That Times reporters Jennifer Steinhauer and David M. Herszenhorn and their editors utterly lack a sense of irony is found in another metaphor in their article:
But now Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Republican point man on spending cuts and designated responder to the State of the Union address, has emerged as the latest chew toy among Democrats. They spent Monday beginning a campaign to portray him as the architect of fiscal policies that they view as unwise and hope will prove unpopular among voters, including plans to partially privatize Social Security and Medicare.
This would make the Democrats metaphorical equivalents of puppies, dogs, birds, rodents, or rabbits. Readers can take their pick.
Congrats to the Illinois Appeals Court, or at least two-thirds of it members, which threw Rahm Emanuel off the Chicago mayoral ballot on Monday for enforcing the city’s residency requirement for running for mayor. They actually ruled that the law means what it says:
The panel ruled 2-1 that Emanuel did not meet the residency standard to run for the city’s top office.
“A candidate must meet not only the Election Code’s voter residency standard, but also must have actually resided within the municipality for one year prior to the election, a qualification that the candidate unquestionably does not satisfy,” the court stated in the decision.
This means that Rahm Emanuel is objectively unable to run. Any higher-court ruling which overturns Monday’s ruling will be objectively corrupt. See Update.
Too bad these folks weren’t the members of Ohio’s Supreme Court in October 2009. If they had been, they would have thrown Metro Dayton non-resident Jon Husted out of his Ohio Senate seat and prevented his becoming Ohio’s Secretary of State, which is hopefully the highest political office he will ever achieve.
Update, Jan. 28: The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Illinois law trumps city law. It’s not as clear as the press is making it out to be that it was the right decision, as this excerpt from Best of the Web on Tuesday afternoon will illustrate (bolded words are mine):
Time (Magazine) notes that Emanuel is basing his argument on the Illinois Election Code, which provides that “no elector”–meaning voter–”shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States.”
A conflict of laws? It would appear not. The relevant Municipal Code provision reads: “A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment.’
Since Emanuel was in Washington “on business of the United States,” he is still a qualified elector and a resident of Chicago under the Election Code.
I disagree. I read the two bolded items as saying, “Sure, state law says you can vote in Illinois elections, including in Chicago, but city law clearly says you can’t run for public office unless you’ve actually resided there.” Obviously, the court disagreed. I believe the court was wrong.
Giveaway clue that the President isn’t serious about reining in spending:
More than two months after his deficit commission first laid out a plan for reining in the national debt, President Obama has yet to embrace any of its controversial provisions – and he is unlikely to break that silence Tuesday night.
While Obama plans to stress the need to reduce record budget deficits in his State of the Union address, he is not expected to get into the details and will instead call for members of both parties to work together to tackle the problem, according to congressional and administration sources.
Democratic lawmakers said that approach makes sense as the White House begins a delicate dance with resurgent Republicans over government spending, tax reform and the other difficult issues that will shape the debate into the 2012 presidential campaign. Until Republicans signal a willingness to work with Democrats to raise taxes as well as cut spending, the lawmakers said, it would be a mistake for Obama to endorse painful policies that could become the target of political attack.
In other words, Obama and his party are in effect rejecting their own deficit commission, and holding out for tax increases before doing anything about spending.
They fiddle; the nation’s fiscal situation continue to burn.
Related, at Pajamas Media:: Matt Patterson — America the Broke; Here comes a reckoning we won’t soon forget.”