Shamelessly begging Rubio to run. Why shouldn’t we?

The other night on Red Eye (my occasional guilty pleasure), during a discussion about whether or not Chris Christie would get into the presidential race, someone asked a question to the effect of,  "Who else is there?" Host Greg Gutfeld threw out (as sort of an afterthought), "Marco Rubio?" There was a pause in the banter and then everyone moved on.


I nodded my head in agreement and then I thought, "Why can't we, as conservatives, shamelessly beg a candidate to run?" If the RINOs and GOP establishment can drool all over themselves over Chris Christie and turn Christie Watch 2011 into a 24-hour Reality TV event, why shouldn't we do the same and demand a candidate that we really want?


While I realize that some are happy with the slate of Republican candidates, many are not. I am not.  Romney has never governed as a conservative and he has a long history of championing causes better aligned with the Democratic Party. Johnson and Paul are Libertarians and belong in that party, not the GOP. I'm very concerned that Perry cannot recover and regain the turf he lost in recent debates. I'm even more concerned that he is not up to the rhetorical challenges of a modern-day campaign. Cain's lack of a clear foreign policy nearly disqualifies him in my mind (although ABO still applies). Bachmann has had serious, almost unrecoverable gaffes in recent weeks and everyone tells me that Santorum will not be the nominee.


Which leaves our party and the conservative movement longing for...someone else.  We need someone who is both an ideological conservative and who can beat Obama. In other words, someone who can effectively articulate conservatism - and mean it.  At the same time, the nominee must have some crossover appeal and be a magnet for money.


Nearly every conservative I know thinks Marco Rubio (R-FL) could be that candidate - but not this time around. It's too soon for him to peak. I disagree about the time frame. First, we don't have time to wait around while either Obama or a RINO plunges our country toward the abyss. Yes,  Rubio is young; he hasn't paid his dues by becoming an entrenched 20-year Patriarch of the Senate. But who really wants that? If Rubio hunkers down in the senate for 8 years before running for president, one of two things will happen. He will either become the kind of crony establishment Republican we all despise, or he will hold to his conservative values and be marginalized by his colleagues in the senate and the GOP leadership. Neither of those scenarios is a path to the 2020 presidential nomination. (Will we even have a country in 2020?)


Yesterday I re-watched Sen. Rubio's speech at the Reagan Library (see below). I was inspired all over again and had a big lump in my throat. (I'm not generally a lumpy throat kind of gal). His defense of the free-enterprise system and American exceptionalism draw such a sharp contrast to Obama's mantra that the men seem to belong to a different species altogether. Rubio's story of his Cuban exile parents and grandparents is the polar opposite of Obama's immigrant family story. While Obama and his family found reasons to blame and disparage America, Rubio's family was in awe of the opportunity here and taught their children to work hard out of gratitude for the blessings of liberty.




In addition to (obviously) being able to appeal to Hispanic voters, Rubio is uniquely positionedto be the game-changer in the Social Security debate. Here's what he said at the Reagan Library:

"Now, I personally believe that you cannot make changes to these programs for the people that are currently in them right now. My mother just – well she gets mad when I say this. She is in her eighth decade of life and she is on both of these programs. I can’t ask my mom to go out and get another job. She paid into the system. But the truth is that Social Security and Medicare, as important as they are, cannot look for me how they look for her. 

"My generation must fully accept, the sooner the better, that if we want there to be a Social Security and a Medicare when we retire, and if we want America as we know it to continue when we retire, then we must accept and begin to make changes to those programs now, for us... 

"...These changes will not be easy....It will be hard. It will actually really call upon a specific generation of Americans, those of us, like myself, decades away from retirement, to assume certain realities -– that we will continue to pay into and fund for a system that we will never fully access -– that we are prepared to do whatever it takes in our lives and in our generation so that our parents and grandparents can enjoy the fruits of their labor and so that our children and our grandchildren can inherit the fullness of America’s promise. 

"But you see, every generation of Americans has been called to do their part to ensure that the American promise continues. We’re not alone; we’re not unique; we’re not the only ones. In fact, I would argue to you that we have it pretty good.
"And yet I think it’s fully appropriate that those of us raised in Ronald Reagan’s America are actually the ones who are being asked to stand up and respond to the issues of the day. For we, perhaps better than any other people who have ever lived in this nation, should understand how special and unique America truly is."

Rubio, who was in 4th grade when Reagan became president, can make the argument that he will leave Social Security untouched for his mother, but will call on his generation to "take one for the country." It's a tantalizing, iconic image and perhaps the only way we win this debate and reform these programs.  Seniors will go for it and young people will as well, because (not to be cynical or anything...) it won't make a hill of beans of difference in their lives right now other than to make them feel good about helping their country.


Rubio has also proven that he's able to appeal to a wide variety of voters. He trounced both Charlie Crist (RINO-turned-I) and Democrat Kendrick Meek in the 3-way Senate race in 2010, receiving nearly half of the votes cast in the swing-state election.
Rubio raised $24 million for that race and has $500K remaining. If he were to jump in the race tomorrow, I suspect the big spenders who have been holding back would begin throwing money at him.


He's been on the national scene for the last two years and is at the top of his game. He has a national following including 245,000 Facebook fans and 50,000 Twitter followers. Impressive numbers for a U.S senator. Just for the sake of comparison, my senator, Rob Portman (R-OH) has 27,000/8,000 Facebook/Twitter followers respectively.


One other factoid/trend I'd like to throw out: If 2008 showed us anything, it demonstrated that the country has no appetite (shallow that it may be) for candidates who are grumpy old men. As many have noted, part of Herman Cain's appeal is his positive attitude and outlook.  In 2010, in addition to young, earnest enthusiastic Senator Rubio, we found conservatives like Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem, and Rand Paul are the new face of the GOP, replacing the overweight white guy with big hair.


In Ohio, a 32-year old Iraq war veteran and state representative ran for State Treasurer. In a stunner, Josh Mandel beat the incumbent and raked in 2 million votes, making him the top vote-getter in the entire state. Governor John Kasich only pulled in 1.8 million votes. What State Treasurer does that?


My point is that this is the conservative trend in the country. People will put their money and efforts behind an ideological conservative with a solid record, even if the record is not that long. In Ohio, it's possible Mandel will be our next Senator. He will likely challenge Sherrod Brown and he will likely win. Mandel has already raise over $2 million and hasn't even officially announced he's running.


After my Red Eye revelation, I decided to write this diary, thinking there were probably others who felt the same way. I started writing it Wednesday night, but put it aside and went to bed. I flipped on the radio early Thursday afternoon to Rush asking essentially the same question. Why shouldn't Rubio run? He said, "Rubio would walk away with the election." He would "win in a walkover."  Heh. If nothing, Rubio getting in the race would make Karl Rove, et al curl up in the fetal position and suck their thumbs.


If you haven't watched Rubio's speech at the Reagan Library, take a look (and reminisce about some of Reagan's great speeches). Rubio strikes the same chords. Transcript here.

UPDATE: Ohio's stalled voter ID law- vote on Tuesday 10/4

UPDATE: The OH Senate will consider this bill on Tues., 10/4

In March the Ohio House passed HB 159, which introduced reasonable reforms to secure Ohio's election process, one of which was to require a photo ID in order to vote in person. Parts of the bill were passed into law in June. However,  the GOP-controlled senate and Republican Secretary of State, Jon Husted, balked at the photo ID requirement and it's been held up in the senate ever since.  It is finally scheduled for a vote on Tuesday, 9/27 as Sub. HB 159.

After the Republicans took over the House, the Senate, every statewide office and the Governor's office in 2010 and enacted bold reforms, the Senate Republicans have had the wind knocked out of their sails by the Democrats' ballot measure aimed at repealing Gov. Kasich's union reforms and their threat to do the same with election reforms and the new redistricting map.  They don't seem to have the stomach for another fight and, ignoring those who swept them into office, it's likely they'll take a pass on the photo-ID requirement. Senate President Tom Niehaus (R-New Richmond) has said he expects the photo-ID provision to be removed from the bill.

Currently, Ohio law allows a voter to cast a ballot if they are in possession of anything from a driver's licence to a cable TV bill. There is no way for the poll worker to prove that the person in possession of the cable TV bill is actually the registered voter.  Sec. of State Husted can't imagine a scenario where someone would try to game this system:

"I believe that if you have a government-issued check, a utility bill in your name with your address on it, that no one made that up. They didn’t call AEP and establish utilities in their name to commit voter fraud."

To his credit, Husted has backed reforms in early and absentee voting, which will curb some of the abuses we saw in 2008. But his stubborn refusal to support the common-sense photo ID bill is baffling.  Here's what the new law would require:

When an elector appears in a polling place to vote, the elector shall announce to the precinct election officials the elector's full name and current address and provide proof of the elector's identity in the form of a photo identification or a non-photo state identification.

(2) If an elector does not have or is unable to provide to the precinct election officials any of the forms of identification required under division (A)(1) of this section, the elector may cast a provisional ballot under section 3505.181 of the Revised Code and do either of the following:

(a) Appear at the office of the board of elections not later than the close of the polls on the day of the election and provide the identification required under division (A)(1) of this section; or

(b) Write the elector's social security number, driver's license number, or state identification card number on the provisional ballot envelope, which number shall be verified by the board of elections with the bureau of motor vehicles.

 It's not complicated. If a registered voter shows up without photo ID, he will still be permitted to cast a provisional ballot if he writes his social security number, driver's license number, or state ID number on the provisional ballot.

Note that no photo ID is required to vote absentee and anyone can vote absentee in Ohio for any reason.  

I have spent the past two Monday evenings at my county Board of Elections, training to be a poll worker and a Presiding Judge for the upcoming election. Doing so has giving me an insider's view of the Ohio voting process. These people run a very tight ship. There is redundancy built into nearly every step of the election process to assure there is no cheating or fraud.  Here are a few examples:

• There is a locked metal transfer case that contains supplies to be used in each precinct on election day. The Presiding Judge is instructed to break the lock on the case in the presence of other poll workers and check off the supplies on the "chain of custody sheet." 
• When setting up the voting machines (which have two locks and only one key for each lock) a Democrat and a Republican must be present and participate in the set-up. 
• If there is a problem with a voting machine a Democrat and a Republican poll worker will assist in resolving problems with the machines.
• There is a plastic lock on the voting machines that must be cut in the presence of a Democrat and Republican poll worker.
• If a ballot needs to be canceled on the electronic voting machine both a Democrat and a Republican poll worker must cancel the ballot together. 
• When a voter arrives to cast a ballot, their name must be checked against the list of registered voters in the precinct. If their name does not appear on the list they must cast a provisional ballot and provide proof to the Board of Elections that they are eligible to vote. 
• When returning the supplies (including the memory cards from the voting machines) to the Board of Elections on election night, a member of the opposite party must ride with the Presiding Judge to the Board of Elections. 

As you can see, there are layers and layers of security, oversight, and redundancy in place to assure voters that Ohio's elections are fair and secure. 

Except when it comes to voter identification. Showing a utility bill does not prove that the person attempting to vote is who they say they are. It just proves that they are in possession of the bill or bank statement. That is not proof of identity. It's not difficult to imagine dozens of ways people could fraudulently vote in Ohio as the law currently stands.  Say your grandmother doesn't feel like heading out in the bad weather on election day. Another family member could just take a utility bill and vote for grandma. It would be quite easy for family members to trade places. 

More troubling would be someone with access to large quantities of utility bills who decided to cross-reference those with voter registration rolls.  Has it ever happened? We have no way of knowing. Detractors of this bill say that there is no evidence that there is a problem with voter fraud in Ohio (well, except for this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this).

But lack of evidence of only evidence that there is a lack of evidence. We do know that there is a gaping hole in the security and credibility our our voting process in Ohio.  We have no way to know who is voting unless legislators pass a photo ID requirement. 

Republicans should not fall prey to the hysterical protestations of the Democrats crying foul and threatening another tiresome referendum. Nearly everyone who votes in Ohio already has a photo ID. The leftist Advancement Project estimates that 887,000 Ohioans don't have the ID's, but the number of registered voters without ID's who actually show up on election day is likely far lower (see my blog post on this issue). 

And for those who actually don't have a photo ID and who do actually vote, the legislation says that the state will provide a free photo ID for anyone who does not have one. 

I'd like to point out that the requirements to apply for food stamps in Ohio are far more burdensome. The applicant must show up at the local County Jobs and Family Services office and provide:

• Proof of citizenship, or an alien registration card
• Proof of all income
• Social Security Card
• Birth Certificate
• Proof of housing (rent/mortgage) costs
• Proof of utility costs
• Proof of medical costs if aged 60 or older, or if disabled
• Proof of disability (if applicable)
• Proof of child support (if applicable)

If you are in Ohio, call Senate President Tom Niehaus and your state senators on Tuesday and tell them we need a photo ID requirement to assure our elections are secure and credible. Please share this on your social networks and remind them who elected them and who will support them in their next election. The Democrats collecting signatures and draining their war chests sure aren't going to vote for them. 

Crosspost: Redstate

Mitt Romney on Abortion

Here's Mitt Romney on abortion in 2002 in a gubernatorial debate against Democrat Shannon O'Brien:

"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts's pro-choice laws and with regards to this issue of age of consent it is currently 18-years old. If one wants to have an abortion younger than that, one must have the permission of one parent and if a parent doesn't go along one can go to a judge or justice and get that permission. And so far, in Massachusetts history when a young woman has gone to a judge, not one single time has there been a denial of that permission. And so I am in favor of retaining or current law which is the age of consent remaining at 18 and I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." 

Romney vehemently denied that he had accepted the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life in his 1994 senate race against Ted Kennedy. According to Romney, the group endorsed him without his knowledge and he would not own that endorsement (though O'Brien claimed his campaign spokesperson confirmed the endorsement). She quoted Ted Kennedy who said of Romney,

"He's not pro-choice, he's not anti-choice, he's multiple choice."

Toward the end to the debate his opponent, who was accusing him of not being pro-choice enough, while Romney kept insisting he was the every bit as pro-choice as she was, finally said, 

"You don't have a record, it's one of waffling." 

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Romney proves he is a masterful and convincing debater. He uses the same bullying and avoidance techniques he used against Rick Perry in the recent GOP debates. I'm certainly convinced that in this debate he's pro-abortion and would "defend a woman's right to choose." After all, the 2002 gubernatorial election was riding on it. 


Of course, Romney has since changed his position on abortion and will now just as convincingly argue for the pro-life position and any other conservative position that will win him this election. Again, he's a masterful debater. 


But that's what's troubling. With so many "waffles" and flip-flops on major policy issues - major conservative policy issues - how do we know when Romney is debating for sport to win an election and when he is debating out of heartfelt conviction? If we're seeing the former in these debates and this is merely a contest to be won, on election day Zorro will drop his mask and we'll find out if we get Romney 1.0, Romney 2.0, or some morph of the two. I fear it will be something really bad like that new Coke. (If you're under 30 you'll have to click on the link you understand the dated cultural reference.) Beware the backlash. 

National Debt Road Trip

How do the Obama deficits compare with past presidents? And how did the national debt get so big anyway. This video tries to answer those questions by looking at the debt as a road trip and seeing how fast different administrations have been traveling.

Buckle your seat belt! I don't think this would even be allowed on the Autobahn.

Sherrod Brown's wife quits Plain Dealer after covering Josh Mandel campaign even

Today the Cleveland Plain Dealer announced  the resignation of Connie Schultz, wife of Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH).  Schultz had come under fire recently for attending a Tea Party rally near Cleveland at which her husband's likely opponent in 2012, Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, was a featured speaker.  Schultz was spotted videotaping Mandel's speech, but she conspicuously neglected to mention in her article that Mandel was even at the rally. (Read the details in my previous diary).

Once news about Schultz's covert-op became known, the Pulitzer prize winning journalist and 18-year veteran of the Plain Dealer issued a  breathless apology, claiming that she never thought for a minute she was doing anything wrong and just "felt sick about it" and had learned her lesson.

Of course, the real issue was whether or not she was engaging in campaign activities at the behest of or on the tab of the Plain Dealer, the largest newspaper in Ohio.  If so, this would be this would be too obvious even for the mainstream media.  They still like to maintain the appearance of impartiality.
And so we have Ms. Schultz's resignation:

"In recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that my independence, professionally and personally, is possible only if I'm no longer writing for the newspaper that covers my husband's senate race on a daily basis. It's time for me to move on."

This begs a couple questions:

1.  It took four years into her husband's term to realize she is not an unbiased columnist when her husband is a sitting senator? 
2. Has this still not become "painfully clear" to the executives and editorial board of the Plain Dealer? Why did they let this go on for four years?

I would also like to know who else on the Plain Dealer staff is conducting campaign activities while being paid by the Plain Dealer.  If they are conducting research for campaigns while they are preforming their duties as reporters/columnists/etc., it needs to be listed as "in kind" donations on campaign finance reports. Perhaps Secretary of State Jon Husted should start asking some questions and poking around in Sherrod Brown's campaign finance reports.


UPDATE: The Plain Dealer added some commentary to Schultz's resignation letter at 3:32 PM:

"Schultz had written for the newspaper for nearly 18 years. She is married to Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, who will seek re-election to the U.S. Senate next year. Conservatives have criticized Schultz and The Plain Dealer, saying that she used her column to support her husband's political career.
Both Schultz and the leadership of the newspaper have maintained that her words are her own, and pointed out that she began writing about workers' rights and other liberal causes long before she married Brown in 2004.
Schultz took a leave of absence in 2006 when Brown first ran for the Senate."

Her editor, Debra Adams Simmons added:

"Her steadfast commitment to social and economic justice, her advocacy on behalf of women and her courageous efforts to speak truth to power highlight a distinguished career. Although Connie is moving on, hers will continue to be an important voice for the region."

Note how many liberal buzz words and phrases the editor from the Plain Dealer managed to pack into one sentence: "social and economic justice," "advocacy on behalf of women," and "speak truth to power."

Tells you all you need to know about the editorial perspective of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Is Perry's DREAM Act more awful than Romneycare?

At this point it's becoming clearer that it's a two-person race. Whatever "forces" control this process are shoving Perry and Romney to the top of the pack and barring any major upsets, we will choose between the two of them.

The professional pundits and establishment Republicans are telling us the important question is which candidate can attract Independents and conservative Democrats (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). That strategy failed miserably in 2008 and we have even less reason to believe it will work in 2012.

Among other things, those of us who care about what a candidate believes and how he would actually govern the country must consider the important question of whether we hate Perry's version of the DREAM Act more than we hate Romney's version of Obamacare.

First, I have to give props (or "propes" if you say it with a Texan accent) to Gov. Perry for not backing down from his policy and his convictions on immigration. Whether you agree with him or not, you must admit he's a straight shooter who does not waffle.

Contrast this to Gov. Romney's ever evolving excuses for his MA healthcare plan. He's loved it, he's hated it. It was a good idea gone bad when the legislature got its hands on it. It's a state's rights issue. Pick a day, pick an excuse. But don't worry, he's going to repeal Obamacare. Or for sure, he's going to give states waivers.

Clearly, Perry's policy to grant in-state tuition rates to children of illegal aliens is extremely unpopular with the Tea Party and with the conservative base. Although hardly the equivalent of full-blown amnesty, many see it as the nose of the camel under the amnesty tent.

That said, it's worth remembering that our revered President Reagan signed an amnesty bill, which granted amnesty to 3 million an unknown number of illegal aliens in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. It was far more radical than anything Perry has done or has proposed.

Both Romney's Romneycare plan and Perry's cracking the door to amnesty are state programs. Neither has proposed imposing these on the entire nation. But they do give us insights into their governing style and moral philosophies which are important indicators.

In Massachusetts, every resident of the state was forced to purchase health insurance, whether they wanted it or not. In Texas, taxpayers were forced to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants. On my personal liberty scale, I'd feel more violated by the Romneycare. YMMV (your mileage may vary).

As a Christian and a conservative, I confess that I am personally conflicted about the immigration issue. I understand the arguments. I know we mustsecure the border as the first order of business. I know that we must enforce E-verify and let's have a robust guest worker program with tamper-proof ID's.

But the fact remains that we have millions of people here illegally. They're not going to just disappear once the border is secure. Something is going to have to be done with them. Republicans and conservatives just sound silly when we give the trite answer that they can just go home and try again later. We all know that is not going to happen.

I don't have a problem sending home adult men and women who have broken our laws to come to this country. But in my soul, I wrestle with how to act justly toward the children of those lawbreakers. They did not cross the border illegally. They just had the misfortune of being born to a criminal and I can't seem to justify punishing them for the sins of their parents.

Not the stock Tea Party/conservative answer, I know. But I suspect there are many others who wrestle with this issue and are also conflicted. It's not a settled matter in their hearts.

For me, and for others who have endeavored to come to terms with this, Perry's defense of in-state tuition for children born to illegal aliens doesn't seem excessively far off the conservative reservation. I don't hate the idea as much as I hate the idea of Romneycare.

And lets be honest. Politically, pragmatically, having a slightly softer position toward the children born to illegal aliens may appeal to minorities, Independents and those enigmatic "conservative" Democrats. It does allow Perry to steal an arrow from Romney's centrist quiver.

Perry isn't my candidate yet, but his position on in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens is not a deal-breaker for me.

On the other hand, Romneycare is one of several serious deal-breaker issues Romney has dragged with him into this race. I would vote for him in a race against Obama, but he's not someone I could enthusiastically support or campaign for.

crosspost

Pawlenty flipped faster than Romney flopped

Megyn Kelly just interviewed Tim Pawlenty on Fox News on his change of heart over Mitt Romney. She played clips and read quotes of T-Paw criticizing Romney on "Obamneycare" and nominating liberal judges. Here's what Pawlenty said on Romney's healthcare debacle in MA:

‎"Governor Romney has told me directly, as he has told the country, that his first order of business as president will be to repeal Obamacare including on the very first day in office granting waivers to states to opt out. So I'm absolutely convinced and assured that he will do everything and in fact repeal Obamacare so I'm comfortable with his position on that."

Oh...OK....the Governor told him directly.   That changes everything. Where do I get my Romney yard sign?

On the issue of Romney appointing liberal judges to the bench:

"Mitt has indicated that he will appoint strict constructionists to the bench, people who will apply the law as written as opposed to making it up on the back of a napkin. I trust and believe that will be the case. And as I understand the MA judicial selection system there's some limited options for who he could pick from to fill some of those slots. But his commitment to appointing strict constructionists gives me reassurance that he'll certainly do that as president."

"Mitt has indicated...."   Apparently the magic words for Pawlenty.
Even though Mitt's words don't match his record as a governor. And even though Pawlenty's words today are diametrically opposed to his words two weeks ago.
Finally, it appears that Pawlenty has switched to Establishment Tea. No more of that pure Tea Party brew for him:

"[Romney's] got the most capability, the most knowledge, he's got the most electability. I think he will make the best president - not just for the Republican party, but for the nation. And he can beat Barack Obama. He's the one that can unify the Republican base and he can go into those swing states we're going to need and also get conservative democrats and independents to join the cause as well."

Pass the Dramamine.

The most triumphant 9/11 tribute - courtesy of the NFL

Sunday was a filled with many appropriately solemn and somber tributes to those who perished on that horrific sunny morning ten years ago. I was moved to tears watching some of the wives and children of those who died in the World Trade Center read the names of their loved ones and I was even touched by President Clinton’s speech at the Flight 93 Memorial dedication on Saturday.

These were all very sad and serious moments as they ought to have been. Families are still grieving and many will never fully recover from the traumatic events of that day.

But as I was watching the Fox News coverage of the memorial events, they cut to Soldier Field in Chicago where the Bears were preparing to play the Atlanta Falcons.

A giant American flag was unfurled by a group of first responders to cover the entire field as the crowd cheered enthusiastically and chanted “U.S.A!” The roar only increased when players from both teams walked onto the field and helped to hold the flag up.

Then the crowd grew silent. Suddenly, the silence was shattered as tenor Jim Cornelison’s voice exploded with the opening notes of The Star Spangled Banner. Cornelison sang it the way it was meant to be sung – forcefully, defiantly, triumphantly. He left it all on the field, as they say.

The crowd continued to cheer throughout the song. Apparently, that is a tradition at Chicago sporting events when Cornelison is singing. I’m not a fan of disrespecting the flag (hats off guys!). I’m even downright offended when our Team USA Olympians can’t manage to mouth the words to the National Anthem when they’re on the medals podium. So I confess, I was a little uncomfortable with the protocol violation exhibited by the roaring crowd.

But my heart was in my throat when Cornelison hit the final note of the song. Somehow, this was needed on this day. We needed to show the world that the United States of America was displaying American pride and reveling in the triumph over terror and fear. And still playing football.

We needed this on 9/11/2011. It was a fitting end to an emotional weekend of memorial services and somber tributes.

The NFL's 9/11 Remembrance

Crosspost

Is Sen. Sherrod Brown’s (D-OH) newspaper reporter wife campaigning on the Plain Dealer’s dime?

Is it appropriate for the wife of a sitting U.S. senator to report on political issues for a major newspaper in his state? If so, would propriety require that the reporter and the newspaper disclose the nature of the relationship between the reporter and the senator? Do the rules change as election activities commence? At what point are the reporter's activities (and the newspaper's subsidy of them) considered to be campaign contributions?


Those are questions people in Ohio are asking as the Third Base Politics blog reportedtonight that Plain Dealer columnist and wife of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Connie Schultz, was spotted at a recent Tea Party Express rally in Lorain County.


In her column, titled "Politely Crashing the Tea Party," Schultz "politely" ridiculed the number of attendees, the absence of presidential candidates, a speaker she didn't agree with and three men (out of hundreds of attendees) who made rude comments to her.


However, Schultz made no mention of the fact that her three-hour visit to the Tea Party rally included finding a comfortable seat and videotaping a speech by Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, who is her husband's likely opponent in the Ohio senate race in 2012. It couldn't have been easy to sit and listen to Mandel blaming her husband for Obamacare and calling him a leftist. On the other hand, as an avowed leftist herself, she may have been beaming with pride. Watch her and judge for yourself:

In a follow-up "apology" column today, Schultz brushed off the criticism saying she made a "mistake":

"I did not mention [Josh Mandel] because I wanted to avoid the appearance of singling him out for criticism, or promoting my husband. In retrospect, that was a mistake. You, the reader, should always be trusted to make up your own mind about whether my writing presents a conflict. That's why transparency matters. I am in the unique position of being a newspaper columnist married to a U.S. senator. My opinions are my own, but I must be ever vigilant to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I'm sorry I didn't let you know Mandel showed up."

Now, Schultz is no journalistic neophyte. She's a syndicated columnist with a Pulitzer prize on her desk. She's written a couple books and has written for the vaunted (ahem) Huffington Post. Holding her hands up to her cheeks and exclaiming, "Oh my goodness! I had no idea I would cause such a fuss!" just does not fly here.

On the issue of videotaping Mandel's speech, Schultz claimed that an operative for the Democratic party with a video camera was escorted out of the stadium and she felt compelled, as a journalist, to exercise her free speech rights:

"I did this because I think it's wrong for organizers of a public political event to cherry pick who is allowed to videotape a public official's speech. 

"As a resident of Avon, I knew taxpayers had approved a .25-percent income tax in 2007 to help pay for the stadium. I also knew the state exempted Avon from paying property tax on the facility, "with the understanding [that it] was devoted exclusively to 'public use.' " 

"When I held up my camera, I thought the journalist in me was making an in-your-face point about public forums."

All Pro Freight Stadium, home of the Lake Erie Crushers, rents its facility out for private events. I am guessing that the Tea Party Express event was one such private event. I'm no lawyer, but it would seem that funding with property taxes would not give every property owner in the city the right to control and direct private events in the stadium. If a DNC activist with a camera was causing trouble, the group hosting the private event would be within their rights to have them removed from the event.

Schultz continued:

"What I failed to consider is that I am never just another journalist when the public official who is speaking is bashing my husband. 

"Taping the speech gave the appearance that I was covering Mandel for The Plain Dealer. That was not, and never will be, the case. It doesn't matter that I did nothing with my video, or that someone else posted a video of Mandel's speech on You Tube. I should have taken a deep breath and kept my camera in my bag."

Really, she just failed to consider that? During Brown's last campaign, Schultz took a leave of absence from her leftist column in the Plain Dealer. This time around the Plain Dealer has promoted her to the front page of the Metro Section. (You can make up your own mind about whether conservatives get a fair shake in the paper that employs Senator Brown's wife).
Senator Brown wanted to make it perfectly clear that his wife was not on campaign assignment, telling WKYC's Tom Beres,

"She was not doing campaign work. Somebody that wanted to tape the speech was thrown out, probably illegally, because it's a public-funded venue. And she taped it. She didn't give it to the campaign. She's a citizen. She was there."

Of course, now that she's been caught, she couldn't give the tape to the campaign. Because, after all, that's the most serious issue here. If Schultz was conducting opposition research on Treasurer Mandel on the Plain Dealer's dime - on behalf of Brown's campaign - then it would need to be reported as a campaign contribution by the Plain Dealer. Otherwise, it would be a violation of campaign finance laws. That would be aside from the serious ethical boundaries the Plain Dealer would have crossed in having its employees conducting campaign activities.

Beyond that is the blatant impropriety demonstrated by the Plain Dealer and Schultz. Her bio fails to mention the connection between Schultz and Brown even though she writes consistently about political issues. Some recent columns have read like Democratic Party talking points: "Voter fraud is just a dark GOP fantasy," "Gay marriage just isn't a problem," "Teachers undeservedly face bashing and bullying" [by Republicans].

If Schultz is going to blatantly promote the policies of the DNC, she needs to clearly and conspicuously disclose her marriage to Brown.

In addition, if she is conducting campaign activities on company time, it needs to be reported as such. Furthermore, if there are other Plain Dealer reporters and employees engaging in campaign activities, they must report it. In fact, perhaps there should be an investigation to find out if Schultz or any other Plain Dealer employees are donating their time to political campaigns while on company time. These are lines than should not be blurred.

GOP Presidential Debate on MSNBC

"I can get you a gallon of gas for a dime," Ron Paul said.

A silver dime, that is.  Ha, ha....  Ron Paul also warned us that border fence might be some kind of government conspiracy to keep American citizens in rather than keeping illegal immigrants out.

WHY IS RON PAUL IN THESE DEBATES?  He is clearly off the GOP reservation. 

Now that I got that off my chest, I can continued with some more reasonable thoughts about the debate.

Oh, except for wondering why Jon Huntsman is in the debate.  I mean, he has a nice tan and everything (though I suspect he fake bakes), but that's not a reason to be permitted in the GOP debate. Though he continues to try to repackage himself as a Republican, he will not be able to overcome is close alignment with the Obama administration as the recent Ambassador to China and his left-leaning positions. 

Moderator John Harris from Politico baited Jon Huntsman by questioning him about his Tweet that mocked the GOP candidates who cast doubt upon man-made global warming and evolution.  Huntsman made it clear that the general voting public was way too smart to vote for some backwoods yahoo who didn't believe in the proven religion of man-made global warming!

Of course, the left-leaning moderators used him to push their agenda.  The question was a gem: "You yourself have said the party is in danger of becoming anti-science. Who on the stage is anti science?"  Huntsman responded:

"Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I am saying is that in order for the Republican party to win, we can't run from science. We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy.  We've got to win voters. We've got to do what I did as governor when I was elected. We reached out and brought in independents. I got independents, I got conservative Democrats. If we want to win in 2012 we've got to make sure that we've got somebody that can win based on numbers and the math that will get us there. And by making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation we turn people off."

Like John McCain, right? Someone should tell Huntsman about the recent Fox News poll showing 45% believe in the "Biblical account of creation as told in the Bible" including 55% of Republicans and Tea Party members, 42% of Democrats and 31% of Independents.  Hardly the wing-nut belief that elitist Huntsman and his cronies in the MSM would like to portray.  Poll after poll repeats similar results showing that despite the State's mandatory evolutionary indoctrination in public schools, Americans still cling to their religion.  Also, 48% of Americans now believe warnings about global warming have been exaggerated.  So clearly, Jon Huntsman is outside the mainstream and needs a spell in the time-out corner for a big, fat attitude adjustment! But PLEASE STOP the sanctimonious lecturing!

I really don't understand why the Republicans go into the belly of the liberal beast for these debates.  They know the moderators are going to try to pit them against each other in a way that gives ammunition to the Obama campaign and they know that they're going to aim for "gotcha" questions that will provide soundbites for Tingles Matthews and Ed Schultz to salivate over for weeks to come.  Sure, MSNBC will get a 2-hour bump in their ratings, but why should the GOP air their family squabbles in this forum at this point in the race?  Of course, the eventual nominee will have to suffer through it in the general election, but it's counterproductive to subject our candidates to this process at this point in time. 

Harris then turned his keen moderator's eye on Rick Perry and asked, "Governor Perry, which scientist have you found most credible on this? Are there specific scientists or specific theories you've found particularly compelling?"

Right....because... Harris really wanted to know that....because maybe he had a list of approved anti-global warming scientists that he could compare to Perry's list? Or perhaps he wanted to have a substantive debate about some of the "specific theories" detractors have advanced?  As if Harris would recognize one if it hit him upside the head.   Why didn't he ask Huntsman to cite his sources?  Or Romney?  Like I said, "gotcha" questions. 

Perry basically blew off the question by patiently explaining that the EPA regulations based on something that is not settled science is crippling the economy. He should have known that the liberal moderators were going to throw that one at him.  I suspect he'll be better prepared next time and won't fumble that question again.  Still, it's an example of why primary debates in hostile venues are just a bad idea. 

It's becoming clear that the field is narrowing quickly.  Rep. Michele Bachmann, who won the Iowa straw poll was almost a non-entity tonight.  Since Gov. Rick Perry entered the race, Bachmann has been barely a blip on the radar screen in recent polls. Sadly, tonight, she was barely visible. and was clearly bumped down to the 2nd tier. 

The moderators treated this debate as a two-man race. Most of the questions were directed to Romney and Perry and many of the other candidates took the opportunity to pile on them.  Perry, maybe because he was the new guy in the debate took most of the heat, saying that he felt like a "pinata." 

There were a couple exchanges that I feel were significant and give us some important insights into the candidates.  The first is a discussion of Social Security.  Gov. Perry was asked about the assertion in his book, Fed Up, that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. 

For the record, here's the definition of a Ponzi scheme (thanks to Wikipedia):

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going. The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors." 

Perry: 

"And people who are on social security today - men and women who are receiving those benefits today [looks straight into the camera] and individuals who are on my end of the line pretty quick to get them - they don't need to worry about anything. The Republican candidates are talking about ways to transition this program. And it is a monstrous lie. It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids who are 25 or 30 years old today, "You are paying into a program that's going to be there." Anybody that's for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids and it's not right. "

Can anyone refute that statement?  

Perry, responding to the moderator's comments that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have been critical of Perry's references to a Ponzi scheme:

"You know Karl has been over the top in his remarks, so I'm not responsible for Karl any more.  If Vice President Cheney or anyone else says that the program we have in place today and young people who are paying into that expect that program to be sound and expect to receive benefits when they reach retirement age - that is just a lie!  And I don't care what anyone says. We know that.  The American people know that, and more importantly, those 25 -year-olds know that."

Romney [to the moderators]:

"The issue is not the funding of Social Security. We all agree, and have for years, that the funding system for Social Security is not working. Congress has been raiding the dollars for Social Security to pay for government expenditures. That's wrong. The funding, however, is not the issue.  The issue in the book Fed Up, Governor, is you say that by any measure Social Security is a failure.  You can't say that to tens of millions of Americans who live on Social Security and have lived on it. The Governor says, "Look, the states ought to be able to opt out of Social Security."  Our nominee has to be someone who isn't committed to abolishing Social Security, but is committed to saving Social Security. We've always had, at the heart of our party, the recognition that we want to care for those in need, and our seniors have the need of Social Security. I will make sure that we keep the program and we make it financially secure, we save Social Security and under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it's a failure! It's working for millions of Americans and I'll keep it working for millions of Americans and we gotta do that as a party."

 Did you catch that? "Under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it's a failure."

So does he think that the nearly-bankrupt program that will fail if not radically reformed is successful?  That should be a huge red flag.  We cannot afford a candidate who does not grasp the urgency of the Social Security  - let's call it what it is - Ponzi scheme. If Romney thinks it's as easy as halting the raids by the general fund, he's seriously delusional. Or lying to our children and grandchildren. 


The whole exchange brought back some memories of this debate:

Governor Perry, explaining the executive order he signed mandating that young girls and teenagers be vaccinated with the Gardasil HPV vaccine (my comments in red):

"There was an opt-out in that piece - it wasn't legislation it was an executive order. I hate cancer. We passed a $300 million cancer initiative that legislative session [big government alert!!] of which we're trying to find over the next ten years cures to cancers.  Cervical cancer is caused by HPV. We wanted to bring that to the attention of these thousands of - tens of thousands of young people in our state [and the only way they could come up with to educate them was to mandate a vaccine???] We allowed for an opt-out. I don't know what's more strong for parental rights than having that opt-out [um....how about an OPT-IN!].  There's a long list of diseases that cost our state and cost our country. It was on that list.  Now, did we handle it right? Should we have talked to the legislature first before we did it? Probably so. [No, you didn't handle it right. This shouldn't have even been a matter for the government to discuss. Period. It's a private matter between parents, their children and their physician. Period.] But at the end of the day, I will always err on the side of saving lives. "

Rick Santorum's response echoes my own:

"Governor Perry is out there claiming about state's rights and state's rights.  How about parental rights being more important than state's rights? How about having instead of an "opt out" an "opt in?" If you really cared, you could make the case instead of forcing me as a parent...I am offended that the government would tell me - and by an executive order, without even going through the process of letting the people have any kind of input - I would expect this from President Obama. I would not expect this from someone who's calling himself a conservative governor."

Amen, Senator Santorum!  I really, really like Santorum. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.  I find myself agreeing with nearly everything he says and wish that his campaign would gain some traction.  I'd love to at least see him as someone's VP.

Romney was asked to respond to the Gardasil flap.  It was clear that he couldn't care less about such trivial matters and rambled aimlessly along both sides of the issue for a few minutes before finding his way back to his own comfortable message:

"I believe in parental rights and parental responsibilites for kids.  My guess is that Governor Perry would like to do it a different way the second time through. We've each taken a mulligan or two. And my guess is he'd do it differently. He just said he'd do it though legislation next time through. And I recognize that he wanted very badly, that he wanted to provide better healthcare to his kids and prevent the spread of cancer. I agree with those who said he went about it the wrong way but his heart was in the right place. Right now we have people who on this stage who care very much about this country. We love America. America is in crisis. There are differences between us but we all see that this president's got to go. This president's a nice guy but he doesn't have a clue how to get this country working again."

While this was painful to watch, it's an excellent example of Romney's constant wavering in the middle.  Instead of having a willingness to take a stand on an issue and fight for it, he's more comfortable in the squishy middle where he can broker a deal and ask everyone to get along.  If that's what you think this country needs, then Romney is your man.


While I have some serious reservations about Perry (I hated his answer on Gardasil - hated it!), at least he's willing to stake out a position and stand by it. I will give him that. The problem is, I don't always agree with his positions.  That said, I probably do agree with him on 90%+ of issues.  It puts him far ahead of Romney at this point and since it's highly unlikely Santorum will be the candidate, we're running out of options.   


Winner of the debate?  No winner.  Romney didn't lose. Perry didn't lose, neither did he have a winning performance, though I suspect he'll get a bump in the polls because he is infinitely more likable than Romney.  The second tier candidates stayed at the second tier. The should-not-be-candidates still should not be candidates.   

The roaring, soaring, Constitution-ignoring days of Obama's Recovery Summer

This video is a year old.  Shocking that nothing - not the war, not the unemployment rate, not the media coverage of Obama - has changed:

...Kick back with Andrew Klavan and enjoy the roaring, soaring, constitution ignoring days of Obama's Recovery Summer. It's sunny. It's funny. But I'm out of work honey. With unemployment over 9%, what isn't there to love? At least it isn't the grim old days of George W. Bush when unemployment was below 6% and General Petraeus was leading a surge...

...Did you vote for Barack Obama? Feeling embarrassed by the results? Don't be so hard on yourself; DE is more common than you think. Nearly 70 million voters may suffer from DE. Have your talk today with Andrew Klavan and find out what you can do to treat DE. You - and your country - will be glad you did...

I sure wish they'd replace all those Viagra commercials during the baseball games with this one!

OH Union activist: Tim McVeigh would be a member of the Tea Party

Happy Labor Day from the Ohio unions!

From Facebook:

Union Workers Opposed to Senate Bill 5

If Timothy McVeigh Was Alive Today, He Would Be A Member Of The Tea Party

Wall Photos

Share · 11 hours ago

• 2 people like this.
• • 
    

    [name removed] Doubtful and not a very good attempt at humor. Shame on you!
    

    4 hours ago
  • 
    

    Union Workers Opposed to Senate Bill 5 The post wasn't meant to be funny, or a one size fits all indictment. The post was shared to provoke thought. If you feel that 99% of what I post is worthwhile , then shake your head when I post something you don't agree with. If you feel ONE controversial post is a reason to berate me as childish and shameless, that is your perogative. I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate here offering to spend the 2 to 3 hours a day I spend scouring the internet and news feeds to supply this page with content. I have stated several times in the past that I would appreciate and encourage others to post relevant content but have seen little in the way of cooperation. If you feel strongly enough about particular posts, please feel free to comment..I reserve the right to ban users when they feel personal insults are the order of the day.
    

    2 hours ago
  • 
    

    Union Workers Opposed to Senate Bill 5 ‎**A Prior Comment has Been Removed**
    

    about an hour ago

    
    

    People who like this

    • 
      

      [name removed]
    • 
      

      [name removed]

    
    
    

*********************************************************************************
The "prior comment" that was removed simply said, "sick." It unleashed a tirade from the Facebook page administrator who spends "2 to 3 hours a day" inventing new ways to insult and ridicule Republicans and the Tea Party yet feels personally insulted by the word "sick" attributed to her Tim McVeigh post. The detractor has now been banned from the Facebook page.

This is the beginning of the silly season in Ohio, where the balance of power has shifted to "we the people" in way that is detrimental to the state.

Though there hasn't been much national attention given to Ohio's union reform measure - SB5 - things are beginning to heat up. Governor Kasich and the Republican-controlled legislature succeeded in passing some common-sense reforms that give local governments better control over their budgets.
While still allowing public employees to collectively bargain over their wages and some benefits, it removed or reduced their collective bargaining leverage in the areas of health insurance and pensions and requires government employees to pay a certain percentage of those benefits. It also requires that employee performance be a factor in determining compensation. See here and here for some basics.

Although there were some protests at the Ohio Statehouse, it wasn't anywhere near the scale of Wisconsin because the unions knew that when Governor Kasich signed SB5 into law this spring the fight had just begun.That's because the Ohio Constitution gives "the people" the power to call for a referendum to challenge a law they don't like. If a special interest group can get 6% of the electorate to sign a petition, they can get it on the ballot and shift the balance from a republic form of government to a pure democracy in certain cases. This process can also be used to amend the Ohio Constitution. It was used in recent years to legalize casino gambling in the state after years of failing to get it through the legislature.

In this case, the unions needed around 200,000 signature. They collected over 700,000 and instead of protests at the capitol, where citizens are lobbying their elected officials as we usually see in a republic form of government, citizens are lobbying (and bullying) their fellow citizens.


"We are Ohio," the group working to repeal the union reforms, has already begun running the typical firefighters-are-going-to-die ads. They will likely follow this with the typical your-kid's-teacher-will-have-to-eat-dog-food-if-this-thing-isn't-repealed ads.


In Wisconsin, by the time the recall elections were held, the state was already benefiting from the reforms Gov. Walker and the legislature had put in place. Unfortunately, in Ohio SB5 has been put on hold, pending the outcome of the referendum. And while the law is in a holding pattern, local and county governments have been hit hard by cuts in state funding and many have made layoffs and cut services. It hasn't made Governor Kasich or the Republicans especially popular this fall, so they are starting 4th and 20 at their own 1-yard line, to use a football analogy.


That said, the economy has been so bad for so long that those of us in the private sector are seeing our 401K's decline at an alarming pace at the same time our healthcare costs are doubling and tripling. We consider ourselves lucky if our employers contribute anything at all toward our retirement plans.


Meanwhile, the unions are complaining because they're being asked to actually pay the employee's share of their pension contribution. Currently, many of them enjoy the benefit of the state or local government paying both the employer's and the employee's share of their pension contribution. Good deal if you can get it, but it's not sustainable in this day and age.


And most of us don't think it's unreasonable that public employees are being asked to pay 15% toward their health insurance premiums, when most residents in the state pay 30% or more. Or that government employees would be compensated based (in part) on merit rather than just seniority, like those of us in the private sector are.


It remains to be seen whether Building a Better Ohio will have the resources to overcome the rhetoric and the misinformation being spread by those who oppose the reforms. The unions are fighting for their lives and they are fired up.

How do you celebrate Labor Day? Wait, you celebrate Labor Day?

1978 International Ladies Garment Workers Union ad

I remember sitting in music class at Central School in Bedford, Ohio in the 70's  and being indoctrinated with this song - I can still sing it from memory.  In the evenings,  the commercial interrupted episodes of All in the Family and Welcome Back Kotter.  Not that I minded.  My dad worked for the phone company and was represented by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) union. Nearly every family we knew was in the union. The union contract the CWA negotiated has taken very good care of my father in his retirement

For what it's worth, we also sang overtly Christian songs in that school.  Songs that would today cause ACLU-types to curl up in the fetal position and suck their thumbs.  There was one boy in my class who was a Jehovah's Witness.  He was not allowed to sing the Christmas songs, participate in holiday celebrations or eat the birthday cupcakes the mothers sent to class.  I don't remember if his religion forbid him to sing the union solidarity pep rally songs or not.   

As we look to the upcoming Labor Day holiday,  I have to wonder what it is we are celebrating and whether conservatives should be celebrating at all.  

The Department of Labor offers this sanitized little revisionist-history description of the evolution of the holiday:

"The Labor Day holiday is interesting because it evolved over a period of years. In 19th century America, there was already a tradition of having parades, picnics and various other celebrations in support of labor issues, such as shorter hours or to rally strikers. But most historians emphasize one specific event in the development of today’s modern Labor Day. That pivotal event was the parade of unions and a massive picnic that took place in New York City on Sept. 5, 1882.... 

"...The park was decorated with flags of many nations. Everyone picnicked, drank beer and listened to speeches from the union leadership. In the evening, even more people came to the park to watch fireworks and dance. The newspapers of the day declared it a huge success and “a day of the people.” 

"After that major event in New York City, other localities began to pick up the idea for a fall festival of parades and picnics celebrating workers." [emphasis added]

Doesn't that sound like fun for the whole family?  What's not to love about it? But Tedd Watts, in his book The First Labor Day Parade says it was not quite such a festive affair:

"Those first parades were really protest rallies for the adoption of the 8-hour day, rather than the, often tame civic events they have evolved into. Participants had to give up a day's pay in order to march. The New York City Central Labor Union (CLU) even levied a fine on non-participants!" 

"In 1882, the New York City CLU was a lodge of the still-secret Knights of Labor, with a progressive tailor, Robert Blissert at its head. His right-hand man and Secretary of the CLU was Mathew Maguire, a machinist. The parade was timed to coincide with a national Knights of Labor conference being held in New York. This accounts for the presence of almost the entire K of L leadership on the reviewing stand. But their affiliation with labor was masked for the reporters who covered the parade. Grand Master Workman Terrence Powderley, for example, was introduced as the mayor of Scranton, Pennsylvania, which he, in fact, was."  

Union workers threatened with fines if they didn't show up for protests?  Secretive union bosses? Hoodwinking the media?  These folks have been at this for a really long time!


Also left out of the Department of Labor's history of Labor Day is the reason it's a federal holiday.  President Grover Cleveland, who had a contentious relationship with the unions due to the violent Haymaker Riot and the Pullman strike, needed to find ways to curry their favor in order to win re-election.  In addition to creating the Department of Labor,  just six days after the Pullman strike Cleveland rushed legislation through Congress designating the first Monday in September as Labor day.  It was too little, too late and Cleveland ultimately lost his re-election bid.   


American Federation of Labor leader Samuel Gompers described the purpose of Labor Day in the Washington Post on September 2, 1894 - the first national Labor Day celebration:

"Labor Day will this year be celebrated with unwonted vim and enthusiasm. All over the land organized workingmen are making ready to celebrate their holiday. There will be open-air demonstrations, speech-making, and a display of interest never equaled, probably since Labor Day was instituted." [emphasis added]

Clearly, from the very beginning, this was a holiday dedicated to celebrating and honoring union workers. 

President Obama had this to say in his Labor Day Proclamation (yes, I know he forgot Easter, but you didn't think he'd forget Labor Union Day, did you?):

"The right to organize and collectively bargain is a fundamental American value. Since its beginnings in our country, organized labor has raised our living standards and built our middle class. It is the reason we have a minimum wage, weekends away from work to rest and spend time with family, and basic protections in our workplaces. 

"Many Americans today are given opportunities because their parents and grandparents fought for these basic rights and values. The principles upheld by the honorable laborers of generations past and their unions continue to fuel the growth of our economy and a strong middle class. 

"This year has seen a vigorous fight to protect these rights and values, and on this Labor Day, we reaffirm that collective bargaining is a cornerstone of the American dream. From public employees -- including teachers, firefighters, police, and others who perform public services -- to workers in private industries, these men and women hold the power of our Nation in their hands."

Are you feeling the solidarity yet?  

I've always wondered why atheists who pontificate about the evils of Christmas displays and blather on and on about religion in the public square don't seem to mind taking the day off work for Christmas and Easter.  It always seemed rather hypocritical to me.  To be consistent, I thought, they should be suing their employers to force them to be allowed to work instead of taking advantage of the paid day off for a religious holiday.  


I wonder if we, as conservatives are demonstrating a little hypocrisy ourselves by "celebrating" labor unions with President Obama and Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO.  I suppose the argument can be made that we are celebrating what the unions were historically and the good that they accomplished in their early days. But at this point, most of us here realize that the unions are a huge contributor to the bankrupting of our country. It's nothing to celebrate.


Of course, unless you're self-employed, you probably don't have a choice about whether or not to go in to work on Monday.  If you're a student, the doors will be locked and no one will be there to teach you....


....unless you go to Hillsdale College.  That's right...possibly the only school in the country that recognizes the significance of Labor Day will be open for business and students will be learning about the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers and the dangers of Progessivism.   My son is blessed to be a sophomore there and his classes on Monday will include American Foreign Policy, History of Theater, Western Religions, and Computer Programming. 


Perhaps while you're enjoying your family time and stretching out the last few days of the summer,  you can take a cue from Dr. Arnn at Hillsdale College and take a little time to defend liberty this weekend.  Here are a few suggestions:

• Make a donation to Hillsdale College (shameless begging - my kid is there on scholarship because of some generous donors)


• Visit the Building a Better Ohio website and learn about Ohio's common-sense union reforms.  The unions managed to get a measure on the November ballot to repeal the entire reform bill and the unions are pouring millions into the repeal effort.  They ran their first TV ad today featuring - of course - a firefighter. Check out the website and see how you can help. 


• Sit down and write a letter to the editor (or three) about a candidate or an issue that matters to you. It doesn't take much time and it can pay huge dividends. 


• Find out which organizations in your area are hosting Constitution Day celebrations on  September 17th and make plans to attend or even volunteer.

I'm planning to spend some time on Labor Day working on plans and strategies for local GOP candidates.  How about you?