Posts Tagged ‘shadegg’

25th April
2009
written by Sean Noble

DHS Secretary Napolitano has “apologized” to the American Legion for her the report by DHS that warned of various conservatives being potential terrorists.

The Saturday edition of the Arizona Republic covers the heat that Napolitano has taken for this report and a variety of clumsy moves.  Reporter Dennis Wagner called me yesterday to get my take.  I told him that I didn’t think she would resign or get fired, and that I was disturbed by her willingness to call conservatives “terrorists” while at the same time refusing to call members of Al-Queda terrorists – or to even use the words terror or terrorism.  That, I said, made me question her understanding of the true threats we face from actual terrorists.

Wagner didn’t use my central thesis, but instead some side comment.  Of course, I’m not surprised.

Still, Sean Noble, a Republican political consultant and blogger, said Napolitano’s mistakes are stunning because of her background and her position in the Obama administration.

“If she’s surprised by the criticism, then she wasn’t thinking about the level of responsibility that she has,” he said. “There is partisanship, you bet. But that’s how the game is played.”

The problem with that quote is that it’s taken out of context, and implies that I think this is all a game.  National security is not a game.  Napolitano is facing severe criticism because people are worried about her judgment. And I remain concerned.

This story covers a statement released by Congressman Shadegg.  He and I have not talked about this issue, so I was a little surprised at how similar our thinking was on this.

19th March
2009
written by Sean Noble

Congressman John Shadegg went to the floor today during the debate on the bill that imposes a 90% tax on the bonuses to AIG executives and asked the right question:

9th March
2009
written by Sean Noble

eArizona Republic editorial writer, Doug MacEachern, is one of the bright spots at the Arizona Republic. He is a thoughtful, conservative writer who weighs in on some of the most important policy matters that face the state.  He has almost single-handedly dealt a blow to the Union thuggery known as “card check” – the idea that workers can organize into a union by merely signing a card, rather than having a private ballot.  He pointed out the hypocrisy that Democrats advance when they support such un-American and anti-worker legislation.

So it got my attention when, in a “Quick Hit,” MacEachern called out State Sen. Ron Gould for bad manners for walking out on Gov. Brewer’s faux State of the State address after she raised the possibility of tax increases to deal with the budget mess she inherited from Janet Napolitano. 

Sen. Ron Gould’s ungracious exit

by Doug MacEachern

I was on the House floor during Gov. Jan Brewer’s budget-balancing speech in which she urged lawmakers to consider a temporary tax hike.

I didn’t see the showboating, midspeech exit by Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, who apparently needed to make the evening all about him. Sorry I missed him. I would have asked him where he left his manners.

 Now, it isn’t unprecedented for legislators to walk out of speeches by chief executives for saying things they disagree with.  Matt Salmon and John Shadegg did it to President Bill Clinton back in the 90’s.  The difference is that it was someone from the opposing party.  Some will argue that Sen. Gould showed maverick independence by walking out of Gov. Brewer.  Others, like MacEachern, just think it is rude.  I don’t recall ever hearing that Sen. Gould walked out of a Napolitano speech.

What do you think?

4th March
2009
written by Sean Noble

Bob Lord, (remember him?) former Democrat nominee against Congressman John Shadegg, has taken himself out of the running for Arizona Democrat Chairman.  He says that it’s too much for his small plate of building his law practice and possibly preparing to run for Congress again.

This is a guy who has sucked in too much of the hot air he was blowing around in the last election.  He would make a terrible Chairman – can you imagine the fun that GOP Chairman would have with him in debates?  Without multiple handlers, Lord can barely put two coherent sentences together.  Lord would also have a really, really hard time raising serious money for the Democrats without the national Democrat leaders and a Democrat Governor putting the strong arm on folks like they did during his race against Shadegg.

So, in order to make it look like he’s not wimping out, he claims that he is certain Shadegg isn’t running again:

“I’m as nearly certain as can be that John Shadegg is done,” Lord said.

Just like you were “certain” you were going to beat Shadegg last year, Bob?  Sorry, but the credibility of your certainty, just doesn’t hold water.

Shadegg is already raising money, and watch for a big announcement in the coming days, which will put to rest the claim that he is “done.”

27th February
2009
written by Sean Noble

John Shadegg gave the best speech of his political career at CPAC last night during the Presidential Banquet.  It wasn’t an easy task.  It was a packed room, there was a rousing speech by rock star RNC Chairman Michael Steele, and a great tribute to Tom Winter by M. Stanton Evans. (That guy is funny!)

Shadegg started with a tribute to “the giants of the Conservative movement” like William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, M. Stanton Evans and Tom Winter and their “immeasurable contribution” to the cause.

He said that those gathered at CPAC are “engaged in a fight for the heart and soul of the nation.”  He painted the stark contrast between the left and their “dependence mentality” with the conservative “individual responsibility.”

He called the conservatives in the room and watching on the web to unite again and fight for the cause, because we “are the last, best hope for this nation.”

He talked about Reagan’s speech to CPAC in 1974 in which he talked about America being “a city upon a hill.”  He quoted Buckley (“Standing athwart history, yelling STOP!”) and the Bible (“Is there not a cause?”).

It was, in a word, inspiring.

 

(Note: Speeches are available at www.CPAC.org  I’ll post specific links as soon as I can get my computer to work with the website.)

26th February
2009
written by Sean Noble

I’ll be blogging from CPAC for the next couple days.  I’ll be commenting on speeches by Sen. Tom Coburn, Congressman John Shadegg, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Gov. Mark Sanford and Rush Limbaugh who concludes the conference on Saturday evening.

For those who don’t know, CPAC is the premiere conservative event each year.  It was at CPAC in 1974 that Reagan launched his Presidential run against Ford in 1976 with a speech about America being the “City upon a Hill” (sound familiar?)

To learn more about CPAC, go here.

10th February
2009
written by Sean Noble

The health care provisions in the “de-stimulus” bill continue to gain attention.  Rush Limbaugh talked about it today on his radio show, including a parody on Tom Daschle, and now Congressman John Shadegg has just released an update.  Read it, and be afraid.  Seriously.

Healthcare Danger Hidden in Stimulus

Americans are up in arms, decrying wasteful spending in the so-called stimulus bill. They should be. But one of the bill’s worst provisions has gone almost unnoticed, dangerously lurking below the radar of those exposing the bill’s flaws.

“Comparative Effectiveness Research,” sounds innocuous, but big-government programs always do. The $1.1 billion of the stimulus package earmarked for this project is a significant step toward government-run healthcare. Comparative effectiveness research is a tool for bureaucrats to decide which medical treatments Americans should or should not have access to.

In countries with government-run healthcare systems, comparative effectiveness is often used as an excuse to deny patients life-saving medical care on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. The healthcare board of the United Kingdom has repeatedly denied breakthrough drugs to citizens suffering with breast cancer, Alzheimer’s, and even multiple sclerosis on the grounds of comparative effectiveness. The British government has stripped citizens of the freedom to choose their own healthcare. Congressman David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has already admitted as much. Just read his own words from the committee report on the stimulus, talking about this provision: “Those items, procedures, and interventions… that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.”  We must not allow it.

Comparative effectiveness “research” presents a danger to freedom of healthcare choice in America. And if the potential consequences of the study alone don’t scare you, recall President Obama’s failed nominee to oversee the Department of Health and Social Services. In his own book, Critical, Daschle talks about his desire to create a federal planning board to make Americans’ healthcare decisions. While Americans may have dodged a bullet with Daschle, the fight against government-run healthcare is only beginning.

9th February
2009
written by Sean Noble

The Senate has passed the cloture motion, thus ending the debate on the stimulus bill, which will pass the Senate tomorrow.

 

It will be interesting to see if there are any changes in the vote for cloture and final passage.

This whole debate has been surreal.  You know a bill is pretty bad when liberal Republican Senator, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), is arguing vigorously against it.  Amazing.

 

How bad is this bill?  Most independent economic observers (including a Congressional Budget Office analysis) predict that the jobs created by the bill will be temporary, cost upwards of $300,000 per job to create, and that in the long term, there will be fewer jobs than if we didn’t pass any stimulus.  Truly, change we can believe in.

 

The scary parts of this bill include something that both Congressman John Shadegg and Senator Tom Coburn have been yelling (in the wind, as it turns out) about.  John Shadegg pointed out two particularly scary provisions:

 

  • Nearly $100 billion dollars to expand the Medicaid program including providing health care to higher income individuals.  House Democrats rejected an amendment to restrict millionaires from enrolling in a government-run health care program meant for the poor.
  • $1.1 billion to “research” which treatments the federal government will eventually deny to patients. 

 

Then, Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, and one of the leading critics to Hillary-care back in 1993 wrote this:

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council.

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

Unfortunately, this monstrosity is going to pass tomorrow, and it will put us a few more miles down “the road to serfdom.”

 

3rd February
2009
written by Sean Noble

In 1994, during his first campaign for Congress, John Shadegg promised that he would work to ensure that Congress stayed true to passing legislation on issues that were actually enumerated in the Constitution.  Every session of Congress since 1995, Congressman Shadegg has held true to that commitment, introducing the Enumerated Powers Act.

The Enumerated Powers Act, which requires that every bill introduced in Congress specifically cite the Constitutional authority which enables such action, gets little attention by anyone – mostly because Congress, even under Republican control, has never seen fit to limit their reach to those specific powers given to it in the Constitution.  If the latest stimulus package is any indication, the Enumerated Powers Act is a bill whose time has come.  In fact, it is long, long overdue.

So it’s nice to see that it gets mentioned from time to time, even in a publication as obscure as the Camp Verde Bugle.  I’m waiting for an editorial endorsement from the New York Times.  May I live long enough to see that day (which may require immortality.)

27th January
2009
written by Sean Noble

Georgia Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey is telling Rush Limbaugh to butt out.  Not smart.

Rush Limbaugh has the most listened-to radio show in the history of the earth.  As a result, he is closer to the pulse of conservative, grassroots activist than most Members of Congress. 

Gingrey was elected long after the 1994 GOP Revolution, so he can be somewhat forgiven for not recognizing the power of Rush.  After the 1994 election, the new freshmen held a dinner at Camden Yards that featured Rush.  Rush was made an honorary member of the 1994 Republican Freshman class.  I was there, and it was historic.

(It was also memorable, because it was the first time in my life that I ate an anchovy.  They served a Caesar salad, with, what looked like to me, brownish little bacon strips.  I had a pretty rude surprise when I popped one in my mouth!)

That night, Rush talked about the clamoring for change the American people wanted and it was their desire for change that motivated them to get out and elect Republicans to the majority.  He said that the Members of Congress had an obligation and a duty to hold fast to the principles they campaigned on.

Sadly, very few of the Members listened and absorbed.  Of the 74 there that night, I can name, on one hand, those that have stuck to principle: John Shadegg (still in Congress), Tom Coburn (now in the Senate), Mark Sanford (Governor of South Carolina), and two who have been pretty good: Saxby Chambliss (now in the Senate) and Sam Brownback (now in the Senate).

Others who stayed principled, but who are no longer in office include Matt Salmon (AZ), Steve Largent (OK), J.C. Watts (OK), Mark Neumann (WI) and Gil Gutnecht (MN).

Gingrey should be figuring out ways to follow Limbaugh’s lead – not get in the way.

Previous
Next