April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
One of the chief goals of Mickey Kaus’s quixotic challenge to Barbara Boxer for the Democratic nomination in California’s Senate race is to secure a speaking slot at the convention. Party leaders have decided that Boxer’s challengers should not be allowed to speak, so he’s ticked.
Kaus wants to start a debate in his party over a couple of issues where he dissents from Democratic orthodoxy, namely immigration and the destructive role of public sector unions. While I don’t entirely agree with Mickey on the former issue (We’re both for better enforcement of immigration laws, but I’m also for more legal immigration[*]), I do agree with him on the latter and I think that if the Democrats’ mindless defense of incompetent teachers and overpaid state employees began to erode it would have a salutory effect on pubic policy.
But when Mickey asked on Twitter for people to email Shawnda Westly, the Executive Director the California Democratic Party, to complain about the convention decision, that isn’t what I told her. Instead I decided to mess with her head a bit:
Dear Ms. Westly,
As a loyal Republican, I hope you’ll stick to your guns and not allow US Senate candidate Mickey Kaus to speak at the California Democratic Convention. The GOP has many disadvantages in California, but one thing we have going for us is a robust intraparty debate between the disparate factions, from the businessmen to border-hawks. This is less true in your party, and I’d like it to stay that way. As long as Democrats operate in an echo chamber, Republican’s will at least have that one small advantage.
Typos can be attributed to me dashing this off on a whim late at night. Truth be told, I’m really not all that loyal a Republican — I voted Libertarian in 2008 — but I was feeling mischievous.
*UPDATE: Mickey comments on my Facebook page: “Thanks! But why do you think I’m against “more legal immigration”? I differ with Numbers USA on this, I think.” If I’ve misinterpreted his position, I’m glad to hear it (I guess his glowing blurb on Mark Krikorian’s The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal misled me).
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?