Kraske: The GOP will rise again!…

…The GOP soul-searching is destined to continue. But remember, the Republican Party isn’t going anywhere. The Democrats will see to it.

That’s one you can take to the bank…

Ever hear of the Arkansas Project, Steve?

The signs keep coming.

E. Thomas McClanahan, resident right wing curmudgeon at the Kansas City Star, writes of bailouts and other government actions in today’s edition:

…A good bit of this was necessary, as galling as that seems. In September, credit froze up and we came within a whisker of complete financial collapse. Something had to be done, and quickly…

…A lot of the bailout money will be paid back (we hope). But when you think about all that’s happened it still leaves you with a tight feeling in the pit of your stomach…

Sort of.

Yep, he’s queasy. Me? I think McClanahan’s “sort of” is another sign of the Apocalypse.

Kansas City and Missouri labor icon Bill Richardson’s response to an anti-labor opinion piece by E. Thom McClanahan in the Kansas City Star.

What McClanahan doesn’t tell you is that it passed the House, it couldn’t get 60 votes in the Senate to invoke cloture and remove republican obstructionism (it got 51 votes, that’s a majority), and it faced a veto by a failed president.

March 22, 2009

In his March 15 op-ed piece, Thomas McClanahan once again shows his disdain for labor unions.

He forgets, most likely on purpose, that labor unions are people – men and women who work hard every day to make a living for their families, and produce the goods and services that make up our economy.

He says the proposed “Free Choice Act” has a misleading title. However, I have never read in any of his columns that the “Right to Work” legislation passed many years ago is a misnomer. The so-called “Right to Work” does nothing to secure employment for anyone. What it does do, however, is set up a barrier to union organizing.  Its sole purpose is to wreck unions.

Perhaps one day McClanahan will get it right. Help workers and you help the nation. The more they make, the more they spend. Working people are the backbone of our economy.

McClanahan says the “Free Choice Act” takes away the secret ballot. He’s dead wrong again. The secret ballot still applies along with the card check. McClanahan assumes that workers are not smart enough to choose.  Wrong again. Workers are wonderfully astute when it comes to their workplace.  When it comes time to make the choice to unionize, they will be smart and deliberate.

What McClanahan does not tell you: the laws and regulations that govern union organizing now do not work.  When union organizers get signed cards from 30 percent of the workers, an election is scheduled. Then the employer has the opportunity to campaign against a union, often using misleading and coercive tactics. And if the employees vote to have a union, there is nothing in the present law that requires the employer to sign a contract with the union. There are many workers who voted for a union one, two or even three years ago who do not yet have a contract.

What McClanahan does tell you however: it’s alright for employers to exercise unfair tactics but it’s not alright for workers to have an even playing field. This is McClanahan’s so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

Please call or write your Congressional representatives and ask them to support working men and women by voting for the Free Choice Act.

Bill R. Richardson

Retired

Kansas City Building Trades Council

Bill Richardson

Heads or tails? In the universe of political stenography all stupid ideas or concepts have the same value as anything else.

I noticed this little gem in Sunday’s Kansas City Star:

For Kansas Democrats, Parkinson gets another chance at bat

By STEVE KRASKE

The Kansas City Star

…Brownback wasn’t saying how he would vote on Sebelius. He appeared to be opening the door to a “no” vote amid an anti-Sebelius backlash from anti-abortion groups…

…His struggle brought back memories of a similar difficult choice that former Democratic senator Jean Carnahan of Missouri confronted in 2001. That year, President George W. Bush nominated Missourian John Ashcroft, a Republican, for attorney general…

Sure let’s compare someone who was overwhelmingly re-elected by the voters of her state and was nominated for Secretary of Health and Human Services by a president who was elected by a strong majority to someone who lost a statewide re-election campaign and was nominated for Attorney General by a president who lost the popular vote and was anointed by the right in the aftermath of a controversial Supreme Court ruling. Yeah, that’s roughly equivalent.

The only things the two have in common are the right wingnut extremists who are inserting themselves into the process and that Kansas and Missouri share a border.

Struggle? Similar difficult choice? Please.

The usual suspects:

Anti-Abortion Activists Plan to Fight Sebelius’ Nomination for HHS…

…By Sharon Kehnemui Liss

FOXNews.com

Monday, March 02, 2009…

…Anti-abortion activists are planning strong opposition to Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s pick for secretary of health and human services, saying the Kansas governor’s positions on abortion and her ties to a late-term abortion provider are too extreme for her to be in charge of America’s health care policy…

It’s fairly easy to find out who actually holds the “extremist position” on that particular issue. Let’s take a look back at John Ashcroft’s nomination:

Profile: John Ashcroft  

Last Updated: Wednesday, 10 November, 2004, 04:57 GMT…

..When he was nominated by President George W Bush, Democrats objected that a man with such firmly-held beliefs – he is pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and opposed to gun control – was unsuitable to be the country’s “sheriff”…

And time showed us that he was indeed an extremist:

Justice Department Releases Bush Administration National Security Memos (3/2/2009)

Newly Released Legal Documents Responsive To ACLU Lawsuit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE…

…NEW YORK – The Justice Department today released nine secret memos and opinions written by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that authorized some of the Bush administration’s unlawful national security policies, including a memo written by OLC lawyer John Yoo that argued the Fourth Amendment does not apply to military activities inside the United States. Some of the memos are responsive to American Civil Liberties Union lawsuits seeking OLC legal opinions and other government records.

In a recent letter to the Obama administration, the ACLU called on the OLC to release, at the earliest possible date, dozens of still-secret legal memos related to interrogation, detention, rendition, surveillance and other Bush administration policies…

Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda [pdf]

Memorandum Regarding Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (01-15-2009)

Memorandum Regarding Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change the “Purpose” Standard for Searches (09-25-2001)

Memorandum Regarding Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States (10-23-2001)

Memorandum Regarding Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty (11-15-2001)

Memorandum Regarding the President’s Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations (03-13-2002)

Memorandum Regarding Swift Justice Authorization Act (04-08-2002)

Memorandum Regarding Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention (06-08-2002)

Memorandum Regarding Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizens (06-27-2002)

Memorandum Regarding October 23, 2001 OLC Opinion Addressing the Domestic Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities (10-06-2008)

Due to public interest in this matter, the Department of Justice is releasing these documents in an inaccessible format. Accessible versions will be posted as soon as possible. If you have a disability and the format of any material on the site interferes with your ability to access some information, please email the Department of Justice webmaster at webmaster@usdoj.gov. To enable us to respond in a manner that will be of most help to you, please indicate the nature of the accessibility problem, your preferred format (electronic format (ASCII, etc.), standard print, large print, etc.), the web address of the requested material, and your full contact information so we can reach you if questions arise while fulfilling your request…

Remind me, who was Attorney General during dubya’s first term? You might notice that the right wingnuts who are rushing to go after the Sebelius nomination didn’t exactly line up to criticize John Ashcroft when his Justice Department was busily shredding the Constitution. Then, why would anyone expect them to do so? They’ve never shown that they really care about something like that.

Political stenography in old media must dictate false equivalence as a matter of course. It’s definitely time to convene another panel on blogger ethics.

One of These Things (Is Not Like The Others)

The stenographer holds forth on lame responses to presidential addresses:

…Last year, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius redefined “stiff” when she delivered the Democratic response. This year, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal placed a deep dent in his 2012 presidential express.

Why doesn’t it work? One big reason: You move from the energy of a vibrant president speaking to a joint session of Congress to a lone figure staring straight ahead and reading an often formulaic script…

[emphasis added]

Uh, even a year ago “vibrant” wasn’t an adjective anyone in politics was using to describe dubya.

Dave Helling tried to catch McCaskill in a bit of double talk. You see, Claire McCaskill wants to cap executive compensation at the same level as the President of the US. But wait! McCaskill and her husband are multimillionaires! Shouldn’t she cap her own pay as well?

Well, no. McCaskill’s proposal only applied to executives of companies that are accepting bailout money. And as far as I know, neither McCaskill nor her husband have accepted any money from TARP, money that was lent to banks to unfreeze credit and keep loans available to small businesses, not for bonuses for ultrarich (and failed) executives.

…Oh dear, I see that Helling updated the post with a lame defense. Her husband’s businesses benefit from tax credits, so therefore she’s a hypocrite. I claim tax credits, as do many Americans – are we all hypocrites for believing that Wall Street executives shouldn’t get bonuses for shoddy work out of taxpayer coffers?* In retrospect, voting to give TARP money out in the first place was probably a bad idea, but McCaskill’s proposal is a good one for the situation we find ourselves in now.

…Aargh! I see that Dan Ryan is blinded by his hatred of McCaskill and all too eager to accept Helling’s argument.

One of his commenters put it very well:

I’m not sure I understand why wealthy people should not criticise wall street firms who use tax dollars to fund exec bonuses.

I think everybody has a license to criticise wall street firms for behaving in that manner.

*I edited this sentence after the fact for clarity’s sake.

The Kansas City Star is laying off more people:

Kansas City Star cutting 50 more jobs

Kansas City Star cutting 50 more jobs as it tries to shrink expenses in sagging economy

November 10, 2008: 04:09 PM EST

NEW YORK (Associated Press) – The Kansas City Star announced Monday that it is laying off 50 more employees as it continues paring its staff in what the newspaper’s publisher calls “one of the most challenging years in Star history…”

From BlogKC:

…Sprint is no longer the only local company shedding jobs every three months, now that the Star appears to be in a death spiral. Bottom Line Communications has the latest list of 50 cuts, including some big names like cartoonist Lee Judge, gossip columnist Hearne Christopher, Jeff City reporter Kit Wagar, and editor Laura Scott…

Hmmm. Like nothing will be going on in Jefferson City during the next legislative session?

The Kansas City Star endorses:

The Star’s recommendations for Missouri statewide offices

…Attorney General

Two talented political leaders seek this office; we recommend Mike Gibbons, the Republican from Kirkwood. His Democratic opponent is Chris Koster of Raymore, a former Cass County prosecutor. Both are lawyers and state senators, and both have been effective legislators…

…We disagree with Gibbons on some issues, including stem cell research. But he seems to be a straight arrow who really wants to serve the public. Koster sometimes seems focused largely on his own political ambitions.

The Democrat’s campaign has been financed by thousands of dollars funneled through committees by one donor…

Okay.

I seem to recall a republican candidate for some statewide office being the recipient of the single largest campaign contribution in the history of the State of Missouri. It’s there somewhere, I just can’t put my finger on it…

The Star must figure that $1,100,000.00 just can’t buy any decent influence these days…

Today’s Kansas City Star offered a lead editorial endorsing Barack Obama for president:

…A vote for the future

Years of Washington blunders have left the United States struggling both at home and abroad. Both presidential candidates promise change, but Barack Obama is most likely to deliver…

tiny URL

E. Thomas McClanahan, resident dyspeptic defender of the one true republican faith, plaintively begs to differ:

A dissent: When you compare policies, McCain is the reasonable choice

…I haven’t been entirely pleased with McCain’s campaign, which has been uninspired to say the least…

tiny URL

Way to take one for the team, Thom!

Seriously. I need that like a hole in my head.