Senate Earmark Ban Defeated, Shelby Opposes

The Senate held a vote to impose an earmark ban on the entire Senate for two years. They wanted to append this amendment on to a "food safety" bill that seemed set to pass. The vote failed, 39-56, with seven Democrats voting in favor and nine Republicans voting against.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/131093-earmark-ban-voted-down-in-the-senate

The Senate on Tuesday morning defeated a proposal from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to ban congressional earmarks.

In a 39-56 vote, with the majority voting in favor, members defeated a two-year ban on the appropriations procedure. The moratorium was offered as an amendment to a food safety bill that is scheduled for a final vote Tuesday morning.

So nothing changes. But do you know which Republican voted AGAINST the two-year ban? Our very own Senator Shelby. I guess that's one Republican who didn't get the message we sent them, eh?


Read the rest...

Alabama Losing Millions In Sales Taxes

The State of Alabama is whining and crying about sales taxes lost because the purchases were made out of state. And it's wrong, they say, because even if you buy something out of state, whether the purchase is on the Internet or through a catalog, you owe a 4% use tax on that purchase. The fact that the vast majority of us don't PAY such a tax is "costing" the state of Alabama millions of dollars.

The Alabama Department of Revenue wants people to know they are expected to pay a 4 per­cent use tax on purchases made on the Internet, from television shopping channels and from cat­alogs if no tax is charged by the retailer.

William Fox, an economics professor at the University of Tennessee and director of the school's Center for Business and Economic Research, esti­mated in his research that Ala­bama lost more than $100 mil­lion in revenue in 2009 from e-commerce sales.

To tell the absolute truth, I don't care one whit about Alabama "losing revenue" because of Internet or catalog sales. Tough it out... Citizens of the United States have the absolute right to avoid paying taxes wherever possible.


Because Alabama cannot collect sales tax on a sale that takes place outside the state, they have a "use" tax. The amount for both taxes is the same rate, 4% of the purchase price. If I bought something in the state, I'd pay a 4% sales tax at time of purchase. If I bought it via the Internet (for example) from outside the state, I'd owe a 4% use tax at the time I file my state income tax return.

Every time you make an Internet or catalog purchase, you're supposed to keep track and voluntarily pay the required tax at the end of the year.

To the State of Alabama: in my opinion, it's GOOD that most people ignore your largely unenforceable tax. The world doesn't turn around how much money you take from the citizens of Alabama. WE earned the money, and it's OUR money to spend as we see fit.

To be honest, I wonder if use taxes are even legal. Look, when levying a tax, you have to tax some activity. The TV you purchase at Best Buy isn't taxed, your PURCHASE of that TV is taxed. The purchase is the key, that's the activity that is taxed. The difference between a sales tax and a use tax is that a sales tax is levied on a purchase INSIDE the region where they have taxing authority, and a use tax is levied on a purchase made OUTSIDE that region.

Now let's look at use taxes. What activity are they taxing? If they're taxing the out-of-state purchase, then I believe the tax is unconstitutional. One state cannot tax a transaction made in another state. Can you imagine the chaos and insanity if they COULD? If they're taxing the importation of the goods into the state, then we have another problem. States are not allowed to impose barriers to inter-state trade... that's the Federal government's job. So a state CANNOT tax goods that are imported from another state.

Another thought. If they're taxing the transportation of the goods into the state, is the property of people MOVING into the state taxed at the same rate? If not, what is the difference between the goods in question, i.e. why is one taxable and the other not?

I'd like to see use taxes challenged on a Constitutional basis, I really would. The idea of a use tax is that some transaction took place outside of their taxing authority, and they want a piece of it. Period.

And that's wrong.

Read the rest...

Rangel: Censure Is "Too Severe A Punishment"

US Representative Charle Rangel has been found guilty of 11 ethics violations. The full ethics committee will meet soon to decide his "punishment." I say it that way because his "punishment" won't be anything of the kind.

Basically, the house ethics committee can "punish" him in one of two ways. They can either reprimand him or censure him. Jail time or a fine are not options, nor is expulsion from the House, apparently. Rangel says he should be reprimanded, and that censure is too harsh.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45642.html

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) wants the House to issue a formal reprimand — rather than the more serious censure — as his punishment for violating ethics rules.

Sources with knowledge of Rangel’s plans also said the 80-year-old New York Democrat will ask the House ethics committee, which found him guilty of 11 ethics violations Nov. 16, for permission to speak to the full House before any sanction is carried out.

So now we need to know... What is so bad about censure that it is "too severe" for poor little Charlie Rangel?

When a House member is reprimanded, what happens is that the full House votes on a resolution of disapproval for whatever actions warranted the reprimand. That's it, guys. The reprimanded member doesn't even have to be present during the vote. Wow. Our politicians' ideas of how to be punished for wrong-doings are breathtaking, aren't they?


A censure is VERY similar to a reprimand. The major difference is that the member stands in the well of the House to receive a verbal rebuke from the Speaker of the House. Ouch... How could fines or jail time HOPE to compete with THAT for harsh punishment?

So now we see what our lawmakers think is a "severe" punishment... having mommy Pelosi wag her finger and say "you've been bad, so don't do it again."

Look, some of what Rangel did was far more than a violation of "ethics." For example, he "forgot" to pay taxes on property he owned. He "forgot" to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in income on his disclosure statements. If you or I had "forgotten" such things, we'd be facing either stiff fines or jail time. But Rangel is upset that somebody will scold him for being such a bad little boy.

If you EVER wanted to see a crystal clear example of the disconnect between us and our rulers... excuse me, elected officials, all you have to do is look at this situation. We'd be in jail, but a Congressman is upset because he may get scolded.

So, apparently we do have a class-based society. Most of us belong to one class, that of private citizens to whom the entire mass of laws and regulations apply. The other class is that of the Congressmen, who can apparently do almost anything they wish without fear of substantive punishment.

I must say, I view the possibility as a very dangerous one.

Read the rest...

Ron Paul To Oversee Federal Reserve?

Okay, I'm quick to point out when the newly empowered GOP strays from its avowed principles; I've been talking about it ever since election day earlier this month. So now that I see them doing something that I think is a GOOD idea, I want to acknowledge that, as well.

As you know, the majority party in each House of Congress picks the heads of committees and hands out committee assignments. Now that the GOP won the House back, they're deciding who will head each committee. Ron Paul is being considered to be the Chairman of the Financial Services subcommittee. They oversee the Federal Reserve.
http://tinyurl.com/27q6mx4

Paul is poised to take over the Financial Services subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve in the next Congress. With the power of that pulpit, Paul said he hopes to shine a light on the Fed’s policies, which he has long criticized as opaque and secretive, and make the case that the bank’s monetary policies harm the U.S. economy.

Paul’s elevation to the lead spot on the subcommittee is no sure thing, since the GOP leadership has yet to decide the chairmanships. But as ranking member of the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee, Paul is the most likely choice for the gavel.

Ladies and gentlemen, this would be an EXCELLENT move by the Republicans.


Dr. Paul has been an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve for decades, and is highly critical of what they do and how they do it. Who better to oversee their operations?

So if the GOP actually follows through and appoints Paul to the oversee the Federal Reserve, then they get two big thumbs-up from me.


Read the rest...

Back From Vacation

Okay, I'm back from vacation and my posting volume should pick up just a little bit. Hope everybody had a good Thanksgiving and is looking forward to Christmas.


Read the rest...

I Bet This Legislator Won't Be Charged

Allow me to ask you a hypothetical question. Let's pretend that I am one of two people appointed by the State government to oversee a fund of taxpayer's money that needs to be spent for a specific purpose. After all is said and done, it turns out that fully HALF of the money we spent went to a company owned by me. Did I do anything wrong, and should I go to jail?

The reason I asked is because something like this really happened. I give you state legislator Trip Pittman (R-Montrose). Senator Pittman, along with state Rep. Steve McMillan (R-Gulf Shores), was appointed to oversee millions of dollars for oil cleanup in and around Baldwin County. Of the $1.15 million allocated for Fairhope, fully half of it went to Pittman's company.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20101127/NEWS02/11270313/1009

The Press-Register of Mobile reported that Pittman Tractor Co., owned by state Sen. Trip Pittman, R-Montrose, received $639,000 to help deploy oil-blocking boom around Fairhope, located on the eastern shore of Mobile Bay. As a legislator, Pittman was responsible for overseeing the use of the BP grant money.

Pittman, of course, claims he did nothing wrong, even though his actions at the time seem to bespeak his knowledge of guilt.

When Fairhope submitted its project proposals in May, county department heads realized Pittman's potential involvement, according to Charles "Skip" Gruber, who was the county commission chairman at the time.

Gruber said the county's chief attorney indicated the situation posed an ethics violation for Pittman, so he cautioned Pittman about potential ethics conflicts. The county administrator at the time, Michael Thompson, said Pittman subsequently provided a second set of grant documents that did not mention his company's involvement.

I'm sorry, but when warned of an ethics violation, you change plans to eliminate the violation. But that's not what Pittman appears to have done. No, it looks like Pittman's response was to try and cover up the conflict; gloss over it and hope nobody noticed.

Now here's the thing... What Pittman did may or may not have been illegal, and he probably won't be charged. Regardless of what the law SAYS, however, Pittman's actions SHOULD BE illegal, and if he's found guilty then he should spend time in prison for it. Whenever they get around to ethics reform legislation, they need to make certain it actually punishes actions like this.

And before anybody comments, I am STILL opposed to a special session in December to pass ethics reform legislation. The Legislature will be meeting in March, and we don't need to be spending another $300k or more just so they can do their jobs a few months early. If Riley decides his own personal political ambitions are more important than money belonging to the taxpayers of Alabama, that should tell us once and for all what kind of politician HE is. And if the newly elected Republican majority AGREES with him, that should give you a preview of what we may be in for during the next four years.

Read the rest...

A Little Humor For The Week

Time for a little humor, this time my favorite from Ray Stevens.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw


Read the rest...

Government Seizing Domain Addresses

Before I begin, I'd just like to say that there are so many things wrong with this story that it isn't even funny.

Here's the story. In order to enforce copyright law, the Homeland Security Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun shutting down and seizing operational domains on the Internet. Know any illegal immigrants entering the country via Internet domains? Neither do I.
http://tinyurl.com/29j7nqd

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized dozens of domain names over the past few days, according to TorrentFreak.

ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.

The sites are replaced with a note from the government: "This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations."

Take a moment and read the entire story. Go ahead... I'll wait.

Done? Good.


The first problem I have with this is something that should have jumped right out at you. What in the wide, wide world of sports is the IMMIGRATION department doing enforcing COPYRIGHT law? It'd be like the Secret Service chasing down truant kids, or the Montgomery Parks Department writing speeding tickets on I-85. Something doesn't jibe, here, and I'm wondering if we'll ever find out why ICE is enforcing copyright laws.

I mean, really... Shouldn't they be doing something else? Like, gee, I don't know... protecting the border or prosecuting illegal aliens?

And what aspect of copyright infringement affects our "Homeland Security?" Some guy listening to Madonna sing "Like a Virgin" without paying for it is somehow a threat to national security? They have a lot of explaining to do if they want me to buy THAT.

Okay, number two. The government obviously has the right to seize property during a prosecution, but the Constitution sets limits on how that can be done. In this case, at least some of the site owners were never served with papers showing the warrants or other probable cause that prompted the seizures.

One of the site owners told TorrentFreak that his site was shut down without any notice or warning.

This kind of thing, targeting numerous entities en masse like this, is obviously a political stunt. In this case, it's probably intended to boost interest in a bill in Congress that would supposedly crack down on Internet pirating of copyrighted material. In other words, the prosecutions are being used as a political ploy. And for those of you who may believe that never happens, I suggest you grow up a little.

Something about this story is a little off, though, not jibing right. The internal inconsistencies trouble me. I'm wondering what we're going to find out about this as time goes on. Well, we'll know when it happens. Until then, we wait.

Read the rest...

I Won NaNoWriMo 2010! 50k Words In 30 Days!!

I have mentioned this once or twice this month, but on November 1, I began participating in National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo). The goal is to write a 50,000 word novel in 30 days. I began, and have been progressing throughout the month. About an hour ago, I reached 50,710 words, which means I won. I'm not QUITE finished with the book; another couple of hundred words should do it. But I WON!!!




The idea behind this is simple. A lot of people "want to write," but can never find the time. Real life always seems to intrude. So, NaNoWriMo is an externally imposed deadline: Write the 50,000 words NOW, and edit them later. It's a way to help get past writer's block. I realized early that if I stopped writing when confronted by a plot problem or something, I'd never finish it. When I was blocked, I'd simply shift to a different scene and write THAT, instead. That gave me time to solve the issue that had blocked me WITHOUT cratering my word count.

I was required to finish by November 30, and I finished on November 26!

YEA, ME!!!!


Read the rest...

Big Political News: Twelve Stitches

Okay, it's the day after Thanksgiving, and we have incredibly huge political news for you. President Obama was elbowed in the face while playing basketball and needed twelve stitches in his lip.

Yep, you heard me right. The big political news of the day is President Obama's basketball injury.

Okay, raise your hands, everybody who's ever played basketball. Now, those who got a split lip while playing basketball, keep your hands up. Finally, those of you who needed stitches, keep your hands up. Mighty small percentage of those who originally raised their hands...

Well, I bet the Secret Service went ape over this!

Look, I understand that the President is news, but give me a break. Have we sunk so far in our hero worship that THIS tops the list of political chatter for the day?
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1110/12_stitches_8cbe5c1e-5f0a-4dbe-be38-71eeb81df652.html


Read the rest...

More On Thanksgiving

It seems that others are jumping on the bandwagon this year. Here's a video from Reason.





If the player won't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66QdQErc8JQ&feature=youtu.be


Read the rest...

Thanksgiving: The First Libertarian Holiday

Thanksgiving is here once again, and with it come visions of childrens' plays with Indians and Pilgrims, complete with little Pilgrim hats made of construction paper. The story told in these plays and learned by public school students at every grade level is a simple one.

The Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock late in 1620. The first winter was harsh, but the colonists worked hard and applied themselves industriously to their own survival. They had help from the local Indian tribes, who helped them learn how to survive. The result was a plentiful harvest in fall 1621, not to mention the first celebration of Thanksgiving.

It's a wonderful story. There's only one problem with it: It isn't true. Oh, it does contain elements of truth. For example, the first winter was harsh, and the local Indian tribes did help the colonists learn how to survive, what to plant and how to prepare the food. But the 1621 harvest was not bountiful. In fact, famine haunted the fledgling colony.


When the colonists first landed, they signed something called the Mayflower Compact. Most of us have heard this document praised as an early social contract helping different people to live together. What most of us never learned was that it was also an experiment in socialism.

The Mayflower Compact required that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing or any other means" were placed in the common stock of the colony. Further, it required that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their meat, drink, apparel and all provisions out of this common stock." People were required to put into the common stock everything they could, and take out only what they needed.

William Bradford, governor of the colony at the time, wrote the "History of Plymouth Plantation." In it, he wrote that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Since "the strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak," the strong men simply refused to work, and the amount of food produced was never adequate.

In fact, the colony went hungry for years as strong men refused to work hard, and theft of crops still in the ground ran rampant. Bradford wrote that the colony was riddled with "corruption and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

The harvests of 1621 and 1622 were adequate enough so that "all had their hungry bellies filled," but that did not last. Deaths from malnutrition continued into the next year.

But in 1623, something changed. Bradford reported, "Instead of famine now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." By 1624, the colony was producing so much food that it began exporting corn.

What caused this change?

After the poor harvest of 1622, the colony brainstormed for a way to raise more corn and obtain a better crop. The solution, like the Thanksgiving story told today, was simple. In 1623, Bradford "gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit."

The socialistic experiment that had failed them was abandoned and replaced with capitalism. That turned the colonists away from failure and forward into success and growth. And this move away from socialism, along with the resulting prosperity, is what we truly celebrate today. It is easy to see why I call Thanksgiving the first Libertarian holiday.

Thanksgiving, far from being the simple and uninspiring story of a group of people learning how to farm, is actually a celebration of what has made America itself great. It is the story of people working together by working for themselves first, and in so doing, improving the standard of living for everyone. These are the American ideas we hold dear.

As you sit down to your table laden with turkey, dressing and pumpkin pie, remember the true story of Thanksgiving, and what it means to all.


FOOTNOTE: If you'd like to learn more about this, here are some supporting links. The first link mentions it in passing:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/26/pilgrims_planted_the_seeds_of_americas_abundance_99321.html

Early on, the Pilgrims grasped a basic point about economic motivation. In 1623, they rejected their initial system of collectivism; each family got its own plot of land. Bradford called it "a very good success, for it makes all hands very industrious." They had learned "the vanity of that conceit of Plato's . . . that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing."

The second link contains excerpts from William Bradford's "History of Plymouth Plantation."
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/14-bra.html

All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Gov[erno]r (with the advise of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Gov[erno]r or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly., into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.'

The final link contains the full text of Bradford's "History of Plymouth Plantation." It's long, mostly boring, and the relevant portions are buried between unrelated entries, but it gives a pretty decent picture of the colony.
http://www.mith2.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=bradford_history.xml

Read the rest...

Now It IS A Ground Zero Mosque? I'm Confused...

You know, sometimes people confuse me. I don't understand sometimes how people can be so... contradictory. For example:

Remember how the Victory Mosque was NOT a "ground zero" mosque? We were repeatedly told that it was "near" ground zero, but wasn't part of it. Therefore, we couldn't be upset that the mosque would be built there. Everybody remembers that, right?

So, why, might I ask, are the builders of the Victory Mosque NOW trying to get money from a fund dedicated to rebuilding the damage caused by the 9-11 attacks?
http://tinyurl.com/3xzatbs

Developers of the controversial Park51 Islamic community center and mosque located two blocks from ground zero earlier this month applied for roughly $5 million in federal grant money set aside for the redevelopment of lower Manhattan after the attacks of September 11, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the matter.

The application was submitted under a “community and cultural enhancement” grant program administered by the Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Corporation (LMDC), which oversaw the $20 billion in federal aid allocated in the wake of 9/11 and is currently doling out millions in remaining taxpayer funds for community development. The redevelopment board declined to comment on the application (as did officials from Park51), citing the continuing and confidential process of determining the grant winners.

So there is this fund that was set up to rebuild the damage caused by the terrorist attacks, i.e. buildings at ground zero. This Victory Mosque isn't, we're told, at ground zero... but they want money from that fund?

So, the world isn't really round after all, then? Anybody else confused?



Read the rest...

Democrat Legislators Switching To GOP? Why??

The new, GOP-dominated Legislature hasn't even met for the first time, and already we're seeing people jockey for political advantage. I hope you've heard this already, it was big news over the weekend. Four Democrats in the Legislature are supposed to make an announcement sometime today that they will be switching parties and becoming Republicans.
http://tinyurl.com/2bo8t8b

The remaining white Demo­crats appear ready to begin jump­ing off the Titanic.

Four white Democrats in the Alabama House of Representa­tives are expected to announce on Monday that they are switching parties.

While Republicans already have an easy majority, those four switches would give them 66 mem­bers, which would be a superma­jority that could shut Democrats out of debate and gut any potential stalling tactics.

The four white Democrats who are expected to switch parties are Alan Boothe of Troy, Mike Milli­can of Hamilton, Lesley Vance of Phenix City and Steve Hurst of Munford. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't these guys just finish running for office as Democrats? Yes, I thought so, about three weeks ago. I'm doubting that any fundamental change in political philosophy has occurred in all four Legislators, so that means the switch must be motivated by political advantage.

What a surprise.


With the Democrats in the minority, these Legislators will not get choice committee assignments. They will be, essentially, ignored by the majority party as much as possible. They'd rather hand the GOP a super-majority and take good committees as their payoff.

But see, this is a good example of why I dislike party switching. The way that the parties themselves sell things, the Democrats are liberal and the Republicans are conservative. However, given that these four Democrats haven't changed their political views, how can we keep believing that? Allowing politicians to change political parties like dirty socks (which, by the way, bear a lot of resemblance to political parties)... well, that merely dilutes the parties until they don't stand for anything.

Didn't we see that recently in Congress? Democrats wanted to win a majority, so they recruited candidates who were more conservative than the bulk of the elected Democrats in Congress, and those candidates managed to win election in conservative districts. Lo and behold, when Obama wanted to shove a socialist health care "reform" bill down our throats, the "more conservative" Democrats balked and wouldn't support all of what the party wanted to accomplish.

Imagine you have two pitchers, one filled to the brim with iced tea and the other filled with raw sewage. (I use this example because both parties seem to view the other's views as toxic.) Now pour some of each into a pitcher; empty the glass of tea into the raw sewage pitcher, and vice versa. Keep doing that, representing several cycles of elections and politicians switching parties. Now look at the pitchers.

Now, who wants to take a swig from either pitcher? Yeah, me neither.

That's what our political parties are doing to themselves by accepting party switchers who change because it's to their personal political advantage. Diluting the political ideology doesn't help anyone... except, maybe, the politicians who are thinking only of themselves.

For those who aren't sure if these switches are being made for personal political advantage, I'm afraid that's not even in question.

But they stand a better chance of helping their constituents and winning better committee assign­ments in the new Republican ma­jority.

Those four Democrats might just be the first to switch teams. Alabama Democrats in the Legis­lature have never served in the mi­nority and they will undoubtedly hate it.

Party switchers are usually counter-productive. What good is another Republican that gives you a majority if they don't share your political convictions?

The GOP will accept these switchers with open arms. Why? Because the party has no firm convictions and principles to speak of. I'm not seeing a great deal to inspire hope from the new GOP majority in our State.

Read the rest...

Apologies For Low Posting Volume

I just wanted to apologize for the abnormally low number of posts. I'm in the middle of a two-week vacation, and frankly, haven't been focusing too heavily on the blog. I'll try to post a little next week, and should be back to normal next month.

Thanks for understanding.


Read the rest...

Alabama PSC Bans Lobbyist Gifts

A long time ago I ran for statewide office, on the Public Service Commission. One of the criticisms that I leveled against the incumbent was that he regularly accepted campaign contributions from lobbyists who represented Alabama Power Company, which is regulated by the PSC. I thought it was a clear conflict of interest, but my opponent did not agree. Nor did his spokesperson at the time, Twinkle Andress.

(By the way, the name of those lobbyists were Geddy and Fine. Sound familiar? Hint: One was recently indicted on corruption charges in connection with the gambling legislation. Hmmm...)

Fast forward to today, and newly elected PSC member Twinkle Andress Cavenaugh says that such contributions are bad and should be banned. In fact, the PSC voluntarily made the decision to ban them.
http://blog.al.com/wire/2010/11/alabama_psc_enacts_ethics.html

The Alabama Public Service Commission has approved new ethics rules that prohibit commission members and employees from soliciting or accepting a gift or a campaign contribution from a lobbyist representing a company regulated by the PSC.

The commission and its employees were already prohibited from doing that with regulated companies. But Commissioner Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh said the commission wanted to close a loophole that existed with lobbyists. The change was 3-0 Thursday.

I wish I could say I found this turnabout puzzling, but I don't. Back then, nobody much cared about ethics. It wasn't a hot issue. Today it is, so the PSC is trying to ride the wave to public approval.

And people wonder why I am skeptical of the GOP at this moment...


Read the rest...

The American Traveler Dignity Act

Ron Paul introduced a bill today that would hopefully stop the invasive and disturbing searches at airports. Here is video of him on the House floor as he introduced the bill in question.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N5adYM7Kw&feature=player_embedded

Ron Paul makes some excellent points.


His solution is to remove immunity from government workers doing anything that is illegal for us to do. If it's not legal for you or I to grope people in an airport and take nude pictures of them, why should it be legal for our government to do so?
http://dailypaul.com/node/149693

My legislation is simple. It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

The solution to the need for security at US airports is not a government bureaucracy. The solution is to allow the private sector, preferably the airlines themselves, to provide for the security of their property. As a recent article in Forbes magazine eloquently stated, “The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility.” In the meantime, I hope we can pass this legislation and protect Americans from harm and humiliation when they choose to travel.

Let's hope that Congress recognizes public outrage and passes this legislation.

Read the rest...

Want To Be Part Of Bentley's Transition Team?

Governor-elect Bentley is putting together his transition team in preparation for serving as Governor for the next four years, and he's looking for people. Would you like to be one of them? Then head on over to his website and apply!
http://govelectbentley.com/form.php

And if anybody makes it onto his team, drop a line and let me know. I'd be interested to see if he's really looking for everyday folks or if it's all a smokescreen.


Read the rest...

Breaking: Rangel Guilty On 11 Counts

As I wrote earlier, Charlie Rangel's ethics trial began and ended yesterday. When Rangel walked out, the panel granted a request for summary judgement, based on the fact that none of the accusations in the case had been refuted by Rangel. With the facts not in question, the panel began deliberations in private.

Earlier today, the panel released its verdict: Charlie Rangel is guilty on 11 of the 13 charges facing him.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45198.html

A special eight-member panel of the House ethics committee, after deliberating for roughly six hours, found that there was "clear and convincing evidence" that Rangel had violated House ethics on 11 of the 13 charges he faced heading into a rare public ethics trial.

Rangel was facing a 13-count “Statement of Alleged Violation” that included allegations that he improperly solicited millions of dollars from corporate officials and lobbyists for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at The City College of New York, failed to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars of income and assets on financial disclosure forms, illegally maintained multiple rent-stabilized apartments in a luxury Harlem apartment building and failed to pay income taxes on a villa in the Dominican Republic.

So, what will happen to him?


Actually, that's the next step. Now that he's been found guilty, the full ethics committee will move to the punishment phase. They can recommend either a reprimand or a censure.

The full ethics committee will now consider punishment for Rangel, and possibly refer the case to the House floor with a recommendation for a sanction against the lawmaker. Rangel is likely to face either a reprimand or a censure from his House colleagues.

Ooh, I can see why Congressmen don't want to violate ethics laws. If they did, then all the other little boys... I mean, Congressmen... would shake their fingers and say "tsk, tsk."

Really, a reprimand or a censure? Geeze, if you or I "forgot" to pay various taxes, we'd be facing fines, at the very least... and maybe jail time. But not Rangel, no. He gets scolded and called a bad boy. He doesn't even get sent to bed without dinner?

Wow. Talk about different rules for those in charge.

Of course, my diatribe might be premature, as the full ethics committee still has to meet and decide on a punishment. But if the punishment does not carry with it meaningful consequences, then the whole process is worthless.

If he violated laws, then he should face a court with possible fines and/or prison time. I'm sorry, but WE would be facing that, so he should be as well. Otherwise, our lawmakers really are a class of nobility who don't have to abide by the same laws we do.

Let's see what the ethics committee does. Who knows, maybe they'll stand him in the corner for a "time out."

Read the rest...

Charlie Rangel's Ethics Trial

I don't know if you were aware of it, but Charlie Rangel's ethics trial in the US House of Representatives began yesterday. And it ENDED yesterday, as well. Oh, the story is a good one, it really is!

The House Ethics Panel began Rangel's trial yesterday, and the first thing Rangel did was ask for a postponement because he had no legal counsel. According to Rangel, he's pretty much broke, and his legal team left him a month ago because of it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45134.html

"I am being denied to the right to have a lawyer right now because I don’t have the opportunity to have a legal defense fund set up," Rangel complained to the “adjudicatory subcommittee” hearing the case. "And because I don’t have a million dollars to pay my counsel."

As an aside, the law firm in question denies that they left Rangel, but refuses to comment further.

“It has been a privilege for Zuckerman Spaeder to represent Congressman Rangel, who has had a long and distinguished career in public service,” the firm said. “This law firm did not seek to terminate the relationship and explored every alternative to remain as his counsel, consistent with House ethics rules prohibiting members from accepting pro bono legal services. Out of respect for Congressman Rangel and the House Ethics Committee we will not comment further at this time.”

But wait... It gets better!


In response to Rangel's request, the panel debated his motion privately, then returned to the chamber and denied Rangel's request for a postponement. Personally, I think that was a good call. He's had a month since he and his lead attorney parted ways, and he found out two weeks ago that he could set up a legal defense fund... the fact that he didn't bother to set up the fund or get a new attorney tells me he is looking for a way to delay this thing.

Anyway, the panel denied his request, and Rangel calmly sat down and prepared to defend himself.

Just kidding. No, that would be the mature and intelligent thing to do. In reality, Rangel pitched a royal fit and walked out! The ethics committee watched him go, then continued the trial. With Rangel's seat at the defense table empty, the charges were read and a motion for summary judgement was offered. After a lengthy debate in private, the ethics panel accepted the motion.

The ethics committee will now hold private deliberations on their own time, and will hopefully issue a decision soon. The fact that Rangel wasn't present for all of this will allow him to claim he's being railroaded and retain, if found guilty, at least a semblance of legitimacy. "I wasn't guilty," he can say, "they just had it out for me."

Now, the big question is, will the ethics panel find Rangel guilty of anything? That's a hard thing to predict.

Let me say that I don't believe the facts of the case will matter much to the ethics panel. As with most cases of public corruption being decided by other lawmakers, political considerations will outweigh the facts. Some of the Republicans may want to convict him merely to show how bad Democrats are. Some Democrats may want to acquit him in order to avoid blemishing the name of their party. On the other hand, some Democrats may be keenly aware that this is expected of them, and so they may be inclined to convict in order to show how fair they are. And for the same reason, some Republicans may vote to acquit.

In other words, the two major considerations are to appear fair or advance the interests of the panel member's political party. Which motivation will win out? Only time will tell.

But it should make for a good show!

Read the rest...

X-Ray Trucks Scanning Us While We Drive

Most people are most concerned about the use of back scatter x-ray imaging devices in airports to peek under our clothing. What many do not realize is that similar devices are sitting in trucks parked beside highways, peeking into our cars.

The manufacturer of these devices, American Science & Engineering, says that it's best customer is the US Department of Defense. They use these trucks in Afghanistan and Iraq to detect bombs in vehicles. However, they also admit that they sell their mobile scanning trucks to law enforcement departments across the United States. Can anyone say "warrantless search?"
http://tinyurl.com/2eyrc9c

It sounds like something straight out of George Orwell’s 1984: Government vans, equipped with full-body X-ray scanning machines, have been deployed on the streets of our cities, monitoring an unwitting populace for signs of illegal activity.

You could simply be going about your daily activities, not even doing something that should invite the suspicions of the authorities, but it doesn’t matter. The police can still scan you and the contents of your vehicle, and if they see something that arouses their suspicions, stop you immediately and search you, your vehicle, and its contents.

When I got to this point in the article, I had one thought in my head. This activity constitutes an unconstitutional search. According to legal scholars, my first instinct is likely correct.

“First, it’s not clear that it is legal,” says Dr. Daniel Steinbock, professor of law and interim dean at the University of Toledo College of Law. “In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled in Kyllo v. United States, that the use of similar technology, in this case, thermal imaging, is illegal under the Fourth Amendment’s restraint on the government performing searches without probable cause.”

Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), agrees; in fact, EPIC is currently suing the Department of Homeland Security to stop the usage of full-body-scan technology in airports. “It’s no surprise that governments and vendors are very enthusiastic about the vans,” he said in a recent interview with Forbes. “But from a privacy perspective, it’s one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.”

I don't know if there are health concerns with this technology, but that isn't the most important aspect of this to me. The US Supreme Court has ruled more than once that law enforcement cannot simply decide to search every car driving down a highway in a fishing expedition, and that's precisely what these mobile devices allow them to do.

And this perfectly illustrates the constant struggle between freedom and government. Law enforcement officers are USING this technology today, even though doing so is likely an illegal act. Why? Because the ability to freely search every car makes their job easier, so they like it. The fact that such searches go a long way to destroying the freedom and liberty that this country is supposed to be about doesn't seem to bother them.

We have rules that government MUST follow, and in this case they are not doing so.

So, what do YOU think? Are vans such as these a legitimate law enforcement tool, or do they violate our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures?

I know what I think, but what do YOU think?

Read the rest...

Deficit Commission Releases Draft Report

The deficit commission released a draft report yesterday afternoon, detailing how we can cut our deficit by $200 billion or so a year... and surprisingly it's mostly spending cuts with a few revenue-raising measures tossed in. Republicans aren't thrilled with the few tax increases included, and Democrats flatly reject the cost-containment measures for Social Security. Let's take a peek at this little document and see what they are suggesting.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/11/11/deficit-commission-draft/

* Reduce Congressional & White House budgets by 15 percent - saving $800 million
* Freeze federal salaries, bonuses, and other compensation at non-defense agencies - $42 billion
* Cut the federal workforce by 10 percent - $13.2 billion
* Eliminate 250,000 non-defense service and staff augmentee contractors - $18.4 billion
* Eliminate all earmarks - $16 billion
* Eliminate funding for commercial spaceflight - $1.2 billion
* Eliminate grants to large and medium-sized hub airports - $1.2 billion

These aren't what you call "big-ticket" items, and together they only cut $92.8 billion a year in spending. But there is more.


The plan also detailed savings from the Pentagon.

* Three year salary freeze for civilian workers in the military - $5.3 billion
* Freeze non-combat military pay levels for three years - $9.2 billion
* End purchases of the V-22 Osprey
* Cut by half the planned purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
* Reduce overseas deployments by one-third - $8.5 billion
* Modernize the DOD Tricare health system - $6 billion

So far so good, right? Well, the plan also calls for changes in Social Security; lowering the yearly Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment for Social Security and by raising the retirement age in forty years.

To my mind, those are pretty minor changes to Social Security, but Democrats are up in arms and fighting hard against it.

"This proposal is simply unacceptable," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who led the Democratic Party charge against it.

"The Deficit Commission Co-Chairs' plan to cut Social Security and Medicare is dead on arrival," said Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the outgoing Chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

This reaction proves that they are unwilling to do anything about reducing the deficit, and that they are exactly as fiscally irresponsible as voters have come to believe they are. You can't get our fiscal house in order WITHOUT doing something about Social Security and Medicare. These changes won't "fix" the programs, but they'll help. A little.

So let's keep watching as folks react to this report. Personally, I don't think it goes nearly far enough. Look, two years ago, we were running a $400 billion a year deficit. Not good, but LOADS better than the current $1.4 TRILLION yearly deficit. I think we should change and repeal the laws we have to in order to reduce spending to 2008 levels. That's a start. This plan doesn't do that, but it does do SOMETHING.

Read the rest...

Setting Record Straight On BP

Once the Obama White House decided to actually notice the BP oil platform leak, they immediately began demonizing BP. All sorts of statements were thrown around, such as the accusation that they sacrificed safety measures for higher profits. It was a convenient brush with which to paint them as villains, and I think most people bought it... Only it isn't true.

That's right, it isn't true. An in-depth investigation of BP by the Department of the Interior found no evidence to support such an accusation.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44828.html

The federal investigation of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has found no proof that BP, Halliburton and other companies associated with the drilling disaster put profits ahead of safety, a lead investigator said Monday.

"We've not found a situation where we could say man had a choice between safety and dollars and he put his money on dollars," said Fred Bartlit, chief counsel of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

So the early accusations were false. But what about the report issued by the Department of the Interior and used by the White House to justify a ban on deep water drilling? Experts agreed it was the thing to do, right? Well, no. Actually, now we discover that the White House edited the report in order to give that impression.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44921.html

The White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling, the Interior inspector general says in a new report.

In the wee hours of the morning of May 27, a staff member to White House energy adviser Carol Browner sent two edited versions of the department report’s executive summary back to Interior. The language had been changed to insinuate the seven-member panel of outside experts – who reviewed a draft of various safety recommendations – endorsed the moratorium, according to the IG report obtained by POLITICO.

“The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.

The IG report remained non-judgmental on whether it was an attempt to mislead the public, we don't have to do that. Besides misleading the public, can you think of another reason why the White House would change the report in the manner described? Yeah, me neither.

So Obama lied to the public by releasing that edited report, and we now discover that other allegations against BP were untrue.

Is this REALLY the kind of government we want, one willing to lie in order to advance their agenda? I can't speak for you, but it certainly isn't the kind of government that I want!

Read the rest...

Analysis: Obama Court Challenges Are Credible

I found this today, and I liked it very much. It's an analysis of the various legal challenges to ObamaCare, based not only upon the legal arguments, but also upon the judge's responses to them. It's a good read, and I recommend you read the entire thing.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2010/nov/07/ed-somi07-ar-634809/

The suits focus primarily on challenges to the new law's "individual mandate," which requires most American citizens to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan by 2014 or pay a fine. One of the cases was filed by 20 state governments and the National Federation of Independent Business in a federal court in Florida. Another was initiated by the Commonwealth of Virginia in a federal court in this state, and a third by the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan.

The judges considering the Florida and Virginia cases have both issued rulings rejecting the federal government's motions to dismiss the suits and indicating that the mandate can't be upheld based on current Supreme Court precedent. By contrast, Michigan district Judge George Caram Steeh wrote a decision concluding that the mandate is constitutional. But even he agreed that the case raises an "issue of first impression."

In the most recent of the three rulings, Florida federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson wrote that the government's claim that the mandate is clearly authorized by existing Supreme Court precedent is "not even a close call." He points out that "[t]he power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent," because no previous Supreme Court decision ever authorized Congress to force ordinary citizens to buy products they did not want.

An August ruling in the Virginia case by federal District Judge Henry Hudson reached the same conclusion. As Judge Hudson points out, "[n]o reported case from any federal appellate court" has ever ruled that Congress' powers "include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product."

I recommend you read this in its entirety.


Read the rest...

CBO: Obamacare To Raise Drug Costs

Okay, anyone who remembers Democrats in general and Obama in particular telling us their health care overhaul would lower drug prices, please raise your hand. For those of you who do NOT remember this, please take a moment to review the record.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/09/flashback-obama-promises_n_254833.html

"First, we'll take on the drug and insurance companies and hold them accountable for the prices they charge and the harm they cause... And then we'll tell the pharmaceutical companies, 'Thanks but no thanks for overpriced drugs'. Drugs that cost twice as much here as they do in Europe and Canada and Mexico. We'll let Medicare negotiate for lower prices. We'll stop drug companies from blocking generic drugs that are just as effective and far less expensive. We'll allow the safe reimportation of low-cost drugs from countries like Canada."

If you're interested in video, follow the link and wait until somewhere around the 23 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9PIN03qGjg&feature=player_embedded

Okay, so we're clear, right? One of the "benefits" of Obamacare is that it lowers prescription drug prices, right?

Well, apparently not.


The CBO, finally doing what it SHOULD have done BEFORE the law passed, now says that ObamaCare will allow prescription drug prices to rise.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/10/20/cbo-says-health-reform-causes-drug-costs-rise/

“The legislation also imposes an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of brand-name drugs CBO expects that the fee will probably increase the prices of drugs purchased through Medicare and the prices of newly introduced drugs purchased through Medicaid and other federal programs.”

For drugs covered by Medicare, the Affordable Care Act could raise prices purchased through Medicare and other programs by about 1%, Elmendorf estimates. For new drugs bought through Medicaid, the changes could increase prices paid by pharmacies by 4%, he says.

Of course, that's not the only danger. Some of the provisions in ObamaCare could result in higher drug prices in another way.

Also, provisions in the reform act will force manufacturers of brand-name drugs to provide new 50% discounts and rebates for drugs purchased through Medicare and Medicaid. The amounts of the discounts and rebates will be based on the prices of the drugs.

But since the amount of the discount is based on the price of the drugs, drug makers can simply jack up the underlying price. CBO director Doug Elmendorf says just that, that the CBO expects the drug makers will attempt to offset those discounts by increasing prices on drugs.

“Manufacturers thus have an incentive to raise those prices to offset the costs of providing the new discounts and rebates, although other forces will limit their ability to do so,” Elmendorf says, declining to fully spell out those other forces.

So there you have it. ANOTHER promise that wasn't kept. ANOTHER claim about ObamaCare that just isn't true. ANOTHER lie.

And Democrats wonder why the rest of us want to repeal this monstrosity?

Read the rest...

A Warning to Alabama GOP

Republicans in Congress should read this and be wary. A new Rasmussen poll shows that only 19% of GOP voters believe the party has done a good job of representing the party's values in recent years. A whopping 72% believe the politicians have lost touch with the party and it's values.
http://tinyurl.com/289h6ud

Republican voters remain strongly critical of how their party’s representatives in Congress are performing and have a highly favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement that is pushing the GOP more to the political right.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 19% of Likely Republican Primary Voters believe Republicans in Congress have done a good job representing the party’s values over the past several years.

Seventy-two percent (72%) say GOP members of Congress instead have lost touch with Republican Party members throughout the nation in recent years.

GOP Congressmen should be very careful of what they do over the next few years, that much is obvious. But I think that state-level Republicans should take a break from their ecstatic celebration of retaking the state Legislature and pay a little attention to this poll, as well.


I believe if a similar poll was taken within the state, we'd see similar results in reference to the state-level GOP.

I'm hearing a lot of disturbing feedback about what the GOP leadership is planning. Let's just say that the Tea Party was welcome when we generated the passion and momentum they needed to win the elections, but not so much now. I've heard phrases like "b*tch-slap" and "kicked to the curb" in reference to the tea parties and the Alabama politicians who support them. And those quotes aren't coming from outsiders, they're coming from insiders, people who see it happening but are powerless to stop their own leadership.

Pay attention, Alabama GOP. We, the voters who put you in power a week ago, are very skeptical of you. We believe you are likely to mess up and betray us. And if you do, your wonderful little majority could easily disappear in two years.

It's time for the elected officials to kick their out-of-touch leadership to the curb and make sure they are doing what the voters want them to do. What the voters ELECTED them to do.

Pay attention, GOP leadership. There is NO second chance.

Read the rest...

NaNoWriMo Goes Well For Me

As I told you last week, I am participating in National Novel Writing Month... NaNoWriMo. The goal is to write a 50,000 word novel in one month. Forget making it perfect right now, we can always go back and polish it later. For the moment, finish the novel!

And after one week of writing, how am I doing? So far, I have written 14,610 words of my novel, and am on track to finish the required 50,000 words ahead of schedule.

But that's just the pace. What about the quality? I will post a synopsis of the story and an excerpt from it, "below the fold." Read it yourself and make your own judgment. I think it's going well so far, and several who have read the excerpt agree. Make up your own minds.


Synopsis: The Winds of Change

A colony of humans lands on an uninhabited planet and begins the work of clearing the continent-wide forest growth so the colony can have room to grow. But "uninhabited" turns out to be a slippery word when faced with forest spirits protecting their world from interlopers. Will technology win the day, or will the humans be overwhelmed by the power of alien spirits?

Excerpt:

Flames surrounded him, consuming trees and animals alike, quenching the life he’d labored so hard to tend. Mistral concentrated, drawing on every ounce of energy he possessed, but to no avail. He was no match for the sheer mass of flames sweeping the continent.

“My trees!” he cried in anguish, shedding despair like raindrops. “MY TREES!” If he could have wept, he would have. His forest was being consumed in a blazing inferno, and he was powerless to stop it.

*Brother?* The sudden thought made him spin around as if he’d been struck, impossible as that was in his non-corporeal form.

*Ostro?*

*What is wrong, brother?* He felt her concern for him, sparked by his overwhelming despair.

*It burns, sister!* he cried. *They destroy my forest!*

*Rain, brother,* she urged him. *Rain quenches fire!*

*I can’t,* he wailed in reply. *There’s too much… I’m not strong enough. My trees, THEY BURN!*

*Hold, brother!* Ostro replied, and then she was gone.

Mistral redoubled his efforts, focusing on bringing moisture together into an effective rain mass, but the raging inferno below overpowered his every effort. He rose higher as he sent out an alarm to the animals below, urging them to find water, a place of safety. He felt them respond as they began a mass migration northwards toward the rivers. Ever higher he rose, reaching further than he had thought possible in search of moisture with which to fight the destruction raging below.

Suddenly, he felt a tendril of energy flung towards him. He latched onto it desperately, even as he felt another being focused his way. Another, then another he accepted, until all eight of them were connected together into an immensely powerful gestalt, eight entities fused together as one. Within the hurricane of power roaring through him, he felt his despair ignite into fury. Dimly, he heard Ostro’s voice sounding in his mind again. *Rain, brother! Rain!*

Grimly, Mistral summoned the rain.

I hope you enjoyed that. Feel free to leave your comments, positive or negative, on what you just read.
Read the rest...

WHY Might Alabama Have A Special Session?

As you've all no doubt heard by now, the Governor is considering calling a special session of the legislature to deal with ethics reform and campaign finance reform. There's a lot of speculation being thrown around as to why this may happen, and I came out last week against it.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/11/special-session-for-ethics-reform.html

First, let's look at how it will work. Such a special session can include, by statute, no more than 12 meetings days in a 30-day period. And since the newly elected legislators took office immediately, the session would be called with the Republican majorities in place.

Now let's look at motivations. Bentley has said ethics reform is a priority with his office, and has already announced that he would seek to call a special session next year DURING the regular session to deal with ethics and campaign finance reform.

So why should Riley call a special session now? It's quite simple. Bob Riley is seriously considering a Presidential run in the future, and being able to say "I cleaned up corruption in Montgomery" would help him out a great deal.


That's part of what the whole bingo flap was about, Riley's attempt to acquire a crown jewel in his legacy. That failed, so he'd really like to have something else to set in its place. Ethics and campaign finance reform are perfect.

I believe that Riley will, sometime within the next year, announce he's running for President in 2012... Those southern Governor's do fairly well on the national stage. And, if the special session is held and the Republicans pass the ethics and campaign finance reform bills, I believe he will be bragging about how he cleaned up the corruption in Montgomery.

It's POSSIBLE he's waiting until 2016 to run, but I don't think so. He just finished his second term this year, leaving him two years before the next election... The timing is perfect. If he waits, what will he do for the next four to six years to keep himself in the public eye, to keep his experience current?

And THAT is why we have to spend roughly $300,000 of taxpayer money to deal with ethics and campaign finance reform NOW, instead of waiting until next year when the legislature convenes normally.

You might not agree with my analysis, and it's certainly possible that I'm wrong... though I don't think I am. Only time will tell.

Read the rest...

PA Looking For Contributing Writers

I started this blog almost two years ago, and since then I've been writing my thoughts and concerns for anybody willing to read them. I've got a decent presence on Twitter... a total of 80 people follow me on Twitter, and 130-150 folks follow my blog daily. In October, PA had more than 3,500 visitors and 5,200 page views. Not too bad for a small political blog in Alabama...

It's time, however, that I expanded what PA offers, and I'd like to do that by adding contributing writers.

If you'd like to contribute material to this blog for publication, drop me a line. I want people who can write well and get their point across. You don't have to agree with my viewpoint in order to pitch in, you just have to present your views well. I will consider anybody who applies, as long as the following criteria is met:


1) You can write well... a sample of your writing will be required.

2) You want to write about politics, be it Alabama, national, or both.

3) I know who you are and how to get in touch with you.

That's it. If you're interested, drop me a line at PoliticsAlabama@Hotmail.com. All those interested who meet the criteria listed above will be considered.

Read the rest...

Special Session For Ethics Reform?

Okay, the buzz is that the Republicans are considering a special session to pass ethics and campaign finance reform laws. The special session would be held in December, theoretically, before Bentley assumes the mantle of Governor.

I think it's a mistake.

Look, special elections cost US extra money. They're also intended for things that can't wait until the next regular session of the Legislature, sort of a way to pass legislation in response to an emergency of some sort. Well, the next regular session of the legislature starts in March. That's just a few months from now. Do we have some elections, some major campaigning that I'm not aware of within the next few months? Where is the emergency, here?

If the Republicans call this special session, we will see a repeat of what happened when the Democrats pushed their health care bill, only in miniature. With such limited time to look at bills in a special session, they will hurry through the process. The end result will be flawed bills, legislators who don't have the chance to read bills before voting on them, and lots of work being done behind closed doors. Can anyone say "back room deals?"

That's what we're likely to get if the Republicans push this special session idea.


Let me ask you this. Why not just make this legislation a priority going into the 2011 regular session that starts in January? There isn't any rush, here, and we'd really rather have this done right than done quickly. We DON'T want the Republicans doing everything they've spent the past year or so condemning the Democrats for doing!

So please, take your time and do it right. Don't rush legislation through a special session. It would send exactly the WRONG message to your constituents. It would tell us that you don't really care about doing things right and reforming state government. No, it would tell us that you just want your turn on top and are looking forward to USING all that wonderful political power!

Think this through, and get it right. We ARE watching.

Read the rest...

ALGOP Misinterpreting Election Results

I want you to read this... it's a message from Governor Bob Riley telling how he and ALGOP Chairman Mike Hubbard (now Speaker of the Alabama House) managed to plan, organize, and carry off last Tuesday's election results. Read the letter yourself.
http://tinyurl.com/2ap539v

Now, having read that message several times, I must tell you I'm a bit peeved. This message clearly says that Riley thinks Alabamans LOVE the Republicans. We support THEIR agenda.

But we don't. From the rumblings I'm hearing already, the GOP is dissing the Tea Parties and the politicians who backed them. They are planning paybacks against the Democrats, and preparing to enact their own agenda.

But what about those of us who supported them because we want smaller government? What about the Tea Party activists who energized the independents? What about OUR concerns?

Forget it.


It won't happen. The "new leadership" is really the old leadership... the same people in charge. We're not going to see a small government agenda, because now it's THEIR turn to exercise all this wonderful government power. Why give it up?

You know how bad it was when the Democrats got control of the White House and both Houses of Congress? Well, the Republicans have control of the Governor's office and both Houses of the Legislature. It's not going to be pretty, and it's not going to have anything to do with small government.

The Republican leadership believes it has a mandate... but I wonder if their interpretation is the same as that of the voters? Obama had a mandate... he thought. Will the Republicans behave similarly?

I don't know. What I DO know is that the same old politicians are in charge of the GOP, and that's a bad recipe for meaningful change.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Will Alabama GOP Return To Business As Usual?

You know my position on this, because I've been saying it for months. Yes, the Republicans took control of the Alabama Legislature, but that means nothing if they're going to operate in the same old ways that they've BEEN operating. It all depends upon what they DO with this opportunity.

In fact, our first indication is in. The newly elected Republicans have been meeting in Montgomery today to determine party leadership. I think these positions matter immensely, as they will certainly give us a preview as to what we can expect from the new leadership.

Personally, I think they ought to elect newer people to lead the party. If they pick the same old leaders, then the party will go in the same old direction. They must remember that it wasn't excitement with Republicans that got them this chance, it was disgust with Democrats. We don't WANT you to be the same old Republicans playing the same old games. And the best way to insure that doesn't happen is to install new leadership.

So, does it look like this will happen?


As I write this, the House meeting is still going on, but the Senate meeting is over. So, who did they choose? Unfortunately, you'll recognize the names.

The new Senate Majority leader is Jabbo Waggoner. If that name sounds familiar, it should. He's been the Senate minority leader for quite a while now. No leadership change there.

The new President Pro Tempor leading the Senate will be Senator Del Marsh of Anniston. Again, another familiar name. Marsh has been in the Senate for the past 16 years.

Still no word from the House, but this leadership doesn't inspire me with confidence about these Republicans doing anything except what they want to do.

Already, a mere two days after they won the elections, I'm hearing influential Republicans talking about how THEY took control over the state. Gone is any mention of grass-roots support, from the Tea Party or anybody else. THEY did it all themselves, and so therefore they have a mandate to do what they wish.

This feeling hasn't been expressed widely yet, but give it time. The leadership elected... well, it seems to me they would rather exercise power than trim the size and scope of Alabama government. So I have little hope of meaningful change at this point. Though I pray I'm wrong.

We're hearing rumors that Mike Hubbard will be the House majority leader... another name that should be familiar.

However, let's see what the House does, who the House chooses... but don't hold your breath for a dramatically different result.

UPDATE: Alabama House Republicans chose Mike Hubbard to be Speaker of the House. Hubbard has been minority leader and Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party for the past six years. Hardly new blood there.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/11/mike_hubbard_nominated_to_be_s.html

Read the rest...

Election 2010: The Blame Game

With the exception of a few spots where the results aren't fully tallied, the mid-term elections are over. And already we're hearing blame being assigned for this and that.

First, the Democrats. They're turning on each other. The moderates are blaming the radicals for adopting too liberal an agenda and forcing all the Democrats to go along with it. The liberals are blaming the moderates for "watering down" the agenda and forcing compromise. And some, such as Obama, think the only problem was that they just didn't explain everything well enough so us thick-skulled neanderthals could understand it.

Meanwhile, voters in exit polls made it crystal clear that they voted against the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39990920/ns/politics-decision_2010

Exit polling data indicated that nearly four in 10 voters said they backed Republican House candidates as a way to thumb their nose at Obama, but David Hyde, also of Danville, identified two other villains: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Pelosi of California.

Hyde said he backed Perriello because Hurt "has just went along with whatever Reid and Pelosi wanted."

All three sides do, however, agree on this: it's mostly the White House's fault. Obama set the agenda and then, depending upon which Democrat you're listening to, either allowed moderates to muddy the message and drag out the process by watering down the initiatives, or he listened too much to the extreme wing of the Democrats and pursued too liberal an agenda. Or maybe the Great Communicator just didn't sell his agenda well enough. Regardless, Obama did it.

And speaking of poor Obama, he is in COMPLETE denial.


Yes, Obama thinks that the ONLY reason the Democrats lost is NOT because voters disliked their agenda, but rather because the economy is poor.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/127511-obama-said-election-underscores-that-he-has-to-do-a-better-job

The president largely rejected the notion that Americans overwhelming voted for Republicans Tuesday as a failing grade on his policies, blaming instead high unemployment and a slow economic recovery.

Those of you who were hoping Obama might start listening to us after we spoke loud and clear at the polling booths MIGHT want to think again. He heard the message that he WANTED to hear, and will proceed on exactly the course that he WANTS to pursue.

So that's on the Democrat side.

The Republicans, however, are whining and blaming, too. WHY? Didn't they take 60 seats in the house and six in the Senate? Why in the WORLD are they whining???

Apparently, blame is flying over why they didn't take the majority in the Senate, too.

The "pragmatic" wing of the party is blaming the more conservative and Tea Party elements for advancing candidates who were "too conservative to win in competitive districts." In their view, placing liberals on the ballot as GOP candidates is fine and dandy, just so long as they win the election.

The conservative and Tea Party folks, however, are blaming those same "pragmatics," claiming that they denigrated and refused to support those conservative candidates.

I have to tell you, it's an incredibly amusing sight. After a huge electoral victory that the President described as a "shellacking," the Republicans are whining and moaning because their gain in the Senate wasn't BIGGER??? Spare me.

And at least some of the Republicans don't get it. I got a "congratulations" email from Governor Riley, in which he takes credit for Tuesday's Republican sweep of Alabama government. In his mind, Republican victories were scored because we all love Republicans, rather than because we really don't trust Democrats right now.

So it remains to be seen how the two parties will react in the long term, after they stop acting like petulant six-year-olds.

God grant that moment comes soon...

Read the rest...

Note: Republicans NOT In Control!

Okay, it's the day after the mid-term elections, and we're ALREADY hearing wild statements that bear no relationship to reality. One commonly repeated mistake is to speculate about what the Republicans will do "now that they are in control."

Look, Republicans may control the US House, but they do NOT control the Senate or the White House. To label them as "in control" is ludicrous. They are STILL the minority party, when viewed from a "power-in-DC" perspective. Democrats control the Senate and the White House... they can be stymied by the House, but the House can be stymied by the Senate OR the White House.

If we move forward believing that the Republicans are in control, then we can blame them in 2012 if they haven't passed all their wonderful ideas (they DO have ideas, right?) into law. If ObamaCare ain't repealed by 2012, then they failed, right? Cause they were "in control" up there.

So please be careful in your thinking and your speaking. Make sure you credit those who truly have the power with the consequences, positive or negative, of exercising that power.

Now, here in Alabama it's a different story. HERE the Republicans really DO control everything. They now control the Governor's office, the state House, and the state Senate. So we CAN truly blame/credit them for their actions while in control of Alabama government.


For years they've moaned and whined about how badly the Democrats treated them. They cut the Republicans out of authoring bills, stonewalled Republican legislation, and did a heap of other really dastardly things. The true test of the quality of the Republicans leadership will be how they act once they take power.

If the Republicans start treating the Democrats just like they were treated, then we have gained nothing. We've merely traded the devil we know for the devil we don't. If they try to gerrymander the districts to guarantee Republican majorities, then how are we better off? If they to consolidate power in their hands and ignore us piddling little voters, then what have we gained?

Here are some things I'd like to see. I'd like to see a Health Care Freedom Act voted on, whether it passes or fails. Last year, the Democrats did all they could to block it. I'd like to see legislation that the GOP leadership doesn't like passed out of committee with a yea or nay recommendation and voted on by the Legislature... I'm sick of legislation being killed in committee just because the party in charge doesn't like it. Let the Legislature vote on it... Even if it fails, at least it had a shot.

I'd like to see legislation to reduce the ballot access and retention requirements seriously considered by the legislature. Even if the GOP thinks it will fail, they should let the bills come up for a vote. Personally, I'd like to see the ballot access requirements for statewide office changed to match the requirements to put a Presidential candidate on the ballot: 5,000 signatures. As for ballot retention, that should drop to no more than 5% of the vote in any statewide race.

I'd like to see stronger ethics laws. Lobbyists should not be allowed to give legislators $90,000 a year in undeclared gifts. And when an elected official abuses his office, he should be harshly punished for it. No slaps on the wrist, here. We place a great amount of trust in these people, and they wield a great deal of power... power to do good or ill. So when they abuse that power, the consequences should be severe.

That's a short list of what I expect to see the Republicans doing in the upcoming legislative session. For here in Alabama they ARE in control, and if we voted for change then I'd like to see a MEANINGFUL change.

Read the rest...

Who Will Tea Party Winners Caucus With?

Yes, the GOP won big last night, and many of the new Congressmen are people who campaigned on either a Tea Party platform or a small-government platform. So, the question is, who will these people caucus with?

(For those who don't know, that's a fancy way of asking who they will vote with most often.)

According to Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, they will caucus with the Republicans.
http://tinyurl.com/2e59d46

A leading Republican Party figure says tea party-backed congressional candidates who win elections Tuesday will consider themselves part of the GOP when they come to Washington.

Hmmm... Maybe it's just semantics, but I disagree. From what I've been hearing from candidates like Rand Paul, they'll cast their votes and hope the Republicans come along. There's really a mini-party up there, if they hold to their words, that may or may not include the Republican party.


Barbour said that Rand Paul (and others) will vote with the Republicans. But that's true only as long as the Republican party is pushing an agenda acceptable to candidates like Rand Paul. So, in reality... the Republicans will have to vote with the Tea Party candidates.

Because here's the thing. I've read the Constitution many times. Before I wrote this I thumbed through it again, just to verify my memory. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it mention political parties. Nowhere. Under the Constitution, we can have a federal government with two parties, twenty parties, or even NO parties at all. We're not limited to a two-party system... though those in both parties will try very hard to convince you otherwise.

But can you think of a better way to reduce "bi-partisan tension" than to throw another party or two into the mix? That oughta shake things up.

Read the rest...

Election Results 2010

Let's look at the important results from last night's elections.

Nationally, Republicans gained 60 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate. Right now, this puts them with a 239-196 majority in the House and a 53-47 minority in the Senate. Harry Reid kept his seat, as did Nancy Pelosi. The results of yesterday's elections fell pretty much in line with the average poll results being touted in the last weeks of the campaign.

In Alabama, the Republicans swept everything as well.

Bentley beat Sparks for Governor, Ivey beat Folsom for Lt. Governor, Roby beat Bright for Congress AL-02 (by 4,867 votes), Chapman beat Gilliland for Secretary of State, and Strange beat Anderson for Attorney General.

Amendment #3, which would have taken $1 billion from the ATF and spend it on roads and bridges, failed miserably.

And the GOP took control of the Legislature for the first time in a LONG time. With results in one race VERY close, the Republicans have a 21-12 majority in the Senate with one independent (Harri Ann Smith). In the House, the Republicans have a 62-43 majority. As you can see, the GOP now controls 60% of the State Senate and 59% of the State House.

I will probably do analysis of the election results later, but I wanted to get the results out where you could see them as early as possible. The Republicans won a HUGE victory last night, both nationally and here in Alabama. Now we have to wait and see what they DO with it. Will they do a decent job, or will they squander it as the Dems recently did? Only time will tell.


Read the rest...

Breaking: Live Election Returns

The polls close at 7:00 PM central time, and we will be watching election results to see how things are going both in Alabama and nationally. We will be watching several items, including the Governor's race, the AL-02 Congressional race between Bright and Roby, the overall number of seats won by each party in the Legislature, and the number of seats won by each party in Congress.

I will be updating this data regularly throughout the night once the polls close, so stay tuned.


Time: 9:15 PM
Okay, guys, that's it for this blogger. Heading to bed to get some sleep before work rolls around at such an unholy hour tomorrow. So we know that Bentley is our new Governor, Shelby got re-elected in the Senate, Folsom is leading for Lt. Governor, and the boondoggle that was Amendment #3 was defeated... soundly. No billion-dollar handout for our politicians THIS year, happily. As to Bright and Roby, they've been trading the lead all night long, so it looks like this one is going down to the wire. We'll see tomorrow.

Heading to bed, guys... have fun watching THIS nail-biter.

Time: 9:10 PM

Looks like Bright may pull this one out... unless Roby rallies again. We'll know in the morning.

To see the incumbents nationwide who are out, check here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44576.html

Governor Results (30% reporting, 847/2811)
Bentley (R): 200,238 (52%) GOP WIN
Sparks (D): 181,600 (48%)

AL-02 Congressional (46% reporting, 210/454)
Bright (D): 48,370 (54%)
Roby (R): 41,969 (46%)

Amendment #3 (Spend $1 billion on roads) (13% reporting, 354/2811)
No: 79,566 (60%)
Yes: 52,988 (40%)

Congressional split between parties
House: +13 GOP
Senate: +3 GOP


Time: 9:00 PM

The Roby/Bright race keeps bouncing back and forth... see what I mean?

Governor Results (28% reporting, 684/2811)
Bentley (R): 164,847 (52%) GOP WIN
Sparks (D): 154,100 (48%)

AL-02 Congressional (36% reporting, 165454)
Bright (D): 39,742 (54%)
Roby (R): 33,923 (46%)

Amendment #3 (Spend $1 billion on roads) (9% reporting, 241/2811)
No: 52,217 (62%)
Yes: 32,370 (38%)

Congressional split between parties
House: +12 GOP
Senate: +3 GOP


Time: 8:50 PM

The Roby/Bright race keeps bouncing back and forth...

Governor Results (8% reporting, 224/2811)
Bentley (R): 55,097 (61%) GOP WIN
Sparks (D): 35,574 (39%)

AL-02 Congressional (20% reporting, 93/454)
Roby (R): 18,961 (53%)
Bright (D): 16,722 (47%)

Amendment #3 (Spend $1 billion on roads) (5% reporting, 132/2811)
No: 24,694 (59%)
Yes: 16,987 (41%)

Congressional split between parties
House: +11 GOP
Senate: +3 GOP

Time: 8:40 PM

Governor Results (4% reporting, 126/2811)
Bentley (R): 25,157 (60%) GOP WIN
Sparks (D): 17,078 (40%)

AL-02 Congressional (7% reporting, 31/454)
Roby (R): 6,927 (52%)
Bright (D): 6,374 (48%)

Amendment #3 (Spend $1 billion on roads) (3% reporting, 76/2811)
No: 12,713 (59%)
Yes: 8,688 (41%)

Congressional split between parties
House: +9 GOP
Senate: +3 GOP

Time: 8:30 PM

Louisiana is leaning Republican. Robert Bentley wins the Alabama Governor's race.

Governor Results (3% reporting, 78/2811)
Bentley (R): 16,539 (61%)
Sparks (D): 9,996 (39%)

AL-02 Congressional (4% reporting, 18/454)
Bright (D): 3,419 (50%)
Roby (R)): 3,373 (50%)

Amendment #3 (Spend $1 billion on roads) (2% reporting, 46/2811)
No: 7,107 (58%)
Yes: 5,135 (42%)

Congressional split between parties
House: +8 GOP
Senate: +3 GOP

Time: 8:20 PM

The Senate races in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Kansas have all gone to the GOP. So far, we have four confirmed Senate wins for Democrats, 14 confirmed Senate wins for Republicans, four states where early voting shows a Democrat lead, and three states where it shows a Republican lead. So the score so far seems to be Republicans 16, Democrats 8. Lots more races to go, however.

Governor Results (1% reporting, 35/2811)
Bentley (R): 6,502 (58%)
Sparks (D): 4,671 (42%)

AL-02 Congressional (2% reporting, 8/454)
Roby (R)): 2,166 (53%)
Bright (D): 1,883 (47%)

Amendment #3 (Spend $1 billion on roads) (1% reporting, 25/2811)No: 4,198 (59%)
Yes: 2,884 (41%)

Legislative split between parties
House: None reported
Senate: None reported

Congressional split between parties
House: +6 GOP
Senate: +2 GOP

Time: 8:10 PM

Does it seem to anyone else like the Alabama elections results are being posted very slowly? Hope it picks up soon. Nationally, the GOP is now six House seats and two Senate seats.

Governor Results
Bentley (R): 3,445 (59%)
Sparks (D): 2,390 (41%)

AL-02 Congressional
Roby (R)): 923 (60%)
Bright (D): 603 (40%)

Amendment #3 (Spend $1 billion on roads)
No: 1,531 (59%)
Yes: 1,044 (41%)

Legislative split between parties
House: None reported
Senate: None reported

Congressional split between parties
House: +6 GOP
Senate: +2 GOP

Time: 8:00 PM

Results are trickling in, unfortunately. I hope the pace will accelerate over the next hour or so.

Governor Results
Bentley (R): 1,831 (60%)
Sparks (D): 1,226 (40%)

AL-02 Congressional
Roby (R)): 923 (60%)
Bright (D): 603 (40%)

Amendment #3 (Spend $1 billion on roads)
No: 1,477 (60%)
Yes: 980 (40%)

Legislative split between parties
House: None reported
Senate: None reported

Congressional split between parties
House: +3 GOP
Senate: +2 GOP

Time: 7:50 PM

The Oklahoma, Arizona, and Georgia Senate seats have all gone GOP. In Kansas, Missouri, and North Dakota, the Senate races are leaning that way in early results. Illinois is looking like a Senate victory for the Democrat right now.

Governor Results
Bentley (R): 1,831 (60%)
Sparks (D): 1,226 (40%)

AL-02 Congressional
Roby (R)): 923 (60%)
Bright (D): 603 (40%)

Amendment #3 (Spend $1 billion on roads)
No: 1,477 (60%)
Yes: 980 (40%)

Legislative split between parties
House: None reported
Senate: None reported

Congressional split between parties
House: +3 GOP
Senate: +2 GOP

Time: 7:40 PM

So far the national tally looks predictable. The Republicans are taking the Senate seats in southern and central races such as Alabama, Ohio, and Kentucky. Meanwhile, the east coast is seeing Democrats win in Vermont, Delaware, and Maryland. The west coast won't check in for a few more hours, so it's going to be a long night.

Governor Results
Bentley (R): 1,815 (65%)
Sparks (D): 966 (35%)

AL-02 Congressional
Roby (R)): 923 (60%)
Bright (D): 603 (40%)

Amendment #3 (Spend $1 billion on roads)
No: 265 (58%)
Yes: 190 (42%)

Legislative split between parties
House: None reported
Senate: None reported

Congressional split between parties
House: +1 GOP
Senate: +1 GOP

Time: 7:30 PM

Governor Results
Bentley (R): 407 (72%)
Sparks (D): 156 (28%)

AL-02 Congressional
Roby (R)): 247 (63%)
Bright (D): 144 *37%)

Amendment #3 (Spend $1 billion on roads)
No: 60%
Yes: 40%

Legislative split between parties
House: None reported
Senate: None reported

Congressional split between parties
House: -1 GOP
Senate: +1 GOP

Time: 7:20 PM

Marco Rubio (R) is called as the winner in Florida. Also projected to win based on current results are Kelly Ayotte (R) in New Hampshire and Chris Coons (D) in Delaware. Christine O'Donnell is projected to lose that race.

Governor Results
Bentley (R): 294 (75%)
Sparks (D): 99 (25%)

AL-02 Congressional
Roby (R)): 247 (63%)
Bright (D): 144 *37%)

Legislative split between parties
House: None reported
Senate: None reported

Congressional split between parties
House: None reported
Senate: +1 GOP

Time: 7:10 PM

Governor Results
Bentley (R): 294 (75%)
Sparks (D): 99 (25%)

AL-02 Congressional
Roby (R)): 247 (63%)
Bright (D): 144 *37%)

Legislative split between parties
House: None reported
Senate: None reported

Congressional split between parties
House: None reported
Senate: +1 GOP

Time: 6:45 PM
With early voting results in, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia are all trending GOP. The night is still young, but early results show a strong red color on the map.

Time: 6:23 PM
Rand Paul is leading the wave tonight as he is declared the winner in Kentucky. Following right behind him was Dan Coats, who has been declared the winner in Indiana. This is two GOP victories in the Senate.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44561.html

Time: 6:06 PM
Some early results are in. With 4.7% reporting in Indiana, Dan Coats leads Democrat Brad Elsworth 55% - 39.5%. With 5.8% reporting in Kentucky, Rand Paul leads Democrat Jack Conway 52.2% - 47.8%.

Read the rest...