So the Congress has jumped about the loony train and passed a bill grabbing jurisdiction on the Schiavo case away from the State of Florida, a move applauded by that state’s fool of a governor, Jeb Bush:
Gov. Bush, praised the actions of Congress. “We in government have a duty to protect the weak, disabled and vulnerable,” he said in a statement Monday. “I appreciate the efforts of state and federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who have taken this duty to heart.”
I find it amusing, now, that Congress’ concern for the weak and the vulnerable wasn’t strong enough to extend unemployment benefits at the pit of the recent (some would say “Bush”) recession.
This law proves that it’s dangerous to allow any one political party to take control of too much of the government. For the sake of the country, the Democrats need to organize and take back the House of Representatives in 2006, and I’m going to do what I can to make that happen, beginning with the removal of my Bush/Cheney 2004 bumper sticker.
Check Joe Gandelman’s post on prospects for the mid-term elections. He cites Bob (“Prince of Darkness”) Novak, to wit:
Analysts at the Republican National Committee have sent this warning to the House of Representatives: The party is in danger of losing 25 seats in the 2006 election and, therefore, of losing control of the House for the first time since the 1994 election.
It looks good for America.
Your New Leader just declared all Republicans “brain dead.” Since he’s an infallible doctor, I guess that means your problems are solved. Where do I report for the gassings?
Who’s my new leader?
That old country doctor from Vermont…Howard Dean, head of the DNC.
Yech, Scott. Just give them one house in Congress and I’ll be happy, and failing that induce Tom DeLay to kill himself. Let’s not let this thing get out of control.
Some criticism of a passing comment Mr. Bennett made that doesn’t have to do with Schiavo.
Let’s get this straight: because Congress didn’t extend unemployment benefits, which the Constitution doesn’t authorize it to provide, it doesn’t have enough “concern for the weak and vulnerable”?
Should we limit the federal government to its constitutionally enumerated powers, or just scrap the Constitution and let the federal government do whatever is popular or seems “practical” or “just”?
And it’s hard to fathom how someone who believes the federal government ought to be involved in unemployment insurance is a “fiscal conservative,” as Mr. Bennett describes himself. Even if you believe that government ought to be involved in unemployment insurance, there’s no “need” for the federal government to do so. The people of each state are perfectly capable of deciding whether, and how, to provide such benefits.