Bad news for the Hackorama. It seems as though even the editorial staff at the Boston Globe recognizes a hack when they see one. Or two, in this case.
With high hopes, the Globe endorses Alan Khazei, the prime mover behind national-service policies, as Massachusetts’ best chance to produce another great senator.
Khazei promises to apply the same principles to other issues, believing that building a grass-roots network for change while demonstrating both commitment and a willingness to compromise in pursuit of common ground can break down political barriers. This isn’t just hopeful rhetoric. Khazei speaks admiringly of streetwise education reformers who, having seen challenging conditions in urban classrooms, dreamed up such innovations as charter schools and Teach for America. Along the way, these activists had to elbow their way around established interest groups that tried to squeeze them out of the policy debate. With the support of an energetic and idealistic senator, public policy can flourish.
The 48-year-old Khazei offers a strong vision for success in the Senate, channeling the energy of activist groups and private-sector policy incubators while dedicating himself to the laborious task of building legislative coalitions.
He offers a time-tested and relevant example of this approach: his two decades of work bringing together politicians of both parties and citizen-activists to develop a national service plan. The recent service bill named for Kennedy and providing for 250,000 volunteers in a domestic Peace Corps is largely the fruit of his labors.
Khazei will not be getting my vote, but this really is delicious.
Scroll for updates
The decision only applies to contracts that were signed prior to Congress’ vote to ban government funding for the group. Its author focuses on the phrase “provided to” as his basis for the decision.
Mr. Barron said he had based his conclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said, has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending — unlike such words as “obligate” and “expend.”
Citing dictionary and thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted as meaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionary choices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instances in which the transfer of funds to Acorn was required to satisfy existing contractual obligations.
Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts.
Naturally. Who knows how many existing contracts are in place or when they expire, but until they do ACORN will continue to receive taxpayer funds for nefarious activities such as providing guidance in obtaining loans for child sex rings and money laundering.
Update: Darrell Issa blasts Justice Department’s decision
But Representative Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said “the bipartisan intent of Congress was clear — no more federal dollars should flow to ACORN.”
“It is telling that this administration continues to look for every excuse possible to circumvent the intent of Congress,” Issa said in a statement. “Taxpayers should not have to continue subsidizing a criminal enterprise that helped Barack Obama get elected president. The politicization of the Justice Department to payback one of the president’s political allies is shameful and amounts to nothing more than old-fashioned cronyism.”
Happy Thanksgiving! Even in hard times such as these, there is much to be thankful for. As you sit down to your Thanksgiving dinner with family and friends please take a moment to remember the brave men and women of our military who are fighting to preserve our freedoms in places far from home.
And speaking of turkeys, Michelle Malkin has compiled a list of the Top 5 Turkeys of the Year.
Be safe and God Bless.
Here we go again.
MANCHESTER — Members of the First Parish Church say they just wanted to bring the Christmas story to life this holiday season.
The plan was to have a live Nativity scene — complete with a manger and people playing the parts of Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus — setup on the Town Common as part of the church’s Christmas Eve family service. This was the first time the church, which sits on the Town Common has proposed such a display and a real donkey was even secured to add to the scene.
But town officials have essentially told the church there’s no room at the inn — or, in this case, a place to have a religious display like a live nativity scene on town property.
Manchester selectmen have denied the request from the church, saying the proposal didn’t provide enough details and could potentially pose legal issues for the town.
Selectmen Chairman Susan Thorne, along with Selectmen Lee Spence, Bryan Gubbins and Mary Hardwick voted against the request at the board’s regular meeting last Monday, while Selectman Thomas Kehoe chose not to vote after the other four rejected the request. Kehoe did not give a reason for his abstention.
“There were some of us that thought it was inappropriate to allow a religious display on the Town Common,” Selectmen’s Chairman Sue Thorne said in an interview. “And there really wasn’t enough information to make a fair decision.”
One hour of religion was too much for Muffy and Chipper to see on their way home from The Club.
By the way, the BP of Manchester changed its name from Manchester to Manchester-by-the-Sea back in 1990. I refuse to call it by it’s official – and incredibly ostentatious – name.
The most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll shows Obama’s numbers continuing to tank.
His extended deliberations may be taking a toll: 55% disapprove of the way he is handling Afghanistan and 35% approve, a reversal of his 56% approval rating four months ago.
By more than 2-1, Americans say the United States shouldn’t close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, as Obama has promised.
On Health Care:
By 49%-44%, they oppose passing a health care bill in Congress this year, which he calls critical.
On trying KSM in NYC:
A majority are against holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York, and nearly six in 10 say the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind should be tried in a military rather than a civilian court. That’s at odds with the decision announced this month by Attorney General Eric Holder.
Put it all together and you get this:
When it comes to seven specific areas, Obama no longer commands majority support on any. On only two — energy policy and global warming — does he have a net positive rating. On the economy, health care, jobs and Afghanistan, a majority disapprove of how he’s doing. There’s an almost even divide on his handling of terrorism: 45% approve, 47% disapprove.
Some of you may not be familiar with Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown who is running for what should be Ted Kennedy’s vacant Senate seat. Below is profile of Senator Brown. I think you’ll like what you read.
Hat tip: PISSED
“This Senate seat doesn’t belong to any one person or political party,” he says. “It belongs to the people, and the people deserve someone in the U.S. Senate who will always put their interests first.” He knows he’s an underdog and will be outspent 10 to 1 by an opponent in the Jan. 19 special election. (He’s likely to face Jack E. Robinson, a perennial wannabe, in the Dec. 8 primary.) “I was an underdog and prevailed in nine previous races,” he tells me. “I learned to be competitive and use our resources wisely.”
Scott Brown is not your ordinary Beacon Hill pol. At 50, he’s tall, lean and has the physique of a triathlete, which he is. Having spent nearly 30 years with the Massachusetts National Guard, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, his manner is open and straightforward. “I’m not beholden to special interests,” he says. “Because I don’t owe anybody anything, I’m free to tell the truth and fight for what I believe in.”
He says government is too big, and stimulus spending made it bigger instead of creating jobs. “We can’t afford a second stimulus package,” he says. “The first one didn’t work. The money wasn’t spent well in Massachusetts because the governor is using it as a campaign tool.” He says taxes, already too high, will go even higher if Democrats in Congress continue with their out-of-control spending. He says “the historic amount of debt we’re passing on to our children and grandchildren is immoral.” He knows from experience that power concentrated in the hands of one political party leads to bad government and poor decisions. He supports term limitations: “A maximum of four terms and you’re out.”
Senator Brown would give voice to the legions of us who have felt cast off and unrepresented by our Congressional delegation for decades – or since birth in my case. He would make the citizens of the Commonwealth proud. We should do everything in our power to support his campaign. I encourage you to join the Brown Brigade and get involved. Imagine the shock and awe if Massachusetts elected a Republican senator?
Is anyone surprised by this?
The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.
Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said Sunday the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”
The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.
Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain “their assessment of American foreign policy,” Fenstermaker said.
“Their assessment is negative,” he said.
There is no way that Obama and Holder did not anticipate this happening, yet they still opted for a trial in federal court. This preventable show trial will be Obama’s legacy and fresh in the minds of voters in 2012.
Iowa used to heart Barry. Now the majority of Iowans aren’t feeling the love.
DesMoines Register via Hot Air
Fewer than half of Iowans approve of President Barack Obama’s performance in office a year after he carried the state in the 2008 election, according to The Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll.
Obama’s overall job approval slipped to 49 percent from 53percent in September. Iowans’ approval is down 19 percentage points since an Iowa Poll in January, about the time he was inaugurated.
A majority of Iowans now say the Democrat’s performance in key economic areas is inadequate, including health care, his top domestic priority.
Their satisfaction with Obama’s conduct of wars abroad has dropped most sharply, as he weighs sending more troops to Afghanistan, the war he promised during the campaign to make a priority.
More troubling for Barry & Co. should be his declining support among Democrats and Independents.
The overwhelming majority of Iowa Democrats, 82 percent, approve of the job Obama is doing. Yet their support has dropped 8 percentage points, and that has driven Obama’s overall decline.
In September, 90 percent of Iowa Democrats said they approved of the president’s performance.
Iowa independents, who fueled Obama’s leadoff caucus victory and his general election victory here, grew more disapproving this fall. Approval stalled at fewer than half of independents, while disapproval grew to 46 percent.
Iowa is where it all began for Obama. Could it eventually turn out to be where it ends?
No big surprise here after the events in the days and hours leading up to the vote. Lieberman and Nelson caved and then the Southern Belles sealed the deal.
The Senate voted along party lines Saturday night to overcome a Republican filibuster and bring to the floor a bill that would overhaul the nation’s health-care system.
After days of indecision, the last two Democratic holdouts — Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.) — joined their caucus in supporting a motion to begin debate. The 60 to 39 vote marks a milestone in the decades-old quest for health-care reform, President Obama’s top legislative priority.
We all know about the 3 million reasons why Landrieu voted for the bill, but Lincoln has no excuse. Her approval rating is tanking in Arkansas and if the bill passes (God forbid), her constituents can place the blame on her for allowing it to move forward.
Battle lost, but the war rages on.
Melt the phones – don’t let up.
Senate Switchboard (202) 224-3121
But the Democrats still plan to shove it down our throats.
More Americans continue to oppose the health care reform legislation than support it, according to a Fox News poll released Friday. In addition, half favor banning the use of federal funds for abortions.
By 51 percent to 35 percent, the public opposes the reform legislation being considered right now by Congress. Last month, a majority opposed the health care legislation by a similar 54-35 percent (October 13-14, 2009).
While a majority of Democrats favor the reforms (65 percent), some 17 percent are opposed and another 18 percent are unsure. Most Republicans (82 percent) and a majority of independents (61 percent) oppose the legislation.
Seniors aged 65 and over oppose to the legislation by 56-30 percent, while voters under age 30 are slightly more likely to be in favor of it (45-41 percent).
Most Americans see this for what it is – a power grab to control the most important decisions in our lives. It is repugnant and will be catastrophic to our economy and our way of life as we know it.