Posts Tagged ‘John Thune’

Democratic National Committee Executive Director Jennifer O’Malley recently said John Thune scares her. This is because he could be the most dangerous contender in 2012 (though I don’t think it’s as scary as the prospect of him actually being president). She went so far as to say he gives her nightmares.

O’Malley and others recognize that most of the possible GOP contenders are flawed, but she sees something in Thune that is threatening. I personally think he’s flawed, but when compared to Palin (lying quitter) and Romney (who implemented Obamacare before Obama was near the Oval Office), I guess it’s easy to stand out.

For some reason I think Newt Gingrich is scary, and he seems to want to run. The least scary thing in the world would be Palin winning the Republican Primary. The most scary thing in the world is that she has a chance to win the Republican Primary.

Enjoy the quick ramping up of the 2012 election in mid 2010.

Adam Feser

Tom Coburn attempted to shut down NSF funding of political science research (and I destroyed him here) but the Senate said “No!” by a count of 36-62 (with two no votes). You can click here to check out how everyone voted.

Or I can just tell you about states of interest. Tim Johnson voted against the amendment and John Thune voted for it. I really hoped Thune would vote against it just because it was so silly, but it fell pretty much on party lines. An interesting exception is that Ben Nelson (D-NE) voted for it while Mike Johanns (R-NE) voted against it. Yet another instance of Nelson making me regret ever volunteering for him (he’s a pretty evil lesser of two evils).

Another disappointing yea was Jim Webb. I thought he was my man. Lieberman voted nay, which was a nice change from my constant anger at his decisions and reasoning.

But a big woo-hoo for political science.

Enjoy this sweet, sweet victory.

Adam Feser

I know this is a little behind, but we have had a rough week at the office with the loss of a co-worker.

I applaud Sen John Thune and Rep. Septhanie Herseth-Sandlin and the others who thought the Cash for Clunkers deal is a joke. 

“While the first week of the program has been popular, I still have significant concerns about pouring even more taxpayer funds into programs to aid the auto industry, especially when there has been no opportunity for congressional oversight of this new program,” Herseth-Sandlin said Friday(7/31) in a statement to the American News.”I opposed authorization for this program in June, even though I have long supported increasing the fuel economy of motor vehicles.”

“The $2 billion extension is the latest example of how the Democrat-controlled Congress reflexively spends taxpayer money,” Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said in a statement to the American News

If the Senate approves the funds, “it would add $2 billion to the $85 billion of taxpayer dollars that have been used to prop up the auto industry,” he said.

Just think, the people that voted to fund another $2 Billion to this are going to be the same people going to be in charge of healthcare.  Thanks, but no thanks

And welcome to the Supreme Court. She was confirmed 68-31, and Thune, true to his word, was one of the 31.

I got this press release from the Sens office yesterday and I thought I would share with you all on why the Senator is not voting for Sotomayor.  I now stand behind his decision. 

The following what you will read is directly from the senator:

July 20th, 2009 – Washington, D.C. – Senator John Thune today announced he would vote against Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor and released the following statement:

“Judge Sotomayor has a compelling personal story and I appreciate her meeting with me. I carefully followed last week’s Judiciary Committee hearings as members questioned Judge Sotomayor on her judicial philosophy and her record of decisions from her time on the bench. After this review I have concluded that Judge Sotomayor has consistently advanced a narrow view of the Second Amendment, providing little reasoning or explanation for her decisions, and twice has ruled that the Second Amendment is not a `fundamental right.’ This is an important distinction because the Supreme Court has made this determination a key element in deciding whether to apply parts of the Bill of Rights, such as the Second Amendment, to state and local governments.

“Judge Sotomayor has also had seven of her 10 decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court overturned, including, most recently, Ricci v. DeStefano. In this case, a three person panel dismissed a reverse discrimination claim of 18 New Haven, CT firefighters who were denied promotion because too few minorities passed a promotion exam. The panel published an unusually short and unsigned opinion that adopted the lower court’s ruling without adding any original analysis. Judicial and legal experts have noted this disturbing trend of avoiding or casually dismissing difficult and important constitutional issues in her rulings. The Supreme Court should not be the first time a judge tackles these difficult decisions.

“I am also concerned that Judge Sotomayor has a record of bringing her personal views into her decision making philosophy rather than deciding cases based on precedent and fidelity to the law. Her statements during the confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee do not always match the philosophies she has expressed prior to this hearing, such as her application of foreign law.

“I take the Senate’s role of advise and consent very seriously. I believe that it is the Senate’s constitutional duty to thoroughly review all nominees to the federal bench, especially those who will have a lifetime appointment to the highest court.”

Judge Sotomayor’s nomination is expected to be considered by the full Senate during the first part of August.

Letter

Finally some some sense may come out of Washington. 

A bill sponsored by Sen. John Thune, R-SD that would limit the government’s interferrence and have set a reasonable time that they have to get out. 

The government can’t be wasting time in private business and wasting tax dollars.  This bill would protect the American taxpayer. 

As the letter states, and what congress and the administration needs to realize, the governments needs to prevent and oversight roll and not ownership.