To refresh people’s memories: allegations came out last week that NC Democratic party Executive Director Jay Parmley had sexually harassed a male staffer (the Daily Caller noted yesterday that local reports are saying that said staffer was also allegedly fired after making a complaint; if that’s true, then there’s a bigggggggggg problem going on in North Carolina right now for the Democratic party*). Anyway, Parmley has decided to leave his job – and is he bitter about it? Well, perhaps a little:
In his resignation letter, Parmley denied the sexual harassment allegations and blamed TheDC for tying the alleged incident to him.
“As you know last Friday, Tucker Carlson’s right-wing blog Daily Caller and Art Pope’s Civitas Institute began spreading a false and misleading story about a supposed incident of harassment at the NCDP,” Parmley wrote.
Hey, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know the answer: does a declarative sentence like that itself violate non-disclosure agreements?
Anyway, what makes this still actually of interest is, as usual, the stuff going on behind the scenes. This article makes it clear that the Democratic party of North Carolina is in disarray, what with all the turnover in their head offices and angry calls for people to be fired and general unpleasantness being spread around. Compounding the problem is that they have a fairly vicious gubernatorial primary set up: current incumbent Bev Perdue actually decided to live up to her rhetoric about canceling elections by canceling her participation in the next one. And just how bad is the election looking for the Democrats? Put it this way: Bob Etheridge is a front-runner.
*It’s probably too late for the Democrats to move their convention, but perhaps they should consider having their next one in, say, Vermont. Reliably Democratic, and virtually unpopulated anyway: less Democrats = less opportunities for local Democratic sex scandals. Just a thought…
PS: Don’t feel too bad for Parmley: after all, he’s originally from the South Carolina Democratic party, as this little incident about lying about an Republican’s criminal record would imply.
Via Legal Insurrection comes this interesting story about DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her rather embarrassing Jewish liaison Dani Gilbert. As you may remember, Ms. Gilbert had some unfortunate comments surface from her Facebook page – essentially, stuff from 2006 where she used admittedly self-derogatory religious/cultural epithets. At the time, I wondered when exactly DWS had hired the young woman – just on the off chance that the DNC chair had knowingly hired an underaged drinker, which the DNC chair is certainly dumb enough to do. It turns out that this was a new hire (for the DNC position, at least)… but, hey, that’s where this gets interesting!
Turns out that the DNC already had a Jewish liaison – Ira Forman. Mr. Forman brings to the table a large amount of experience, as one would expect from a former executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. But he’s just one person – and not the daughter of two Florida Democratic bundlers who put together 500K for the Obama campaign, which is apparently Ms. Gilbert’s primary qualification for the job. Shockingly, it’s being reported that the Obama administration recognized that Ms. Gilbert may not have been the most suitable candidate for this position; even more shockingly, Debbie Wasserman Schultz defied them… actually, not shockingly. The Gilberts are also very heavy donor’s to Wasserman Schultz’s own campaign coffers, and since it’s clear by now that Barack Obama plans to get himself elected first and worry about everybody else in the Democratic party when he feels like it, the DNC chair may be feeling the need for a little insurance.
And that’s where we’re at. As LI’s William Jacobson put it, “The DNC Chair appears to have used DNC resources to reward two big donors with a job for their daughter.” And… it’s a little depressing to contemplate how unsurprising that is, is it? It also handily explains why the original comments didn’t prevent Ms. Gilbert from getting the job in the first place, too: they might have been too much if Gilbert hadn’t been Jewish herself, but as such said comments didn’t exactly stop the campaign cash from coming in, did they? – And that’s what it’s clearly all about for the Democratic party these days: keeping the campaign cash flowing.
Well, it’s not as if they have any ideals, principles, or coherent programs to run on at this point.
PS: It’s not that it’s illegal; it’s not illegal. It’s not even that it’s legal, really. It’s that the people – who carefully made sure that it was legal – then presume to lecture the rest of us on ethics.
And anybody who tells you that you can get money out of politics is either deluded, lying, or possibly both. Exhibit A: the upcoming Democratic convention in Charlotte, NC. The Democrats piously declared that of course no dirty, dirty corporate/lobbyist money would be allowed to be spent on putting the convention together. And everybody cheered… only, it’s now 2012 and there’s potentially a looming shortfall in fundraising. And lo! – here are some lobbyist and corporate donors.
Sure, they can’t contribute… under the old rules. But rules are flexible things, are they not? A corporation can’t contribute directly. But it’s all right for their executives to write large personal checks, or contribute the equivalent in goods and/or services, or launder it through a corporate charity. As for lobbyists… well. The DNC likes to see its friends happy – friends being defined as ‘people who bundle together a lot of personal contributions and/or corporate in-kind donations’ – and if VIP access and nice hotel rooms make friends happy, then that warm, happy feeling would be its own reward, yes?
I’m actually not particularly upset at the idea that the Democrats were dumb enough to take a policy position that would inevitably force them to become hypocrites. Aside from the sheer pleasure of watching them tie themselves in knots like this, there’s also the opportunity to make the whole thing into a teaching experience. To wit: money cannot be gotten out of politics. It never has in the past; it’s certainly not out of politics now; and it won’t be in the future. As soon as one way of injecting money into politics goes away, another one opens up. Because people want to inject money into politics, and they rather outnumber the people who do not.
This fact annoys certain elements of the Left no end. But not as much as the fact that the Right has noted that the standard progressive response to speech that they don’t like is some variant of a lynch mob; which fact is the primary pragmatic reason why we’re not moving towards an environment of greater transparency in donations. I may think that anonymous donations may be a truly regrettable necessity, but that does not mean that I don’t recognize that it is, in fact, a necessity.
None of this excuses the Democrats for their hypocrisy, of course. If you’re going to take the position that a donation is not a form of free speech explicitly protected by the Constitution, then you really should live by the implications of your own belief system. If you cannot, please do not insist that I live by them, either.*
The first round of the US Supreme Court’s attempts to settle the problem that is Obamacare takes place today, and from the Obama administration’s purely partisan (and particularly puerile) perspective, there’s no winning scenario available. Essentially, what’s happening today is the courts are hearing arguments about whether or not Obamacare’s individual mandate qualifies as a tax. If it does qualify as a tax, then under the provisions of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (TAIA) the mandate cannot actually be challenged in courts until it’s actually been collected; more plainly, you can’t sue for relief from an onerous tax before they take it from you.
The merits of the case are one thing – the above link from Heritage goes into the whole issue, in some detail – but the partisan implications are another. There’s no good result for the Obama administration: if the Supreme Court decides that the individual mandate is not a tax then a large portion of the administration’s existing arguments goes away, thus increasing the likelihood of a humiliating disposal (at least in part) of the one thing that Obama has managed to do domestically in four years. But if the mandate is a tax, then Obama gets to face a plethora of attack ads in the fall which will (accurately) portraying him as a shameless serial liar who used the looming Obamacare legislation to sneak in a stealth tax on the American middle class.
PS: There is nothing deeply, deeply ironic about the fact that the President opposed the mandate as a candidate. Or, as American Majority put it:
Contrary to popular belief, a fundamental inability to live up to the job is neither particularly ironic nor particularly not ironic. It simply is.
PPS: If you’re wondering why either side got involved in this argument in the first place, well… neither one brought it up in the first place (the states don’t want to wait to destroy Obamacare, obviously). The court had to assign somebody to argue that TAIA applied in this case.
The first round of the US Supreme Court’s attempts to settle the problem that is Obamacare takes place today, and from the Obama administration’s purely partisan (and particularly puerile) perspective, there’s no winning scenario available. Essentially, what’s happening today is the courts are hearing arguments about whether or not Obamacare’s individual mandate qualifies as a tax. If it does qualify as a tax, then under the provisions of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (TAIA) the mandate cannot actually be challenged in courts until it’s actually been collected; more plainly, you can’t sue for relief from an onerous tax before they take it from you.
The merits of the case are one thing – the above link from Heritage goes into the whole issue, in some detail – but the partisan implications are another. There’s no good result for the Obama administration: if the Supreme Court decides that the individual mandate is not a tax then a large portion of the administration’s existing arguments goes away, thus increasing the likelihood of a humiliating disposal (at least in part) of the one thing that Obama has managed to do domestically in four years. But if the mandate is a tax, then Obama gets to face a plethora of attack ads in the fall which will (accurately) portraying him as a shameless serial liar who used the looming Obamacare legislation to sneak in a stealth tax on the American middle class.
PS: There is nothing deeply, deeply ironic about the fact that the President opposed the mandate as a candidate. Or, as American Majority put it:
Contrary to popular belief, a fundamental inability to live up to the job is neither particularly ironic nor particularly not ironic. It simply is.
PPS: If you’re wondering why either side got involved in this argument in the first place, well… neither one brought it up in the first place (the states don’t want to wait to destroy Obamacare, obviously). The court had to assign somebody to argue that TAIA applied in this case.
Calvin Coolidge’s moniker “Silent Cal” is something of a misnomer. While he was very famous for his economy with words, he was well known in his day for using the kinds of media available to him. In fact, he hired the best media strategists of his day to help him effectively utilize what was available to him. Because of this, he became the first President to appear speaking on film. His speech could, with a few minor edits to the particulars, be just as apropos today as it was back then. Behold:
[This] country needs every ounce of its energy to restore itself. The costs of government are all assessed upon the people.
This means that the farmer is doomed to provide a certain amount of money out of the sale of his produce, no matter how low the price, to pay his taxes. The manufacturer, the professional man, the clerk, must do the same from their income. The wage earner, often at a higher rate when compared to his earning, makes his contribution, perhaps not directly but indirectly, in the advanced cost of everything he buys.
The expenses of government reach everybody.
Taxes take from everyone a part of his earnings and force everyone to work for a certain part of his time for the government.
When we come to realize that the yearly expenses of the governments of this country…the stupendous sum of about 7 billion, 500 million dollars — we get…700 million dollars — is needed by the national government, and the remainder by local governments.
Such a sum is difficult to comprehend. It represents all the pay of five million wage earners receiving five dollars a day, working 300 days in the year. If the government should add 100 million dollars of expense, it would represent four days more work of these wage earners. These are some of the reasons why I want to cut down public expense.
I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government — and more for themselves.
I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom.
Until we can reestablish a condition under which the earnings of the people can be kept by the people, we are bound to suffer a very severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty.
These results are not fanciful; they are not imaginary. They are grimly actual and real, reaching into every household in the land. They take from each home annually an average of over 300 dollars — and taxes must be paid. They are not a voluntary contribution to be met out of surplus earnings. They are a stern necessity. They come first.
It is only out of what is left, after they are paid, that the necessities of food, clothing, and shelter can be provided and the comforts of home secured, or the yearnings of the soul — for a broader and more abundant life gratified.
When the government affects a new economy, it grants everybody a life pension with which to raise the standard of existence. It increases the value of everybody’s property, raises the scale of everybody’s wages.
One of the greatest favors that can be bestowed upon the American people is economy in government.
If only today’s Republican politicians were more willing to say these kinds of things!
Now for a few thoughts.
First of all, it is amazing how much more money our government spends today. The “stupendous sum” of Coolidge’s day of $7,500,000,000 would be $94,786,977,161.05 when adjusted for inflation. Let’s put this in perspective a little bit:
The expenditure for 2011, meanwhile, was around $3.82 trillion.
In fairness, the population has increased since then. The 1920 Census revealed that the nation had 106,021,537 people. It has roughly tripled since then, totaling 308,745,538 in 2010. However, multiplying the sum Coolidge mentions in his speech, adjusted for inflation, would give us $284,360,931,483.15. Still a drop in the bucket for what we took in, much less spent, for 2011. For example, the debt limit agreement reached back in August promised spending cuts of $917 billion alone over ten years.
Second, Calvin Coolidge is exactly right about the basics behind taxation. It is the government taking from your earnings for its own functions. Now this in and of itself isn’t wrong. The government has to get its money somehow. It can’t just print it (well, okay, maybe it can….with problematic–to say the least–results). However, as Coolidge notes here, “They are not a voluntary contribution to be met out of surplus earnings. They are a stern necessity. They come first.” Furthermore, until the people are able to actually keep as much of their money as possible, they “are bound to suffer a very severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty.” Barry Goldwater, in his seminal The Conscience of a Conservative, quotes the late, great Senator Robert Taft of Ohio as saying, “You can socialize just as well by a steady increase in the burden of taxation beyond the 30% we have already reached as you can by government seizure. The very imposition of heavy taxes is a limit on a man’s freedom,” (pg. 54). The spirit of Coolidge was strong with him. Unfortunately, this spirit does not appear to be strong with either the current occupant of the White House or most members of Congress.
And all of this was before the wonderful thing we know as withholding came into being.
Third, “[o]ne of the greatest favors that can be bestowed upon the American people is economy in government.” What a great thought, that. Pity most of our elected officials in Washington, much less the states and lower levels of government, don’t understand that.
This is a former Massachusetts governor I’d have no problem getting behind. There’s a good reason Ronald Reagan considered him one of his favorite Presidents.
That’s the most likely conclusion that one can draw, amazingly enough. Alan Grayson is typically precisely the sort of would-be domestic Taliban who might advocate the death of political… well, not ‘opponents.’ Rick Santorum is currently about three levels’ worth of influence above Grayson, and it’s Grayson’s fondest wish to shrink that disparity to two. So it’s very likely that the former Congressman from Florida is pretty much trying to ill-wish the Presidential candidate from Pennsylvania to death.
But there’s still the possibility that Grayson is merely abjectly stupid, so let’s pretend that he deserves the benefit of the doubt and analyze one of the latest whines of his in the most charitable of lights.
To back up for a moment: essentially, Grayson put out an email where he pretended to be all libertarian, and so forth. Yes, I know, absolutely absurd, but some liberals like to pretend that they’re actually libertarian, mostly because they think that it sounds cool. Anyway, in the middle of listing all the things that Santorum doesn’t have to do if he doesn’t want to do them, Alan Grayson – more accurately, the staffer who actually wrote this thing – demonstrated yet again that He* Just Doesn’t Get It with regards to libertarianism, elementary logic, or in fact sidereal reality. Because this was included in the list:
If you’re against universal health care, just keep your distance from doctors and hospitals.
Now, Alan – can I call you Alan? After all, it’s not like I have to call you ‘Congressman,’ or anything – I know that the strange world of the Triple-Digit IQ People is kind of confusing to you, but here’s something that you have to understand, anyway. You see, everything else that was on the list that your campaign staff put together and published under your name is, indeed, something that one could avoid, if one wanted to. But if people could opt out of Obamacare without penalty if they wanted to then it wouldn’t be universal health care. For that matter: you’re assuming that Rick Santorum has complete control over whether or not he has to seek medical treatment, which is of course not true. After all, accidents happen.
That’s the most likely conclusion that one can draw, amazingly enough. Alan Grayson is typically precisely the sort of would-be domestic Taliban who might advocate the death of political… well, not ‘opponents.’ Rick Santorum is currently about three levels’ worth of influence above Grayson, and it’s Grayson’s fondest wish to shrink that disparity to two. So it’s very likely that the former Congressman from Florida is pretty much trying to ill-wish the Presidential candidate from Pennsylvania to death.
But there’s still the possibility that Grayson is merely abjectly stupid, so let’s pretend that he deserves the benefit of the doubt and analyze one of the latest whines of his in the most charitable of lights.
To back up for a moment: essentially, Grayson put out an email where he pretended to be all libertarian, and so forth. Yes, I know, absolutely absurd, but some liberals like to pretend that they’re actually libertarian, mostly because they think that it sounds cool. Anyway, in the middle of listing all the things that Santorum doesn’t have to do if he doesn’t want to do them, Alan Grayson – more accurately, the staffer who actually wrote this thing – demonstrated yet again that He* Just Doesn’t Get It with regards to libertarianism, elementary logic, or in fact sidereal reality. Because this was included in the list:
If you’re against universal health care, just keep your distance from doctors and hospitals.
Now, Alan – can I call you Alan? After all, it’s not like I have to call you ‘Congressman,’ or anything – I know that the strange world of the Triple-Digit IQ People is kind of confusing to you, but here’s something that you have to understand, anyway. You see, everything else that was on the list that your campaign staff put together and published under your name is, indeed, something that one could avoid, if one wanted to. But if people could opt out of Obamacare without penalty if they wanted to then it wouldn’t be universal health care. For that matter: you’re assuming that Rick Santorum has complete control over whether or not he has to seek medical treatment, which is of course not true. After all, accidents happen.
[A] lot of Obama voters must be persuaded that they made the wrong choice in 2008, and that it isn’t their fault.
I happen to agree with this, by the way. Satisfying as it may be to have people* admit that they were wrong and stupid and should have listened to the rest of us, my goal has always been to win the election. When you win the election, you get to have the fight over how best to run the country. You lose the election, your opinion frankly doesn’t matter.
Don’t like that argument? Well, sorry to hear that: but I don’t blog about politics to make you feel better, or validate your stances on anything, or to be a cheerleader for the sake of leading cheers. I blog about politics to hopefully give activists tools that they can use to be better at their tasks. So, in light of that, here’s a thirty-second ad inspired by this Kausfiles post:
I put it together largely to practice with various aspects of my video editing software, but every little bit helps, right?
[A] lot of Obama voters must be persuaded that they made the wrong choice in 2008, and that it isn’t their fault.
I happen to agree with this, by the way. Satisfying as it may be to have people* admit that they were wrong and stupid and should have listened to the rest of us, my goal has always been to win the election. When you win the election, you get to have the fight over how best to run the country. You lose the election, your opinion frankly doesn’t matter.
Don’t like that argument? Well, sorry to hear that: but I don’t blog about politics to make you feel better, or validate your stances on anything, or to be a cheerleader for the sake of leading cheers. I blog about politics to hopefully give activists tools that they can use to be better at their tasks. So, in light of that, here’s a thirty-second ad inspired by this Kausfiles post:
I put it together largely to practice with various aspects of my video editing software, but every little bit helps, right?
Loading ...