profanity and vulgarity, but the rage that bubbles and erupts again and again is the sort of eye-opener that not even friends can ignore for very long. The demands for the Fairness Doctrine’s return displayed the same sort of zealotry in the attempt to shut down voices not in keeping with their own. The illiberal reflexiveness of the left tells you all you need to know about how they would govern if they ever got close to power.
....
The Administration and the Pentagon have never emphasized enough the direct engagement of the public via the new media, or even the old media in the extended, one-on-one form which is the very best form for explaining the war to the public. The ear-splitting shrieks of outrage at General Petraeus’ interview with me should be a huge signal that this is what the anti-war extremists fear most: The calm presentation of facts at length by those in a position to know them, engaged in an interview the unpredictability of which makes the exchange interesting. Speeches rarely hold the attention of an audience, which is why only small excerpts of them make it on air. Interviews –conducted professionally by a prepared host—can be riveting. The war on terror depends upon sustaining the will of the American people to fight it, and sustaining that will means giving the public the facts, again, and again and again. Making themselves available in at least 30 minute chunks to all sorts of skilled interviewers –Russert, Brit Hume, Charlie Rose, and Chris Wallace are the best on television, my colleagues at Salem, Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, and Michael Medved, excel at the form as does Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller and Sean Hannity—is the best way to educate the American public about what is going on in the war on its many fronts.
I and the vast vast majority of listeners/readers are grateful that General Petraeus made time at the end of a very long day for the interview, a day which is nowhere near the end of his three plus years of tremendous service in Iraq and thirty years of service and sacrifice on behalf of the country. I hope he continues to agree to appear on any show or to be interviewed by any blogger or journalist –left, right, or center-- who will treat him with respect and fairness. I hope the same thing for other senior military and civilian officials engaged in fighting the war. Allowing the know-nothing, anti-intellectual fringe to block the flow of information to the American public via invective, slander and scorn that would be to keep the best, most compelling testimony from the public at a time when they need it most.
"I think such a decision to cater to one party's propaganda outlet renders Petraeus' military independence moot,"[Andrew] Sullivan declared. "I'll wait for the transcript," he continued, before not waiting for the transcript. "But Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I'm beginning to suspect the latter. The only thing worse than a deeply politicized and partisan war is a deeply politicized and partisan commander. But we now know whose side Petraeus seems to be on: Cheney's. Expect spin, not truth, in September."
...
Over at The Carpetbagger Report, a post concluded:
And speaking of Petraeus, what should we expect from him come September? It’s probably best to lower expectations now. Petraeus’ credibility suffered a serious blow this week when he appeared on far-right activist Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, and stuck closely to the White House script. Many of the comments that followed were as vile, an example of which is "Can you call him Betrayus now? He’s just an GOP stooge in a uniform."
....
What surprises me is that the extremists have fallen so deeply into their own narrative that they are wholly unaware of how their call for strict control of the news and their slander of the widely and rightly admired extraordinary hero that is General Petraeus exposes them to the public as deeply unbalanced, anti-intellectual and far, far removed from the mainstream of America. This disconnection from ordinary Americans is always obvious when a leftist resorts to the most foul sorts of profanity and vulgarity, but the rage that bubbles and erupts again and again is the sort of eye-opener that not even friends can ignore for very long. The demands for the Fairness Doctrine’s return displayed the same sort of zealotry in the attempt to shut down voices not in keeping with their own. The illiberal reflexiveness of the left tells you all you need to know about how they would govern if they ever got close to power.
....
The Administration and the Pentagon have never emphasized enough the direct engagement of the public via the new media, or even the old media in the extended, one-on-one form which is the very best form for explaining the war to the public. The ear-splitting shrieks of outrage at General Petraeus’ interview with me should be a huge signal that this is what the anti-war extremists fear most: The calm presentation of facts at length by those in a position to know them, engaged in an interview the unpredictability of which makes the exchange interesting. Speeches rarely hold the attention of an audience, which is why only small excerpts of them make it on air. Interviews –conducted professionally by a prepared host—can be riveting. The war on terror depends upon sustaining the will of the American people to fight it, and sustaining that will means giving the public the facts, again, and again and again. Making themselves available in at least 30 minute chunks to all sorts of skilled interviewers –Russert, Brit Hume, Charlie Rose, and Chris Wallace are the best on television, my colleagues at Salem, Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, and Michael Medved, excel at the form as does Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller and Sean Hannity—is the best way to educate the American public about what is going on in the war on its many fronts.
I and the vast vast majority of listeners/readers are grateful that General Petraeus made time at the end of a very long day for the interview, a day which is nowhere near the end of his three plus years of tremendous service in Iraq and thirty years of service and sacrifice on behalf of the country. I hope he continues to agree to appear on any show or to be interviewed by any blogger or journalist –left, right, or center-- who will treat him with respect and fairness. I hope the same thing for other senior military and civilian officials engaged in fighting the war. Allowing the know-nothing, anti-intellectual fringe to block the flow of information to the American public via invective, slander and scorn that would be to keep the best, most compelling testimony from the public at a time when they need it most.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Jeri Thompson "Working the Pole"
From Levin's column today at NRO:
As for Joe Scarborough and his “work the pole” comment, he makes himself sound like the kind of guy who gets the frequent-tipper discount at most of these places.
I know I made a related post before but sheesh, "Work the pole."
I didn't know his wife's name is Jeri. The last time that happened when Jack Ryan (wife 7 of 9 a/k/a Jeri Ryan) was running for a Senate seat in Illinois, Obama became a US senator.
From eonline:
This is Ryan's second matrimonial go-round, her first occurring in 1991 with onetime U.S. Senate candidate Jack Ryan. The pair initially requested that the court keep the terms of their 1999 divorce under wraps, but their custody fight over Alex was unsealed in 2004, when Jack entered Illinois ' senatorial race.
In the court documents, the actress alleged that, during their marriage, her ex had taken her to sex clubs, including one "bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling," and encouraged her to get freaky with him in public.
This revelation, not exactly a resume highlight for Jack Ryan, eventually resulted in the Republican candidate withdrawing from the '04 Senate race.
This can't be a good sign.
As for Joe Scarborough and his “work the pole” comment, he makes himself sound like the kind of guy who gets the frequent-tipper discount at most of these places.
I know I made a related post before but sheesh, "Work the pole."
I didn't know his wife's name is Jeri. The last time that happened when Jack Ryan (wife 7 of 9 a/k/a Jeri Ryan) was running for a Senate seat in Illinois, Obama became a US senator.
From eonline:
This is Ryan's second matrimonial go-round, her first occurring in 1991 with onetime U.S. Senate candidate Jack Ryan. The pair initially requested that the court keep the terms of their 1999 divorce under wraps, but their custody fight over Alex was unsealed in 2004, when Jack entered Illinois ' senatorial race.
In the court documents, the actress alleged that, during their marriage, her ex had taken her to sex clubs, including one "bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling," and encouraged her to get freaky with him in public.
This revelation, not exactly a resume highlight for Jack Ryan, eventually resulted in the Republican candidate withdrawing from the '04 Senate race.
This can't be a good sign.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Lady Bird Update
Was in my office kitchen moment ago and watched as the honor guard proceeded to the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center to take her to the LBJ Library. I'd guess that there were two sets of twenty State Troopers riding in pairs before the hearse.
Even though the hearse was empty, many drivers did pull over and stop to show their respect. When did we stop doing that? Granted that most funeral processions pass by so quickly today that it is difficult to pull over quickly enough before they pass but I think it sad that so many just don't care.
My grandfather would not only pull over, he'd get out and remove his hat.
Even though the hearse was empty, many drivers did pull over and stop to show their respect. When did we stop doing that? Granted that most funeral processions pass by so quickly today that it is difficult to pull over quickly enough before they pass but I think it sad that so many just don't care.
My grandfather would not only pull over, he'd get out and remove his hat.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Nice Words for Lady Bird
at NRO. My Lions Club has been hosting about 28 seventeen to twenty year-olds from Europe and the Middle East for a few days this week. Unfortunately, they were scheduled for the LBJ Presidential Library today...which was closed in her honor. She lies in state (is it "in state" when she really held no office?) there tomorrow and Saturday.
Update: Apparently, she is lying "in repose."
Update: Apparently, she is lying "in repose."
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
More facts about Ethanol Hooey
From today's Tech Central Station (the article is called Political Liquor's Economic Hangover Just Beginning, I couldn't get a link directly to the article):
President Bush has set a target of replacing 15 percent of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) over the next 10 years, which would require almost a five-fold increase in mandatory biofuel use to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no other feasible, proven alternative. However, it is unlikely that American farmers will be able to meet such demands: Achieving the 15 percent goal would require the entire current U.S. corn crop, which represents a whopping 40 percent of the world's corn supply [emph. mine].
...
Politicians like to say that ethanol is environmentally friendly, but these claims must be put into perspective. Although corn is a renewable resource, it has a far lower energy yield relative to the energy used to produce it -- what policy wonks call "net energy balance" -- than either biodiesel (such as soybean oil) or ethanol from many other plants.
Moreover, ethanol yields about 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline, so mileage per gallon in internal combustion engines drops off significantly. Finally, adding ethanol raises the price of blended fuel because it is more expensive to transport and handle.
...
Brazil and other major sugarcane-producing nations enjoy significant advantages over the U.S. in producing ethanol, including ample agricultural land, warm climates amenable to vast sugarcane plantations, and on-site distilleries that can process cane immediately after harvest. At current world prices for sugar and corn, Brazilian ethanol production would remain competitive even if oil prices were to drop below $30 per barrel, but U.S. corn-based ethanol plants would be losing money at forty-dollar oil, even with the subsidy. Thus, in the absence of cost-effective, domestically available sources for producing ethanol, rather than using corn it would make far more sense to import ethanol from Brazil and other countries that can produce it efficiently — and also to remove the 54 cents-per-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol imports.
Subsidies, mandates, tariffs...leave the market alone.
President Bush has set a target of replacing 15 percent of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) over the next 10 years, which would require almost a five-fold increase in mandatory biofuel use to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no other feasible, proven alternative. However, it is unlikely that American farmers will be able to meet such demands: Achieving the 15 percent goal would require the entire current U.S. corn crop, which represents a whopping 40 percent of the world's corn supply [emph. mine].
...
Politicians like to say that ethanol is environmentally friendly, but these claims must be put into perspective. Although corn is a renewable resource, it has a far lower energy yield relative to the energy used to produce it -- what policy wonks call "net energy balance" -- than either biodiesel (such as soybean oil) or ethanol from many other plants.
Moreover, ethanol yields about 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline, so mileage per gallon in internal combustion engines drops off significantly. Finally, adding ethanol raises the price of blended fuel because it is more expensive to transport and handle.
...
Brazil and other major sugarcane-producing nations enjoy significant advantages over the U.S. in producing ethanol, including ample agricultural land, warm climates amenable to vast sugarcane plantations, and on-site distilleries that can process cane immediately after harvest. At current world prices for sugar and corn, Brazilian ethanol production would remain competitive even if oil prices were to drop below $30 per barrel, but U.S. corn-based ethanol plants would be losing money at forty-dollar oil, even with the subsidy. Thus, in the absence of cost-effective, domestically available sources for producing ethanol, rather than using corn it would make far more sense to import ethanol from Brazil and other countries that can produce it efficiently — and also to remove the 54 cents-per-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol imports.
Subsidies, mandates, tariffs...leave the market alone.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Monday, July 09, 2007
Re: What a Shock Comments
While I don't justify the pardons of one administration by comparing those of other administrations, don't forget the FALN pardons.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Expanding the Dennis Miller Radio Universe
Had lunch today with the news director of a heritage radio station here in Austin. The discussion centered on what he believes will be a complete revolution of the radio industry in the next 6-8 years. Think having your car and home radio being wi-fi and all streaming audio all the time.
He asked if I listen to streaming audio on the web and I said I did. He asked what I listened to and I said, "the Dennis Miller Show." He then said he was thinking about bringing Miller to Austin and I told him he had me as a listener. I already fit his station's demographic so he knows he already has me, but I hope I helped.
He asked if I listen to streaming audio on the web and I said I did. He asked what I listened to and I said, "the Dennis Miller Show." He then said he was thinking about bringing Miller to Austin and I told him he had me as a listener. I already fit his station's demographic so he knows he already has me, but I hope I helped.
Dad
My Dad is ailing. It is a family tragedy and Mom is a basket case but stepping back from all the emotional stuff, it is difficult to lament too much. He's 82 and has had a very full life. Lived through the Depression (and like many of his generation it practically defined him or at least the way he lived...he built my very first bike after finding a discarded bike frame on the side of the road), served in the Marine Corps in occupied Japan, was a professional engineer, married a great woman and raised four kids, even if three of them graduated from aTm.
Having said that, his condition has caused me to think about him a lot. I visited him yesterday after he was transferred from a hospital to a rehab center, the hope being that he can be mobile enough and take care of himself enough that he can continue to live at home. If not, then (gasp) it looks like some kind of nursing home will be in order.
One thing that happened yesterday gave me some strange comfort. My Mom mentioned to me (when I dutifully called home to report in that I made it home safely) that one of my sisters was visiting Dad last night when they brought his meal to him in his room. I guess she asked if he preferred to eat in the dining room with the other rehab patients and he said, "Yes." It may seem like a small thing but I think it is huge. When I think about it, almost my entire life the only friends Dad has had are those who have been thrust upon him by Mom or us kids. The only adult friends I ever really remembering him having were husbands of Mom's friends or parents of the friends of us kids. That he wanted to eat with folks he doesn't know was huge in my mind. I don't remember him ever doing that...ever. That he wanted to do so gives me some hope of his ability to cope if he has to move into a nursing facility.
Side note: when I wheeled Dad into the dining room for his lunch yesterday, the man directly across from Dad was a dead-ringer for Junior Soprano. Bald head, exact same glasses.
On the other hand it caused me to realize that at least for the last 48 years this has been a man dedicated to only one thing: his family. Completely, utterly dedicated. I remember fondly all the weekends (one a month for about five years) he gave up to transport and accompany my brother and me on Scouting camp outs and giving up every Tuesday night for the Troop meetings. I even remember one camp out that a subset of my Troop (a patrol) took. He was the only adult and we were camping in what was then a rural area north of Dallas (now part of the Dallas sprawl near Frisco). Doesn't sound like much until you learn that it was during the middle of a big freeze. I suspect it never rose above 40F the entire weekend. I distinctly recall that the creek running through the farm (or ranch or whatever it was) was frozen enough that we could walk on it. Dad slept in the station wagon. He also drove two friends of mine and me 200 miles for a weekend of spelunking at what is now Longhorn Caverns (used to be open to public, meaning anyone could go in at any time...alone...we had to swim through some parts).
In today's world of what (this childless lawyer perceives to be) hyper-attention to kids...making sure they get to their ballet lessons, baseball and soccer practices, this may not seem like that much, but looking back, Dad was way outside the norm.
Having said that, his condition has caused me to think about him a lot. I visited him yesterday after he was transferred from a hospital to a rehab center, the hope being that he can be mobile enough and take care of himself enough that he can continue to live at home. If not, then (gasp) it looks like some kind of nursing home will be in order.
One thing that happened yesterday gave me some strange comfort. My Mom mentioned to me (when I dutifully called home to report in that I made it home safely) that one of my sisters was visiting Dad last night when they brought his meal to him in his room. I guess she asked if he preferred to eat in the dining room with the other rehab patients and he said, "Yes." It may seem like a small thing but I think it is huge. When I think about it, almost my entire life the only friends Dad has had are those who have been thrust upon him by Mom or us kids. The only adult friends I ever really remembering him having were husbands of Mom's friends or parents of the friends of us kids. That he wanted to eat with folks he doesn't know was huge in my mind. I don't remember him ever doing that...ever. That he wanted to do so gives me some hope of his ability to cope if he has to move into a nursing facility.
Side note: when I wheeled Dad into the dining room for his lunch yesterday, the man directly across from Dad was a dead-ringer for Junior Soprano. Bald head, exact same glasses.
On the other hand it caused me to realize that at least for the last 48 years this has been a man dedicated to only one thing: his family. Completely, utterly dedicated. I remember fondly all the weekends (one a month for about five years) he gave up to transport and accompany my brother and me on Scouting camp outs and giving up every Tuesday night for the Troop meetings. I even remember one camp out that a subset of my Troop (a patrol) took. He was the only adult and we were camping in what was then a rural area north of Dallas (now part of the Dallas sprawl near Frisco). Doesn't sound like much until you learn that it was during the middle of a big freeze. I suspect it never rose above 40F the entire weekend. I distinctly recall that the creek running through the farm (or ranch or whatever it was) was frozen enough that we could walk on it. Dad slept in the station wagon. He also drove two friends of mine and me 200 miles for a weekend of spelunking at what is now Longhorn Caverns (used to be open to public, meaning anyone could go in at any time...alone...we had to swim through some parts).
In today's world of what (this childless lawyer perceives to be) hyper-attention to kids...making sure they get to their ballet lessons, baseball and soccer practices, this may not seem like that much, but looking back, Dad was way outside the norm.
It's floodin' down in Texas....
Last weekend I traveled to Houston and during the week I traveled to Athens. I've crossed the Colorado River at least six times and the Brazos and Trinity Rivers twice each. Word today is that Texoma will be over its dam shortly so the Red will be up soon if not already.
42 years in Texas and I've never seen this much water. Amazing.
42 years in Texas and I've never seen this much water. Amazing.
Re: What a Shock
From Alan Dershowitz (hardly a conservative, whether neo or paleo) at the Huffington Post:
This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby's actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges' rulings were political. The appellate court judges' decision to deny bail was political. And the president's decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the president acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence.
This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby's actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges' rulings were political. The appellate court judges' decision to deny bail was political. And the president's decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the president acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
What a shock
Scooter (not ours, the "other" famous Scooter) gets out of doing prison time. I want to meet the person who didn't see this coming....
Thursday, June 28, 2007
NOT...
that I don't think she makes outrageous statements in her quest for book sales. Still, at least Ms. Coulter, brings arguments to bear that get lost, however bracingly she addresses them.
[Edit hat tip: Stephanie.]
[Edit hat tip: Stephanie.]
Ann at it again
Well Scooter, your girl is in the news again. Just when she is out of the limelight, she pops up somewhere and says something that at best is controversial - at worst, sick. The argument one hears is that she is just doing what liberals do. To me, the difference is that she is billed as a “political pundit”. It’s one thing for a comedian or celebrity to make bad jokes or comments (Letterman, O’Donnell, Maher), it is another for a “political pundit” to say…
“if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
Maybe I’ve missed it, but I don’t think I’ve heard or read where James Carville or Paul Begala has said they wished John McCain or Rudy Giuliani had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.
I listened to the exchange between Ann and Elizabeth Edwards. I don’t care for John Edwards and other than his wife having cancer, I don’t know much about her. But I thought she was polite, respectful and not out of bounds asking for the personal attacks to stop. Ann said a couple of times…”are you asking me to stop writing columns, are you asking me to stop writing…’ No, she wasn’t asking her to stop. Just stop with the personal attacks. I do think Ann was blindsided by the call, which seemed a bit unfair, but that wasn’t Elizabeth Edwards fault – that was Hardball’s.
I’m interested in you thoughts/comments…as well as Michael’s, if he is still with us.
“if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
Maybe I’ve missed it, but I don’t think I’ve heard or read where James Carville or Paul Begala has said they wished John McCain or Rudy Giuliani had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.
I listened to the exchange between Ann and Elizabeth Edwards. I don’t care for John Edwards and other than his wife having cancer, I don’t know much about her. But I thought she was polite, respectful and not out of bounds asking for the personal attacks to stop. Ann said a couple of times…”are you asking me to stop writing columns, are you asking me to stop writing…’ No, she wasn’t asking her to stop. Just stop with the personal attacks. I do think Ann was blindsided by the call, which seemed a bit unfair, but that wasn’t Elizabeth Edwards fault – that was Hardball’s.
I’m interested in you thoughts/comments…as well as Michael’s, if he is still with us.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Byron York Channels Scooter
At the Corner today:
Then I read Bob Shrum's book, No Excuses, in which he writes this:
Kerry talked with several potential [vice presidential] picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else -- that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before -- and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.
Previously posted by yours truly here.
Then I read Bob Shrum's book, No Excuses, in which he writes this:
Kerry talked with several potential [vice presidential] picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else -- that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before -- and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.
Previously posted by yours truly here.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Re: A civics lesson from the White House
It's a ridiculous argument...Cheney's, not yours. If the DMN is the only place you've seen it, you haven't been looking at enough conservative websites. It's all part of his grand plan to reestablish to the Executive the powers lost by Nixon.
A civics lesson from the White House
So I’ve been following the latest “fight” between the WH and the Congress over national security information oversight. I’m really surprised that this hasn’t had more “traction” (using a news term) in the news cycle (using another news term). I will tip my hat to the VP’s office and the WH lawyers – they are using very creative reasoning to somehow maintain that since the VP has duties and responsibilities in both the executive and legislative branches of government, he is exempt from the rules that apply to both, of course only when it suits him. Remember the Energy Task Force? When the VP was asked to disclose the members of this group, he refused, citing executive privilege. When asked to provide information regarding national security matters, the VP refuses, saying his office is part of the legislative branch and therefore, doesn’t have to comply with an executive order signed by President Bush in 2003. What is interesting about this position is that for 2 years, his office DID comply to this EO, but now, nope….not gonna do it.
Now I will admit the ongoing tussle between the VP and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has made the DMN for the past several days, along with numerous on-line news sites. However, this little nugget was in the DMN on Saturday and I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere else:
White House: Bush's office exempt from order
WASHINGTON – The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick
Cheney's office, President Bush's office is exempt from a presidential order
requiring government agencies that handle classified national security
information to submit to oversight by an independent federal watchdog. The
executive order that Mr. Bush issued in March 2003 covers all government
agencies that are part of the executive branch and, although it doesn't
specifically say so, was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or
the president's office, a White House spokesman said.
If I’m reading this correctly, now the President isn’t part of the executive branch either. Or if so, the EO doesn’t apply to him or his office as well. I am very, very confused. Exactly who is part of the executive branch anymore? All throughout my schooling, I was told, I think, that the President and VP WERE the executive branch. Now we’re being told that they are not. Who can clear this up for me?? For help, I decided to check out the WH press office – surely they know and can explain it to the rest of us:
WH press briefing via YouTube
Now I will admit the ongoing tussle between the VP and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has made the DMN for the past several days, along with numerous on-line news sites. However, this little nugget was in the DMN on Saturday and I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere else:
White House: Bush's office exempt from order
WASHINGTON – The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick
Cheney's office, President Bush's office is exempt from a presidential order
requiring government agencies that handle classified national security
information to submit to oversight by an independent federal watchdog. The
executive order that Mr. Bush issued in March 2003 covers all government
agencies that are part of the executive branch and, although it doesn't
specifically say so, was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or
the president's office, a White House spokesman said.
If I’m reading this correctly, now the President isn’t part of the executive branch either. Or if so, the EO doesn’t apply to him or his office as well. I am very, very confused. Exactly who is part of the executive branch anymore? All throughout my schooling, I was told, I think, that the President and VP WERE the executive branch. Now we’re being told that they are not. Who can clear this up for me?? For help, I decided to check out the WH press office – surely they know and can explain it to the rest of us:
WH press briefing via YouTube
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
