Archive for December, 2010|Monthly archive page
On several occasions last week Rush Limbaugh spoke about the new No Labels non-party. As usual he made several good points, but my favorite had to be his statements of how ridiculous the name “no labels” is for a political affiliation.
This No Labels business, I’ve been thinking more and more about this. I just saw a guy talking about them and the guy said exactly what I imagined them saying: “For those of us in the middle who don’t really want to be held hostage to the far right or the far left but we have our solutions to issues, we want to be heard, too.” Okay, fine. Somebody explain to me in what walk of life there are no labels. Religion? No labels? Business? No labels? Gender? No labels? What? Somebody tell me where there aren’t any labels. Go to the grocery store and get rid of the labels and then what would you have? Well, you’d have a lot less government because you wouldn’t have those phony ingredient labels on there.
read the full transcript here
George Will blasted the party in his article Sunday in which he provides line after line of blows to the head of the non-party like a heavyweight champ fighting an over matched competitor.
No Labels, its earnestness subverting its grammar, says: “We do not ask any political leader to ever give up their label — merely put it aside.” But adopting a political label should be an act of civic candor. When people label themselves conservatives or liberals we can reasonably surmise where they stand concerning important matters, such as Judge Hudson’s ruling. The label “conservative” conveys much useful information about people who adopt it. So does the label “liberal,” which is why most liberals have abandoned it, preferring “progressive,” until they discredit it, too.
It’s almost unfair for someone of Will’s intelligence to debate the validity of a movement such as No Labels.
It’s not a good sing that proponents of No Labels are already trying to defend it. Joe Scarborough attempts to do that, but the attempt is about as successful as the early perception of the non-party itself. I wonder if this non-partisan party will be significant enough to have ludicrous accusations thrown at them?
Being the governor of a low profile state in the Midwest does not offer the publicity of states such as California, New York, etc. However, what does offer good publicity is taking a multimillion dollar deficit which he inherited and turning it into a $1.3 billion surplus by the end of his first term.
Mona Charen had a great piece on Friday about the governor which lists his past success and possible bid for the White House. As with any potential candidate right now there are few if any signs that he may or may not run and also like any candidate there are certain downsides to a presidential bid. As the above article states, “he favored a temporary truce on social issues.” Overall though he is a strong conservative and one that looks more appealing as a presidential candidate as time goes on.
Today the Tennessean has an article detailing the plans to produce a bill that is similar to the Arizona immigration bill in the 2011 Tennessee State Legislature. This should come as no surprise because last year after the bill was passed in Arizona the Tennessee House voted 67-27 commending Arizona on their bill.
State Senator Bill Ketron R-Murfreesboro plans to file a similar bill by Thursday.
Of course the Tennessean gives very small mention to what the bill will actually be about or details about the bill. Instead most of the article is spent talking about special interests and their impact and influence on the bill as well as the negative economic impact a bill like this would have. It’s unfortunate that this is viewed so negatively by the Tennessean however conservatives can take solace in knowing that with the big Republican majority in Tennessee this bill should easily pass.