The Occasional Observer

I give you the awesomeness that is a mash-up/comparison of the Magnum P.I. intro with Star Wars footage.

I dare thee not to smile...ness

It has been days since the GOP took control of the NY State Senate. Nothing has been done since. Nothing. For days, the Senate Secretary, appointed by the now ousted Dem Majority leader, refused to unlock the chamber. Then, they witheld the use of the stenographer.

The Democrats have shut down the New York State legislature. I don't understand why it's not being reported as a "government shutdown." The press was in an uproar when Newt threatened to do this back in the '90s. Now the Dems actually have done it, and there are a bunch of ambiguous reports about why the Senate can't get it's act together, as if the the new GOP majority likes sitting around and doing nothing as much as the Dems who are trying to stall them out.

The state GOP in NY managed to wrest control of the closely divided state senate from Dems today. They did so by enticing two Dems to caucus with the GOP, by promising to make one President pro-tem of the Senate.

The news is stunning.

But what is not stunning is the response of Long Island's Dem response rag daily paper Newsday. Dan Janison tries to capture the mood, and it's a veritable j-school class in using loaded language and a judgmental tone:

For those learning of it downstate, this struck like lightning.

Word of the parliamentary coup's early moments in the Senate chamber in Albany Monday smacked of reports from a foreign capital under siege, complete with descriptions of rooms going dark and TV feeds cut off and a mob scene in the hallway.

Got that? When the GOP takes control, NY has become a banana republic. I wonder if he called Spitzer's attempted take out on Bruno a "coup"? I also likes the way he leaves out the fact that the "room went dark" because flustered Dems tried to close the legislative session("you go now!") against parliamentary rules when they saw things going the GOP's way.

Two weeks shy of a year ago, Sen. Dean Skelos (R- Rockville Centre) took over a sparse Republican majority from retiring leader Joseph Bruno - only to see himself turned minority leader months later when two regional GOP veterans lost bids for re-election. But like others banished from power, Skelos plotted a return, looking for help in subverting his successors.

Ooooohhhh, I like it. Gotta have a villain. Skelos "plotted" and "subverted." Did Pelosi "subvert" the GOP majority in '06 or simply win an election? Just wondering.

Of two New York City Democrats who helped restore his clout Monday by defecting, one is under criminal indictment for a violent act of domestic violence, and the other is merely under scrutiny for living outside his district and being a long-term state campaign scofflaw. That senator, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx, now gets what he bid for more than six months ago when the plotting began, the position of president pro tem.

This one is my favorite. You know a journalist is pissed when he goes straight to character assasination. But here's my question: if Janison is so outraged over the domestic violence and campaign finance allegations, I'm sure he was calling for these senators to be ousted from the Senate immediately, even when they were still voting under the Dem flag. Right?

Which proves Albany's foremost rule of operation: Grab whatever allies and power you can get your hands on.

Powerful friends like Brooklyn's indicted corrupt Dem judges? Spitzer's fear squads that spent years conducting drive-by hits on the finance community (a.k.a. the state's tax base)? The race baiting charlatans, like Dem mouthpiece Al Sharpton, that run around whipping up violence and discontent against the police and white people in general?

Dan Janison: cover up, your bias is showing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exciting HYPOCRISY update!

Check out how Janison reported the DV allegations against Monserrate when he was still a faithful Dem:

Sen. Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens) was charged with a domestic-abuse crime late last year, raising the prospect that his seat would become vacant and loosen his party's new grip on the house.

Nassau Democrats will look to guard against such an impact on their house - if federal tax allegations lodged Wednesday against Corbin (D-Westbury) chase him quickly from office.

Fortunately for their party leaders, both accused lawmakers are expected to fight the charges in court - making any abrupt losses of clout unlikely.

Another break for Democratic leaders: Criminal cases can take years to resolve, and some elected officials have been known to serve for long periods under a legal cloud.

Focus is totally on how the Dems could lose power. Nothing about the fact that somehow the party is tarnished by their affiliation with a spouse abuser.

Then the good news: Hiram will fight the charges and it'll take the courts years to get around to it.

If only he had taken the same tone he did with Hiram today, and come out with something like this:

New York State Democrats are now relying on two State Senators to maintain their majority in Albayn: one is under criminal indictment for a violent act of domestic violence, and the other is merely under scrutiny for living outside his district and being a long-term state campaign scofflaw.

Some expression about airborne pork comes to mind.

Samuelson drives the point home in Newsweek with this great article.

CABLE NEWS RACE
THURS., MAY 29, 2009

FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,526,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,474,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,009,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 1,871,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,834,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,787,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,298,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,029,000
CNNHN GRACE 915,000
CNN COOPER 852,000

ht: Drudge

So much for the campaign rhetoric being spewed by Obama and the liberal media that the ONLY possible reason for belligerence in the world was the "aggressive", "cowboy", "unilateral" policies of the Bush administration. If we would simply act like a good neighbor and talk to everyone, there would be no problems. Never mind that WTC '93, USS Cole, and 4 years of planning and training for 9/11 occurred while Clinton was in office. Dialogue is the answer.

Except for this - it doesn't work.

North Korea threatened a military response to South Korean participation in a U.S.-led program to seize weapons of mass destruction, and said it will no longer abide by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.

So far, in the "new" regime of dialogue, what do we have? N. Korea performs their most powerful underground nuclear weapons test ever. They launch both short and long-range missiles. They now pull out of a 56-year-old armistice. They threaten military action against South Korea. Iran test fires missiles, kicks weapons inspectors out of the country, and continues to accelerate their uranium enrichment program. Pirates attack a ship flying under the American flag for the first time in over 200 years. Pakistan cedes a large swath of territory to extremist control. Israel and Palestine continue to draw harder lines.

Where's the change?

What could warm Obama's heart more than to see this headline from the wire services:


Right divided over court fight

Just how divided are we? I had to get all the way down to the first sentence to find out:

Conservative groups know they want to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor

Wow. Wicked divided.

How can I not be concerned? Not when she is on record as saying that one's race, ethnicity, and gender does effect the way a judge rules:

I accept the proposition that, as...[a] former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.

Not when she flatly admitted that judges "make policy," before embarking on a half-hearted, wink/nod attempt to double-back.

Heck, this woman is on record as saying that a Latino woman should be expected to make better decisions than a white male, for no other reason, I suppose, than her gender and ethnic background.

Now, I'll give her the benefit on this one, b/c it almost sounds like a joke. I'd like to know the context before branding her a racist.

But that said, this is the type of governance we're apparently in line for. After all, there is virtually no chance of stopping this or any other Obama nominee until (and unless) we change the balance of power in the Senate.

By the way, I love how the Dems are so proud that they are nominating the first hispanic to Supreme Court! Never mind that it's an arguable point, as some consider Justice Cardozo the first hispanic justice.

But hello!!!???? Bush would have already nominated the clearly qualified Miguel Estrada to the Court had the Dems not torpedoed his nomination with a multi-year filibuster that was unprecedented. Never before had a Circuit Court nominee been filibustered (Supreme Court nominee Abe Fortas had been filibustered, but it was clear he was going to be voted down by a wide margin had his nomination reached the Senate floor, unlike Estrada, who in all likelihood would have been confirmed).

Meanwhile, for all those Democrats whining about the need for a quick (read: rushed) hearing culminating in a prompt Senatorial rubber stamp, allow me to offer this list of Bush nominees who, in addition to the aforementioned Miguel Estrada, were denied an up or down vote for years before their nominations were ultimately confirmed, defeated, or withdrawn:

Terrence Boyle (nominee from 1991-1993 and 2001-2007 without a vote)
Priscilla Owen (5/01-5/05, confirmed)
Charles W. Pickering (5/01-1/04, recess appointment, not confirmed)
Carolyn Kuhl (6/01-12/04, withdrawn)
David W. McKeague (11/01-6/05, confirmed)
Henry Saad (11/01-3/06, withdrawn)
Susan Bieke Neilson (11/01-10/05, confirmed three months prior to her untimely death from cancer)
Richard Allen Griffin (6/02-6/05, confirmed)
William H. Pryor (4/03-6/05, confirmed)
William Gerry Myers III (5/03-1/07, withdrawn)
Janice Rogers Brown (7/03-6/05, confirmed)
Brett Kavanaugh (7/03-5/06, confirmed)
N. Randy Smith (12/05-2/07, confirmed)
Stephen Murphy III (6/06-4/09, withdrawn from Circuit nomination)
Raymond Kethledge (6/06-4/09, confirmed)
Peter Keisler (6/06-3/08, withdrawn)

Oh, and BTW, virtually all the above nominees were rated "well qualified" or "qualified" by the ABA.

I'm not suggesting, mind you, that Sotomayor's nomination be held up for years. That wouldn't be good for the Court, nor for the nation.

But the Dems are shameless hypocrites.

That's OK, Bill, I don't need the hat tip.

Just use your forum to spread the message: "in need of A-list rhetorician to credibly articulate a foreign policy alternative. New faces preferred."

Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues. Here’s an interesting question: Will any Republican whose career lies mostly ahead of him -- or her -- step up to confront Obama on the foreign policy and national security front? Is any of them enough of a risk-taker to defy the conventional wisdom that if you’re a mere senator or congressman or governor or aspirer to office, you should focus on domestic issues, that it’s hard (and it is) to take on a president on foreign policy? Will any of them seek to join Cheney and Gingrich in the foreign policy fray?

What if no younger political figure steps forward? If national security remains front and center over the next three years (a pretty safe bet), could the GOP nominee in 2012 be Gingrich...or even -- gasp! -- Cheney?

According to CNN, Obama said "he doesn’t feel 'weighed down' by race or gender in his decision."

Could you imagine if a GOP president--or worse yet--a white male GOP president, had issued this statement?

Where is Patricia Ireland? Gloria Steinem? Kweisi Mfume and Al Sharpton? And the rest of the identity politics cabal that is usually demanding, weeks in advance of the nomination, that eventual pick come from his or her respective grievance association? And that, if a female or minority nominee is not selected, it is de facto proof of the President's lack of compassion.