December 1-3, 2007
Dec 01 01:56 Statistics Prove Surge Is Working Dec 01 03:22 The Spin, The Whole Spin & Nothing But the Spin Dec 01 22:00 Tarryl Prefers State Control vs. Local Control of Education Dec 02 17:02 Let the War Begin Dec 03 02:21 Hillary Is Booed Dec 03 11:22 Chavez Suffers Stunning Defeat Dec 03 15:22 Hillary to Question Obama's Integrity Dec 03 21:59 Reid Denies Reality, Ignores Murtha's Statements
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006
Statistics Prove Surge Is Working
This CBS article provides some impressive statistics that prove the Surge is working. Here's what I'm talking about:
There were 28 combat dead in November. Compare that to 120 killed last May as the troop surge was reaching full strength, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.Here's another statistic that tells the same story:
"The IED attacks are down about 50 percent from a peak about three or four months ago," Ret. Gen. Montgomery Meigs says.This statistic is the one that startled me:
In the first six months of their deployment, the 10th Mountain Division had 93 vehicles destroyed by roadside bombs . In the last six months, just one .Finally, there's these statistics:
Marines fighting in the once wild west of al Anbar province have not suffered a combat death since October 8.Perhaps these statistics are why John Murtha admitted that the surge is working . Perhaps they're the reason why the Pew Research Poll shows a marked shift in public opinion towards the war:
Bethesda Naval Hospital used to care for as many as 50 wounded Marines at a time; today there are 10.
For the first time in a long time, nearly half of Americans express positive opinions about the situation in Iraq. A growing number says the U.S. war effort is going well, while greater percentages also believe the United States is making progress in reducing the number of Iraqi casualties, defeating the insurgents and preventing a civil war in Iraq.Despite that progress, Nancy Pelosi says House Democrats won't change their troop withdrawal deadlines :
Roughly half of the public (48%) believes the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going very or fairly well. Judgments about the overall situation in Iraq have been improving steadily since the summer. As recently as June, only about a third of Americans (34%) said things were going well in Iraq.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi showed no sign of accepting such a compromise and said the Democratic Congress would not pass a war funding bill other than the one that had already passed the House.We should accept Pelosi's statement for what it is: their position right before they're rolled. This is the pattern that Democrats have maintained for quite some time. It won't be different this time. they can't afford to be obstinent on this, especially with public opinion changing dramatically. Public opinion has improved because the progress has been sustained for almost half a year. I'd doubt that Democrats, especially the freshmen, are willing to follow Nancy Pelosi over the cliff on this one.
"We have provided every penny that is currently necessary to fund Defense Department operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world," Pelosi said. "It is President Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate who are preventing extra funds from reaching our troops."
The best news is that Republicans are stepping up the pressure :
Blunt issued the following statement: "With one of the Democrats' leading war critics now saying the surge in Iraqis working, it's difficult to understand why the majority continues to push an irresponsible withdrawal plan that jeopardizes critical support funding forour troops. It can't be the facts on the ground that are influencing their decision-making: After all, our servicemen and women have made tremendous progress the past six months, with fewer attacks on our troops, greater security in historically insecure areas, and terrorist insurgents on the run.President Bush also weighed in :
"The stakes are too high for this Congress to remain idle on this critical funding bill. The Pentagon has continued to make clear the ongoing Democrats'stranglehold over resources will force it to lay off staff, cut operations,and pare back the budgets of other departments. It's time for the majority to stop playing games and deliver a well-deserved gift in time for Christmas to our men and women in uniform: a clean supplemental funding bill."
President George W. Bush on Thursday stepped up pressure on lawmakers to pass his Iraq war funding request, while a senior Democrat said a deal might be possible.The House Democrats' position is indefensible now that (a) Rep. Murtha has admitted that the Surge is working and (b) public opinion is changing dramatically. Politically speaking, it's best for them to fold quickly if they don't want to put their freshmen in vulnerable positions.
During a visit to the Pentagon, Bush said delays in approving his $196 billion request for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars during the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 would force cuts in military base operations across the United States.
The Democrats' best strategy at this point is for them to cut and run on their current anti-war position. If they don't, the next wave will be heading in their direction.
Posted Saturday, December 1, 2007 3:26 AM
No comments.
The Spin, The Whole Spin & Nothing But the Spin
That's what last night's Almanac should be subtitled. The spin started with this spin from DFL Chairman Brian Melendez:
Brian Melendez: Mark Ritchie did not try & cover up any mistakes. He misspoke. He took responsibility for it right away. He corrected himself publicly & he's cooperating fully with the investigation that's now underway with the legislative auditor's office.As I said here , Mr. Ritchie didn't misspeak. He lied...six times, he lied. And not just to one person, which would be bad enough. Ritchie lied to Representatives Emmer & Brod in their portion of the investigation. Ritchie then lied to Strib reporter Mark Brunswick & Legislative Auditor Nobles.
Let's really look at what went on here: A couple of guys got emails that they didn't want. They obviously didn't know how to find the delete key on their computer but they could find a way to write to the Legislative Auditor's office.
The Republicans have done a very good job of making a mountain out of a molehill but there is really nothing going on here. No law has been broken. No rule has been broken. Ron, Is there a rule that's been broken? If there is, let's hear about it.
Let's also dismiss the notion that "he took responsibility for it right away" or that "he corrected himself publicly." That's nothing but spin. Mr. Melendez should be ashamed of himself for defending the indefensible. It's one thing to defend a policy decision. It's quite another to defend someone who lied to investigators.
When Mr. Melendez asked Chairman Carey "Is there a rule that's been broken? If there is, let's hear about it." I wish I could've been speaking because I probably would've cited the Data Practices Act, Section 13.04, subd. 2 , which reads:
Tennessen warning. An individual asked to supply private or confidential data concerning the individual shall be informed of: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting government entity ; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This requirement shall not apply when an individual is asked to supply investigative data, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7, to a law enforcement officer.Translated into simple English, it says that information collected can only be used for the purpose that it was collected for & that it can only be used by a "government entity."
Here's how Legislative Auditor responded to Cathy Wurzer's question:
Cathy Wurzer: "Chairman Melendez asked Chairman Carey what laws had been broken and it's a question maybe you can answer at this point:Jim Nobles himself said that Mark Ritchie had a legal obligation to tell the truth & that "it turns out that didn't occur." Remember that that's after Ritchie didn't give honest answers to Representatives Brod & Emmer.
Jim Nobles: "Well, I'd like to do the investigation first. But in the first instance of simply asking Mr. Ritchie to submit information to me, I pointed out to him that he did have a legal obligation to submit a full disclosure. Uh, it turns out that didn't occur. But we'll see on the substance of the allegations whether any laws were broken."
At what point should we believe Chairman Melendez that Ritchie simply misspoke? Or should we ignore his spin & assume that deception is consciousness of Ritchie's guilt?
During the political roundtable,here's what Ember Reichgott Junge said:
Ember Reichgott Junge: Well, we don't really know what happened. Umm,there's a title of a book that I'd recommend to any politician. It's called Truth to Tell. Tell It All. Tell It Early. And Tell It Yourself. Now we don't know the facts & we'll let the investigation share what that is. However, I will just say this: look at the deed did & what was the impact on the public interest & really, when you look at it, was there really any threats to life & liberty like, for example underfunding bridges? Were there taxpayers dollars that went out the door? No, these were emails so the public impact of this is,The Republicans are clearly overreacting to this,I'll simply say that Mr. Ritchie would've been well served if he'd told the truth, the whole truth. Similarly, Mr. Ritchie would've been better off telling the truth early. If he had, this wouldn't have been the big deal it is now. That being said, Phil Krinkie stopped the spin. Here's how he stopped it:
We know exactly what happened. He lied. He had names that he took that were part of the public domain. They were people that attended a public meeting & he took them & he gave them to his campaign to solicit funds & further his campaign. I mean, he admitted that he lied.Exactly right. That's exactly what happened. See how simple it is to cut through the spin? All it takes are the facts, stated clearly & concisely. Spin cycle complete.
Posted Saturday, December 1, 2007 3:25 AM
No comments.
Tarryl Prefers State Control vs. Local Control of Education
The message coming through loud & clear in Tarryl Clark's latest statement on education funding is that she prefers state control of education funding rather than local control of education funding. Here's how she couches that belief:
"Our state constitution says that state government is responsible for providing a 'secure and thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state,' said Clark. "Instead, Governor Pawlenty has successfully instituted a system that puts local school districts in the business of begging for money from over-burdened property taxpayers. Schools shouldn't be running campaigns and elections. They should be educating our children."Notice the litany of subjective terms used in Tarryl's statement, followed by the emotional appeal that schools "should be educating our children", not "running campaigns & elections." That's utterly laughable. Teachers unions are the DFL's GOTV operation, whether it's with school board elections or congressional, legislative or presidential elections.
Tarryl knows this because Education Minnesota likely was an important part of her GOTV operation. That begs this question: Why would she make a statement like that? I don't have the answer to that but I've got a hunch that it's something that's meant to provoke an emotional response to her policy. I think that the last thing Tarryl wants is for people to think things through & make a decision based on the wisdom of the plan.
Another portion of that paragraph says that "Our state constitution says that state government is responsible for providing a 'secure and thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state." What exactly does that mean in terms of financial support from the state? Is it possible that that simply means that we're obligated to put a system in place that guarantees a quality and efficient public school system? Does it necessarily mean that we pump billions of dollars into the school system?
Look at the next emotionally-charged accusation:
"Instead, Governor Pawlenty has successfully instituted a system that puts local school districts in the business of begging for money from over-burdened property taxpayers."Shouldn't we welcome local citizens voting whether they want to raise taxes? Shouldn't we want them to weigh the educational benefit that they'll get for their tax dollars? If schools have a good case, then isn't it likely that people will say "Okay, I'm getting a good return on my tax dollars?" If ISD's can't make a good case for their levies, shouldn't those levies be shot down?
Here's another Tarrylism that I have problems with:
"Property taxes are riddled with inequities. They're not based on the ability to pay, and are particularly rough on seniors and others who live on fixed and reduced incomes. When you add other factors, like a loss of state funding for local police and fire, ballooning mortgage payments for some and a declining state economy, it creates conditions that makes you marvel that 2/3rds of the referenda passed, and many, like St. Cloud, were very close."While I agree that "property taxes are riddled with inequities", I'd also suggest that the funding formulas are riddled with inequities. Also, shouldn't people be making decisions based on things that are happening in their town rather than having St. Paul dictate policies based more on political alliances than on local conditions & needs?
Posted Saturday, December 1, 2007 10:00 PM
No comments.
Let the War Begin
Gov. Tim Pawlenty's plans for the money recouped by closing the FOC loopholes is certain to get the DFL hopping mad. According to this Marshall Independent article , Gov. Pawlenty wants the money spent on property tax relief that's paid directly to the taxpayer, with a modest income tax cut being another alternative:
Pawlenty said he supports the tax change. But he said the money should go toward lowering other taxes, mentioning direct-to-homeowner property tax relief or income tax cuts as possibilities.Democrats will howl at that. Their idea of property tax relief is increased LGA along with direct-to-taxpayer relief. Here's the DFL's proposal from the previous session:
Marquart's proposal would cost $543 million, most of which would come from a new, higher income tax rate on couples earning more than $400,000 a year. The new property tax relief money would spend:It isn't likely that they'd propose anything dramatically different this session. That's why I hope Republicans push the tax issue hard this session. Democrats are genetically predisposed to raising taxes. I further hope that Republicans shoot down the myth that bonding bills rev up the economy. Friday night, Phil Krinkie responded to Ember Reichgott Junge's suggestion that that's what's needed to get Minnesota's economy going. Rep. Krinkie said that he chaired the committee that passed $1 billion bonding bills in 2005 & 2006. He then said that "If big bondign bills revved up the economy, Minnesota's economy should be going great guns by now.
- $223 million to increase refunds.
- $133 million to lower school levies.
- $83 million to increase aids paid to local governments.
- $104 million to fill gaps while the property tax system changes.
Let the DFL argue that they need to raise taxes to pay for a bigger bonding bill that provides a short-term lift at best. They'd make for easy pickings next fall.
Posted Sunday, December 2, 2007 5:02 PM
No comments.
Hillary Is Booed
After reading this article , I think that Hillary is about to write Iowa off & head for New Hampshire. Here's what I'm basing that on:
The senator was asked if she would "make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" during her first 100 days in office. Clinton responded saying, "I have been favoring a plan to citizenship for years. I voted for it in the Senate, I have spoke out about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign. And as president comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me."When was the last time you heard about the presidential frontrunner getting booed within her own party? To say that that's extraordinary is understatement. That doesn't mean I think Obama will be the Dems' nominee but I think it's something that must be troubling to the Clintons, especially since their 'inevitability bubble' has been burst.
Soft booing could be heard from the audience. The man repeated his question about the first 100 days. Clinton replied, "Well you've to get congress to pass the legislation and the president to do as much as possible, which I will do." Louder boos came from the crowd.
Clinton was thanked for her appearance and the moderator expressed sympathies for the ordeal she suffered yesterday. Clinton thanked the moderator. More booing could be heard from the crowd again after she hung up the line.
Hillary had better change the direction of this campaign or she'll have a real tussle instead of the coronation that she'd hoped for. There's only 31 days left before Iowa. Five days later, New Hampshire voters will register their official preferences. Hillary's lead in New Hampshire has shrunk to 7 points. If she doesn't stop the bleeding soon, that lead could evaporate in 36 days.
The other thing that should have Team Hillary worried is the polling that says voters want fresh ideas more than experience. Either way you slice it, Team Hillary has her work cut out for her.
Posted Monday, December 3, 2007 2:22 AM
No comments.
Chavez Suffers Stunning Defeat
Sunday, the unthinkable happened. Venezuelans defeated strongman Hugo Chavez's attempt to become dictator for life . That doesn't mean I think he'll go gently into that good night, especially after reading these ominous-sounding words:
"To those who voted against my proposal, I thank them and congratulate them," Chavez said. But he also urged calm and restraint. "I ask all of you to go home, know how to handle your victory," Chavez said. "You won it. I wouldn't have wanted that Pyrrhic victory."Don't belive a word of Chavez's statement that he "wouldn't have wanted that Pyrrhic victory." He would've accepted any victory that would've allowed him to run again for office.
Here's how the NY Times described conditions in Venezuela:
The political opposition erupted into celebration, shooting fireworks into the air and honking car horns, when electoral officials announced the results at 1:20 a.m. The nation had remained on edge since polls closed Sunday afternoon and the wait for results began.Don't expect Chavez to stop trying to become the next Castro, though. That doesn't fit his personality type. In fact, I think it's likely that he'll start making life miserable for his "adversaries." (BTW, isn't adversaries an odd choice of words? Wouldn't opponents be the more appropriate term?
The outcome is a stunning development in a country where Mr. Chavez and his supporters control nearly all of the levers of power. Almost immediately after the results were broadcast on state television, Mr. Chavez conceded defeat, describing the results as a "photo finish." "I congratulate my adversaries for this victory," he said. "For now, we could not do it."
Opposition leaders were ecstatic. "Tonight, Venezuela has won," said Manuel Rosales, governor of Zulia State and the opposition's candidate in presidential elections last year.
Don't believe anything in this statement :
Chavez told reporters at the presidential palace that the outcome of Sunday's balloting had taught him that "Venezuelan democracy is maturing." His respect for the verdict, he asserted, proves he is a true democratic leader."Let's Be Calm" was the title of the article. Why is it that I think he's setting a trap? Why is it that I don't believe that this was his final attempt to become a full-fledged dictator?
Posted Monday, December 3, 2007 12:35 PM
No comments.
Hillary to Question Obama's Integrity
As absurd as that sounds, that's what's going to happen according to this Washington Post article . Barack Obama has opened a new website to combat Hillary's going negative.
"There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," Clinton told reporters here. She said voters in Iowa will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk."This isn't what Hillary expected to do. She's ran a rather scripted campaign thus far. That isn't to say that the Clintons aren't good at going personal. They're the authors of the book on the politics of personal destruction. The bad news is that Obama has a great antidote for their mudslinging. Here's a sample of their counteroffensive:
Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama's character, she replied: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."
FIRST HEADLINE: ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER SET OF ATTACKS FROM HILLARY CLINTON December 03, 2007In other words, they're using Hillary's words against her. I'm betting that Republicans are picking up on this counter to Hillary's attacks, too. She might still defeat Obama but he's showing Republicans how to counter that part of Team Hillary.
SECOND HEADLINE: ...INCLUDING OBAMA'S KINDERGARTEN ESSAYS
THIRD HEADLINE: ...JUST WEEKS AFTER PROMISING NOT TO ATTACK DEMOCRATS
Simply put, this is just proof that Hillary is a dirty politician, decrying the politics of personal destruction one minute, then engaging in the politics of personal destruction another.
I might also add that this is a stupid move on Hillary's part. This opens her up to the attacks on the various scandals she's been involved in, including her brother's lobbying for pardons, the Rose Firm billing records, the Travelgate fiasco just to name a few.
Posted Monday, December 3, 2007 3:24 PM
No comments.
Reid Denies Reality, Ignores Murtha's Statements
Just when seemingly every Democrat in leadership is acknowledging that the surge is working, Harry Reid refuses to acknowledge reality :
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one the top war critics, stunned fellow Democrats late last week with his statement that "the surge is working," even though he added that political reconciliation has been lagging. Murtha's view was backed by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who also said the surge worked after he returned from Iraq."We're still involved in an intractable civil war"? Sen. Reid needs to get better briefings. Here's what Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani said on reconciliation last week:
But Reid, in a Monday press conference, ceded no ground. "The surge hasn't accomplished its goals," Reid said. "... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war."
Reid's comments show that Democratic leaders in Washington may not be on the same page as their rank-and-file members when it comes to interpreting results on the ground in Iraq. Reid, as a leader, still needs to maintain some negotiating leverage as Democrats try to figure out a way to give President Bush some $50 billion in temporary war finding while at least attaching some strings to the money so it's not a blank check for the war.
Iraq's top Shiite cleric renewed his call for an end to sectarian violence in the country and for Sunni and Shiite Muslims to unite, according to a Sunni cleric who met him Tuesday in this holy city south of Baghdad.The leading Shiite cleric is calling for an end in sectarian violence but Sen. Reid thinks that we're involved in an intractable civil war. Which person will you believe? That isn't a difficult choice for me. Last week I asked if anyone believed Reid anymore ? It was a rhetorical question then. It's a moot point now after Reid's claimed that we're involved in an "intractable civil war.
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's plea for peace and unity came as a group of Sunni and Shiite clerics met in Najaf in the latest attempt by clerics from both sects to stem the violence. The meeting was sponsored by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, Iraq's most influential Shiite party, which is closely linked to al-Sistani.
Later, Khaled al-Mulla, one of the 10-member Sunni delegation, said the Iranian-born religious leader called for solidarity between the two sects and an end to the bloodshed, which has intensified after a major Shiite shrine north of Baghdad was bombed in February 2006 by Sunni militants.
"I am a servant of all Iraqis," al-Mulla quoted al-Sistani as saying.
At this point, Reid's made so many unsupportable statements that his credibility doesn't exist. What people need to ask themselves is whether they want to elect Democrats so Sen. Reid can remain the majority leader.
It's time we ran Sen. Reid out of his job as majority leader. I said last year that he's an incompetent. I still stand by that statement.
Posted Monday, December 3, 2007 10:00 PM
No comments.
