Politics – Page 147 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Losing a Gun Rights Leader in the House

Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren (D) won’t seek reelection in 2012, a Democratic source in the state told The Ballot Box.

Boren, the only Democrat in Oklahoma’s five-seat House delegation, will announce his decision at a press conference in Muskogee, his hometown, according to The Oklahoman.

The decision came as a surprise to Oklahoma Democrats and threatens the party’s ability to hold the Republican-leaning seat.

“I never had any idea that he was not planning to run for reelection,” said Wallace Collins, the state party chairman.

Rep. Boren is a member of the NRA Board of Directors, and I’ve seen him out on a gun range before. He will be missed in that seat.

For a bit of good news on this front, the likely replacement for the Democratic nomination on the ballot according to the article also has an A rating from NRA.

First Gunwalker Hearings

CBS News is reporting that the first hearings start Monday, June 13th.

About As Exciting as Root Canal

Rick Santorum launches his Presidential bid. He’s not Mike Huckabee. That’s about the only good thing I can say about him.

A favorite among Republican social conservatives, Santorum, 53, reiterated a stump speech he has delivered for nearly a year in the early voting states. The central theme of his campaign is that God â€” not government â€” grants people their rights.

And Rick Santorum will the the first in line to tell you exactly which of those rights God does, and doesn’t grant. This is going to be long primary season. God help us.

Clayton Cramer has a post up on copyright law, and how Righthaven screwed him with it. I’ve never been of the opinion that our current copyright laws are well suited to how we use and consume information in the 21st century, but there are too many vested interests who’d like to keep everything the way is. One reason I’m considering establishing an LLC to run the blog.

Bob Mensch Appealing Conviction in I-78 Incident

So reports Capitol Ideas. Mensch was convicted of disorderly conduct for displaying a handgun to another motorist during a running confrontation down I-78. Mensch denies displaying the gun, claiming the driver mistook a cell phone for a gun. We have a photo of Senator Mensch’s cell phone, so you can see that it’s an easy mistake to make.

All kidding aside, we wish Senator Mensch good luck on his appeal.

Palin’s Media Circus

I’m thankful I don’t have any errands to run today in Philadelphia because the Palin media circus has come to town. I don’t even understand what the hell this tour is about.

It’s not a family vacation – at least most families don’t launch political action committees to fund a completely wrapped bus in order to promote themselves and ask people to follow along when they head out to visit monuments and parks. It’s not a grassroots tour because she’s refusing to contact local tea party or Republican groups. It’s not a media tour because even though she invited her favorite host for an interview on the bus and is telling people to follow her for updates, she doesn’t really want them to follow her or talk to her. She says that it’s not a publicity tour, yet she’s “about highlighting the great things about America.” Highlight how if not through the press or groups with contacts on the ground in these areas?Highlighting to her staff who are paid to listen to her?

I think that this observation sums up the purpose of the tour:

Sarah Palin and her advisers are refusing to tell members of the media where she is going on her current bus tour – and the former Alaska governor seems to be enjoying the cat and mouse game that’s resulted.

It is the “Pay Attention to Me Tour of 2011.” The way she’s acting based on the Twitter accounts of those following the tour and her comments to the media are really juvenile at this point. If she is trying to sow support from the grassroots activists who will fuel any potential 2012 campaign, she’s not exactly demonstrating competency in putting together these kinds of events with any success.

Redistricting Maps – Setting Political Legacies a Decade at a Time

You want to know what the big news for gun rights is this year? It’s not any one lawsuit. It’s not any single election. It’s redistricting. At its roots, redistricting is about setting the likely political landscape for the next decade.

At the federal level, Pennsylvania will lose one of our pro-gun Democrats. Why does this matter to those of you who don’t live here or don’t live specifically in one of the districts that will be chopped? Remember those 65 House Democrats who spoke up and told the Obama administration that they will not stand for a gun ban? Aside from all of those we lost in the November elections, we just lost another one.

Illinois Democrats accidentally left their redistricting maps open last night, so now we know what’s on the table in the Prairie State – it’s not pretty for the GOP. The Cook Political Report House guy said this on Twitter: “First impression…this is the real deal Dem gerrymander, not weak sauce.” On the gun issue, here’s the NRA grade breakdown of merged GOP districts:

Rep. Schock – A vs. Rep. Schilling – A
Rep. Biggert – A vs. Rep. Roskam – A
Rep. Walsh – A vs. Rep. Hultgren – A-
Rep. Dold – ? vs. Rep. Schakowsky – F
Rep. Kinzinger – A vs. Rep. Jackson – F
Rep. Shimkus – A vs. Rep. Johnson – A

In other words, four seats that merge two A- or higher rated lawmakers, and one that puts an A against an F. That’s not good when it comes to the Illinois delegation.

At the state level, many states will see the balance of political power shift. Here in the Keystone State, the Philadelphia suburbs will require a boatload of new districts while the Southwest will see a lot of their longtime lawmakers pitted against one another as the district lines are redrawn with dramatically fewer seats in that area. The Philly suburbs are already the key to power on the gun issue since neither side can win without at least some suburban lawmaker support. Based on what I saw in census numbers, the suburbs will basically control the policies. That’s why we have made it a goal to convert more borderline legislative supporters into those who give a damn.

Those elections? They have consequences. These consequences just happen to last for 10 years.

Scraps for the Underlings

An Open Letter to District of Columbia Parents with Children in Public Schools

Dear Parents,

When are you guys going to stand up and demand a better life for your children? Do you actually want to hold any of your elected leaders accountable for, oh, anything? Because that’s the first step in no longer making a better life not only for your kids, but for yourselves.

Take the scallion incident. Kids in the SE part of the city (the city’s poorest) were served raw green onions as part of the federal government’s Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program that cost us $1.2 million. Now the idea of giving kids a free fruit or vegetable is a noble one. I’m not going to get into a debate on spending issues since I suspect you and I would disagree on many of those topics. But, where I hope we can agree is on the fact that if we’re taking $1.2 million from taxpayers, that it should be spent on fruits and vegetables that children (and adults, for that matter) will actually eat instead of raw onions that will be thrown in the garbage.

There should be accountability here. Instead, the food service provider is dodging questions to both its leadership and the dietician on staff. I’m sorry, but there should be no excuse. If that dietician is charged with making sure your kids eat healthy food provided by the school, the company should have an open door policy to his or her office. These are your children, and the adults who carry the responsibility of caring for them during the day should not be allowed to hide from the public.

The school district is covering for the food service provider. They say that they are confident it was a one-time mistake and there was no big deal. If you care about your children, you need to tell them that making excuses isn’t good enough – and possibly research any political or friendly ties between the company and the District. If this happened in my poor school district in rural Oklahoma, parents would be at school board meetings demanding some kind of action. It might be as extreme as cutting the contract if there were other issues in the past. It also might be simply demanding some sort of restitution from the food service provider. According to the article, school staff had to scrounge up apples from their other supplies to provide the snack. That costs money for the apples and money for the staff time to do the job the contractor did not do. Force your school leaders to demand concessions, a statement, an open door policy when it comes to the contractor’s staff who make diet decisions for the school menus, and a plan of action to make sure these kinds of mistakes don’t happen again.

I’ll never understand the attitude that District residents seem to take with their leaders – that they will allow them to walk all over the citizens and treat them like crap. Serving raw scallions as a snack would not be tolerated in any of the wealthier schools & surrounding districts. Why do you allow your leaders to treat you and your children like this and then let them slide?

Just a few helpful suggestions from someone who thinks your kids deserve better.

Bitter

Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine News

I’m surprised to see this press release from State Senator Richard Alloway, containing a link to an interview I did.Â Senator Alloway is the sponsor of the Castle Doctrine bill in the Senate, and has been instrumental in trying to get this passed for us, and off to the Governor. On the long road to get this bill passed, there have certainly been a lot of rumors, allegations, and frustrations expressed along the way. Senator Alloway addresses many of these in his release, but I’ve noticed the current delay in passage is creating more rumors.

One of those rumors is that there is a deal in the works to pass Florida Loophole along with Castle Doctrine. I talked to NRA’s PA Lobbyist, John Hohenwarter, and asked if there was a deal to amend the Florida Loophole in exchange for moving Castle Doctrine. He assured me that there is no deal in the works, and Castle Doctrine should be able to pass clean.

I have mentioned previously that the Senate is a tougher landscape for pro-Second Amendment legislation than the House. It’s important that you call your State Senator and tell them you want Castle Doctrine passed. The more they hear from us the faster this can happen. Keep in mind that our opposition’s goal is to drag things out as much as possible, in the hope of exhausting us, and turning us against each other. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, there’s evidence that tactic is working. We can get Castle Doctrine, but only if we keep marching in the same direction.

Monopolies Make My Head Hurt

It’s no secret that I hate Pennsylvania’s liquor sales system. It’s run by a state agency with a mission to make it as miserable as possible to purchase liquor. Now they are pitching pieces to argue that it’s not really any cheaper to buy liquor out-of-state.

The perception in Pennsylvania is that other states have better prices on wine and liquor, so it makes sense to stock up when youâ€™re out of state. Maryland stores near the Pennsylvania line say they get plenty of customers from the Keystone State.

But a survey of liquor stores in four states conducted by The Patriot-News reveals that prices arenâ€™t always better across the state line. In fact, in some cases, Pennsylvania prices are cheaper.

I have no idea how they selected the stores they did to compare prices, because my price comparisons have always saved money in New Jersey. Sometimes, I might only save a buck or two, but if I’m stocking up on several wines, each of those dollars saved will pay for the gas over there. In the meantime, I also have tremendous selection. If I’m lucky (and driving 10 miles out of my way), a state-run store in Pennsylvania will have a <$15 Bordeaux that I find okay. In New Jersey, I know exactly where I can grab a $9 bottle that rates as pretty damn good for a casual dinner wine. Consistency, selection, and prices combine to make the privately run out-of-state retailers a good choice. The PLCB, in defense of their existence, prefers to ignore all of those factors that make shopping everywhere a positive experience.

For the record, the paper really had to have gone to some crappy stores to find prices that are higher than Pennsylvania’s stores. To defend the monopoly, they found two examples of products that are sold $1 cheaper in Pennsylvania. But, on the privatization side, they found a bottle of scotch that sells for $12 less in Delaware. They also interview a woman who cites Massachusetts as the land of the free (liquor & wine) because wines that cost only $3 or $4 there are double those prices here.

The PLCB also likes to tout that they have more buying power than a private entity because they buy for the entire freakin’ state and can pass on the lower prices. In that case, why did the paper only find savings of $1 or $2 over the private stores where they did find a difference in prices? Why didn’t the reporter ask the PLCB to explain why they don’t have significantly lower prices for consumers if this buying power gets them such great deals? We know it can happen – look at Wal-Mart. When you’re a big buyer, you have some room to truly negotiate bigger savings. It would appear that the PLCB doesn’t exactly exert its big buyer status.

Something has gone horribly wrong with liquor & wine sales in this state when we look to states like New Jersey, Massachusetts, and even Hawaii for lower prices.

(h/t to Capitol Ideas & Commonwealth Foundation)

Category: Politics