John Dingell is no longer the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It’s the end of an era. He was elected in a special election in 1955 (coincidentally, the year both of my parents were born). He became chairman in 1980 (coincidentally, the year I was born). For the next 14 years, Dingell made Energy and Commerce the most legislatively productive committee in Congress, producing 30% of the legislation at the time. The quip went that his committee had jurisdiction over “everything that moves, burns, or is sold.”
Although he introduced in each Congress a bill to socialize health care, he was hardly a down the line liberal. He was a long time member of the NRA board, and a skeptic of environmentalists. He managed to pass bills and beat the leadership of both parties on occasion. If I recall correctly, President Bush said upon meeting him that he was supposed to be the biggest pain in the a** on Capitol Hill, and Dingell replied, “Thank you, Mr. President. I worked long and hard to get that reputation, and I’d hate to lose it.” He’s lost it.
Now this powerful committee will be headed by Henry Waxman, who’ll be a puppet of Speaker Pelosi. The independent Dingell was long a thorn in Pelosi’s side, to the point where she backed a primary opponent against him in 2002; he returned the favor later by backing Steny Hoyer for majority leader over Pelosi’s choice, John Murtha. It looks very much like Pelosi is consolidating her grip on the House. Once, there were many committee chairment who’d go there own way: Dan Rostenkowski and Bill Thomas on Ways and Means, Les Aspin on Armed Services, Howard Smith on Rules. Dingell was pretty much the last Democratic committee chairman who’d oppose the party leadership. The days of powerful committee chairmen going against the Speaker seem to be ending. She’s well to the left of most of the nation, but it looks like the House is firmly under Pelosi’s control.
Hubbard posted this at 5:14 PM EST on Thursday, November 20th, 2008 as Politics, Denizens of DC
No Comments »
This is an argument I hadn’t thought of:
A ban on same-sex marriage in California doesn’t go far enough. How about a Texas-imposed ban on all Californians having sex? Look at what happens when Californians have sex. You just get more Californians. Then they all move to Austin, vente becomes a drink size, and fruit becomes a side order.
[snip]
Now, one of the good things about same-sex Californians having sex is that it doesn’t lead to, you know, more Californians. So maybe the ban I’m proposing should allow sex for same-sex Californians only. Since they’re not the ones adding to the ongoing traffic jam on MoPac.
I’m semi-persuaded.
Apollo posted this at 4:06 PM EST on Friday, November 7th, 2008 as Humor, Deep in the Heart of Texas
No Comments »
From Rasmussen (H/T):
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.
Only 20% of GOP voters say Palin hurt the party’s ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Six percent (6%) say she had no impact, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.
When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year — Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%.
Three other sitting governors — Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota — all pull low single-digit support.
A common theme I heard in the last several weeks is how many conservative leaning independents were turned off when McCain picked Palin. My view is that we need to see how Palin governs Alaska for the next 4 years, assuming she’s reelected. What say the rest of the paupers? (Tom, Jamie, please put down the hemlock. . .)
Hubbard posted this at 12:47 PM EST on Friday, November 7th, 2008 as Amer-I-Can!, I have seen the future. . .
3 Comments »
Since the founding of the Republican Party in 1854, there have been 39 presidential elections. 27 times Americans have elected someone different than they did in the previous election, though because of Grover Cleveland, only 26 men have been elected president during that time frame. Of those 26:
- 16 have been Republicans, winning a total of 23 elections
- 10 have been Democrats, winning a total of 16 elections
- 13 have been Republicans who won a majority of the popular vote in at least one election. Republicans have won a popular majority 17 times. The last Republican president not to win a popular majority at least once was B. Harrison, who lost the popular vote but won the electoral college in 1888. Also not winning majorities: Hayes and Garfield.
- 4 have been Democrats who won a popular majority. Democrats have been elected with a popular majority 7 times. Additionally, Samuel Tilden won 51% in 1876 but lost the electoral college.
- 6 have been Democrats who won without getting a majority. Impressively, three of them did it twice: Clinton, Wilson, and Cleveland. The other three: Kennedy, Truman, and Buchanan.
In those 39 elections:
- 2 Democrats, F. Roosevelt and L. Johnson, have exceeded Obama’s 52.3% of the popular vote, though F. Roosevelt did it 4 times, so Obama has the 6th highest percentage registered for a Democrat
- 10 Republican have exceeded Obama’s 52.3%. Grant and Eisenhower did it twice, making 12 times Republicans have done so.
- Obama’s popular vote percentage is the 18th highest.
- 12 Republicans have exceeded Obama’s popular vote margin of 6%, doing so 15 times: Reagan, Eisenhower, and Lincoln did it twice.
- 5 Democrats have exceeded Obama’s popular vote margin of 6%, doing so 8 times: F. Roosevelt did it four.
- Obama’s popular vote margin is the 24th largest.
- 7 times a Republican has won a popular vote margin at least twice as large as Obama’s: 1984, 1972, 1956, 1928, 1924, 1920, and 1908.
- 5 times a Democrat has won a popular vote margin at least twice as large as Obama’s: 1964, 1944, 1940, 1936, 1932, and 1856(!).
- Only once has a candidate won the day after his running mate discussed the difference between “girl-boys” and “girl-girls.”
Apollo posted this at 1:02 AM EST on Thursday, November 6th, 2008 as Politics, Amer-I-Can!
No Comments »
My home county! Dunklin County, Missouri (number 3 producer of watermelons in the country, and number 10 in cotton! wOOt!) went 52% for Bush in 2000, 58% for Bush in 2004, and 60% for McCain this year. I know the county supported Bill Clinton twice, and I would be surprised if had ever voted for a Republican before that.
Good to see we’re gaining strength somewhere, though how many more poor southern whites can we get?
Apollo posted this at 5:12 PM EST on Wednesday, November 5th, 2008 as Amer-I-Can!
No Comments »
The local news had a live camera feed of a Halloween party in downtown Austin. It cut to the crowd a few minutes ago and, judging by this one guy’s lack of clothes and funny manner of running, I’m pretty sure someone went as Greased Up Deaf Guy. Certainly the tv news people couldn’t stop themselves from laughing until the camera cut away. “We see some people there in costume. And some . . . not.”
Apollo posted this at 9:20 PM EDT on Friday, October 31st, 2008 as Deep in the Heart of Texas
No Comments »
Without commenting on the overall merits of this David Frum post, this struck me:
I think Rush is a great entertainer and has often been a force for good in the conservative movement. But right now, he is feeding his audience pleasing illusions that can only lead conservatives to even greater troubles in the days ahead.
Why does Frum feel the need to denigrate Rush as merely an “entertainer”? McCain did this a while back, and I remember being cranky about it at the time.
But why shouldn’t I refer to Frum as an entertainer? There’s a tremendous bias among writers that writing is somehow a superior, more intellectual form of communication than others. But how many people read thoughtful things that bore them? It’s been a while since Aristotle or Heidegger produced a best seller. A writer, even if he is of the serious sort, absolutely must entertain. But it would seem odd if I referred to Frum as an entertainer, no? That’s a word reserved for non-writing boobs like Rush (though Rush’s monologues have been turned into two books that sold monstrously better than anything Frum has produced).
If the phrase “public intellectual” has any meaning, it absolutely must include Rush Limbaugh. For fifteen hours a week, he engages in reasoned discourse over the news of the day, very frequently getting into serious points of political philosophy and history. Compared to the hollow poll-following “who-has-momentum-today” level of print and television journalism, Rush does much to elevate the level of discourse above where it would be if left to the supposed serious journalists. You can watch an entire month’s worth of Sunday-morning programs without learning as much as Rush delivers in a day, and without laughing as much as Rush’s listeners do in ten minutes. I imagine it really grates on certain people that this country bumpkin college drop out prompts more thought than every Ivy Leaguer and J-school grad on television or in newspapers.
So Frum can look down his nose at Rush the Entertainer all he wants. But there is not a more important public intellectual in America today, and he’s done more to preserve and advance the conservative movement than anyone presently at National Review.
Apollo posted this at 3:18 PM EDT on Tuesday, October 28th, 2008 as Conservatism, Journalism, Amer-I-Can!
1 Comment »