Bush is writing the Petraeus Report!!

Remember a little while back when The liberal blogosphere was all up in arms that George Bush would write the Petraeus report!

In the comments section of a previous post I expressed skepticism of this based on how the news was "broke." A single line from a Los Angeles Times story about other aspects of the report states:

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

Aaand the world came to an end.

For those interested in the truth of the matter, actual in-depth analysis of this showstopper can be found here:

The author outlines Public Law 110-28, "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007" (isn't that a mouthful) which lays clear the responsibility and format that the September reports are to be delivered:

(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.

(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.

[...]

(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.

(again thanks to Q and O for the quote.)

So the correct passage from the Times article should have read:

By law passed by the a majority Democrat congress in 2007, the President will prepare the report including evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense.

Both Crocker and Petraeus will also be required by the same law to appear in both public and closed hearings before congress.

I assume that the reporter knew this but chose to omit these details on purpose, which is why the lack of follow through on the snippet either in this story or in a subsequent article.

And I don't blame x4mr, as he was not dealt with fairly by the original source.

Frank Has Skin In The Game

Our sources tell us Frank Antenori filed his papers today and is now an official candidate for the state House of Representatives in District 30. Expect him to make a formal announcement in the next couple of weeks.

Congratulations and good luck, Frank!

Line 'em up

It appears that we will be getting some GOP presidential primary attention after all, if the latest ASU/KNXV-TV Poll is to be believed:

John McCain 24%
Mitt Romney 19%
Rudy Giuliani 18%
Fred Thompson 17%

All four leading candidates are within the margin of error, and thanks to our Governor, we are now a super-duper Tuesday state.

It should be fun.

From Monks to Mailmen: Democrat Fundraising 101

From Monks to Mailmen: Democrat Fundraising 101
By Frank Antenori
August 28, 2007

Lesson 1: “No Controlling Legal Authority”

During the 1996 campaign, Vice President Gore made forty-five money-raising phone calls from his White House office. Gore claimed that there was "no controlling legal authority" that prohibited his shaking down donors from the Vice President’s office, although the statute that bans solicitations in and from federal offices, the Pendleton Act, had been on the books since 1883.

Did he think the law lapsed once he moved into the West Wing or did Al Gore pioneer the Cheney defense by claiming his office wasn’t part of the Federal Government, long before Cheney's wasn’t part of the Executive Branch?

Of course Janet Reno's Justice Department sided with Gore, on the grounds that all his calls had been made to raise “soft” money for the DNC not “hard” money for Clinton-Gore. But when leaked notes of a 1995 fundraising powwow in the White House Map Room showed that both hard and soft money was to be raised; that Gore volunteered to make calls from his office; and that he followed the discussions closely, Gore denied having been at the meeting.

Then when Secret Service records showed Gore was actually present, Gore said he must have missed the “sexy parts” since he took so many bathroom breaks on account of all the iced tea he drank that day.

Janet Reno once again came to the rescue, deciding there was only "weak circumstantial evidence" that Gore violated Federal Law. Either she was blatantly covering up a crime or was too stupid to see what was happening in front of her nose.

And to think that Alberto Gonzales gets run out of town on a rail for his pathetic Senate testimony where he made a lame excuse for legally firing U.S. attorneys and Janet Reno covers up actual crimes and gets nothing but R-E-S-P-E-C-T from the media for her decision.

Lesson 2: Poor Monks = Big Money

In April 1996, Al Gore made a fundraising visit to the Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, Calif. The DNC got $65,000 and Clinton-Gore got $35,000 in illegal contributions "donated" by monks and nuns who had taken vows of poverty.

When the media questioned the visit, Gore described it as "community outreach" - Again Gore didn't conclude, from the robes and the sign that read “Buddhist Temple”, that he might be in a religious establishment prohibited, by law, from making campaign contributions to parties or candidates. Maybe Gore drank too much green tea and had to pee again while the checks were being written.

Once again Janet Reno said no laws were broken by then VP Gore but after three of the nuns testified to Congress in 1998 that the temple reimbursed them and others for $55,000 in donations made to the DNC and Clinton-Gore, Reno was forced to investigate.

Rather than indict soon to be Presidential Candidate Al Gore of violating federal campaign finance laws, conspiracy and perjury, the Reno Justice Department drummed up six felony counts against Maria Hsia, a Taiwanese-born immigration consultant and Democratic fundraiser who steered Gore through his temple visit.

A Clinton appointed Judge later dismissed five of the six felony counts letting the conspiracy charge stand. Hsia was later sentenced by another Clinton appointee to 90 days home detention and three years probation.

Lesson 3: If it worked for Hubby it’ll work for me

In today’s Wall Street Journal, probably the last decent newspaper left in the country, is a headline: Big Source of Clinton's Cash Is an Unlikely Address

In the article, Journal reporter Brody Mullins brings attention to another creative Clinton fundraising technique: Shake down the Mailman!

Mullins discovered an address on the FEC website that is one of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton. The address, 41 Shelbourne Ave. in San Francisco, a tiny, 1280 sq ft, lime-green bungalow, owned by 64-year-old U.S. postal worker William Paw.


Paw, whose salary is less than $49,000 a year and lives with his unemployed wife have somehow managed to donate over $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005. That includes $45,000 donated to Hillary for her Senate and Presidential campaign funds.

The couple's four grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to "attendance liaison" at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund. All six Paws have contributed “the Max” of $4,600 to Hillary’s Presidential campaign.

To add to the “mystery” the Paws' political donations closely track donations made by Norman Hsu, a wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry who once listed the Paw home as his address, according to public records.

Mr. Hsu just happens to be one of the top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.

Kent Cooper, a former disclosure official with the Federal Election Commission, said the two-year pattern of donations (by the Paws and Hue) justifies a probe of possible violations of campaign-finance law, which forbid one person from reimbursing another to make contributions.

"There are red lights all over this one," Mr. Cooper said.

Don’t you just love the hypocrisy?

Of course Clinton Inc. will probably protect Hillary from any air of illegal activity. Hiding in the bathroom seemed to work for Gore; maybe Hillary should start drinking tea. I can see Hillary running for the bathroom now! Run Hillary Run!

Frank Antenori is a retired Special Forces Soldier and a former candidate for the Republican nomination for Congress in Congressional District Eight.

Maricopa consultant for Southern Arizona race?

We had heard that Tim Bee might be retaining the services of Nathan Sproul. Bee was warned by persons in Maricopa County and even some locals not to use Sproul or to at least minimize his role. We were not going to cover the issue as it did not seem to be big news to us and we generally like Bee as a person and as an elected official. There does seen to be some friction between the state party and Nathan but that is the last thing we want to get involved in.

Last Friday Rum, Romanism and Rebellion picked up on the fact that Garrick Taylor seemed to now be working for Tim Bee. Tedski did not make the link to Sproul in his post but the comments certainly
did.

On Saturday Michael at Blog for Arizona covered the story but made a much bigger deal about the link to Nathan Sproul. Again we do not want to get involved in a dispute between different Republican factions from Maricopa County but we are perplexed as to why Senator Bee would have anything to do with Sproul. Rightly or wrongly Nathan has a certain reputation. Bee has a spotless record so it is surprising that he could not find some local talent or an out of state professional.

There are other reasons to be concerned about this development. Sproul and Associates is working for Wake Up Arizona! The group has threatened to oppose some of Bee’s fellow Republican legislators. We cannot imagine that will help Bee work with his colleagues while employing a firm trying to unseat them. Will Nathan continue his efforts to undermine the state party? Bee was probably not counting on the state party to win but why hire someone who is working against the chairman? Bee has enjoyed wide Republican support within CD-8 but our conversations reveal that Sproul makes conservative queasy. Why is a long-time Southern Arizonan like Bee going with an out of town guy, and from Maricopa County no less?

The biggest question about Sproul’s involvement is his win/loss record. Best we can tell it is pretty poor.

Tedski was polite in his opening pitch. We do not expect that to continue as voting day approaches. He is a Gabby fan and will make the most of this association. Michael was true to form and will happily continue the attack. Jim Nintzel at Tucson Weekly is probably licking his chops at this gift.

We are still planning on voting for Bee but if you are looking for an explanation of their choice in campaign consultants you will need to look elsewhere.

Alberto Gonzales' Eventuality Arrives

We said it was just a matter of time and the time has come. Alberto Gonzales has turned in his resignation.

While Gonzales' many missteps contributed to his eventual need to resign, the unfortunate truth is the Democrats will get credit for flexing enough muscle to punish the President for exercising his right to appoint U.S. attorneys. And the Dems will use the Attorney General nomination process as another opportunity to grandstand. Consequently, the whole point of what was truly wrong in that office will be lost to more partisan politics.

It's interesting to hear the silence from GOP presidential candidates. CBS writer, David Miller, gives a useful analysis of why they are keeping mum:

So far, the leading Republican candidates haven't released statements on Gonzales' announcement. This doesn't imply they're fans of the departing attorney general — if they were, we would have seen press releases thanking Gonzales for his service. Rather, it points to the difficulties Republicans face in this election. Voters in their own party know they can't win with a candidate who sticks too closely to the president, yet polls show they still support Mr. Bush in large numbers. And supporting the president would hurt their electability among independent voters in the general election.

Zogby Validates Iowa Straw Poll

According to the latest Zogby Poll, Romney has captured the hearts of likely Iowa caucus goers while Giuliani and McCain continue to slip. While Romney jumped to 34%, Guilani lost 4% and McCain lost 12% since last May.

The Early Bird Gets ?

An interesting analysis on Rum, Romanism & Rebellion of the new Arizona presidential primary date now set at February 5th.

Cuba, the Next Health Care Paradise?

Today I listened to Canada's version of "All Things Considered" highlighting the inaugural speech given by Dr. Brian Day, the new chief of the Canadian Medical Association. In his speech, he said that the National Health Care Act that was "created when the Berlin Wall was being built" is outdated and needs to be revamped. Day backed his calls for change with studies showing Canada to be 30th in health care quality—the bottom of developed countries—and at the top in terms of costs. He said that the government wait list system causing people to wait months for tests and simple procedures was unacceptable to Canadians and the doctor shortage caused by the government system had to change. He also pointed out that 70% of the population had access to private care leaving the 30% without it forming a lower class of citizens. His calls for greater privatization were overwhelmingly supported by the association.

The fact that the Canadian system was a bad one has been well-known for decades by anyone living close to our northern neighbors. People waiting over a year for CAT scans and other common procedures seemed to end up in the USA when they decided it was either go to a private system or die.

So now where will Clinton, Obama, and Edwards turn when pushing their various forms of HillaryCare? Now that Canada admits its system is broken, will Cuba become the next health care paradise for Democrats?

Lunch with Trent Franks.

U.S. Congressman Trent Franks will be in town this Thursday, Aug. 23rd for a private lunch event and will give a briefing after the meal. Tickets for this special event are only $75 and will benefit the local Republican Party. To make reservations or ask questions please contact the Pima County Republican Party at hq@pimagop.org or 321-1492.

Congressman Franks was first elected to Congress in 2002 and serves on the Armed Services and Judiciary Committees. He was originally elected to the Arizona House of Representatives at the age of 27. Between his service in Congress and the Arizona House he helped found and served as the director of The Arizona Family Research Institute.

The congressman was last seen driving liberals up the wall with his unequivocal advocacy for conservative principles.

LD 30 Resolution Thanks Linda White

Yesterday, August 18th 2007, Precinct Committeewomen and Committeemen from Legislative District 30 met at the American Legion post on S. Houghton Road for their monthly meeting.

Under new business, former LD30 Chair Jim Coniglio raised a motion to honor the service of outgoing Pima County GOP Executive Director Linda White. A recommendation was made to adopt a resolution similar to the one approved by our fellow Republicans in LD26 earlier this month.

The motion was seconded by “Ike” Eisenhower.

LD30 Chairwoman Patti O’Berry then offered the following resolution to the quorum of 23 members present for a vote:

A VOTE OF THANKS AND SUPPORT FOR OUTGOING PIMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LINDA WHITE

WHEREAS, Linda White will no longer continue as the Executive Director of the Pima County Republican Party; and

WHEREAS, Linda has provided many years of tireless work and effort as a part of her duties in this position;

BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Republican Precinct Committeewomen and Committeemen of the Thirtieth Legislative District of Arizona, wish to thank Linda for her service, and express appreciation for representing us in other positions at district, county, and state level.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we do offer a vote of confidence and support to Linda White in her remaining positions and any further endeavors that she chooses to commence.

Adopted this 18th day of August, 2007, at the Monthly Meeting of for the District Thirty Committeewomen and Committeemen of the Republican Party of Arizona.

The resolution was approved unanimously by the body.

Chairwoman Patti O’Berry directed the proceedings be recorded into the minutes of the meeting.


As directed,

Frank Antenori
LD30 Secretary Pro-Tem

You can't handle the Truth!

Do you remember the movie "A Few Good Men?" Mostly it is quite forgettable outside of the last few moments which gives us the Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth!" speech. Nicholson's character is somehow "tricked" by a wily Tom Cruise to spill all of the beans of his military flavored corruption based on Cruise's superior sophistry.

Sometimes I get the feeling that there are many Democrats that believe that the same thing is going to happen this September when Gen. David Petraeus returns with his report on Iraq. Let me politely assure everybody that this will not be the case. In fact, I believe that Democrats are in for no small amount of trouble.

The biggest mistake people make when looking at the war is coming to the conclusion that most of America feels the way that they do about the conflict. This is a mistake made by both fervent supporters and detractors of the war. The truth is that no matter what your position is on the war, a majority of Americans do not agree in totality. Polling questions are far too narrow to adequately show the intricacies of how people are feeling about the war and under what circumstances they support or lose support for the entire operation. Because of this, what happens in September is very much up in the air, despite the gloom and doom that has taken place in the past year. Currently, I believe that there are three factors in play that are likely to change the paradigm that the war is viewed from once Petraeus gives his report.

1. If they ever had any moral autority on the war, Congressional Democrats have frittered it away. A recent Zogby poll shows that support for the way that Congress is handling the Iraq war has fallen to 3%. Now that is a combination, I'll admit, of people who don't like that Congress is trying to micromanage the war combined with those upset that Congress has not brought the troops home. But 3% is incredible. But there is cause for a lot of anger. Quite frankly the leadership of both Houses of Congress have not sought to do anything at all to help the war effort, or end it altogether. Instead, they have used it solely as a club to beat George Bush with, and that is all they ever intended to do.

Think about that for a second. These people have put themselves in a position of straddling a position that calls, on one hand, for poormouthing our soldiers' capability, conduct, and accomplishment, while on the other hand of never putting together a workable plan or coalition to draw down our forces or commitment. If Harry Reid truly believed the Surge was doomed to failure, he could have worked to prevent Petraeus's appointment. He did not, but rather waited until Petraeus got on the next plane to Iraq after confirmation and began to criticize and undercut him before he even touched ground.

The House has held symbolic vote after symbolic vote, but never did anything that actually put any real solutions into play or show courage in any way. Criticism without leadership is not patriotism.

Who on the Democratic side has any moral authority, not to mention intellectual facility to play Cruise to Petraeus's Nicholson?

Harry "The war is lost!" Reid
Jack "In cold blood!" Murtha?
Nancy Too busy to attend Petraeus briefing Pelosi
or perhaps,
Gabby "There are no terrorists in Iraq" Giffords.

There is not a single Democrat readily appearant to be up to the task of refuting anything Petraeus is going to report. The talent and depth of the current Democratic leadership and membership is just simply not there. You don't arrive at 3% by accident. Democrats are going to get rolled in John Roberts fashion.

2. Petraeus is going to return with clear and verifiable good news. Obviously I am not plugged in well enough to get direct reports, but there are others who are, and here is what those, whom you would expect to say differently, are saying:

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack think things are looking up. They are both spineless jellyfish, but knowledgeable jellyfish. They wouldn't have taken this shot over the bow unless they were relatively sure of measurable progress, so the fact that they made this statement is a pretty large positive indicator.

The UN is returning to Iraq.

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird (Democrat), who voted against the war in the first place, is coming out in support of the surge.

Even Dick Durbin is grudgingly admitting that the surge is working.

UPDATE- I forgot to mention Der Spiegel's surprising article. This publication is hardly pro war.

Now these are critics of the war. If you want to look for news from more friendly sources, it is abundant. My favorite is Micheal Yon who is far more deserving of a Pulitzer than most of the actual recipients in the last few decades. Keep in mind that Micheal is not a cheerleader by any means, but he is a friend of the soldier which is certainly a news angle we don't often get.

I don't doubt for a minute that evidence of Petraeus's plan working as outlined will be lacking come September.

3. America loves their soldiers. The "Far Left" (Not all Democrats, mind you, Sirocco) but large swaths of liberals have a huge problem with the military. They have for years. It is obvious, identifiable, and it is not going away. It is one of those stumbling blocks that allows Republicans, even when we are at out most incompetent, to keep any type of power. Remember Ollie North? He was in deep trouble, and by all accounts would probably still be in prison had he had the image and temperament of a Scooter Libby. Instead he showed up in dress uniform, took the oath, and proceeded to dismember the joint Congressional Committee. It didn't matter what was said, it was that damn photograph of him taking the oath that was the linchpin. Where I grew up there was a barbershop that even advertised "Ollie North haircuts." It was quite the opposite effect of "A Few Good Men."

Now lets place Petraeus in the same setting. He has committed no crime and has went out and did what many in congressional leadership told us was impossible. Now there will be a certain amount of goalpost moving (it's already starting) but how do you think he is going to focus group? How do you think those who attempt to henpeck and criticize him are going to come off? The congress that went after North was the superior in every way to what we will see lined up against Petraeus, and Petraeus is far superior to Oliver North. Democrats have put themselves in a bad position by belittling Petraeus and his mission and then by agreeing to this September briefing. And the more a 17% congress goes after a soldier, the worse things will get for Democrats. Again, America loves their soldiers, but they practically worship successful soldiers. After Bush is removed as the face of the current war and replaced by Petraeus, things will change dramatically.

And then who knows what will happen.

The Definition of Leadership...

Sonoran Alliance has an excellent post covering RNC Chairman Mel Martinez' criticisms of leading GOP presidential candidates. It's hard to understand such behavior coming from the national party leadership. I'm sure members of the RNC will clarify Mel's role and steer him toward supporting Republican candidates. It looks like Bruce Ash has already weighed in.

Some Say "It's Nuts"

MSNBC is reporting that the Census Bureau is asking for immigration officials to back off when the Bureau conducts its census in 2010. They don't want illegal aliens to skedaddle when census workers come knocking on the door since they are supposed to count non-citizens as well as citizens. Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich) thinks “it’s nuts” referring to the Census Bureau's request for a break in enforcement. What's a bit odd here is that the process is used to determine the number of House members a state gets in Congress, so why non-citizens would be counted in the first place is difficult to fathom. A simple solution would be to count everybody but distinguish citizens from non-citizens for the apportionment. Strangely enough, that would take a change in the constitution, a bill Representative Miller is planning to introduce.

TUSD board sides with Paton.

The TUSD board voted 4-1 to have some kind of standards for speakers. The decision is an endorsement of the efforts of Representative Jonathan Paton to bring some sanity to student assemblies.

Michelle Malkin Talks 'Smack' on Illegal Alien Crime

Sanctuary Nation Or Sovereign Nation: It's Your Choice
By Michelle Malkin
August 15, 2007
Will the execution-style murder of three young students in Newark, N.J., finally turn the tide in the immigration enforcement debate? Will we at last abandon the deadly, chaotic, lawless sanctuary nation experiment and restore America's lost status as a sovereign nation under the rule of law?

The death of six innocent men and women and the injury of more than 1,000 at the hands of several illegal alien 1993 World Trade Center bombers wasn't enough to convince politicians in New York and across this country to end illegal alien sanctuary policies.

The death of nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children at the hands of the 9/11 jihadists who exploited our lax entrance and visa enforcement policies in 2001 wasn't enough.

The death of 10 innocent men and women in the Washington, D.C., area at the hands of an illegal alien sniper and his bloodthirsty mentor in 2002 wasn't enough.

But now we are in the heat of a presidential election cycle. The open-borders opportunists in immigration enforcement clothing are professing to see the light. With illegal alien murder suspect Jose Carranza and his alleged MS-13 gang-banging boy helpers who are being sought in the brutal Newark murder case dominating the news on the Eastern seaboard, politicians can't find a camera fast enough to condemn the very sanctuary policies they promoted and tolerated for decades -- sanctuary policies I've highlighted for years in this column. more

Frankly, Not Franking

Ann Day has sent her frugal, but nicely done first edition newsletter with articles on all the wonderful things happening in Pima County. Taking advantage of our high tech world, Ann elected to send the newsletter by email thereby saving somebody a chunk of change. At least, that's how I got it.

As frugal as it is to email the newsletter, one story in the mailer seemed to yank my wallet from my back pocket as I read it. Here's the article:
Pima County’s Conservation Plan a Model for Smart Growth
In 2004, Pima County voters approved a $174 million bond program to purchase more land for planning and conservation purposes. To date, the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan has used $51.3 million of that to purchase 21,400 acres, bringing total conservation lands in Pima County to more than 77,000 acres throughout the county.

Let's see...only 13.9% of all land in Pima County is privately owned. The government (including reservations) has all the rest, but it's not enough. So we voted to pay extra taxes well into the future for what? So the government can use our money to buy more land from us so that it can't be developed thereby reducing revenue to the county and requiring higher taxes that would give the government more money with which to buy more land from us that so that it can't be developed...

I guess we're now down to 13.8% and counting. Has anyone decided how much is enough for the county?

Dan Spahr Blogging

Just a note to let everyone know:

If you haven't had a chance to meet him, Dan Spahr is running for Tucson City council. You can visit his site at:

http://www.danspahr2007.com/

His public appearances Can be found here.

Additionally, Dan has started a blog. I hear that blogging will be all the rage with candidates in the near future.

And as I have related to Dan, I am very envious that he has a caricature in the Skinny and I do not.

Dan is a good man and candidate and is well worth supporting. With the direction that Tucson City keeps taking us, it is time to look at new voices and ways of doing things.

We will have more on the other Republican council challenger Lori Oien up shortly

Karl Takes His Leave

After being told "it's now or never," Karl Rove announced he is leaving now rather than staying to the end of President Bush's term in office. Rumor has it he plans to write a book. (Does any former White House staff member NOT write a book?)

LD26 Resolution Thanks Linda White

This morning, at the monthly LD26 meeting, a resolution honoring Linda White was presented. It was read by Trent Humphries. Following is the text of the resolution:

A VOTE OF THANKS AND SUPPORT FOR OUTGOING PIMA COUNTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LINDA WHITE

WHEREAS, Linda White will no longer continue as the Executive Director of the Pima County Republican Party; and

WHEREAS, Linda has provided many years of tireless work and effort as a part of her duties in this position;

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED, that we as the Republican Precinct Committeemen and Committeewomen of the Twenty-Sixth Legislative District of Arizona wish to thank Linda for this service, and express appreciation for representing us in other positions on the district, county, and state level.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we do offer a vote of confidence to Linda White in her remaining positions and any further endeavors that she chooses to commence.

Adopted this 11th day of August, 2007, at the Monthly Meeting of for the District 26 Committeemen and Committeewomen of the Republican Party of Arizona.


The resolution was approved unanimously to a standing ovation.

Feds Jump on Employment Eligibility Demands

Two announcements were made today from the Dept. of Homeland Security that affect employers attempting to verify the hiring status of potential employees:

1) DHS will propose that all federal cntractors be required to use the federal government's EEV system for determining work eligibility for hiring.

2) ICE said they will provide rules for employers when they submit information to the EEV database and it comes back without a match.

This is worth watching as it may influence what happens at the state level with the new employer sanctions law.

Statement from the County Party

I’ve read the comments on several blogs and, sadly, am not surprised that people are taking sides in what is developing into the “White vs. White” debate.

The attacks on Judi and on Linda are as needless as they are hurtful. Such attacks dishonor both ladies’ service to the Party and to the community. Judi and Linda have been good friends to me and to many in the Party. The attacks on their competence and their integrity are inappropriate. Neither deserves to be vilified.

Please do not expect official public statements about the reasons for the termination of Linda’s employment – at least from officials of the County Party. Linda was an employee of the Pima County Republican Party and the termination of her employment needed to be handled with the same decorum and confidentiality that would apply to any other employment situation. A public statement regarding the reasons behind Judi’s decision would be inappropriate. I’ve been an employment lawyer for more than 20 years and I have always advised employers against any such public statements.

Please also understand that it was not necessary for Judi to vet the decision through the Executive Committee. Linda served at Judi’s pleasure. If Judi believed that a change in personnel was necessary, she had the authority to make whatever personnel changes she deemed appropriate.

Regardless of whether people agree with the decision, it is done. We need to move on. While we argue about this, Giffords continues to raise money, to get favorable press coverage, and to vote against the interests of the majority of the people in CD8. While we hammer on each other, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, and their cohorts continue to abuse the earmark process, advance their surrender agenda, and push us further in the banal quagmire that is socialism. While we fight among ourselves, the Clinton political and money machine rolls inexorably forward, fulfilling George Soros’ dream of an “open society” – one that is totally unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans.

Let’s honor Linda for the good work that she has done, for her friendship to so many in the Party, and for her loyalty to the Republican Party. Let’s also continue the fight that brings us together – the fight to win elections for Republican candidates.

-Jim Kaucher

1^st Vice Chairman,

Pima County Republican Party

Pima County GOP Ex Dir let go

Today’s breaking news is that Linda White, Executive Director of Pima County Republican Party, will no longer be serving in that capacity. Our sources indicate that the decision was made by Judi White (no relation,) county chair of the party.

The decision should make for an interesting time at the next Pima County Republican Committee meeting since Linda is a member of that board, as well as secretary of the State Republican Party.


There have been grumbling about Judi’s management style and vision (or lack of both) but no firm plans to remove her before her term as chair expires in late 2008. With the termination of the popular and capable Linda we wonder if it is time to clean house - starting at the top!

Gabrielle makes top 6.

The Arizona Daily Star has a good article about Giffords and her congressional mailings.

I received her slick postcard mailing asking for my opinions on illegal immigration. I understand the process so I was not too deeply offended by the expenditure of public funds. I was struck by her interest in the topic. Why keep talking about an issue unless you are actually going to be able to do something about it? I think she is setting herself up for the charge of “what did you accomplish.”

Who in Congress Fights For U.S. Businesses/Jobs?

Another example of why high-paying manufacturing jobs keep leaving the U.S.:

A member of the House appeared before the commission alleging that China is manipulating its taxes and currency to keep wages artificially low as a way to keep U.S. businesses from gaining full access to the Chinese market. China undervalues its currency—the yuan—and provides Chinese companies with a 17 percent tax rebate that is funded by taxes imposed on American-produced goods, said U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. That makes it difficult for American manufactures to compete fairly in the global market, he said. “It is this uneven playing field that undercuts American markets and wipes American products off the world’s shelves,” he added.

The idea of “free trade” with China is “a simplistic ideal” because the reality is that China is conducting “predatory trade” supported by low wages, Hunter said. Wages in China range from 25 cents to $1.50 per hour in some areas, and companies can get “pretty skilled Chinese labor” for 25 cents per hour, he said.

The old Farmer-Labor Democrat Party was said to represent the worker, with big business represented by the GOP. Both workers and manufacturers lose out with trade policies like these, and both the Democrats and Republicans can share the blame. But as we approach the next election year, you would think there would be a mad dash to fix it if for no other reason than to get the support of labor and/or business groups like NAM. So far, all is quiet on the fair trade front.

Tim Bee update.

State Senate President Tim Bee is close to setting up an exploratory committee for the CD-8 seat according to a story by Daniel Scarpinato of the Star.

Word is that Meg Econ will be working on the campaign. Meg was last seen heading up the successful Southern Arizona operation for U.S. Senator Jon Kyl. Meg has excellent contacts within the party from her efforts in 2006 and previous campaigns. Bee’s seriousness is demonstrated by the presence of such a quality campaign worker.

Congresssional Leaders Cross the Line

This is too important to not post. Imagine a country where your elected representatives have no real authority to represent you. When votes in the elected body are counted, the party in power ignores the count and declares it "passed" or "not passed" according their desires.

No, we're not talking about a third-world nation in a constant state of revolution. We're talking about the U.S. Congress. When the party in power displays total disregard for the lawmaking process, this country is in serious trouble. Expresso Pundit and Sonoran Alliance have both provided excellent posts on what happened yesterday in the good old U.S.A..

Thank You Gabby!

I'm sure glad the Democrats have been so successful in eliminating the petty bickering and partisanship as they promised during the election. Here's an example of how things have improved:

Debate finally got under way on the measure late Thursday, after a two-day skirmish in which Republicans lodged repeated protest votes and dilatory amendments over what they termed an unfair process for debating an unrelated children's health insurance bill. Democrats resorted to closing down the floor, limiting amendments to about 12 and incorporating six others into the rule.
One of those amendments tucked into the rule was by Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., to block $1.5 million in funding for three earmarks Mollohan requested for the Canaan Valley Institute, a nonprofit in his district that does ecological work.
The government is reportedly investigating Mollohan's ties to the group, including earmarks he has obtained.
In a statement, Mollohan said he agreed to the move to allow the Institute to "carry on its critical work undisturbed by the fallout from a shameful slander campaign."
On the floor, Obey said including the earmarks was a mistake and he and Mollohan "had determined that because they were in controversy, for the good of the house, they should not be considered at this time."
Republicans howled, arguing they had never closed down debate so early in consideration of an appropriations bill. Democrats pulled the bill Tuesday after four hours; Republicans did the same only after much-lengthier debate in the late 1990s, GOP aides said.
"They are shoving it up our a**," one aide said. The rule passed, 224-194.
Democrats said they were resorting to the tactic only because Republicans went back on a prior agreement to allow appropriations to proceed, after Democrats in June agreed to list earmarks up front in spending bills.
Democrats complained that Republicans were delaying an unrelated bill in protest over the healthcare measure, but Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Democrats' hands were not clean in that regard.
On the floor, he cited an instance a decade earlier where Pelosi and others, including Obey and Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., delayed consideration of the fiscal 1998 Agriculture measure for nine hours after Republicans refused to allow Pelosi to offer an abortion-related amendment to another bill.
"The rule that we have before us that shuts us down, it's unfair, it's unwise, it's un-Democratic, and it does not deserve the support of any member of this House," Boehner said. Slaughter said she did not recall the incident. "I don't really go around thinking about what happened in 1998. I've got my hands full with 2007," she said.

Uh, Oh! Here Come the Bloggers!

Never underestimate the power of the political blogosphere. Framer keeps suggesting that bloggers will have greater influence in the upcoming election than ever before...substantial influence, in fact. As evidence, consider that 1500 people showed up for the second annual blogger convention organized by Mr. Daily Kos, himself. The event attracted 500 bloggers, 250 journalists, and a bunch of Democratic presidential candidates who wouldn't be there unless they thought it was important.

So, what do liberal bloggers do when they get together? According to the article in the Wall Street Journal, they spend 3 days in a "wonk-fest of panels, speeches and what promise to be beer-soaked parties."

Don't think this liberal, beer-drinking, partying crowd doesn't take what they do seriously, however. The article reports they have raised more than $25 million for Democratic candidates since 2005. They also get taken seriously. "Liberal bloggers now routinely get invited to campaign events to meet candidates, they receive press credentials and sometimes are given exclusive information during briefings and blogger conference calls."

The bloggers have arrived...

U.S. Ball & Chain Trade Policies

When I took a business trip to Chile a while back, I stepped off the plane in Santiago and was met with a sign that said something about a reciprocity fee. Apparently, the U.S. government charges travelers from Chile a fee when they enter the U.S. I have no idea why our governement does this, but the Chileans respond in kind adjusting the fee to the same level as the fee in the U.S. It's an interesting concept: If you charge us a fee, we'll do likewise. If you don't charge a fee, neither will we.

So, with all the talk about free trade, why don't we do the same with our trading partners? If they slap on a tariff, so do we, etc. Instead, between tariffs and value added taxes, our trading partners charge us on average between 20 and 25 percent on our exports to their country. But we don't respond in kind making it extremely difficult for U.S. manufacturers to compete globally. Some of these taxes are WWII leftovers we instituted to help our wartime enemies rebuild. Maybe it's time to sunset these outdated policies and give our domestic producers a fair shake.

Two entities are in a great position to reform our policies: Our state legislature, which can pass a resolution to get the attention of Congress , and Congress—specifically, our senators—who should be leading the charge for trade reform. It's not as popular an issue as the war, but the politicians who generate more jobs and strengthen the economy certainly will have something to hang their hats on when re-election time rolls around.

Sad Commentary on the UN

Rupert Murdoch's new toy, The Wall Street Journal, reports that the United Nations are finally taking action to intervene in the genocide of black Christians in Darfur:
"Four years, 200,000 dead and two million displaced people later, the United Nations has finally authorized a peacekeeping contingent for Sudan's Darfur region. Good intentions and eternal hope aside, this latest mission looks ready-made to continue the U.N.'s sorry record on stopping genocide."

A sorry record indeed. In the case of Bosnia, it was NATO that eventually stepped in to replace the non-response from the UN. In the Sudan, there is no NATO to save the day. Only the UN. If the UN had been effective in Bosnia, those citing ethnicity or religion as the reason for UN inaction would have a case. Under the circumstances, the UN seems consistently pitiful and inept making it difficult to label them partial.