Monday, December 31, 2007
As it turns out, all the speculators were wrong. In a surprise move, Judi White selected relative newcomer, Tom Dunn, known for his blogging on ThinkRight Arizona. Tom brings the number of LD26 representatives on the executive committee to three in addition to LD26 chairman, David Smith.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
President Bush, for example, signed an omnibus appropriations bill yesterday that was pushed across his desk by a congress drunk with holiday spending of taxpayer dollars. Not only did our self-proclaimed hawkish-on-spending Democrats give the Prez 8 billion with a capital B dollars more than he asked, but piled on the Christmas ham sneaking in 21,000 (yes, I got the zeroes right) earmarks.
Remember last year's Secure Fence Act? Read their lips, "No more fencing." This bill completely gutted the 2006 law stripping away the financing and shoving it into proverbial pig farms.
HO! HO! HO! Here we go...again.
Friday, December 21, 2007
It's interesting that he chose Romney. Clearly, Duncan Hunter is the strongest of all remaining candidates when it comes to advocating border security. Then again, Hunter may be the next candidate to bow out. If Tancredo had given his endorsement to Hunter, what would he have accomplished? Romney, on the other hand, does have a reasonable record on Tancredo's favorite issue and has a chance at taking home all the marbles.
Tancredo's endorsement doesn't create a huge advantage for Romney since Tancredo's campaign never really gained traction. But, border security is still a major issue with Americans and the endorsement does lend credibility to Romney on a key platform issue that he needs to counter the perception of Giuliani's strong 9-11 leadership, and as a stick in Giuliani's eye when it comes to his record on illegal immigration.
So, who will be next? Ron Paul and Alan Keyes are in the race on principle. They want to get their messages out, so they won't leave anytime soon so long at they have money to show up at debates. The next candidate to drop out will probably be Duncan Hunter followed by Fred Thompson after a couple of primaries. Hunter, like Trancredo, will probably back Romney. Again, it won't have a huge impact, but does bolster Romney's credibility among strong national security advocates and gives Romney some needed support on foreign policy issues. Thompson is a little harder to predict and a lot rides on how long he stays in the race. Most likely, Huckabee will be the first to show a significant drop in popularity in the early primaries which will encourage Thompson to line up behind Romney. This will cause a significant group of conservatives to shift into Romney's column thereby further weakening Huckabee who will have no money to stay in the game. Where do Huckabee's followers go? Most will go to Romney making McCain supporters the wild card in the race between Romney and Giuliani.
Of course, a lot rides on how long candidates will wait to step out of the race. The longer they hold out, the more it hurts Romney and gives the edge to Giuliani, not that Romney is hurting for support. In the meantime, undecideds, who still play a major role, will begin deciding based on who emerges as front-runners. Perhaps they're the biggest wild card of all.
As events unfold the next couple of months, watch for the realigning of candidates because that's where most of the supporters will go which, undoubtedly, colors the perceptions of late-deciders.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) anticipates a major push in 2008 for more states to join in the debate and has issued the following statement:
“SHRM believes, and the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act requires, that employers provide safe workplaces for their employees, including safeguards from threats or acts of violence. Further, SHRM believes that a secure workplace, free from threats of violence, not only protects the physical, mental and emotional health of employees, but also positively affects productivity, morale, absenteeism, turnover, and employee and customer satisfaction.
“SHRM supports employers’ freedom to decide how best to create a secure and safe workplace. The Society opposes any legislative, regulatory or policy attempts that restrict employers from safeguarding their employees.”
Their position should come as no surprise considering they signed on as a friend-of-the-court supporting employers in the Oklahoma case. But it's a tough issue that strikes at the heart of two sacrosanct positions: personal property rights and individual 2nd Amendment rights.
So far, in an interesting mix of red and blue, Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky and Minnesota have supported individual rights and preventing employers from banning weapons in the workplace. Amazingly, this hasn't even emerged as a question in the debates the past few months. But maybe the presidential primary debates haven't yet hit the right state.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
That's odd because when Asgari spilled the beans, everyone was quoting Frenchman Sarkozy who was suddenly concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons. It sure didn't sound like they were talking about a country that quit working on nuclear arms 4 years ago. In fact, just a couple of years ago, the CIA said it was convinced that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
So what gives?
According to Senator Kit Bond, the NIE report relied on information from 2003. It's a shame it's now 2007 and that in-depth report is a bit rusty. Bond says Iran is still enriching uranium and developing missiles despite what the NIE says.
But that doesn't explain how the same agency can whipsaw back and forth about whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Is the problem really with outdated information? Some say the problem is with NIE boss, Thomas Fingar, who is known for his anti-Bush antics like helping the Democrats prevent John Bolton from being confirmed and cleaning out every staffer who speaks out about threats from anti-American dictators. It seems Thomas Fingar may have a political agenda and used the NIE report as a pawn in the game.
So much for reliable intelligence data from the NIE.
Funny thing, a year ago we were hearing how a border fence was impossible. Now, nobody questions whether we can, just whether we should.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Check out the net worth of the top presidential candidates courtesy of Money Magazine.
Here they are from top to bottom:
Mitt Romney: $202 million mostly by founding and growing Bain Capital.
John Edwards: $54.7 million mostly from suing doctors for medical malpractice.
Rudy Giuliani: $52.2 million mostly as a lobbyist through Giuliani Partners.
John McCain: $40.4 million mostly from his wife who inherited Hensley & Co., the Anheuser-Busch beer distribution business.
Hillary Clinton: $34.9 million mostly from Bill's speaking fees, but also from her books.
Fred Thompson: $8.1 million mostly from acting jobs, particularly Law & Order.
Barack Obama: $1.3 million mostly from his books and his wife's job as a University of Chicago Hospitals executive.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Thompson barely flicked the needle on the scale of this one, which will further close the lid on his chances. Huckabee continues to show poorly with no meaningful progress in New Hampshire and with about enough money to run a strong congressional campaign. It appears that he may have peaked a hair too early for the momentum he needs, but not early enough to get the funding. Another blow to his campaign is the National Review Online choosing Romney over Huckabee as their editorial board's conservative choice.
Today's GOP debate was fairly lackluster across the board. I heard some gave the highest ratings to Thompson who was said to have made his strongest showing of the campaign. Personally, I thought he was strong on a couple of issues, but would be hard-pressed to give him the whole enchilada. Relatively speaking, I thought Hunter had the best performance with Romney perhaps close behind. Alan Keyes was noticeably present in this debate.
In all the polling and speculating, it's important to keep in mind that about half of voters/caucus goers, in the early primary states, are still trying to figure out who will get their votes.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims joined Britain's equality watchdog on Monday in urging Britons to enjoy Christmas without worrying about offending non-Christians.
"It's time to stop being daft about Christmas. It's fine to celebrate and it's fine for Christ to be star of the show," said Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
With so much nonsense about whether it's okay for the school choir to sing a Christmas song about Christmas, or if the HOA should allow homeowners to post a Christmas message on their front lawn, it's refreshing to know there exists some sanity in the world about celebrating religious holidays.
If George Washington said it, it carries weight with me.
We'd concede it may be possible in theory for a society to be both free of religion and politically free, but it has not happened any time in history that we are aware of, certainly not in contemporary Europe. The highest-profile attempts at religion-free societies, revolutionary France and Bolshevik Russia, both resulted in paroxysms of violence that trampled both political and religious freedoms. When the great editor of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Bartley, made a trip to the Soviet Union, he concluded that the great flaw in its system was its official atheism.
No one is suggesting that all religious societies are politically free; Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban are cases in point. Nor are we suggesting that the American government should establish one religion over another, or that atheists or agnostics cannot be good citizens. There are countless examples to prove otherwise. But belief in a higher power is so fundamental to the development of civilization and is such a ubiquitous, deep, and abiding feature of such huge numbers of civilized people that it is impossible, by definition, to exclude religion without destroying liberty for all.
If Mr. Romney left some of these particulars unsaid, perhaps he felt the point had been already made by the man after whom the Washington Post was named. In his 1796 farewell address, the first president said: "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Yeah, I know it isn't much, but I did dodge some of the editorial bombs delivered to Daniel Patterson and David Gowan. In fact, it appears that I avoided any labeling outside of "Republican" and "blogger," which I can live with. Additionally, Mr. Nintzel knows enough about what we do here to correctly identify me as an individual blogger of a few on the site, which means that he has a passing familiarity with my views. To top it off, we got a link too. Thanks, Jim.
To our faithful readers, know this: I will not quit, I will not tire, I will not relent until I get my characiture printed in a future column as well.
Of course, as I've said before, the race isn't a national popularity contest; it's a state-by-state competition. And only state-level polls are really relevant. But it is interesting to see how things can shift substantially as the only polls that matter draw near.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
1. Ron Paul supporters are the normal third party ragtag that show up every now and then then go away. No, most of the supporters that I spoke to are Republicans with strong Republican voting records. A majority voted for President Bush in the last Presidential election. Extrapolated outward, an independent run by Paul would be a disaster for Republican chances for winning the White House. Ron Paul Supporters are no more fringe elements than Huckabee supporters as far as their party creds go. Republicans would do well to respect them as they would any other candidate's supporters, especially on the local and state levels.
2. Ron Paul is making his name as an anti war candidate. I didn't get that from the supporters that I spoke to. The overriding sense that I got was that monetary issues trumped everything with them. Indeed, the fact that the US dollar is worth less than the Canadian dollar was more likely to raise their hackles. Objection to the war was much in part to the treasure wasted and the needless entanglement of American interest rather than some "BUSH LIED!!!" screed. It's my belief that Liberals who view Paul as a reflection of their own disdain of the war aren't fully informed.
3. Ron Paul supporters will make good targets for Democratic flipping. If you think that Ron Paul people dislike George Bush, ask them what they believe about Hillary Clinton. Outside of ending the War in Iraq, there is very little that would attract Paul followers to current Democratic policy. And the War issue is not as important as you have been led to believe.
4. Ron Paul Supporters are all young students. Some of the more visible supporters are students, but they are balanced out by supporters of all ages. Indeed, you do not raise 4 million in one day on the back of students. Again, many of the supporters are lifelong Republicans with firm Republican voting records.
5. The "Paul Surge" will be viewed as a 2007 phenomenon. This is simply not true. There is little as far as charisma goes to account for Paul's following. It's his message that is making headway, and that is not going away. Granted, we are a ways off from Goldwater-like reframing, but there is a growing section of the Republican party that is entirely dissatisfied with spending and expansion of government. There is also the looming sense that the opportunity to do anything about it is going to close. As the issues of the War and Immigration are dealt with one way or another, this issue will move closer to the forefront, and the groundwork built by Paul and his followers will be expanded. This will probably be evident in local and state elections first where, for the most part, the War and Federal enforcement of immigration aren't on the table.
I invite any feedback or criticism.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
The American people: still creative, still stubborn and still determined to keep the homeland free from invasion, with or without the help of the Federal government.
Friday, November 16, 2007
In 2005, the DEA tried to convict Davila, but U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's office refused to allow it. So, why the sudden interest in prosecuting the criminal long pampered by Sutton? Surprise, surprise, it just so happens that agents Compean and Ramos will have their appeal cases heard December 3rd, just a couple of weeks away. Is Sutton trying to gain favor with the judge who will likely come down hard on him for unscrupulous practices? Or is Sutton hoping for leniency when Attorney General Mukasey and the Senate Judiciary Committee go after him as requested by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher? It should prove interesting as Sutton scrambles to salvage something of his crumbling image.
Of interest in the Times article is that presidential candidate (and congressman) Duncan Hunter today hand delivered a letter to President Bush requesting a pardon for Compean and Ramos before Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The bill requires combat troops to be withdrawn by the middle of December 2008. According to Voice of America, the bill which passed by a vote of 218 to 203 has no real chance in the Senate. Obviously, even if it did, it would be sunk by a Bush veto with no hope of an override.
What's also silly about this is that troops are already scheduled to begin scaling back within a month or so. One soldier I know is spending his time in Iraq dismantling equipment and turning over security duties to the local police in an area that not too long ago was one of the most dangerous cities in the world. Now, it's fairly peaceful and troops can spend their time preparing to leave.
So, what is it about "progress" that Pelosi doesn't understand? Personally, I don't think the action has anything to do with the war in Iraq. Pelosi can frustrate us with her agenda, but she doesn't do things without a reason. Knowing the bill was a waste of effort since it had no chance of becoming law begs the question regarding an ulterior motive. One simple explanation is that it's part of the Democrat party leadership plan to keep hammering the president and smearing the war in the faces of voters so they won't forget come election day. It's not about the business of the country. It's about the business of politics.
Of course, Pelosi isn't the only politician playing this game, but that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Representative Lena Saradnik recently suffered a stroke while traveling in Massachusetts. Apparently, it was a light stroke and she should be home by Thanksgiving. By all account given in the article, she appears to be recovering nicely, and should be back to work in January. Our thoughts and prayers go out to her and her family and we hope she makes a full recovery.
Then the good,
Today at 3:30 pm, little Rebekah Humphries was born. Her mother is recovering nicely, and the baby is beautiful. Blogging and Campaigning will be light for the next few days, but hopefully we will see if we can get some pictures up for those interested.
As a NEWS YOU CAN USE tip, check out John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics site. Although it's set up as a paid subscription service, he provides quite a bit of education free to visitors. It's enlightening as well as frightening.
During the Clinton years, for example, unemployment rates were played with several times so that today's unemployment is grossly underreported. Likewise, inflation reads artificially low under our current reporting methods. Add to this comparisons with other countries who have their own reporting methods and self-serving biases and it's easy to become somewhat cynical with it all.
Preferring to live in a slightly rosy world, however, rather than think of it as deceitful, I choose to consider it all as creative. And knowing how the system works, I can simply take this creativity into consideration when looking at the numbers.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Considering the economic plight of so many of our neighbors to the south of us, it's easy to simply throw out thoughtless statements about how we should let them all in and give them a chance to better their conditions. But the reality is, every person who comes into the country outside of proper channels presents a threat to the health of millions of others. TB, for example, continues to be a disproportionate problem in border states and counties brought on by the large numbers of people coming into the country without proper screening. And TB is not the worst problem.
When people casually toss around the notion that we should help everyone, they should consider how many may be hurt by a careless attitude about how to do it.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
SED then contacted Tidball and did a good follow-up story. Matt did not specifically address the issue of whom Tidball helped or hurt by being in the race.
I have learned through sources that Tidball has the higher-ups in the Republican establishment all worked up. Despite the fact that Tidball is registered and running as an independent there is talk within Republican circles of getting him out of the race. How does that work exactly, telling someone outside your party whether to run or not? There is more to come on this story and we will be very interested to see if Tidball is still in the race come 2008.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Of course, such a move isn't without a price, albeit a small one. CAIR, a U.S. Muslim civil rights group, is less than thrilled.
It seems a smart move for Rudy. He softens his image with conservatives, attracts Jews, and only manages to upset a very small segment of voters. As for Pat Robertson, it's a bit more difficult to rationalize his decision.
If nothing else, the move serves to dampen the belief that social conservatives are united in their support for a particular candidate. And the reasons for their support seem to be as varied as the number of candidates.
Strange as it may sound, we're talking about illegal immigration and a bill designed to address it...at least in part.
Unlike prior bills that contained some sort of amnesty provision, this one is centered solely on border security and enforcement. Representative Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) wrote the bill known as the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act or H.R. 4088. The focus of the bill is two-fold: It provides funding, bodies, and equipment for securing the border including more fence, and it requires employers to make sure all current and prospective employees are legal. For this last requirement, all employers must comply within 4 years—large employers (over 250 employees) get 1 year, and progressively smaller companies get more time. All will be required to use the eVerify program and respond to mismatch letters from the Social Security Administration.
This one is worth watching!
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Does that mean that food has, until the past decade, sat rotting in the fields because we didn't have enough illegals to do the work? Let's look at what history tells us. I'm old enough to remember how under Pres. Bush Sr., Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole worked with the INS and with a vengeance went after employers that were hiring illegals rounding up thousands of illegals and fining employers. She struck fear in the hearts of non-complying businesses. Going back a few years was Pres. Eisenhower's non-PC parlanced initiative Operation Wetback which is said to have cleared out nearly a million illegals in a year through forced and voluntary deportation. In a third example, Cesar Chavez led the United Farm Workers in a huge strike that was constantly sabotaged by illegal immigrant scabs who crossed the picket line. In response, Chavez led a march to the border with Walter Mondale and Ralph Abernathy (remember them?) demanding a stop to the illegals' crossings. It got so bad that Chavez' brother led strikers in patrolling the border beating up illegals they caught crossing into the U.S. In none of these cases is there any evidence that produce prices shot up significantly as a result of fewer illegal immigrant laborers.
Nine years ago, Senator Edward Kennedy, openly argued against illegal and temporary legal workers because of the high rate of unemployed U.S. agricultural workers. If you look at farming counties across the country this hasn't changed with unemployment rates in some California agricultural counties reaching over 16%. In other words, their aren't even enough picking jobs for U.S. citizen pickers to fill. With pickers in California averaging over $10 per hour, the 24% of farm laborers who are illegal must be saving some farmers at least a buck or two. Based on the number of workers and the labor cost per apple at 7 cents, however, we would be lucky to add a penny to the price of an apple if we sent illegals home and gave the jobs to U.S. citizens.
According to University of California professors in agricultural economics, it's silly to use higher prices as an argument to support an alleged "need" for illegal labor. The profs also make a strong case for not incenting farmers to grow labor-intensive crops and avoid investing in machinery by making it artificially easy to access cheap labor (as in the days of slavery in the South). Doing so, they argue, keeps the industry supporting low wages and harms the economy.
So on whose side is Feinstein? Consumers? Nope. Laborers? Not hardly. The union? Forget it. It looks like Dianne is only concerned about a handful of farm businesses that exploit labor for a little extra profit. And all this time I thought she was a liberal.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Mitt Romney- 50% chance to win the nomination. There are plenty of people that think this is insane, but I would argue that they are not paying close attention. Currently, Romney holds a very solid lead in Iowa (+13.5% RCP poll average), and a healthy lead in New Hampshire(+8% RCP average.) On top of that, he is running neck-and neck in Nevada, Michigan, and, surprisingly, South Carolina. That is the clincher that convinces me.
It just like in a close basketball game, you want the ball in your hands for the final play, and right now the ball is in Mitt’s hands. If he pulls his plan off, he has no need for luck, or for anybody else to slip up. He just needs to execute. Although this is by no means a guarantee for victory, it is the best position to be in.
It runs down like this:
On January 3rd it is almost a done deal that Iowa goes to Romney. A good showing, like is expected, will tip New Hampshire, where he already holds a lead, into his column (New Hampshire does not currently have a date set, but it must be the first primary in the nation by state law.) This likely provides a week of wall-to-wall Mittmania, especially if Hillary wins Iowa and New Hampshire, as Mitt will likely be viewed as an upset by those who haven’t been paying attention (which is most of America.) Most everybody paying casual attention would think that Rudy has this thing wrapped up, and two big Romney wins will be a surprise to them. I wouldn’t really expect the news media to try to tone things down with a “this was an expected outcome” storyline either. Surprise and upsets sell.
Fast forward to the 15th in Michigan. If Romney had to handpick a midwestern state, this would be it, as it is probably the only place outside of Utah where his family name holds any weight. Although, admittedly, most will be too young to remember his father, George, some still do, and it is an excellent starting point, along with the fact that he spent time growing up in Michigan. I find it hard to believe that a Mitt Romney, fresh off two important victories does not extend his current 5.2% RCP average poll lead over Rudy Giuliani to a victory.
At this point, there will only be three credible candidates, as all of the Tier two candidates will have been neutralized, and either McCain or Thompson will have been beaten bad enough to be marginalized (I think it will be Fred.) Next up is Nevada and South Carolina. Polls have been all over the place in Nevada, but I have to believe that a surging Romney takes Nevada as well.
South Carolina, however, is the linchpin. Should Romney take South Carolina, the nomination is his. I would argue this is true even should he win South Carolina, but drop any one of the previous states. The build up of momentum is designed for this outcome. Even as far as recently as last week, I thought South Carolina an impossibility. According the the RCP average, South Caorlina is a dead heat between Mitt, Rudy, and Fred with McCain not far behind. I would suspect that much of Fred’s support would melt to McCain, but there will be a chunk that would Move to Mitt, and due to Romney’s momentum he would pick up the plurality of undecideds.
Meanwhile, Giuliani will have been on a month long losing streak, often placing third or worse before Florida finally appears on the schedule. I don’t believe he survives this.
Keep in mind, however, that any state Mitt loses prior to Florida drops him 20% in his chances to receive the nomination. The effect is cumulative
John McCain- 10% chance to win the nomination. This will likely cause anger in some quarters, but it is actually a significant improvement over a couple of months ago, where I would have given him no chance at all. Quite frankly the Surge in Iraq strategy could not have realistically went better, and he rightfully has reaped much of the credit, giving him a second life. He should continue to reclaim much of the support that bled to Fred Thompson as McCain’s campaign floundered.
However, unless McCain ties his newfound energy into some very specific results, it will be for naught. It all comes down to New Hampshire. McCain must win here or he is done. Currently he is 12 to 13 percentage points behind Romney, but is within the margin of error with Rudy for second. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of Thompson support in New Hampshire to grab, so it will be an uphill climb. McCain does have considerable infrastructure in New Hampshire, moreso than Giuliani but less than Romney.
What McCain needs is for Huckabee to overperform in Iowa, either giving Romney a close race, or beating him outright. A weakened Romney would be ripe for a McCain upset in New Hampshire. McCain supporters should be hoping for a good couple months from Huckabee, especially as they would be prime candidates for defection to McCain in later rounds as Huckabee’s campaign begins to fizzle.
Should McCain win New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina become possibilities. If McCain can take these states, he is likely to unite those opposed to Giuliani which puts him in a very good position.
Rudy Giuliani- 40% chance to win the nomination. His pathway is quite simple. All he needs to have happen is for McCain and Romney’s plans to fail and he is the nominee. I would have rated his chances of success higher but for the notion that he has no way to proactively stop either candidate. His campaign infrastructure in the early states is rather weak and he seems to have placed all of his marbles in to Florida, which was a decent strategy assuming a split field with Romney, McCain, and Thompson offsetting each other in previous state wins. Should Romney or McCain dominate leading up to Florida, Rudy is likely to find himself in a spot of trouble, as his 10 percent lead in Florida would be susceptible to a surge, especially as other candidates fall away. He will have taken quite a beating from the media as well if he has not won any states prior to Florida as he is the presumed national front runner. Howard Dean was done with or without the scream, and Rudy would find himself in much the same position.
Any state that Rudy wins before Florida increases his odds of the nomination by 20% except Nevada which increases him 10%.
Fred Thompson- No chance for the nomination. This may seem harsh, but Fred is already losing ground to a much stronger McCain and holds no advantage in any early state. To top it off, his trend line is diving, and I can envision no scenario outside of another candidate withdrawing for health reasons or severe scandal that revives his campaign.
He peaked too early, and wasted too much time while other candidates built early state infrastructure. He has been outworked by every other candidate, up to and including Ron Paul.
Mike Huckabee- No chance for the nomination. Should he close Romney’s lead in Iowa in any poll to less than 5%, I may revisit his chances. I’m still not sure that a even a win in Iowa catapults him enough down the road, although it could certainly doom Romney.
Ron Paul- No chance for the nomination. I think that he started from too far back to be in the running this time. He may be a serious player in 2012, especially if Hillary wins, and more especially if Iraq is neutralized as an issue by that time. Anybody who does not take the Paul phenomenon seriously is not paying attention, however. Today alone he has raised more than one million dollars. I suspect that Ron Paul will be a factor even after this election cycle is over.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
In March 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the undocumented population ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals, a number supported by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). Pew estimated that 57% of this population comes from Mexico and about half of them are illegal;
So, if ALL are "undocumented," how is it that only "half of them are illegal?" Okay, I may be naive, but I actually believe I know who is buried in Grant's tomb. Maybe I should rethink that.
...This had to come from a politician. :)
Friday, November 02, 2007
Here is his latest gem:
Even though there is probably half a napkin's worth of issues that we may agree on, this is quite simply the best take down of the "temporary checkpoints are more effective" myth that has been done in the local blogosphere (although I am not sure that this was the reason he authored the post).
I'll repeat what I have always said. There are many reasons to prefer temporary checkpoints to permanent checkpoints, and some of them may be good reasons, especially for the communities where they are erected. However, NONE of those reasons have anything to do with more effectively enforcing or patrolling traffic coming across the border either as contraband or illegal immigration. If this is your main concern, permanent checkpoints are always the better way to go.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
A) Lena has started a whole new series of business ventures to supplement her meager state legislative representative's income, including Payday loans, online poker, and love spells.
B) She forgot to reregister her domain name and someone "hijacked" it. Or. .
C) She came to the realization the "Saradnik" is misspelled as often as "Humphries" and is going to drop her last name on her new website and go by "Lena" (Kind of like Cher and Madonna)
Obviously I think "C" to be the correct answer, but I am really pulling for "A."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Read in the article about how defense earmarks are unabashedly redirected into other non-defense programs. Of course, I'm sure the money received under the table has NO impact on the decisions of our congressmen in the matter of promoting and re-directing earmarks.
Despite the fact that the voting public not surprisingly expressed their outrage over corruption and out-of-control spending by voting out the GOP, it seems those who rode the wave in missed the memo since four of the top six porkers are Democrats. And what was that approval rating, again?
On a positive note, even though Jerry Lewis (R., CA) picked up third place., we're happy to report Dean Martin, Arizona State Treasurer, has kept his distance from Jerry and maintains a stellar reputation in his office. (Sorry, it was a weak attempt).
Monday, October 29, 2007
The Council is reporting that the $200,000 would send hundreds of needy kids to summer camp. That's a real shame.
It seems that Philadelphia city officials have forgotten what that bell in the middle of town is for. Apparently, it's not for the kids. It's for those who want to use others as pawns for their political agendas.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Rev. Don Wilton, who is the immediate past president of the Southern Baptist Convention in South Carolina has flipped on lhis support for Romney, although he hasn't officially endorsed Huckabee. CBS originally reported John Willke, past president of the National Right To Life Committee, as having withdrawn support from Romney, but that turned out to be a case of mistaken identity between Wilton and Willke. Willke, along with Bob Jones, are still key evangelicals in the Romney camp. Evangelical blogger, Joe Carter, has now abandoned Thompson for Huckabee, a possible preview of more shifting to come. It will be interesting to see where the Thompson supporters end up between Huckabee and Romney.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
By Frank Antenori
This past week many of us followed the theatrics of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Media Matters idiots as they tried to spin a comment Rush Limbaugh made about a poser named Jesse Macbeth. Macbeth became the poster boy for the anti-war left group called Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) when he claimed to be an Army Ranger that saw U.S. atrocities first hand in Iraq.
The problem was that Macbeth was a liar; he never served in Iraq, wasn’t an elite Ranger and was kicked out of the Army after only 42 days in basic training because the wimp couldn’t cut the training. The FBI investigated Macbeth under the Stolen Valor Act and a court found him guilty of fraud, sentencing him to five months in Federal Prison. Rush was simply responding to a caller that pointed out many of these so called anti-war vets were actually phonies like Macbeth, many never served in combat and some hadn’t even served in the military. Rush rightly called them “Phonies.”
While Harry Ried and the Democrats were busy putting on their usual "We Support the Troops" facade, once again using soldiers as political pawns to score political points, real issues involving support for our troops went ingnored.
One of the most pressing military issues that illustrate the breathtaking mismatch between the Democrat rhetoric and their actions involves taking care of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation is known as the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007 (H.R.1538, S.1283).
The bill currently languishes in conference committee. For months the House and Senate have been sitting on their respective versions of “wounded warrior” legislation designed to overhaul the confusing and contradictory military and VA health care systems. This noble legislation is overwhelmingly supported by both parties and passed in the House back in March by a vote of 426-0.
Some of the things the legislation does includes expanding treatment and rehab alternatives for injured troops; ease their transition between the incompatible military and VA systems; and revamp today’s muddled and unfair disability ratings system.
Usually, such defense related legislation would be lumped into the broader defense authorization bill. However, recognizing that the defense bill would likely become bogged down in disputes over Iraq policy, the House and Senate leaders of both parties decided months ago to strip the wounded warrior legislation out and make it a separate, standalone bill. The bill was supposed to put it on a fast track to President Bush’s desk in order to be signed by Memorial Day.
But the wounded warrior bill is inexplicably stuck in the muck in the House and Senate for no reason other than that Congress just hasn’t gotten around to dealing with it.
A few weeks ago, I attended a veteran’s town hall hosted by Congresswoman Giffords. Gabby handed out a fact sheet of all the “wonderful things” she’s doing for veterans. For those of you that don’t know, Ms. Giffords sits on the House Armed Services Committee, the very committee which has oversight on this bill.
Well Miss Giffords, why is this legislation stalled? Are you too busy counting your MoveOn.org money? Too busy helping Harry and Nancy chase after Rush? Too busy planning for your upcoming wedding?
Well while you and your fellow Democrats jerk around playing politics and hire caterers, five to seven troops are wounded or injured in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. In typical fashion, Democrats continue to speak loudly but do little as usual.
There is simply no excuse for this delay. If Democrats truly “support the troops,” as they so often proclaim, they should rethink their priorities and finish the wounded warrior bill.
Frank Antenori is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces veteran that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, published author and candidate for the Arizona State Legislature in District 30.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Here’s the deal: the bill references for enforcement the National Wilderness Preservation System which prohibits “permanent or temporary roads, mechanical transports, and structures or installations… landing of aircraft,” etc... While the Act does reference a few exceptions, it’s clear that these restrictions cannot be reconciled with the border fence and the obvious need for Border Patrol agents to chase smugglers around the desert. Essentially, this corridor will be off-limits to the Border Patrol crime-fighting machine.
But as the Ronco super duper gadget guy says, “Wait! There’s more!” Check out Grijalva’s HR 2593 The Borderlands Conservation and Security Act of 2007 that calls for removing authority and responsibility from the federal government for border entry barrier decisions and replaces the border fence with “less intrusive” alternatives. Granted, it designates money to clean up some of the paths trodden by smugglers—it would be a shame if one of them stubbed a toe in route to a drop—but without Border Patrol agents and security infrastructure to keep people out, it’s a bit like seeding your dog run and expecting a beautiful patch of green grass to emerge.
We have so many no-tolerance policies these days that it’s hard to understand why we would be so compromising when it comes to protecting our families from criminals. Let’s see…one more wilderness area or protection from drug smugglers. It doesn’t seem too tough to me.
It looks like voters will have to turn to CD8 candidate Chewning in 2008 if it’s real protection they want.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
1. Stop using children as pawns to advance your ideology. If you cannot make an argument on its merits, then you have no right to be making it. Honestly, placing your children willingly into a political firestorm is just idiotic and does not reflect that greatly on you as a parent or a politician.
2. Both the Frosts and the Wilkersons QUALIFY FOR THE EXISTING PROGRAM. There are over 500,000 other children who qualify for the program that the Democratic plan leaves behind. How about we come to an agreement on getting those children covered before moving straight to Socialism light?
3. If your program is so important, then it should be no problem calling on your core supporters to bear the lion's share of the burden. If the funds for this program were going to be taxed from trial lawyers, along with the sale of bumper stickers, Barbara Streisand DVDs, and frilly drinks with umbrellas, I might take the howling with a little more sympathy. Reaching out to once again hit tobacco users should scare the snot out of people who see where that road is going. Tomorrow the disfavored underclass may be you.
Now that I have finished with my own emotional editorializing, a new USA Today poll shows that the S-CHIP issue may not be the slam dunk issue Democrats thought it was.
Of course, Democrats will stick with emotionalism, thank you:
• 52% agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level — about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% say benefits should go to families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.
• 55% are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance. Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care.
Taken together, the results show that while Bush may be losing the political battle with Democrats, he may be doing better on policy.
Mike Leavitt, Bush's secretary of Health and Human Services, said the policy is most important. "There's a lot of politics going on right now. But the politics will last a matter of weeks," Leavitt said Monday. "The policy here will go on for decades. We have to get this right."
We'll see Rahm, We'll see. . .
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said other polls have shown a much bigger edge for Democrats. "This debate is set up," he said. "It's set up about 10 million children or not."
I suspect a veto couple with a bill to guarantee the coverage of those 500,000 families just like the Frosts and the Wilkersons would dim much of the political furor, especially if it guaranteed the quality of care offered.
Would Reid and Pelosi allow the passage of such a bill?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Even though politicians are known for playing on the ignorance of the people as in the case of the Bush-Gore vote count where ignorance of election processes and laws still leads many Democrats to ridiculous conclusions, the Desert Museum situation demonstrates that many are capable of exercising their ignorance all on their own.
According to the US Code for treatment of the flag, "the flag should be displayed daily on or near the main administration building of every public institution." The Desert Museum doesn't receive direct tax support, so it is not a public institution and is not required to fly a flag. I suppose it could be argued that since it does exist on county land in a very favorable arrangement the museum could be pressed to fly the flag, but it would be a stretch to demand it. Of course, most would think that any organization that serves the community would also show that it's a part of the community by flying the U.S. flag, which is probably at least part of the reason they always did it.
As for proper display:
"§175. Position and manner of display
(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America... No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof..."
The next section seems a bit contradictory:
"(g) When flags of two or more nations are displayed, they are to be flown from separate staffs of the same height. The flags should be of approximately equal size. International usage forbids the display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation in time of peace."
As seen in the olympics, sporting events, etc., it appears that the statement about flying flags at equal height has been widely accepted for many years. And since this is an issue of representing interests over a common geographic area that crosses an international border, and the two flags merely illustrate that defined area, flying the Mexican flag to the left of the U.S. flag at equal heights seems perfectly appropriate.
For concerned citizens, this morning when I called the Desert Museum I was told that the flags were back up and flying appropriately as stated in the U.S. code.
Thank you trustees for getting the answers and making a wise decision.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
As a result of Michigan's January 15 date, some Democratic candidates are vowing to stay clear of Michigan and leave the campaigning to others. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson all took their names off the ballot in protest. Hillary Clinton kept her name on. Although Michigan has not traditionally been a key state, removing oneself from the ballot seems like an extreme and foolhearty way to make a point. Hillary, wisely, shows she is in this race to win—further evidence that she will use her wits to take all the marbles for the Dems.
Why would he do such a thing do you ask? Maybe because he can...and has a few loose screws bouncing around upstairs.
It's never been clearer than today that protecting life from those who value it only as something to amuse is essential. With people like this demonstrating such serious lack of judgement, self respect, and consideration for others who may have to see this self-imposed freakiness, it's hard to think of them somehow developing these attributes in other matters.
Although Vic had originally stated to some that he would not be running, rumours of his change of heart had been heard for some time. So, it wasn't particularly surprising when he made his announcement today.
No other Republicans have indicated interest in running for the two seats in '08.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Tonight, Thompson gets to step into the ring in his first debate with GOP presidential candidates. Unfortunately for Thompson, debating is not his forte. Without the support of key conservative leaders, he has to shine in front of his sizable, but somewhat, shaky support base. This isn't a "do or die" situation for Thompson, but important, nevertheless. Tonight, he will need to let his base know he is THE conservative choice for president and a serious, long-term contender defending himself against accusations from detractors that he's a flash-in-the-pan glamour candidate. Tonight's the night for Thompson to impress.
Monday, October 08, 2007
1. Your sign must be red, white, blue, or all of the above.
2. Signs that are different colors than the standard stand out more.
3. Signs make little to no difference in convincing voters
4. Generally a sign is all a voter will see of your campaign
5. Signs are only important to your supporters as it validates their decision to vote for you.
6. Only place signs in the yards of supporters
7. It is very important to have signs in the usual places to show you have presence
8. It doesn't matter where you put signs in Oro Valley, you will have to move them
Some of these are probably truer than others, especially #8. What I am looking to document are laws that ALWAYS hold true. Here is one I learned a long time ago:
Any campaign that states "We believe that we have a chance to bring out non-traditional voters." might as well say, "We believe that we are doomed and have no chance at winning this election."
Another that I was given recently is "Never wear shorts anywhere will you will be singled out a a candidate. It will make you look like you are twelve. In the event that you will not appear to be a teenager, no one wants to see your legs anyway."
I'm going to add a Theorem to this, that has yet to be proven, but one that I strongly suspect will especially be in play in the coming cycle.
Voters are not going to be interested in ALL CAPS issues. Frankly, it a appears that outrages, especially contrived outrage, is going to be out. Quite frankly the voter population will be able to see through that, and is tired of it anyway. That doesn't mean that they cannot be moved to action, but Hysteria will not be rewarded.
I'll do my best to document my reasoning behind this in the coming days.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Small sample, interesting trend as people seem to be distancing themselves from the current president. A more thorough survey might help us understand what this means beyond the typical knee-jerk explanations by those who dislike the president. Consider that there may be little agreement about WHAT approaches people would want changed with a new president. For example, most strong borders advocates hate the president's stance on amnesty, but strongly support winning the war in Iraq. Likewise, those who might support the president's amnesty proposals typically hate his position on the war.
It's too bad this poll wasn't large and comprehensive enough to tell us something more meaningful.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The primary issues? Practicality, pollution, cost, availability, and safety/security. And, Christine Todd Whitman advocates nuclear energy as today's anwer.
Here are some considerations cited by Whitman: Nuclear energy is a practical solution. It's clean. The cost of uranium accounts for 26% of production costs at nuclear plants whereas coal eats up 78% of total coal plant production costs making nuclear power very affordable. I would add that uranium is available domestically. U.S. engineers have been for years successfully designing and building (cost-effectively) nuclear power plants all over the world, and nuclear plants are considered our "best defended targets" in safety and security. Even the radiation threat often cited by detractors is seriously overstated. According to Whitman, "Even if you lived next door to a nuclear power plant, you would still be exposed to less radiation each year then you would receive in just one round-trip flight from New York to Los Angeles." And nuclear energy is proven in Asia and Europe where France generates 76% of its electricity through nuclear power plants.
Now, for the opportunity. Consider this: California's policy of build-it-somewhere-else has already caused severe damage to the state making California dependent on everyone else for its power needs. Moratoriums on building power plants, bans on coal, wind and nuclear-generated electricity, and various other power-limiting legislation will continue to take its toll. In fact, it's questionable as to whether or not they will even be able to meet current needs with the latest restrictions on power imports. Of course, California's folly has been Arizona's gain as here in Southern Arizona the ant-like Springville Generating Station has been expanding and exporting electricity to our grasshopper neighbors reaping huge profits, at times. With the new law in California, they may have to turn their attention elsewhere, but, California will likely come back once electricity costs reach the levels of a few years ago and residents begin experiencing rolling blackouts once again.
While few states are as short-sided as California, many states still find themselves short on power, particularly in the summer months, and would prefer clean alternatives. Here's an opportunity you might have to see to believe, but at least you wouldn't have to smell it. Why not build nuclear power plants in remote areas of the state that would not only generate high paying jobs in many depressed areas, but would export something clean while pumping revenue back into the Arizona economy? Few power companies are interested in building large power plants due to financing issues, but the state could provide some leadership in this area to stimulate interest in making Arizona a clean power exporting state. Add to the nuclear power generation breakthroughs in solar and wind power, and you have a new state industry that's clean and lucrative.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Here’s some interesting data from 2005, the only year for which the government has provided complete data. I wonder if it will be the only year. Anyway, from the data we learn that lobbying does indeed pay…handsomely, in fact, to the tune of 28 times the investment. In other words, for every dollar invested by a company in lobbying, $28 is returned in earmark revenue. BW also tells us that the top 20 most successful lobbyists are pulling down $100 for every buck spent. The most effective lobbyists work for Scientific Research raking in 344% of lobbying dollars spent.
With defense spending comprising the largest share of the budget, it should come as no surprise that defense contractors dominate the receiving end of the biggest earmarks. In fact, our own Raytheon merits number 5 on the list.
Curiously, the Alaska Railroad ranks 7 in “Bang for the Buck” with $168 for every dollar spent. Maybe the railroad was destined to ride the bridge to nowhere before nowhere became a reality.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Will all this amount to a new Obama surge? It has yet to be seen where Obama ends up in fundraising and how effective is his use of all that extra cash. Now that the polls suggest the Clinton shell is showing cracks, an Obama surge in the next quarter could show some interesting results.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Let's see...here's the guy who has been sending missiles and foreign insurgents to kill American soldiers He is a violater of the U.N. Charter because he openly rallies nearby nations to destroy Israel (a fellow UN member nation), was identified as a leader in the kidnapping of Americans in Tehran in 1979, harbors al-qaeda terrorists, and is a known sponsor of terrorism worldwide—certainly somebody you want your 17-year old daughter to meet at school. It's educational, after all.
No doubt at this time next year there will be some other maniac responsible for the deaths of Americans they can warmly embrace at the university. Of course, in the interest of academic freedom, we must search out such people so as get the truth and not be misled by our own generals trying to fight a war, right?
Thank you Columbia University for proving once again that the heart of ignorance thrives in intellectual arrogance.
In all seriousness, it's an interesting and informative gadget. You select the presidential candidate for whom you plan to vote. Then you select your position on a variety of issues along with the issue's importance to you. The calculator then reveals your true love compared with who you said you were planning to support. Various menus tell you others who may be close matches, those at the bottom of the list, etc. Obviously, it has limitations since it doesn't cover every issue and there is some subjectivity on candidate positions. But it's fun to play with.
Friday, September 21, 2007
OK, so it had nothing to do with politics, it wasn't pre-planned, and I was just preparing to stuff my face at the Greek Festival. And to top it off, I didn't know about the appearance until someone told me that they saw me on the news last night.
Nevertheless, how many other LD candidates were on television in the past week?
By the way, if you don't have any plans this weekend, you should really do the Greek Festival.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Apparently, they haven't discovered tasers yet at Columbia University.
Arrr, it bears repeatin', because thar be still so many that be confused. Arrr, the freedom o' speech does not cancel out the consequences o' your speech, nor does it cancel the effects o' resistin' the king's men which IS an arrestable offense.
And if you be goin' t' act the martyr, do so with dignity and class. Gar. Aye, e'en had they shot the boy and sent him sleepin' in Davy Jones' locker , I would suspect that a majority o' Americans would have supported the measure if polled. A pence for an old man o'de sea?
Aye, now imagine the fit that would have been thrown if it had been Dick Cheney speakin' rather than John Kerry.
* Today is National Speak like a Pirate Day
Friday, September 14, 2007
Rudy Giuliani appears to be suggesting that only felonies are crimes and misdemeanors are not. If this had been an isolated statement, I would suggest he was caught responding poorly in a difficult moment. But he's a bright guy who has responded to this question similarly a number of times, so I have to believe he is convinced that not all crimes are really crimes. I wonder what his criteria is if it's not based on what's a law and what isn't. Is it the line between felony and misdemeanor as suggested by his statements?
Not to pick on Rudy, but I think this is a legitimate question someone should ask at the next debate. After all, the executive branch of government is responsible for administering the laws and, I'm sure, many would want to be reassured that the laws would not be selectively enforced with Giuliani as president.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Even though the fireball express wasn't bound for the U.S., it took just 1 day for the Senate to act on a previously House-passed ammendment (to a transportation funding bill) voting 74-24 to shut down the pilot trucking program. The bill was sponsored by Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa in a bi-partisan effort focused on previous safety problems with Mexican trucks and an obvious reaction to the explosion. No doubt, Hoffa and the Teamsters had some influence as Senators look forward to next year's elections and upcoming presidential primaries.
What's interesting about the vote is that it attached an ammendment to a bill President Bush has already said he would veto because it's too bloated. That bill also carries funding for bridge repairs even though the Transportation budget already carries funding for that purpose. This puts President Bush in a position of having to kill the bill risking criticism that he doesn't support fixing the collapsing bridge problem. Those who vote for the ammendment get to report to the Teamsters that they did all they could to save union jobs, but Bush vetoed the bill. At this point, it looks more like Senators were making a statement rather than standing up for the Teamsters. In any case, more questions have been raised about who really supports the NAFTA trucking program which appears to be in jeopardy.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
In Ward 2, with 73% of the vote in, Republicans have turned out 4,705 votes with 4053 early ballots. Of that 3835 votes went to Lori Oien.
Democrats have turned out 4,429 with 3711 early ballots and 3646 votes going to Rodney Glassman
Dan Spahr has received 2708 votes compared with 2813 for Shirley Scott with Dan collecting 15 more early votes.
In not sure of what this will mean as far as an overall predictive value of the general, but it does appear that we can surmise 2 things.
1. Republican voter apathy for the coming cycle may be generally overrated.
2. Lori and Dan are plain outworking their competition, especially in the early ballot area.
Congratulations to Lori and Dan.
Looks like Gabrielle is linked to MoveOn.org by a $5,000 donation. Will she repudiate their despicable ad against Petraeus?
Monday, September 10, 2007
It seems that MoveOn.org has purchased a full page ad in the New York Times titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us." It would seem that the leadership of MoveOn.org and their Democratic supporters in Congress have now decided to question Petraeus' patriotism at the least and are quite possibly accusing him of treason. Nice. I'm sure that it will go well for them.
And just to be sure, this isn't an uncoordinated assault from a far left fringe group. From the Politico:
“No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,” noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. “The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.”
I'm certain that Democrats will step up to defend the general that they confirmed by a unanimous vote to lead our forces, right? If he was such a serial liar, why put him in the post, especially as he was up front about what he was going to do.
Here is a great response from our senator Jon Kyl:
It’s repugnant, but unfortunately not surprising, to see Moveon.org launch this despicable ad campaign against General Petraeus.
The Senate had absolute confidence in General Petraeus when it unanimously confirmed him earlier this year. Because of organizations like Moveon.org and its affiliations with the leftist, liberal wing of the Democratic Party, the question arises whether this ad represents the stance of all Democrats.
If not, it is time for the Democratic leadership to announce whether it stands with Moveon.org or whether it stands behind the general Democrats unanimously confirmed – and his military strategy – to carry out our mission in Iraq.
We’re beginning to see real, measurable progress in Iraq since the increased troop levels earlier this year, and despite this fact, Moveon.org has chosen to engage in slanderous and partisan personal attacks on the commander of our troops on the ground. Because Moveon.org seems unable to contest the facts, it has instead chosen to attack the messenger because it doesn’t like the message.
I can’t imagine any act more despicable than personally attacking our troops. I call on all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to repudiate Moveon.org and any organizations that launch personal and slanderous attacks on our brave men and women who’ve laid down their lives to protect our nation.
I believe that we will have to wait for an assessment of the political ramifications before we hear any response from the Democrats. After all, it is quite clear that this is the only measure that they are actually interested in. Profiles in courage, the lot of them.
Update- From our other senator, John McCain:
In today's New York Times, the anti-war group MoveOn.org launched a McCarthyite attack on an American patriot and our commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. This is a man who has devoted his life in service to our nation and has defended America in many battles over many years. Now he is the target of a despicable attack in one our nation's most visible newspapers. No matter where you stand on the war, we should all agree on the character and decency of this exceptional American. I would hope that the Democratic Congressional leadership and Democratic presidential candidates would also join me in publicly condemning this kind of political attack ad and the organization responsible for it in the strongest terms possible.
Friday, September 07, 2007
What had Ted Kennedy done to deserve such attacks from his base? He committed the unpardonable. Shockingly, he put personal interest ahead of principle trying to kill a wind farm that disturbs his view from his yacht. He certainly doesn't have a monopoly on hypocrisy. But it's hard to understand why Ted would be singled out in light of Save The Planet Al Gore's outrageous electricity, gasoline, and fuel jet usage.
Maybe Ted's defense created some of the rancor Al's been spared. Here's what Melissa Wagoner, a Kennedy spokesman, said: The senator opposes the wind farm for economic and environmental reasons. She added: ‘‘He also doesn’t believe it’s appropriate to hand any one developer 25 square miles of public property on a no-bid basis and before national standards for offshore wind farms are in place to protect coastal communities.’’
Yeah, right. Nice try, Ted. But here's the infamous quote that really got Ted into trouble: "But don't you realize - that's where I sail!"
I think that qualifies as a "gotcha" moment.