April 16-18, 2008
Apr 16 08:49 A Life Well Lived, A Life Well Reasoned Apr 16 09:11 What's He Afraid Of? Apr 16 10:54 Questioning Rep. Hortman's Statements Apr 16 11:53 Bachmann Outraises Tinklenberg, Olson Apr 16 14:27 I Agree With Captain Ed Apr 16 18:49 Rep. Hortman's Myths Apr 16 19:42 Murtha Criticizes McCain Apr 18 10:17 A Little Paranoia Goes a Long Way Apr 18 11:41 Murtha's Office Calls Police on Iraq Vet's Mother
A Life Well Lived, A Life Well Reasoned
I've often admired Ed Koch's thinking. I haven't always agreed with him but I appreciate his bipartisanship. That bipartisanship is manifested in this column about his life . Let's look at him through his eyes, starting with this:
I had been told by Congressman and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Manny Celler, with whom I discussed how to assist the Soviet Jews and others seeking visas to leave the Soviet Union, that I should visit with Ford. He was soon to become vice president and then president of the United States. At that time, we did not know it. In those days, everyone in the House, on both sides of the aisle, was on a first-name basis. I said, "Jerry, I need your help to bring those permitted to leave the Soviet Union into the country." His reply was, "I will help, these are good people, they will never go on welfare." Little did we know how many did. But he helped and saved many lives.Mayor Koch's thoughtfulness is as apparent as his priorities. It's apparent that Koch put a high priority on saving lives. It didn't matter to him who was willing to help. He simply appreciated anyone willing to step in. That's the primary characteristic of a statesman. Ed Koch certainly surpasses that threshold with ease. The next part is my personal favorite from this column:
Ford lost to Jimmy Carter. I came to know Carter well.Anyone that thinks of Jimmy Carter as reprehensible because he's anti-semitic and pro terrorist gets an A+ from me. I can't cite anything redeeming about Carter. That Mayor Koch would call President Carter "a miserable president" speaks volumes about Mayor Koch's principles.
When he ran for reelection, he asked me to campaign for him in 1980; I was by then Mayor of New York City, and I said that I would vote for him, but not campaign for him because he was then engaging in hostile acts towards Israel. I was popular with the Jewish community and when I would not campaign for him unless he changed his position, he called me to his hotel in New York when attending a fundraiser and said, "You have done me more damage than any man in America." I felt proud then, and even more today, since we now know what a miserable president he was then and the miserable human being he is now as he prepares to meet with Hamas.
Finally, there's this:
Now we come to the last president on this list, George W. Bush. I campaigned for his reelection and have no regrets. I believe that history will treat him more kindly than current public opinion polls indicate. He and Tony Blair recognized the danger of Islamic terrorism to the Western world when most world leaders did not. In addition, he is a very nice guy.Mayor Koch has likely earned the ire of the nutroots with that statement but he should wear that as a badge of honor. I've long maintained that President Bush will earn a higher grade from historians than he's currently getting. The impressive thing is that Mayor Koch won't let partisanship stand in the way of his priorities. The US House and Senate would be much better off if Ed Koch and the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan roamed the halls instead of Eliot Engel and Hillary Clinton.
I can't say that Mayor Koch believes in all the right things. His enthusiastic support of liberal social programs prevents me from saying that. That aside, I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that Mayor Koch's foreign policy and national security policies are as good as it gets.
That's why I consider Ed Koch to have lived life well.
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:50 AM
No comments.
What's He Afraid Of?
The first thing that popped into my head after reading this St. Cloud Times article was why Al Franken would visit St. Cloud but not make the event open to the public. Here's the heart of the Times' article:
Franken will be visiting a Sauk Rapids home for what's being billed as a "community conversation" at 11 a.m., and then visiting at 1 p.m. at Tri-County Community Action Program, 700 St. Germain St., St. Cloud.Why isn't Al Franken holding public events while he's visiting St. Cloud? Does his campaign staff realize how pathetic and defensive this makes him look?
The events are not being billed as public rallies.
Compare Franken's private meetings with Sen. Coleman's open events. The difference between Sen. Coleman and Mr. Franken isn't a comparison that flatters Mr. Franken. I'd be surprised if Minnesotans don't notice the difference, too. That doesn't add up to a Franken victory in November.
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2008 9:11 AM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 17-Apr-08 08:07 AM
WHAT??!?
C'mon, you can't be serious....
"Compare Franken's private meetings with Sen. Coleman's open events."
ROFLMAO!!!
ol' Smokescreen, and "open meetings"??!?
When?
Franken has had PLENTY of open meetings; and the republicans have been video tapin' ALL of 'em.
You should be ashamed about this one, pal.
Questioning Rep. Hortman's Statements
In the past, I've called some of Rep. Melissa Hortman's statements into question. That was certainly the case with this op-ed she co-authored with John Marty, Aaron Peterson and Sharon Erickson-Ropes. It's once again time to challenge some of the things she's said. Let's start with this declarative statement:
We should adopt the Clean Car Standard to (1) save consumers money on fuel, (2) improve the health of our residents by reducing smog, (3) decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and (4) dramatically decrease greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota.My first question for Rep. Hortman is simple: What documented proof does she have that adopting California's emissions regulations will "save consumers money"? If she can prove that, doesn't Rep. Hortman have an affirmative responsibility to make that information part of the official record?
Here's another question I have for Rep. Hortman: Would there be a noticeable health difference if Minnesota adopted the Federal Tier 2 regulations instead of California's regulations?
It's worth noting that Rep. Hortman didn't say that adopting California's regulations might improve our health or save us money. Rep. Hortman's statements weren't conditional. They were stated as fact, not possibility.
Let's look at other statements in her March 24 Dear Colleague letter. Rep. Hortman shows that she's bought into the manmade global warming theme with this statement:
The Clean Car Standard is one of the single most significant steps we can take to protect our economic health and our environment for our children and our grandchildren. Minnesota's agricultural and timber industries would be radically reorganized in a warmer world, and the loss of species such as maple and moose would change the character of Minnesota.Rep. Hortman says that "Minnesota's agricultural and timber industries would be radically reorganized in a warmer world." What proof does she have that passing her bill imposing California's emission regulations would prevent this supposed catastrophe? Is there any proof that this "warmer world" will happen? Is there proof that this "warmer world" would drive the "maple and the moose" into extinction in Minnesota?
The Clean Car Standard would improve Minnesota's air quality and consequently would improve health. In Minnesota, 300,000 adults and 100,000 children have asthma, which can be exacerbated by smog. The Clean Car Standard will reduce air toxics that cause smog 23% by 2020.I don't doubt that smog has an effect on people with asthma. What I'm not certain of is whether adopting California's emissions standards will dramatically improve asthma sufferers' health.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that Rep. Hortman's statements aren't just a bunch of hot air.
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:54 AM
No comments.
Bachmann Outraises Tinklenberg, Olson
According to Larry's post , Michele Bachmann is sitting in solid financial shape heading into the campaign season. Here's why I think that:
It isn't a stretch to say that interest in Tinklenberg and Olson is minimal at best. both candidates have flaws that the activists are having difficulty looking past. While I won't paint this race as over, I'm perfectly willing to paint this as an uphill challenge for either Mr. Tinklenberg. I think it's safe to say that Mr. Olson doesn't stand a fighting chance even if the perfect storm developed.The Associated Press is reporting that U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann , R-Minn., raised $346,000 for her re-election bid in the first quarter of 2008.
She has more than $1 million in the bank as of the beginning of this month, more than 10 times either of the DFLers who hope to take her on , Elwyn Tinklenberg or Bob Olson .Tinklenberg raised $127,000 and had $102,000 on hand, while Olson raised $24,000 and had $112,000 on hand, after loaning his campaign more than $60,000.
Despite these fundraising numbers, the Strib's Bob von Sternberg implies that this is a hotly contested seat :
First-term Rep. Michele Bachmann is getting a financial helping hand in her reelection bid from a national Republican Party fund that tries to assist candidates who are seen as vulnerable and in the Democrats' cross hairs.To be fair to Mr. Sternberg, he later said this:
The cash from the ROMP program may be more symbolic than substantive, according to Federal Election Commission records. Through the end of last year, Bachmann already had raised nearly $1.2 million for her reelection bid, triple the amount raised by her two DFL challengers combined.If this fundraising trend continues, the DCCC support for Mr. Tinklenberg might quickly evaporate.
I've talked with several DFL activists about Tinklenberg. Each of these activists initially prefered Olson over Tinklenberg but soured on Olson after he took the attack dog approach at a recent debate. These activists didn't think highly of Mr. Tinklenberg, partially because of his career as a lobbyist, partially because of his "less than stellar" progressive history.
Despite the fundraising disparity, John Wodele had to say something. Here's his quote in the Strib:
John Wodele, a spokesman for Sixth District DFL candidate Elwyn Tinklenberg, said the cash infusion "confirms the fact that Republicans are worried about the Sixth District, as they should be."It does nothing of the sort, Mr. Wodele. What it says is that the NRCC isn't willing to give Mr. Tinklenberg a fighting shot. Mr. Wodele can say whatever he wants but he must know that the fundraising numbers don't tell the tale that Tinklenberg will be competitive.
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2008 11:53 AM
No comments.
I Agree With Captain Ed
It doesn't take alot of courage for a conservative blogger to say that he agrees with Captain Ed. That said, I love seeing Captain Ed pointing out something that dovetails with what I posted about the presidential race yesterday. Here's what I wrote yesterday:
Going into this election cycle, I worried about Democrats picking off Ohio, Virginia and Colorado. I also figured that McCain would regain New Hampshire but lose Iowa. That would've been more than enough to get the Democratic candidate to 270. Because of McCain's strength within the military, Virginia has effectively been taken off the map. I'm also feeling optimistic about Michigan and Pennsylvania because Obama's elitism won't play well with the blue collar Reagan Democrats.I thought fairly certain that Colorado would stay in the Red column. Now Ed's post confirms that belief:
Brent Seaborn, late of the Giuliani campaign and now back at his consulting gig, sends over some up-ballot numbers his firm, TargetPoint, took for a third-party effort out in the Colorado Senate race. Per their polling, McCain would defeat Hillary in Colorado 52-40 and beat Obama 51-39.The electoral map is shaping up quite favorably for Sen. McCain. With almost 7 months left until Election Day, there's alot that can still happen. That said, Sen. Obama faces some daunting structural hurdles to win this November.
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2008 2:28 PM
No comments.
Rep. Hortman's Myths
I've spent a good portion of today checking into the claims Rep. Melissa Hortman made in an email she sent to her House colleagues. Follow this link for a recap of what I said earlier today. Now let's examine more of what Rep. Hortman said, starting with this claim:
We should adopt the Clean Car Standard to save money, improve health, decrease dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.I just did a quick check of car dealerships in California and Minnesota. Though I didn't do a comprehensive search, what I found spoke volumes. The California vehicles I checked cost north of $2000 more than the identical vehicle sold here in Minneosta. That leads me to believe that Rep. Hortman's claim that adopting the Clean Car Standard would save money is misleading at best. While there might be some savings on what's spent on fueling vehicles, that doesn't mean that it won't cost consumers more because of the more expensive purchase price.
Adoption of the standard would result in cost savings for consumers who would need to purchase less fuel to get where they are going.
The question worth asking is whether Rep. Hortman intentionally omitted this information to make her legislation more appealing. I don't know so I won't make that accusation. What I will do is say that she wouldn't be the first politician to omit less-than-flattering information to win an argument.
Here's something else that I found interesting:
The Clean Car Standard is an air emission standard, not a fuel standard. Put simply, the Clean Car Standard is an air emission standard for vehicles.According to Don't Take My Truck.com , that isn't technically true:
It is not a fuel efficiency bill. Congress exclusively regulates fuel efficiency. It is not a fuel standard. States regulate fuel standards in cooperation with the EPA.
The California Emissions law passed in the 1960s is an emission standard that regulates smog and ozone forming emissions from vehicles. The additional regulations passed by California in 2002 is a greenhouse gas emissions, or fuel economy standard. Almost all (98%) of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles is CO2. The only practical way to decrease CO2 is to increase fuel economy. California's greenhouse gas emission standard IS a fuel economy standard.I googled greenhouse gas emissions automobiles to verify the 98% figure. Here's what I found in a study prepared solely by Environmental Defense:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) accounts for an estimated 94% of the overall GHG emissions from a typical light duty vehicle. On the vehicle itself, means of reducing CO2 emissions fall into two broad categories: reducing the vehicle's rate of fuel consumption and changing the fuel to reduce its associated net emissions of CO2 and other GHGs.Based on that study alone, I'd conclude that Don't Take My Truck.com 's information is accurate. It isn't a stretch to think that complying with California's tighter standards makes each vehicle more expensive.
Let's look at another portion of Rep. Hortman's email:
Congress allows states to adopt either the California standard or the federal standard for air emissions from vehicles. California regulated air pollution from motor vehicles before Congress adopted the motor vehicle sections of the Clean Air Act. Because of California's pre-existing state law on the issue, states were given the choice to follow the California standard or the federal standard but they may not set their own standards that would be different from either the California or the federal standard. Minnesota has not yet adopted the California standard so the EPA regulates motor vehicle emissions in Minnesota. The Clean Car legislation I have authored would have Minnesota opt into the California standard for motor vehicle emissions.I've pointed this out before but it's worth repeating: Minnesota won't have the ability to affect California's regulatory body. Although we don't have control of the EPA, at least there, we have the ability to propose legislation that controls the EPA's regulations. I'd prefer having some control of the federal regulations than not having any control of California's regulations.
I can't fathom why we'd give up our control for a set of regulations that would have a significant price impact on Minnesota consumers but little impact on Minnesotan's health.
That's why I can't imagine why Rep. Hortman is proposing this legislation. That its only co-authors in the House are Democrats is telling. That John Marty is the author of the Senate companion bill raises additional red flags.
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:49 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-Apr-08 08:32 AM
Don't take my truck is accurate according to the laws of California, but it's the worst kind of junk science. Gasoline is C5H12-- 12 atoms of hydrogen and 5 atoms of carbon. Burning it completely produces 5 CO2 + 6 H2O and water vapor is a greenhouse gas (apparently not recognized by CA)!
It's the same old thing. Legislators want to regulate something, anything, and they will use any reason-- good, bad or indifferent-- to justify their lust for power. I think there should be a mandatory "environmental impact statement" and "cost/benefit analysis" required of this and any other bill dealing with energy and the environment. I guarantee you they would fail that simple test. The last time I did the math, if I recall correctly, if Minnesota would stop ALL CO2 production-- no electricity, no home heating, no driving, no breathing-- we could reduce worldwide greenhouse gasses by something like 6/100,000 of one percent! You can imagine what a huge reduction in global temperatures that would produce!
Murtha Criticizes McCain
Speaking at a Hillary campaign rally this afternoon, John Murtha declared that John McCain was too old to be president . Watching the clip of it brought a smile to my face. Specifically, here's what Rep. Murtha said:
"I've served with seven presidents," Murtha told a union audience. "When they come in, they all make mistakes. They all get older."It's worth noting that Rep. Murtha is 75 going on 110 while Sen. McCain is 71, going on 51. Let's just say that Rep. Murtha looks less than fit. Meanwhile, Sen. McCain looks as fit as anyone still in the race. What's most fascinating to me is that Murtha actually gave Sen. McCain a nice opening when he said that "When they come in, they all make mistakes."
"This one guy running is about as old as me," he said, drawing laughter and applause. "Let me tell you something, it's no old man's job."
Sen. McCain is right in pointing to his experience as a reason why he won't make as many mistakes as someone as green as Obama and Hillary. That's something Sen. McCain did earlier this week:
Earlier this week, McCain was asked about his age and he joked about it, at first feigning sleep.Here's Sen. McCain's specific response to Rep. Murtha's attacks:
"Watch me campaign. We keep a heavier schedule. We campaign harder," he said Monday during The Associated Press annual meeting. "People will judge me by my performance. I am confident that my energy, my intellect, my experience, and my judgment is what American people will, hopefully that they will view me as qualified to be president of the United States."
McCain, in an interview with FOX News on Wednesday, said, "I invite John to come out with me on the campaign trail. I out-campaigned everybody else and that's why I'm the nominee of my party. I can certainly out-campaign either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton."This is a losing attack for Democrats. It isn't difficult to spot John McCain's vitality and energy. only an old fart like Murtha wouldn't notice that.
I suspect that Sen. McCain loves the thought of John Murtha shooting his mouth off in this race. Sen. McCain looks positively youthful compared to Murtha. Additionally, Rep. Murtha is the poster child for Washington corruption while Sen. McCain has a reputation of integrity. It can't hurt that Rep. Murtha is campaigning for another ethically challenged candidate in Hillary Clinton. That's a contrast that the McCain campaign should welcome.
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2008 7:45 PM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 17-Apr-08 08:20 AM
Anybody that thinks The Oval Office doesn't age it's occupant, quickly and thoroughly, only needs to look at this video of then-Governor Bush and compare that youthful vigor with President Bush's appearance, today:
Then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpL6EIMShO4
Now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EERdNnu9mic&feature=related
Comment 2 by Wil Robinson at 18-Apr-08 03:21 AM
I believe McCain also comes from a family that still has a 95+ year old mother running around campaigning with him.
It that doesn't speak for good genes...
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 18-Apr-08 09:42 AM
Will, I knew that but surprisingly forgot to include that in my post. Thanks for reminding me of that fact.
IIRC, McCain's mom is a feisty 9o-something, too. But why let facts get in the way of a good Murtha diatribe, right?
A Little Paranoia Goes a Long Way
This morning, Margaret Carlson weighs in on the Philadelphia Fiasco. After recounting the charges and countercharges, she made this important observation:
Karl Rove was the big winner. His Politics About Nothing lives on. If you aren't going to help the working man, tell him that the other condescending guy wants to take away his gun. Republicans show respect for all the things not under siege, his guns, his religion, his marriage, his patriotism, and hope no one homes in on jobs, foreclosures or health care.I've never thought of Maggie Carlson as the brightest bulb in the Agenda Media's chandelier. This observation confirms for me that my initial opinion was right. Why on God's green earth did Ms. Carlson think about Karl Rove after watching the Democrat debate?
The first thing that popped into my head was that Democrats still fear Karl Rove to the point of being paranoid about him. It isn't a stretch to say that Karl Rove gets blamed for the misfortunes of Democrats. Never mind the fact that they cast aside a real man of substance in Joe Lieberman because he wasn't liberal enough. Nevermind the fact that they're on the verge of picking the most unqualified presidential candidate in the history of the United States.
In Ms. Carlson's mind, the Fiasco In Philadelphia didn't happen because two radicals with barely a presidential qualification shared the stage. In Ms. Carlson's mind, the Philadelphia Fiasco happened because Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asked questions given them by Mr. Rove.
Ms. Carlson wants people to forget the disastrous answers both candidates gave on the Second Amendment. Here's the exchange between Charlie Gibson and Barack Obama:
MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law, it's had a law since 1976, it's now before the United States Supreme Court, that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barreled rifle. Is that law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?Here's the exchange on the Second Amendment between George Stephanopoulos and Hillary:
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it. And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, you have a home in D.C. Do you support the D.C. ban?After reading through those tortured answers, it's perfectly understandable why Ms. Carlson wants people to focus on the Rove Factor, not the finalists for the Democratic Nomination. As awful as their answers were on the Second Amendment, Obama's reply to Charlie Gibson's questions about the capital gains tax were infinitely more revealing:
SENATOR CLINTON: You know, George, I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you're referring to, before the Supreme Court, is apparently dividing the Bush administration. You know, the Bush administration basically said, we don't have enough facts to know whether or not it is appropriate. And Vice President Cheney who, you know, is a fourth special branch of government all unto himself, (laughter), has actually filed a brief saying, oh, no, we have to, you know, we have to prevent D.C. from doing this. So
MR. GIBSON: All right. You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent." It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. ButOn the one hand, Sen. Obama says that he wants the capital gains tax to pay for "health care for Americans who currently don't have it" and that "we're able to invest in our infrastructure" and "in our schools" right after saying that he'd "look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." That's one of the most discombobulated answers I've ever heard. His stated goals fight against each other.
actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year, $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.
You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don't propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending unless you're eliminating some spending or you're finding some new revenue. That's how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and it's going to change when I'm president of the United States.
MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we've got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right. And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.
If he raises the capital gains tax rate, revenues shrink, meaning he won't have the additional revenue he'll need to "invest in our infrastructure" and "in our schools" or to give "health care for Americans who currently don't have it." Raising the capital gains tax rate guarantees that there won't be additional money to pay for Sen. Obama's laundry list of spending requests.
Ms. Carlson would have us believe that the Fiasco in Philadelphia was about rednecks, religion and Rove. She's hoping you don't notice that alot of questions dealt with integrity, the candidates' ties to domestic terrorism and taxes. Here's another complaint Ms. Carlson had with the Philadelphia Fiasco:
The Democrats are playing Rove's game full throttle. Clinton went on about how she's the granddaughter of a factory worker who was "very active" in the church. He didn't "cling to religion because Washington wasn't listening," she said.The thought that people like Maggie Carlson get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to write this type of drivel is insulting to top bloggers everywhere. What's worse is that Ms. Carlson thinks that a presidential candidate maintains ties with an unrepentant terrorist is unimportant. It's apparent, too, that Ms. Carlson thinks that discussing the Second Amendment is trivial stuff.
Perhaps chastened by the sniper fire she got over her sniper fire story, she didn't talk about privations during her years at Yale, or how rough it is living on the $109 million she and her husband have taken in since leaving the White House.
Let's hope that Ms. Carlson keeps thinking those elitist thoughts. Most importantly, let's hope that Ms. Carlson's paranoia about Karl Rove continues. There's nothing quite like the thought of a liberal elitist falling apart worrying about Mr. Rove.
Posted Friday, April 18, 2008 10:19 AM
Comment 1 by Wil Robinson at 18-Apr-08 11:00 PM
I wonder why everything has to be black or white with politicians?
Personally, I'd rather see Obama get elected, but I'd settle for McCain in a heartbeat if Hillary was the only other answer.
But I was disappointed by Obama's answer to this question (I read it yesterday in the WSJ). Why did he have to be on one side or the other? Why not find a middle ground?
For example, why not state that the capital gains tax be graduated. (For sake of simplicity, ignore my dollar figures and percentages - I'm just trying to make a point. I'm not a tax accountant)
Say the first $1 million earned in capital gains is taxed at 15%. then the next $2-5 million is taxed at 20%, anything above $5 milion is taxed at 25%, etc. This way people get that first chunk of money at a low tax rate, but someone who makes $10 million will have to pay 25% on $5 million of it, 20% on 4 million, and 15% on $1 million.
Like I said, I'm no tax lawyer, but it seems that Obama could have come up with a better answer than "I'm a democrat so I'm raising taxes" answer that has no gray areas.
Murtha's Office Calls Police on Iraq Vet's Mother
The first thought I had when I heard about this story was that John Murtha's staffers need to get their asses handed to them. Here's the gist of this outrageous story:
I had seen an absolute enough disappointed Marines walk by and tell me that John Murtha did not see them and could not see them. When I asked how did it go, they all reported pretty much the same answer "Didn't have time for us." Could this be the same John Murtha who had all kinds of time to badmouth these Marines even before he was officially briefed on what occurred in Haditha?!!! The mother and protector in me could not let this disrespect go by. I believe these Heroes need someone to speak up for them because they cannot and I can no longer sit and be silent. I headed down to John Murtha's office with two mothers of Soldiers, one who's Son currently serves and one who's Son has served proudly. We entered the office and I asked to see Murtha.John Murtha talks all the time about visiting the wounded vets in Walter Reed to show that he cares about these wounded veterans. It's inexcusable and disgusting that he won't take the time to listen to pro-war military veterans. John Murtha loves doing photo ops. It's equally apparent that he won't talk with people who think this war is winnable. Isn't it his responsibility to meet with people with various perspectives, not just those who agree with him?
"Do I have an appointment?" a young man asked. I gave him my card and told him I was outraged that several Marines had been in to see Mr. Murtha and were refused. This young man stood up and told me that "people" cannot just come in there and expect to see the Congressman without an appointment. I was outraged by his pompous attitude and insulted that he didn't seem to understand that these brave Warriors are not just "people!" I clearly saw the problem here and was so deeply offended that he didn't seem to understand, and I informed him that these fine Marines are not just people, THEY ARE SOLDIERS, THEY ARE HEROES, and MR. Murtha needs to show them respect and further, he needs to apologize to everyone of them. The last thing I said was "He is a Coward" because I believe that he is. A white haired lady asked us to leave and we did, and as we walked down the hall, the white haired lady called us "Cowards."It's apparent that anti-war sentiment in Rep. Murtha's office isn't limited to Rep. Murtha. It's apparent that his staff shares their boss' perspective. This woman is entitled to her opinion. What she isn't entitled to do is hurl mean-spirited epithets at people she disagrees with. That's unacceptable. She's supposed to be a public servant, just like Rep. Murtha is supposed to be a public servant.
Simply put, this staffer should be fired immediately for calling Bev Perlson a coward. Rep. Murtha owes Mrs. Perlson an immediate apology, too. As disgusting as this is, the story isn't finished yet:
As I just reached the Cannon Bldg., 3 or 4 Police cars with flashing lights pulled right up near me. I think I saw 6 or 7 Policeman around me and was asked to step aside to speak with one of the Officers. I was asked if I had just been in the Rayburn Bldg and what was my business there. I explained to the Officer what transpired in Mr. Murtha's office, I was asked for my driver's license and that was it. I did tell the nice Policeman I was not at all sorry for what I said in Murtha's office and that I have NEVER been arrested. I did tell him that I was very sorry if I caused him any trouble or a lot of undue paperwork. If Mr. Murtha's purpose in calling the Police on me was to scare me or intimidate me, his bullish tactic did not work and I say he is lucky my father wasn't around! I am angry that this man, who accuses our military of using excessive force, sent 3 Police Cars and 7 Officers to intimidate me. Had me chased down like a fugitive! I know one thing for certain: John Murtha does not respect our Soldiers and he sure doesn't respect their mothers. You are shameful John Murtha.There's only one reason why the police were called: This white-haired Murtha staffer wanted to intimidate Bev Perlson. That's a boneheaded move. It doesn't take rocket science to realize that it's almost impossible to intimidate a member of the Band Of Mothers .
More importantly, the thought of intimidating her shouldn't have crossed this staffer's mind. But it did.
We need to turn up the heat on Rep. Murtha and the House leadership. It's time that we flooded Rep. Murtha's offices with calls for this staffer's termination. Here's the number to Rep. Murtha's DC office:
1-202-225-2065Here's the number to Rep. Murtha's Johnstown office:
1-814-535-2642It's time that we unabashedly told Rep. Murtha that he and his staff had better treat Americans with far more respect than they've been treated thus far.
Posted Friday, April 18, 2008 11:44 AM
No comments.
