Tag Archives: political parties

New Style Job Hunting

Posted on by
Reply

FCC commissioner and sole Progressive-Democrat agency member Anna Gomez wrote a letter in her official capacity to Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro (Disney owns ABC) advising him that the FCC’s investigations of ABC were nothing more than a weaponization of the FCC and a campaign to censor news media.

It’s bad enough that a Federal government bureaucrat would so blatantly seek to blow up an agency action with which she disagrees, and she should be fired on that ground alone.

It gets worse, though, as the news writer at the link noted at the end of his piece.

In her letter, Gomez pledged to use “every tool available to me as a Commissioner to shine a light on what this FCC is doing to curtail press freedom and to hold this process to account at every step.”

Gomez knows full well that she won’t successfully block the FCC’s investigation; she can only cast those public aspersions. This isn’t an FCC Commissioner seeking fairness and justice in a government action. This is a Federal government bureaucrat trying to burnish her resume and set up her job hunt, first with Disney or ABC, for when she leaves government. This is abusive even for revolving door bureaucratic practice.

British Local Elections

Posted on by
Reply

The UK just concluded a round of local elections, and the wreckage was extensive for the nation’s two (now erstwhile) dominant political parties. Those local elections were wide ranging. Of the total number of local seats (of all types of “local”), 40% or 5,000 were up for grabs. Those 5,000 ran the local gamut:

Every level of government below the London parliament was up for grabs: the national assemblies in Scotland and Wales; the patronage-rich regional assemblies and mayoralties of the English provinces; the big-city, big-spending borough councils of London, Manchester, and Birmingham; and the hundreds of village and neighborhood wards.

The outcome was

  • Reform UK: additional 1,453 seats, control of 14 councils
  • Liberal Democrats: additional 155 seats
  • Greens: additional 441 seats, control of five councils
  • independents [sic]: additional 34 seats, now totaling 205
  • Conservatives: lost 563 seats, 6 of their 15 councils
  • Labour: lost 1,496 seats, 38 of their 66 councils
  • 64 councils now have no overall control

Some 3rd grade arithmetic. Reform UK’s 1460+ seats represent 29% of the seats up for grabs. That’s almost 12% of the total such seats.

If that momentum continues, it’ll likely be bye-bye to both Labour and Conservatives in ’29, which is the latest by which this British Government must call elections, a call that’s controlled by the majority party, so far, Labour. That deadline stands unless Labour can engineer a successful no-confidence vote against their current Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. That, though, would bring forward the demise of Labour and Conservatives both.

Would Labour dare? It’s already about to become irrelevant as its internal civil war over who will lead the party (much less be the government’s Prime Minister) is beginning to generate the party’s rapid unscheduled disassembly. Still, there is an upside to a successful no-confidence vote; the ensuing general election will drag the Conservatives into the dust bin with them. Labour, after all, would be loathe to see the Conservatives survive them.

Disingenuous Appeal

Posted on by
Reply

The Virginia Attorney General, Progressive-Democrat Jay Jones, has appealed to the US Supreme Court his State’s Supreme Court ruling that the redistricting map that cut Virginia citizens’ Federal House of Representatives representation from six districts favoring Progressive-Democrats and five Republican-favoring districts to a split of ten Progressive-Democrat-favoring districts and one Republican-favoring. His rationalization is that the State Court’s ruling

deprived voters, candidates, and the commonwealth of their right to the lawfully enacted congressional districts[.]

This is a cynical misreading of the State Supreme Court ruling, and it’s Jones’ attempt to deprive voters, candidates, and the commonwealth of their right to elect the candidates of their choice, from a correct list of candidates campaigning in legitimate districts.

The State’s Supreme Court pointed out in so many words what the disenfranchisement caused by the struck map was:

The General Assembly voted for the first time to propose the constitutional amendment to the electorate on October 31, 2025. By that date, over 1.3 million votes had been cast in the general election, which was approximately 40% of the total vote for that election cycle.

Jay and his fellow Progressive-Democrats are attempting to disenfranchise those 40% of the voters who had no chance to consider the redistricting map before they voted.

Here are Progressive-Democrats refusing to accept their own Court’s decision, a decision the US Supreme Court should uphold by refusing to accept the appeal. That refusal, if it comes and were it also to be explained, should stem from two factors. One is that the State’s Supreme Court Justices know the State’s Constitution better than the US Supreme Court Justices and so the latter should defer to the former on this matter. The other is that, as the State’s Court ruling emphasized, the deprivation was by the State’s legislature through its disregard of their own constitution.

Mindset

Posted on by
Reply

The problem is laid out early in the Wall Street Journal article:

Republicans are playing defense in Ohio and a growing number of other red states….

No. Republicans should not be playing defense anywhere, but especially not in the so-called battleground constituencies. That’s a purely reactive mindset and behavior, and it meekly surrenders the initiative to the Progressive-Democrats.

Republican candidates should be out among their constituents and among heretofore Progressive-Democrat Party constituencies and among areas where voters are typically undecided or are uncommitted to one party or the other. They should be talking about their own policies in concrete, measurable terms, and they should be talking similarly about their particular Progressive-Democrat opponent’s policies, where that one has any, and about the utter lack of policy beyond Never Trump ideology where that Progressive-Democrat candidate has nothing else on offer. In talking about those two sets of policies or about policy vs Never Trump, Republicans should be emphasizing both those differences and the failures of those Progressive-Democrat positions.

In particular, Ohio Republican Senate candidate Jon Husted should be talking about his specific policy successes and comparing those to what Progressive-Democrat candidate Sherrod Brown has on offer—a prior three-term record of progressive taxing and spending with nothing accomplished for the benefit of Ohio’s workers, steelworkers included. Just money taken out of Ohio citizens’ pockets and wasted.

But that’s not enough by itself. Mid-term elections are characterized by Progressive-Democratic Party voters coming out in droves while Republican voters sit on their couches in the supposed comfort of their homes. Republican candidates need to be encouraging those voters to get out and vote. They can best do this by explicitly and repeatedly urging them to go vote and by showing how their own policies best support the needs and wants of those voters.

There’s more required, though. Those Republican voters need actually to bestir themselves to vote. They shouldn’t be waiting to be told; they should be acting on their own initiative. Republican voters need to understand that every decision to not bother to vote is an active decision to favor the Progressive-Democrat candidate with their non-vote.

In the end, Republicans need to be forcing Progressive-Democrat candidates to react to their initiatives, always and everywhere. If they don’t, they’ll lose this election in both houses of Congress, the Presidential election in ’28, and for elections to come for generations.

Pick One, Ace

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-President Barack Obama (D) had this to say on the Supreme Court’s nearly total elimination of racist racial gerrymandering with its Louisiana v Callais ruling:

Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities. And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach.

Our voting rules can explicitly favor one group of American voters over other groups of American voters, which favoring can come only at the direct expense of those others, explicitly deprecating those voters’ votes as such favoritism does.

Or our voting rules can, finally, recognize that all American voters are just that—American voters—and so entirely equal under law, even voting law.

As Obama said as the Democratic Party’s keynote speaker at its 2004 National Convention,

[T]here’s not a liberal America and a conservative America—there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

That includes voters in America.

This sort of duplicity is all too typical of today’s Progressive-Democratic Party politicians.