Daily Dolt: Illinois Republican Party

I’ve been trying to get this post up for a few days, but my favorite e-mail to the press of the cycle so far is from the Illinois GOP:

 

Why Does Alexi Need a Special Request to Give Back His Million-Dollar Payout When the Family Bank is Near Collapse?

“If my family asks me, sure” – Chicago Sun-Times, February 22, 2010

Does Alexi need a special request to do the right thing and stop a potential taxpayer bailout for his family’s bank?

—-
Now 25 days since promising reporters he would answer questions surrounding his role in the near-collapse of his family’s Broadway Bank, the Illinois Republican Party is asking Democrat Alexi Giannoulias to explain why he needs to wait for a request from his family to return his million-dollar payout when the bank is already near collapse and it could help prevent a taxpayer bailout for the bank from the FDIC.

This morning, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that the Giannoulias-owned Broadway Bank “was struggling because it had relied so heavily on high-risk loans of the type Giannoulias approved as vice president” and added that Giannoulias’ “Democratic primary election rival, David Hoffman, hammered Giannoulias on the stump with that fact.” But when asked by the Sun-Times whether he would “give back any of that $1 million” in dividends he removed from the bank in 2007 and 2008, Giannoulias replied, “If my family asks me, sure.”

“While Alexi Giannoulias refuses to answer basic questions about his risky loan schemes, reckless investments and ties to organized crime figures, the least Alexi can do is return his million-dollar payout he received from the risky banking practices and work to prevent a federal taxpayer bailout for the bank he helped bring near collapse,” Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady said.

 

The first link in the email was to this story:

 

Actually, Giannoulias has answered some bank questions

February 22, 2010

ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter

Illinois’ Republican Party is keeping up a steady drumbeat of pressure on Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Alexi Giannoulias to answer questions about his family’s Broadway Bank.

“Why is Alexi hiding?” the party asked in an e-mail to reporters a week after the election and after news conferences Giannoulias had held in Chicago and Springfield.

“Put Alexi on the phone,” they repeated Wednesday.

In at least 10 e-mails sent out since the election, the party says Giannoulias is ducking questions about loans he authorized four years ago as vice-president of his family’s Broadway Bank and about the bank’s current troubled financial state.

They repeat a line he used days before the election to wave off further questions about the bank: “If I’m fortunate enough to make it out of the primary, we can have that conversation.”

The Chicago Tribune’s editorial page piggy-backed on the e-mails and said Giannoulias needs to answer more questions about his role at the bank now that he has been fortunate enough to make it out of the primary.

But the truth is that Giannoulias has been answering questions about the loans for four years, ever since his first run for office. Never gleefully or enthusiastically. He often tries to beg off questions by noting he has not been at the bank in four years. But over the years, when pressed, he has admitted he made loans to mobsters and said if he had known they were mobsters he would not have made the loans.

Most recently in December, Giannoulias spent 12 minutes before Sun-Times editorial board members answering questions about the loans. Hear the full conversation at www.suntimes.com.

At first he said, “Knowing back then what the bank knew at the time, we probably wouldn’t have given the loans.” Then he clarified: “If I knew then what we knew now, obviously we wouldn’t have made those loans.”

What has changed since Giannoulias sat and answered questions for the Sun-Times and Tribune editorial boards the last time is that his family’s bank entered into a consent decree with state and federal regulators just before the election. While that development is new, the fact that Broadway Bank was struggling because it had relied so heavily on high-risk loans — and that Giannoulias had approved some high-risk loans as vice president — was already well-known. His Democratic primary election rival, David Hoffman, hammered Giannoulias on the stump with that fact.

One question the e-mails from the Republicans and the Tribune editorial say Giannoulias should answer is whether he plans to give back any of the dividends paid out after his father’s death. That was $70 million to $86 million the Giannoulias family took out of the bank as it was struggling. Giannoulias said that money went to cover taxes on his father’s estate and the administration costs of handling that estate. Only $2.5 million of that went to Alexi Giannoulias and about $1.5 million of that went to taxes Giannoulias campaign has said. Will Giannoulias give back any of that $1 million?

“If my family asks me, sure,” he told the Sun-Times.

 

The rest of the article covers Alexi’s specific answers which cover most of the questions.  When you go over the top on this stuff, the press in Illinois at least, stops listening.  It’s fine to bring up Broadway, but don’t pretend he hasn’t been answering questions about it.

Stupid Remap Tricks

I used to consider myself a good goo goo, but it’s getting harder with stupid ideas like the Fair Map effort.

Republicans partnered with the Fair Map Group to promote the proposed amendment. Under the measure, a commission with nine members would draw the map. The leaders would appoint four of the members, and the commission would chose its ninth member.

 

But I thought the “leaders” were the problem according to Patrick Collins and his group?

I have no idea how this is an improvement.  It essentially creates one of two things.  An incumbent protection map which all of the leaders can agree to or a tie breaker by some great non-partisan commission member who is chosen by the leaders.

How the hell is this an improvement?   Sitting there and trying to say that legislators aren’t drawing the map while the four leaders appoint representatives is a distinction without a difference.

Worse, if you are naive and stupid enough to think they will do the real negotiations in public, you are hopeless.

If you want to go for a truly open process and you think you can do it by initiative (debateable) go for something similar to the Iowa plan which sets out criteria for districts, has a computer then draw lines according to the criteria, and then allow the General Assembly to accept or reject.  The only reason the Simon Institute initially proposed using the 8 member committee is because they assumed the change had to come from the General Assembly where this would not be approved.  However, if you think you can do it by Initiative there is absolutely no reason to have the 8 member panel selected by the Four Tops.

I think the Dem plan isn’t much better, but easier to work with–if you assume that they will not pass a computer based system with objective criteria, then go with the Democratic plan, but get rid of the commission.  The commission is pointless–if the legislature cannot agree, it’s not going to happen there. Instead, move it directly to the Special Master who has objective criteria specified to use and is appointed by a Justices from both parties.  This is far more effective in doing what the 1970 Constitution tried to do.  Let the politics sort it out (this is a democracy after all) and then if they can’t sort it out politically, go to a truly objective process.

In the current situation you had a fifty-fifty chance of coming out ahead.  In the case I’m outlining, objective criteria by a Special Master mean everyone could end up with less preferred outcomes making choice to punt far more risky.  Will everyone compromise in this case? I don’t know, but the incentives improve.  Does this solve the problem of incumbent protection?  No, but the only process that does is the Iowa system and no one is pushing that.

Your 2010 Republican Gov and Lite Guv Candidates Updated

Progress Illinois has some incredible videos up.

 

I kind of feel bad about the first one, but he is the Lite Guv candidate:

 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lICjD0aw9M[/youtube]

 

And he takes on the 10 percent cut idea (thanks to Dillard)

 

But here’s the Gov Candidate displaying incredible ignorance confidently:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpENAFj7CW8[/youtube]

 

BRADY: You can’t cut yourself out of the $10 to $13 billion [deficit] that they’ve accumulated in the Blagojevich/Quinn administration over the last eight years. So what we have to do is we have to reconcile ourselves into a budget that’s not just balanced but has a surplus so that we can begin paying down the backlog of unpaid bills that are referred to as the $13 billion deficit.

 

The statement above is verbal diarrhea and has no relation to reality.  The $10 – $13 billion includes the backlog of bills so what the hell he is talking about is anyone’s guess, but what is clear, he doesn’t have the first clue about the state budget.  The budget has to be balanced every year and it’s certainly true that for years we have been using gimmicks to do so.  One of the most popular is to roll bills over to the next fiscal year and count them in the new fiscal year.  He seems to think those debts aren’t included in the deficit, but they are.

One could argue he’s suggesting we need to reduce long term debt, but that doesn’t make any sense given what he said.  Debt maintenance is all part of the projections for the current deficit.  You could be talking about pension payments that have been shortchanged, but again, given what he said, that makes no sense.  Pension payments at the required level are included in the projections. It’s probably true that we need to make bigger pension payments, but that’s more than the current deficit projections.

The man isn’t a 27 year old guy who is probably in over his head and trying, he’s a long time elected who just demonstrated how totally clueless he is about the state budget.  It’s unclear if he understands even the difference between debt and deficit.

 

UPDATE:  Rich adds a very good couple points.

 

So, we can’t cut our way out of the deficit, but we can’t raise taxes. Instead, we need a budget surplus so that we can pay down the overdue bills.

OK, if we can’t cut our way out of this, how do we go about creating that surplus?

“Well, you do it the way businesses and families have done it. Every business and every family has had to deconstruct and reconstruct and reconcile its spending within its means.”

So, what about that ten percent across the board cut Brady proposed during the primary? Is that now “repurposed” as “deconstruction and reconstruction”?

We need a lot more details here or this can all be dismissed as mere pablum. Who gets deconstructed? Who gets reconstructed? Apparently, schools are not exempt

The full Brady interview is here.

…Adding… The $13 billion deficit is not all “unpaid bills,” as Brady claims in that first quote. About half of it is unpaid bills, the other half is a structural problem. We’ve gone over this before with him, but he’s apparently not yet figured it out.

 

It’s so unclear what Brady is actually saying there, Rich’s points are essential too.  Cutting your way out, but then you have to create a surplus?  It’s contradictory.

But also, the structural issues in the budget are about half the problem, the leftover bills are the other half–for this year.  In one sense on can argue that we’d be half way there if we had fixed the leftover bills, but then we would have previously dealt with some of the structural issues as well.

New Poll on Reconciliation

The Progressive   Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America and Credo Action runs a poll in several states to see if support is there for reconciliation:

 

We wanted to answer the basic question of whether “reconciliation” is inherently disfavored or considered corrupt by voters, as Republicans claim. After describing what reconciliation is, we ask, “If the Senate passes a health care reform bill that you consider to be beneficial to your family, would you object to the Senate’s use of ‘reconciliation’ rules to pass that bill with a majority vote, or not?”

In state after state, people were perfectly fine with reconciliation for a GOOD bill.

  • NV – Reid: 55% favor reconciliation to 36% oppose (Independents 64% favor to 23% oppose
  • IL – Durbin: 67% to 26% (Independents 81% to 17%)
  • IA – Harkin: 66% to 29% (Independents 83% to 14%)
  • MO – McCaskill: 58% to 35% (Independents 73% to 20%)

 

We also asked folks, “If Senate Democrats use ‘reconciliation’ to pass the final elements of health care reform with a simple majority, should [SENATOR] fight to include a public health insurance option in the bill?” In state after state, more voters said yes than no:

  • NV – Reid: 52% yes to 41% no. (Independents 58% yes to 33% no)
  • IL – Durbin: 42% to 7% (Independents 44% to 6%)
  • IA – Harkin: 39% yes to 12% (Independents 40% to 12%)
  • MO – McCaskill: 37% yes to 15% (Independents 38% to 12%)

 

You can contact Durbin’s office here


And if there’s any doubt what voters want in the underlying bill, there is our polling that made waves earlier this week that showed in all these states people overwhelmingly want a public option — and would rather have a bill with a public option and zero Republican votes than a bipartisan bill. See Wash Post Plumline:

Polls: In Key States, Public Option Far More Popular Than Senate Plan

* In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.

* In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option.

* In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.

* In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.



Durbin on the Filibuster

It’s time to end the filibuster

8,191

Signatures

The American people are sick of process blocking progress. They’re fed up with an
arbitrary tradition that allows a minority of Senators to prevent popular, much-
needed legislation from even coming to a vote.

Frankly, so am I.

Please sign this petition to my colleagues in the Senate, supporting the Harkin-Shaheen proposal or other similar proposals to eliminate the crippling 60-vote requirement to overcome a filibuster.

Thank you,

Dick Durbin
U.S. Senator

Full Petition Text:

Dear United States Senators,

I urge you to support the Harkin-Shaheen proposal or similar proposals to eliminate the crippling 60-vote cloture requirement. These challenging times call for more progress, not more process. And that means we need to revisit the filibuster, which has allowed a minority in Congress to prevent popular, much-needed legislation from even coming to a vote.

The Harkin-Shaheen proposal would continue to provide ample time for all Senators to voice their concerns about legislation and seek changes. But it would allow for a gradual reduction of the necessary vote threshold needed to conclude debate so that a minority of Senators cannot impede progress indefinitely.

When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and drafted the initial rules of the Senate, they never intended requiring a supermajority to pass any and all legislation. They just wanted to be sure that Senators took time to carefully debate and consider bills before taking votes.

That’s why I urge you to support the Harkin-Shaheen proposal, or similar filibuster reform proposals.

Signed by:
[Your name]

This is unlikely to happen, but slowly building a movement to get rid of it benefits everyone. The problem with the filibuster is that while it was only used sparingly up until the 1990s, it has become a standard practice to block all bills with which you disagree. Previously, the filibuster was used on things like Civil Rights and other hot button issues, but if you recall Clinton’s Stimulus plan in 1993, it passed with 50 votes and Al Gore–it wasn’t filibustered. While there was Republican opposition, it simply wasn’t one of those bills that was such a change that people would use the filibuster. In contrast, we now hav an extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA that is being filibustered. It’s simply time for it to go. That does mean when Republicans are in power, Democrats won’t be able to easily stop legislation, but that’s the point–elections have consequences.

One final note, anyone who conflates the Nuclear option to essentially carve out an exception to the filibuster for appointments as the Republicans proposed in 2005/6 with reconciliation is too stupid to be speaking publicly. Seriously, the Republicans used reconciliation to attempt to open up ANWR at the time as well as several other issues. It’s a standard practice and is a legitimate tool.

Durbin A Highlight of the Health Care Summitt

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6-048VWDvE[/youtube]



Excellent.

 

While I’m pretty sure I know where his heart is, Durbin could use some positive pressure to support the public option in reconciliation.

 

PCCC shows the Illinois numbers:

QUESTION: What would make you more likely to vote for Democrats in the 2010 elections: If they pass health care reform that includes a public health insurance option but gets zero Republican votes OR if they pass health care reform without a public option but with some Republican votes?
OPTION GOP VOTES NOT SURE
ALL 61% 30% 9%
MEN 57% 33% 10%
WOMEN 65% 27% 8%
DEMOCRATS 88% 5% 7%
REPUBLICANS 13% 74% 13%
INDEPENDENTS 68% 25% 7%


If Durbin signed on to the Bennett letter, it would be huge.  Ask him (nicely btw) to do so

Also, Quigley hasn’t signed the letter yet and he is probably the best target for Illinois Congressional Democrats who haven’t signed.

Davis, Schakowsky, Jackson, Hare, and Gutierrez have signed on.

Daily Kos Illinois Poll Quinn & Giannoulias Up

Research 2000

 

QUESTION: If the election for U.S. Senate were held today, would you vote for Alexi Giannoulias, the Democrat, or Mark Kirk, the Republican?


ALEXI GIANNOULIAS MARK KIRK OTHER UNDECIDED
ALL 43 36 2 19

 

 

QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Pat Quinn, the Democrat, and Bill Brady, the Republican?

OTHER PAT QUINN BILL BRADY UNDECIDED
ALL 1 47 32 20

 

 

QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Pat Quinn, the Democrat, and Kirk Dillard, the Republican?

OTHER PAT QUINN KIRK DILLARD UNDECIDED
ALL 1 46 35 18

Crazy Squared

This is the standard of discourse in one of our major national papers:

 

I have no idea whether Ahmadinejad merely acts crazy or is crazy. I do know, though, that Iran seems intent on getting nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. I also know that nothing the United States and its allies have done has dissuaded Ahmadinejad (or the mullahs or the Revolutionary Guard Corps) from his goal. It may be time for Barack Obama, ever the soul of moderation, to borrow a tactic from Richard Nixon and fight crazy with crazy. The way things are going, it would be crazy not to.

 

But the best part of this ending is this part of the column above it:

 

Nixon had a term for his own sort of craziness: “I call it the Madman Theory, Bob,” he said to his aide H.R. “Bob” Haldeman during the 1968 presidential campaign. Nixon was talking about how he would deal with the Vietnam War. “I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, ‘For God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry — and he has his hand on the nuclear button.’ ” The strategy, while cunning, didn’t work on the North Vietnamese. Maybe they were crazier than Nixon.

 

 

So, it didn’t work for Nixon, but it’s a great plan that we can only conclude from past results will leave Jerusalem under a mushroom cloud in about 7 years.  I love it when a plan comes together…

Orly Tai’n’tz Appeals to the United Nations

Seriously, Sasha Baron Cohen Character and Drag Queen Orly Tai’n’tz appeals to the UN:

 

I try not to write about every development in the career of Orly Taitz, but I have to make an exception for her appeal to the United Nations for “urgent action under the mandate for human rights defenders.” Her attorney, Jonathan Levy, writes that Taitz is under “increasing legal attack in the United States from groups and individuals opposed to her legal actions challenging the Constitutional qualifications of Barrack Hussein Obama to hold the office of President of the United States.”

The irony of Taitz appealing to the hated organ of world government for this really goes without saying.

 

 

She’s claiming a suspected assassination attempt.  Cue the Clinton death list…

Kind of Underwhelmed by the Madigoons

I’m having a hard time getting upset largely because I’d lose a lot of friends if I did.

But more to the point, I don’t really find it objectionable that staff to the General Assembly does campaign work when they aren’t working their state jobs. Frankly, as much as I respect Patrick Collins, he’s wrong–there isn’t a more efficient way to do the job because largely they are jobs that are policy or casework oriented–and that work is cyclical and opposite of campaign work. Work in the General Assembly isn’t non-partisan and staff should reflect the general views of those in power.

Politics isn’t inherently dirty. That’s the real problem with Collins message in the article and the assumption of the Fox piece. We may forget that in Illinois, but politics is how we peacefully determine policy. We allow politics in the hiring of General Assembly staff and in the hiring of specific positions in the Executive so the Executive officers can influence policy. That is why we have elections is to determine what kind of policy will be carried out.

If some of them are ghost payrollers or something, by all means expose that. For the most part the Madigan people are working as researchers, doing casework, or otherwise providing support for the Legislative Branch. I don’t understand what the taxpayers lose if they go off the state payroll during slow times.

There are several alternatives such as a non-partisan research staff. That’s a horrible idea for many reasons, but most of all, elections matter. We could hire temporary staff as well, but then you lose continuity when you are in session and frankly we could fill those positions the same way.

Death of Irony

Number 1,305,003


The Trib decries the Greek economy:

Greece has paid generously for services and public sector wages with borrowed money, and it is about to reach the point where it can’t pay that debt. Sound familiar?

 

Yes, sounds like the Tribune Company.  How’s Sam Zell doing?  Has anyone on the editorial board noticed the outright hypocrisy of the Tribune decrying the fiscal practices of others?  Or does the editorial board think they are isolated enough from those decisions?

Of course, the Trib then goes on to bash those people who work for the State of Illinois despite the State having a relatively low public payroll.  Fortunately for them, the State of Illinois cannot default on its debt like the Tribune Company did.

All of this would be moot if the Trib Editorial Board didn’t roll out the usual banality of running government more like a business at every opporutnity.  The problem with the State of Illinois is it is run exactly like the Tribune Company with too much focus on cutting jobs that are necessary for quality services in favor of making high debt payments so the leaders can avoid making decisions that will hurt them personally. Instead, the product suffers.

Then Change the Law

Dan Rutherford (who I generally understand is  a decent guy and  a good State Senator) takes on exactly the wrong issue with the Treasurer’s office:

 

In the two years since the office switched from legal ads in newspapers to direct letters to those believed to own unclaimed assets in state hands, 4,741 Illinoisans got more than $5.5 million back, he said. A partnership could do even better, Mr. Giannoulias wrote.

But Mr. Rutherford isn’t exactly comfortable with allowing someone else to affix his signature to letters to residents of his district.

In a Jan. 28 note back to the treasurer, he wrote that no letter at all is needed, since those involved may already have received some notice. Instead, Mr. Rutherford said, he’s had great success using e-mail and his Web site, and in contacting the family and friends of those who may have moved away.

“While a taxpayer-funded direct-mail piece may be better exposure for the local legislator and the state treasurer, I suggest it is not the best use of taxpayer dollars,” Mr. Rutherford snipped.

 

I talked with the Treasurer’s office a bit today to get some background on this because I remembered an off the record conversation I had with Alexi about 1 1/2 years ago.  The conversation as a whole was off the record, but I think I can give away this.  Alexi was covering some of the issues he’s dealt with and a few reforms he instituted most of which I found interesting.  He then went on to unclaimed property.  I’m generally one who enjoys talking about the minutia of government and I love a good simple trick to save money.  He completely lost me on this though.  My eyes glazed over and my mind wandered.  He kept going which is pretty unusual for a politician.  Usually they move on quickly when they see someone’s mind wandered.  He didn’t appear to notice. I was only saved by a phone call he got.  It’s important to note, I’ve actually given local electeds lectures on technology management at their professional conferences.

The funny thing about Alexi–he’s a complete good government geek and can bore the hell out of you with policy. And that’s really hard to do with me.  So when I saw the story today, I figured I should probably make a point about it.

So if you read through the law, it makes pretty clear the Treasurer has to do one of two things with unclaimed property:  post a public notice in a newspaper or contact a person directly by letter.  So Rutherford argues that mail is a waste of money and instead the newspaper notices are the best way to do it.  I can sort of see how one might think that off hand, but if you are running for the office you are criticizing you ought to know before spouting off on it.

So according to the Treasurer’s office, it costs on average about $3.25 a name for the twice a year publication in all counties. Usually this is how it has been done because if something is unclaimed for 5 years, the person isn’t likely to live at the last address.  Fair enough.

Additionally, as a legislative courtesy, a list was provided to General Assembly members of the property unclaimed in their district and the Members were encouraged to reach out to those they might know.

When Alexi got to office, his office decided to try something new and teamed up with direct mail companies to find updated addresses for the people with unclaimed property.  The Treasurer’s Office then sent them a letter with a claim form attached satisfying the notification requirement.   If the Treasurer’s Office can verify receipt, the Office doesn’t have to include the name in the newspaper announcements.  The letters costs about $.70, thus saving nearly $2.55 per name.  Now some, still cannot be verified as received and in that case there is a more costs in those cases, but overall there is still a significant savings of about $25,000 so far and the process has only been in place about 2 years (when I talked to Alexi about it, it was just underway).  That isn’t going to fix the state budget deficit, but it’s good use of the taxpayer’s dollar.

So the letter Rutherford is complaining about is one that is mandated by law and he was provided an opportunity as a courtesy to be included on the mailing.  One can be cynical about these things, but the reality is that if a more local General Assembly Member is on the letter, it probably gets slightly more notice than a typical form letter so I think that makes sense.

Rutherford blasts this effort:


In a Jan. 28 note back to the treasurer, he wrote that no letter at all is needed, since those involved may already have received some notice. Instead, Mr. Rutherford said, he’s had great success using e-mail and his Web site, and in contacting the family and friends of those who may have moved away.

“While a taxpayer-funded direct-mail piece may be better exposure for the local legislator and the state treasurer, I suggest it is not the best use of taxpayer dollars,” Mr. Rutherford snipped.

His web site and e-mail are certainly additional ways he may want to provide constituents information, but it doesn’t satisfy the law and you aren’t going to have e-mail for all of your constituents and most aren’t going to check out your web site. Both are good practice and something I’d expect out of Rutherford who is known for pretty good constituent service, but neither satisfy the law nor should they.

So far we know that Rutherford has blasted a cost savings program, doesn’t seem to understand the legal requirement, and he’s running for the office. Certainly no where near the comedy we are going to get out of Bill Brady, but not what I expect out of Rutherford.

To make matters worse for Rutherford, the program is more effective. The claim rate for the old system where legislators were given lists was around 1 percent.  Of those sent direct mail–only people who the office thinks they can reach–there is about a 40 percent claim rate and over the last two years nearly $5.8 million has been returned to 5,000 people.  In contrast, legislators who previously contacted people off the lists had about $6.7 million returned to around 6,500 people over 10 years.  In the third year of this program, the claim rate will most likely surpass the 10 year total for the old method.

That’s good government. It doesn’t change the world by any means, but it does treat taxpayers money and property with the respect it deserves.

Yet Rutherford blasted the effort and essentially complained about a courtesy from the Treasurer’s Office. This isn’t a promising kick-off to the general election. It’s the kind of silliness that makes our national politics so dysfunctional.

Was It Over When the Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor?–Retracted

Rich points out he was misquoted–so my apologies.

 

 

Brady:


Though just age 27, Mr. Plummer “is ready” to lead the nation’s fifth largest state if need be, Mr. Brady said.

“How old was Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Constitution?” Mr. Brady asked. “Age isn’t the only barometer of qualification.”

In fact, Mr. Jefferson was 33 when the Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776. The constitution was written more than a decade later.


He did only go to Central Catholic….


Though Greg Hinz needs to point out the bigger issue–Jefferson didn’t write the Constitution–he was Ambassador to France at the time.