Mount Virtus

Update: Just as I was publishing this post, it looks like the Act has passed the Senate, with a lot of so-called Republicans also enabling the legislation. So goes the world…

Unsurprisingly, the Democrats in Congress haven’t accomplished much since they took over. Most notably, Nancy Pelosi’s 2006 “plan” to bring down gas prices is still in the works.

One special interest group to which Democrats have been busy pandering is Big Labor. They keep trying to take away workers’ rights to a secret ballot (aka the “Employee Free Choice Act”) as a means of growing private-sector union membership.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Washington have been trying to coerce the growth of union clout in the public sector, too. The issue at hand is the Public Safety Employee-Employer Cooperation Act of 2007 (S. 2123), which has made its reappearance in the Senate, having initially stalled there after passing the House:

Under current law, every state has the ability to set policies that govern its public workforce. In some states, police, firefighters and paramedics belong to unions that collectively bargain for their contracts. In others, unions representing public-security workers can bargain over pay, but not over benefits or work rules. And in some others, these workers can choose not to belong to a union.

Democrats want to change this for the entire country. A bill that passed the House last year would make the top officials at local unions the exclusive bargaining agents for public safety officers in every town or city with more than 5,000 people. They would also have the authority to bargain for everything — pay, benefits and work rules. The goal is to give labor the whip hand with local governments, and further coerce nonunion members to join the dues-paying ranks.

A top-down dictum to small local governments to mandate union recognition for police, fire, and other public safety workers? It’s a lot more efficient for Big Labor leaders to push the change at the federal level than to wade through the various laws of different states that have different prevailing views about public-sector labor relations. And Congressional Democrats are enabling them, without any compelling reason in the public interest and, in fact, many potential harms to the public interest.

If you want more information, the Alliance for Worker Freedom has a ton of resources on the issue. There’s also a great brief written by James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation.

Last year, when this issue was first hot, I interviewed Weld County Sheriff John Cooke for an iVoices podcast to discuss the potential local impact of the federal legislation.

In the current 24/7 political news cycle, with its rapid-fire sound bites and he said/she said sensationalism, it’s not often enough that bloggers step back and look at the big picture of what’s unfolding in the 2008 Presidential election. Hats off to my friend Michael at Best Destiny for some keen (and honest) insights in the wake of last night’s Democratic primary results from Indiana and North Carolina:

With the Left lurching through its own 60s-esque upheaval, and the GOP tragically unable to get its footing over the last four years, it’s very hard to see how this isn’t a time of seismic change in the American political world.

This is a time for ideals and orators and men of character and greatness. I don’t know who those men–or women–would be, but I’m a little bit fearful that if this country can’t find them soon, we might just be in for a long, bumpy ride into relative irrelevancy.

You really should read the whole piece, but it is the conclusion I quoted that gets to the heart of the matter, and it’s because electoral politics in a representative democracy by its very nature tends to be short-sighted.

There well may be “seismic change” ahead. Traditional coalition fault lines and the beloved Red State-Blue State model may disappear and give way to a new conventional wisdom about national politics.

What will happen in the 2008 election? All bets are off.

Where will the 2008 election leave our country? My hunch is that our major political candidates will be among the last to figure it out. And we may just reap what we have sown.

If you’re a limited government conservative and you want to stay informed, you really ought to be reading Jon Henke and company over at Q and O. I met Jon at Samsphere in Chicago: he has a wealth of blogging experience, key insights into strategic roles of new media, and a realistic, no-holds-barred view of the political landscape.

Today, following off a Robert Novak column, he makes a point about the chronic, compulsive inability of many Congressional Republicans to get their act together on spending and fiscal issues, a point that is difficult to refute:

Reelecting these guys is like sending Norm Peterson to lead an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. They’re whipped by Democrats and by the public choice incentives. There’s just no significant ambition to limit government. More importantly, they have no ideas for how to limit the size of government.

To some extent, that’s a failure of the existing Republican leadership. But it’s more of a failure of the larger Limited Government movement that has been captured by Washington, DC. We’ve developed an entrenched bureaucracy devoted more to sustaining and propagating itself than to actually limiting government.

First, many of the GOP members of Congress need to admit they have a problem. Second, members of the Limited Government movement need to decide to stop enabling them. (And not necessarily in that order….)

Republican Presidential candidate John McCain was in town on Friday to lead a townhall discussion on his health care policy. Last week local health care guru Brian Schwartz previewed McCain’s arrival with a lukewarm analysis of the candidate’s plan to reform health care, summed up here:

So this tax-credit idea, while sort of on target, is even more social engineering via tax policy, instead of undoing existing tax policy that has created the problem in the first place.

Joshua Sharf, who saw the candidate in person, was left with a more favorable view of the tax credit proposal, but thought the good idea in McCain’s policy was watered down with many bits of “nanny-state hectoring.”

Joshua also noted McCain’s well-developed skills of personal retail politicking:

One moment stood out for me. I don’t think it was a planted question, but when one woman who runs a laser- and massage-therapy clinic with her husband asked a question, McCain interrupted to prompt her to define and discuss laser therapy and its benefits. It was obvious he knew the answer, but just as obvious that he wanted her to say it. He didn’t need to prove how smart he was by lecturing; he could do it just as well by letting her talk with pride about her work.

My guess is McCain wins more votes with his approach on the stump than with his health care plan.

John Mark Reynolds (H/T Hugh Hewitt) has penned a clever parody of a classic ballad - here’s an excerpt (you’ll have to imagine your own guitar vocals, or if you’re ambitious enough, record an MP3 in hopes of getting on Hewitt’s program):

Does any one know where the love of Gen Y goes
When the press turns the minutes to hours?
The pundits all say they’d have made Chesapeake Bay
If they’d put Reverend Wright far behind him.
They might have split up and so not have capsized;
Instead he pressed on and took water.
And all that remains is the faces and the names
On the Internet lists he was compiling.

As a son of Michigan, I know the original Gordon Lightfoot song well, respecting its peculiar and unforgettable blend of the cheesy and the sublime. Speaking of cheesy, I was struck by the thought of another pop culture ship-sinking metaphor for the Barack Obama campaign, in three parts:

“Audacity? Hope? Forget it, I’m king of the world!”

“Reverend Wright! Dead ahead!!”

“Wh-wh-what happened? We were unsinkable. D-does this mean the campaign won’t go on (and on… and on…)?”

Someone with more time and Photoshop skills can play with that theme. In the meantime, I’ll go and repress once more the traumatic memory of the guy next door in my college dorm who blasted that Celine Dion song full volume - leaving his room locked while he fled the dorm, leaving me to go insane. (Some of you may have found part of the explanation you’re looking for.)

Over at Craig Sprout’s Montana Politics site, Congressman Denny Rehberg explains why the Blogger Protection Act of 2008 is needed:

Exempting Internet speech from FEC regulation was right thing to do, but the fight isn’t over. As easily as this rule was created in 2006, it can be removed by a new Administration. That’s why the Blogger Protection Act is necessary. It’s critical my House colleagues and I move quickly in making this protection permanent.

This is something all bloggers can get behind, regardless of their political and philosophical orientation.

The ironically-named Employee Free Choice Act is the name of the Big Labor special interest legislation to take away workers’ rights to the secret ballot. EFCA has been beaten many times, but like a bad dream it keeps coming back.

What’s the big deal, you say? Would you want this guy looking over your shoulder when you vote?

(H/T Fred Dooley)

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has conjured up a Scriptural passage from whole cloth to sanction her Left-liberal environmentalist agenda:

In her April 22 Earth Day news release, Pelosi said, “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’ On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children’s children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature.”

Cybercast News Service repeatedly queried the speaker’s office for two days to determine where the alleged Bible quote is found. Thus far, no one has responded.

Distinguished biblical scholars, however, cast doubt on the existence of the passage.

Not that biblical scholars necessarily had to be consulted to disprove the obvious, but they all unanimously point out that nothing approximating such a passage exists - and one even called it “fictional.” (Michelle Malkin links to other bloggers commenting on the subject.)
Read the rest of this entry »

I needed a good laugh tonight, so it was good to see Frank J. at IMAO performing the service of dispelling rumors about Barack Obama (H/T Jenn Sierra). Here are the first few to whet your appetite:

RUMOR: Obama is a Muslim.
STATUS: False
Obama is not currently a Muslim. He’s a Christian of some sort in the “hate Whitey” sect.

RUMOR: Obama is an enlightened space alien sent to save humanity.
STATUS: False
All evidence points towards Obama being a below average man who his wife stopped asking to do chores around the house because he was always getting his head stuck in the mop bucket.

RUMOR: Obama tried to bomb the Pentagon.
STATUS: False
That was his friend.

Satire. I needed that.

Following up on Bill Ritter’s Earth Day “climate change” regulations, I ran across this recent Gallup survey report on Americans’ environmental concerns (H/T Bill Smith).

As I noted before, it seems like an appropriate way to commemorate Earth Day by celebrating the remarkable progress made in cleaning our air and water in the last 35 years.

Public opinion seems to evidence that trend. According to the Gallup poll, Americans’ greatest environmental concern consistently has been water pollution, yet even so the percentage of Americans “worried a great deal” about the problem has declined from 72 percent in 2000 to 53 percent in 2008.

After multi-millions spent to scare people into joining High Priest Algore’s Church of Eco-Theology, only about 37 percent of Americans are very concerned about “The ‘greenhouse effect’ or global warming” - a tick down from 41 percent the year before.

By comparison, acid rain - the “global warming” of the 1980s - still has a following of 23 percent.

Heh.

On the eve of the most crucialest of all crucial votes in this media-obsessed rollercoaster of a Democrat presidential showdown - also known as the Pennsylvania primary - I wanted to turn attention to a major example of in-your-face media bias provided in coverage of the event.

Warner Todd Huston, someone I met at Samsphere Chicago, exposed the verbally abusive bias of CNN’s Rick Sanchez on the Penn State University campus:

CNN contacted students in several political clubs at Penn State to arrange for the interview and two weeks ago their cameras and crews arrived at the university to film the segment with the on-air personality.

21-year-old journalism student Chelsea Brown, though, was less than impressed by Sanchez’ bellicose confrontations during the taping with several of the students including herself. I spoke with Miss Brown after the interview and she told me was offended and shocked by Sanchez’ lack of professional comportment.

This is just a snippet of the student testimony provided in the story. The good news is that Sanchez and his crew later apologized.

But the reason I decided to link to this story was to highlight Warner’s example of true citizen journalism, making actual phone calls and doing original reporting. That, and the fact that the subject of his story was Penn State University.

I haven’t been back to “dear old State” in the 7 years since I walked away with a dusty degree, but I’m glad to see there’s still some interest in a reasonable political debate - at least from the students CNN attempted to badger, er, interview.

Good work, Warner.

Over at Schaffer v Udall, I have brought to light evidence that challenges the Big Blue Lie Machine’s assumptions and characterizations of Bob Schaffer’s involvement with the Northern Marianas Islands issue, which has gotten press coverage in the Denver Post recently. It’s a long post, but hope if you have an interest in this issue that you will check it out.

Via Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, a new poll shows Republican presidential candidate John McCain with a commanding, double-digit lead here in Colorado versus either Democrat contender - Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton:

McCain 51, Obama 39
McCain 52, Clinton 40

Something is happening on the way to the Left’s plan to turn Colorado blue: Their leaders are generating more disdain than those who have sold out conservatives on the Republican side. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.

While it takes longer for things happening at the state level to reach the average voter, one can almost imagine some of the reaction against Obama and Clinton trickling down to their inept liberal buddies - like Gov. Bill Ritter and Rep. Mark Udall. Just wait until the Democratic National Convention comes to town….

Face The State features a story today about a Denver construction site that has posted a sign restricting work to union membership:

A sign at a downtown Denver construction site warns, “If you are not currently an active member of a building trades local union, you are NOT allowed to work on this site.”

Picture by Steve Brown - Posted at Face The State

This story prompts a reaction from two different angles.

First, from the legal technical policy wonk side…. Under existing federal law that dates back to the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, private sector “closed shops” are illegal. Simply put, a “closed shop” requires workers to be union members when they’re hired. That seems to be the message of the sign, which would make it patently illegal. To test the case, a non-union laborer who was rejected from working on the site could file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board - which has a regional Denver office.

(In contrast to “closed shops,” “union shops” - “where nonmembers must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs” - are legal in some cases. What are more commonly referred to as “closed shops” - work sites where workers don’t have to join the union but have to pay a fee to the union that in most cases is almost 100% of union dues value - are actually “agency shops.” Admittedly, these are distinctions with very small differences, but a certain Left-wing “watchdog” groups makes a living off criticizing misuses of this terminology.)

Second, from a political point of view, should a story like this one gain traction and publicity, it could only be good for the “right-to-work” ballot initiative, and bad for Democrat and union leaders who want a peaceful, Big Labor-friendly Convention in August.