And now it would seem that an ice-cold bucket of water has been tossed on the idea.
U.S. News and World Report says that Barack Obama-ites shopped the “Hagel for Veep” idea around the Hill and were met with “serious resistance”.
Apparently Democrats would like someone who votes like a Democrat to be the Democrat standard bearer. We know, we know — we were as surprised as you to hear that.
So in the mean time, the word is that Hagel’s VP prospects are “plummeting”. But that was a fun week, huh?
(Though we would think he is still in the running for a potential Obama cabinet job.)
And here’s an interesting question: Will Hagel be attending EITHER party’s convention this year? We’re curious…
That’s the headline of a long article on the “Politico” website about the talking heads on FOX News, MSNBC, CNN and the like, who have no real expertise or experience in political strategery, yet are dubbed “political strategists”.
And who is the poster-girl for this article?
Why it’s the cowpoke’s cowgirl, Jane Fleming Kleeb!
In the article, Ms. Fleming Kleeb laughs off the titles that she is given, particularly on FOX. She apparently doesn’t consider herself a strategist, much less an expert on topics such as global warming. Of course, that hasn’t stopped her from going on the shows and giving her two cents. Then again, who could blame her? No one is putting a gun to Bill O’Reilly’s head to put her on.
But apparently Washington insiders are steamed that those with little actual campaign experience are spouting off about campaign strategy. Fleming Kleeb, deputy director of the Young Voter PAC, apparently doesn’t meet their standards. (Frankly we question how she still fronts the “YOUNG” voters, but that’s another issue entirely.)
So get your fill of Jane now, because you never know when the cable newsies may opt for real talking head political vets. Because as Fleming Kleeb says, “If you had a bunch of us in a room and asked if we are political strategists, I think you would get a lot of laughter.”
(Of course, some have the same reaction when her husband is mentioned as a U.S. Senator, but again, that’s another issue…)
With the latest horrific mauling by a pit bull, just down the road from Rosenblatt, should there be a discussion in Omaha about banning pit-bulls?
Currently, there is a ban on cigarettes, but last time we checked, a pack of smokes didn’t rip a child’s scalp off.
When a mountain lion is loose in the city, we tranquilize it and lock it up at the zoo.
There are numerous cities, major and minor, around the country that have banned pit bulls or other vicious dog breeds.
We’re not sure what the solution is to this problem, but one more time something like this happens is probably one too many. Heck, ask any mailman.
And just so you’re aware of the political ramifications, the dog-owners’ lobby, nationally, is huge. And the enforcement of this is potentially problematic. Cities that have banned the animals have had real issues with getting rid of all the banned animals presently there.
One solution could be to grandfather in currently owned and licensed animals, and simply not allow any other so-called vicious breeds to be licensed. You would, in theory, be pit-bull free in about ten to twelve years, if you wanted to go that route. But that doesn’t address any immediate issues.
And there are going to obvious comparisons to fire-arm ownership. We really don’t know where the Second Amendment folks come down on the attack-dog issue. And this isn’t something we are necessarily advocating here on Leavenworth Street.
But it is worth discussing. And Omaha’s elected officials should be prepared for an uptick on this issue.
Later morning update: The OWH has done a short piece on this issue. In it a “Humane Society official” says a ban for a city the size of Omaha wouldn’t work. Well, tell that to Denver, Cincinnati and Providence, to name a few.
They also go on to quote a “city official” who says people would switch to different breeds (ok…) and wouldn’t license their pit bulls. OK, so those people would be violating the law. But those who would want to not violate the law wouldn’t get one.
There would certainly be cost issues to address in such an enforcement as well as the general libertarian interests.
But here’s a question: How do you feel these days about pulling your toddlers in a wagon as your neighbor walks by with a pit bull (probably named “Lucifer” or “Cerberus” or whatever names pit bulls always seem to have) which has always seemed to be very nice? You comfortable? Just throwing that out there for discussion.