December 11-13, 2007
Dec 11 08:30 Cutting & Running Dec 11 11:32 The Democratic Majority? Dec 11 12:18 Democratic Strategy Failing Dec 12 00:43 NRO Endorses Romney Dec 12 09:51 It Isn't 2006 Anymore, Part IV Dec 12 11:46 NH Is Hillary's Firewall? Dec 13 07:28 Romney's Pushing It Dec 13 08:19 Yepsen: Thompson Wins Debate Dec 13 17:01 Dem Feuding Dems
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006
Cutting & Running
Based on this article , it's safe to say that Arianna Huffington is upset that Democrats are cutting and running on a host of fronts. My question for Ms. Huffington is why she'd think anything but that they'd cut and run.
"Mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support."This shocks her why? The truth is that Americans aren't as 'on fire' to stop the war as the Nutroots say they are. Liberal loons like Ms. Harrington keep talking about Iraq like there's some great groundswell of support for ending the war. The truth is that there's twice as much support for continuing the fight in Iraq as there is for Congress.
That is how, according to the Washington Post, officials present characterized the reaction of lawmakers , including Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman, when they were briefed in 2002 about waterboarding and other severe interrogation techniques being employed by the CIA.
But it could just as well be the slogan of the Democrats for much of the last six-plus years, especially on Iraq.
Here's how Huffington expresses her outrage for waterboarding:
It's shocking that any American lawmaker, of either party, would go along with state-sanctioned torture. But it's not shocking when you realize it's just part of a long line of Democratic "acquiescence." From the outright support of the war authorization (sorry, Hillary, we all know what the bill was about) to the latest surrender on war funding, Republicans know Democrats will bluster...and then cave. So of course they're taking "increasingly hard-lined positions."
According to the Post, when briefed in 2002 about the torture going on, "no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said."
It isn't shocking, Ms. Huffington. Sane people think preventing future terrorist attacks is the most important government responsibility. Why anyone would oppose enhanced interrogation techniques is beyond me.
This isn't significantly different than people approving of the NSA's intercept program. When the NY Times revealed the existance of the program, they subsequently conducted a poll, hoping to show the revulsion with this 'invasion of privacy'. Seventy percent of those polled expressed strong support for the program. The only shock I had was that it didn't approach 90 percent.
Don't look now but it sounds like the Nutroots are getting upset with their newly minted congress. I don't believe that they won't vote for the D on the ticket. I just don't think that they'll work as hard with their GOTV operation.
Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:31 AM
No comments.
The Democratic Majority?
This Douglas Turner column nails Harry Reid and the Democrats hard. Mr. Turner is especially of the Democrats who are missing vote after vote:
Day to day, there is no Democratic majority.I'm not upset that the Democratic Senate isn't getting things done for the most part. No news in this instance means they aren't screwing things up worse. It'll leave that much less damage to undo when Republicans reclaim the majority, whenever that happens.
One of the no-shows, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, has missed 80 percent of the roll calls since Labor Day, including 17 of the last 20 votes since Oct. 25. Obama's presidential campaign wisely emphasizes the man's "wisdom" and his "coolness" rather than his experience. Freshman Obama has zero experience in Washington, missing 34.2 percent of the roll calls since the party took power 11 months ago.
More critically, Reid's committee structure on two pressing issues is in near collapse because of the absences of Banking Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden of Delaware. With the subprime loan crisis pushing the nation's economy toward recession, one would think Dodd's panel would be on top of it. However, Dodd's banking panel Web site lists no hearing touching the subject since last spring. The committee has not even held a business meeting since Oct. 17.
This year, Dodd has missed 143 of 415 roll calls, or was AWOL on 34.5 percent of the votes, 84 percent since the start of October. Dodd has received plenty of money from big banking interests, and he has said lots about subprime loans on television, but he has done next to nothing.
John Kerry missed lots of votes in 2004 but he was the nominee. When Dodd and Biden are still missing votes is incomprehensible. They're pretenders who don't have a prayer of becoming the nominee. Their campaigning like they still are serious candidates smacks of arrogance and/or elitism. It certainly isn't something that real people would condone or understand.
Here's the most damning information in the article:
Number two among the delinquents is Biden. He has been somewhere else on 35.9 percent of the votes this year. With all the controversy over Iran's uranium enrichment program, Biden's Foreign Relations Committee has not bothered to convene for a business meeting since Oct. 31.Sen. Biden often thunders about how President Bush doesn't have a clue on foreign policy. How would Biden know since he isn't showing any interest in foreign policy himself? The guy is a pomposity personified. His over-inflated image of himself is legendary. Sen. Biden's pomposity is only surpassed by his incredibly average list of accomplishments.
A year ago, Democrats were riding high after their election victories. They've since proven that they aren't capable of doing the basics of governance. Compare that with the Republicans when they took control in 1995. People will disagree with what they passed but they had a significant-sized list of accomplishments when they faced re-election. Barring a major miracle, Democrats will have a microscopic list of accomplishments.
Rest assured that the voters will notice that lack of productivity.
Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:39 AM
No comments.
Democratic Strategy Failing
Based on this Washington Post article , it's safe to say that David Obey is upset with the Bush administration. His logic, however, leaves alot to be desired:
A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange for additional domestic spending appeared to collapse last night after House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) accused Republicans of bargaining in bad faith.Rep. Obey is trying to 'stick it' to President Bush but he's actually creating the conditions for a total Bush victory to start the new year. While it's disgusting that he's pulling the war funding from the bill, it's good that they're stripping out all of the earmarks. I wouldn't exactly call that an even trade but I'm happy that they're getting removed.
Instead, Obey said he will push a huge spending bill that would hew to the president's spending limit by stripping it of all lawmakers' pet projects, as well as most of the Bush administration's top priorities. It would also contain no money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Absent a Republican willingness to sit down and work out a reasonable compromise, I think we ought to end the game and go to the president's numbers," Obey said. "I was willing to listen to the argument that we ought to at least add more for Afghanistan, but when the White House refuses to compromise, when the White House continues to stick it in our eye, I say to hell with it."
What this means is that President Bush can push for a clean Iraq supplemental following the Christmas break. Rest assured that freshman Democrats will want to pass that bill rather than be seen as not funding the troops. The worst nightmare for these freshmen is to campaign with their GOP opponents having that as commercial ammunition.
Because he won't have the numbers, Obey will lose the entire shooting match. He will have stripped out the pork that President Bush wanted removed and he will have given President Bush an impressive victory to start his last year in office. It's difficult not seeing this as a win-win situation for Republicans. After all, Democrats will have played hardball with President Bush before losing the battle and the war.
I've criticized President Bush for not being a fiscal conservative because he wasn't. That's changing now that Democrats are the majority party. I just wish he'd vetoed bills in 2005 and 2006. If he had, Republicans might still be in the majority in the Senate.
Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2007 4:17 PM
No comments.
NRO Endorses Romney
NRO has officially endorsed Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination for president. Here's NRO at their most ridiculous:
More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush's virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism , less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.Let's be blunt. Mitt Romney isn't a conservative. In this incarnation, he's a conservative...sort of. When NRO says that Romney is "less inclined to federal activism", I have to stop myself from laughing. It was just a month ago that he said he'd sign a federal bill outlawing abortion if Roe v. Wade was overturned. That's a clear sign that he doesn't care about federalism. If someone isn't a fanatical supporter of federalism, it isn't a big leap to federal activism. It's a tiny step.
When NRO says that Romney's moral positions are the same as President Bush's, their credibility is seriously in question. There isn't any doubt about whether President Bush is staunchly pro life. There's plenty of doubt about Gov. Romney's pro-life convictions.
This afternoon, Stephen Smith from Romney's campaign emailed me about my questioning Romney's abortion transformation. Mr. Smith said that yes, Romney signed the bill creating a health care system but that he didn't have a choice in providing abortions because of court precedents. In other words, Gov. Romney signed this health care bill knowing that abortions had to be covered by it. That's irresponsible at best.
What type of man puts a higher priority on signing a health care bill (and a bad bill at that) than on saying no to taxpayer-funded abortions? That certainly isn't a pro-life position. The pro-life position would've been to veto the bill. If the legislature overrides Gov. Romney's veto, then so be it.
I talked with a friend of mine who lives in Massachusetts. My friend says that this legislation is driving people out of business. It's also driving businesses to lay off people.
The last I looked, conservatism was about liberating people, not enslaving them to government's mandates. If the NRO's description of conservatism is a politician who'd rather sign off on an oppressive government program than fight for totally free market solutions, then they aren't true conservatives. Instead, I'd argue that they're in desperate need of a refresher course in conservatism from WFB. NRO's endorsement of Gov. Romney is just as intellectually indefensible as Hugh Hewitt's constant flacking for Gov. Romney. How can NRO say this:
Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest.They think he's a limited government conservative after signing that health care bill? What objective criteria are they basing this opinion on? Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater would be shaking their heads disapprovingly if they'd heard conservatism defined this way. They'd be appalled. their brand of conservatism had a bold libertarian streak to it. NRO's, and Gov. Romney's, is devoid of a libertarian streak
After reading their endorsement, it's impossible for me to take NRO seriously as conservatives anymore. They've just lost credibility in their quest to play the role of kingmakers. Shame on them for that.
Posted Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:45 AM
No comments.
It Isn't 2006 Anymore, Part IV
Suffice it to say that Democrats are smarting this morning after they dumped alot of money into the special election in OH-5. Many political analysts had predicted a close race. With the totals in, it's apparent that wasn't the case. Here's what the Politico's Josh Kraushaar wrote about the Ohio and Virginia special elections:
State legislator Bob Latta decisively defeated Democrat Robin Weirauch in Ohio's 5th District, leading by 56 to 43 percent with 90 percent of the vote in. The special election was held to replace the late Rep. Paul Gillmor (R).It's saying something when bringing in the two highest-ranking Democrats to campaign for Weirauch could only get them 43 percent of the vote. It's even more magnified when you consider the amount of money the DCCC dumped into the race.
In Virginia's 1st District, GOP state Del. Rob Wittman won a landslide victory over Iraq war veteran Phil Forgit (D) in the race to succeed the late Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R). With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Wittman had 61 percent of the vote, while Forgit had only tallied 37 percent.
The story of the evening was Latta's victory, however, given signs in recent weeks that the reliably Republican district, based in Bowling Green, was in danger of falling into Democratic hands.
The victory was not cheap for the GOP, as, in fact, both party campaign committees spent sizable sums to contest the race. The National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee spent $428,000, nearly one-fifth of their entire cash-on-hand, but played a key role in making sure the seat remained in the GOP column.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $244,000 on ads tying Latta to scandal-plagued former GOP governor Bob Taft and jailed lobbyist Tom Noe.
State Democrats also dispatched popular Gov. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) to help campaign for Weirauch in the campaign's final week. And labor activists from throughout the state poured into the district to help the Weirauch campaign.
These races should provide some serious lessons for both sides. One lesson for both sides is that immigration will be an important issue in House races. Thus far, taking a hard-line approach is selling better than the mushy-sounding 'comprehensive immigration reform'.
Another important lessonto be derived from these special elections is that the pall of 2006 has lifted from Republican candidates. In my opinion, those candidates that are counting on a 2006 effect will be disappointed.
This should be the scariest analysis from this race:
But National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole also credited Latta's tough message on border security and holding the line on taxes for the victory. Weirauch had tried to run a populist campaign focused largely on jobs and trade, and if that message didn't work in Ohio, where the GOP brand has been badly tarnished in recent years, it could be a warning to Democrats that a strictly economic message may not have great national resonance.I wish this said that Ohio isn't as tippable as the pundits are predicting but I won't go quite that far just yet. What I will say, though, is that the Republican Party isn't as damaged as thought.
These special elections should provide some encouragement for Republicans going into 2008. It's safe to say that combining hard work with the right stands on the important issues is a winning combination. At this point, Republicans appear to be on the right side of the Iraq War and immigration. I strongly suggest that they highlight the immigration issue in 2008.
Posted Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:53 AM
No comments.
NH Is Hillary's Firewall?
If that's their Plan B, they'd better re-adjust after this poll . Here's what it says:
According to the latest WMUR/CNN poll, Hillary Clinton's 20-point lead has vanished. She now has 31 percent support, with Barack Obama in a statistical tie at 30 percent. John Edwards is third with 16 percent, and Bill Richardson has slipped slightly to 7 percent.The Hillary aura of inevitability evaporated long ago. Still, most people thought that she'd pull out of the stumble from the drivers license debacle long before now. That obviously hasn't happened, which is why her campaign team started putting together a Plan B.
The poll was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center over the weekend. Oprah Winfrey held a rally for Obama on Sunday, and it might have given him a bounce, analysts said.
Based on these polling results, they'd better start putting together a Plan C. In fact, I think she's in a world of hurt in South Carolina, especially after Oprah campaigned with Obama there. If she's lost the Iowa and New Hampshire, people will be jumping Hillary's ship in South Carolina, too.
This certainly won't be the coronation that Hillary had hoped for. This is her nightmare scenario. I'm not predicting disaster for her, just that her worst nightmare might come true. Evidence of that nightmare is showing up, especially in this article :
Alarmed by his wife's slide in the polls and disarray within her backbiting campaign, a beside himself Bill Clinton has leaped atop the barricades and is furiously plotting a cure - or coup.I'll simply say that this doesn't have the feel of a juggernaut anymore. It's got the feel of a panicking campaign team more than anything else. She'd better get things figured out fast or her dream will have slipped by.
"She's in big trouble and he knows it," a top Democratic operative and Hillary Clinton booster told the Daily News.
Sources familiar with the ex-President's thinking say he doesn't believe his wife's situation is desperate. But he's unhappy with her operation, once hailed as a juggernaut, and concerned she could lose the Democratic nomination without major alterations in strategy and staffing.
Posted Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:47 AM
No comments.
Romney's Pushing It
Frank Luntz's focus group's opinions notwithstanding, I didn't think that Gov. Romney's answers on education were that great. I couldn't have agreed more than when he said that there should be more local control of education. He lost me, however, when he talked about NCLB's testing and accountability standards.
I'm curious how someone can say that they're for local control of education and think that NCLB is a great system. NCLB is cumbersome at best. It puts tons of restrictions on states and local school districts. The burdens are so bad that many school districts are lobbying to reform NCLB.
What's worse is this email I got this afternoon:
GOV. MITT ROMNEY: We've made the same effort in our state, actually before No Child Left Behind was passed. We test our kids. We have high standards. We teach them in English, English immersion. We say to be successful in America, you've got to speak the language of America. We also put in place incentives for kids to do well. For those that take the graduation exam, which you have to take to get out of high school, we say that you're going to get, if you score in the top 25 percent of the test, a four-year tuition-free scholarship to a Massachusetts institution of higher learning. The federal government insists on those tests and those standards and it's key. Let me continue: I think we also have to have higher pay for better teachers and people who are not good teachers ought to find a different career.Talk about chutzpah. He's taking credit for Massachusetts implementing NCLB before the bill was passed and signed into law. There's just one problem with his taking credit for it: President Bush signed NCLB into law on January 8, 2002. Romney waws sworn in as governor in January, 2003.
Let's summarize: Gov. Romney says he's for local control of education only to admit that he's a big fan of NCLB, which puts onerous mandates on local governments. Further, he's tried taking credit for something that happened while he was campaigning for governor.
I'd call him a smooth operator but I certainly wouldn't call him trustworthy.
Posted Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:30 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-Dec-07 10:36 AM
Here is one where I think we have to disagree. I understand the conservative argument (and the commonsense position) that schools should be a matter of local control. But what degree of local control do you think can be exercised when the national and state teachers' union control all the levels of power on funding, standards, etc.?
And if the goal is really local control, why not give PARENTS the money and let them decide which schools their children attend, including public?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Dec-07 03:57 PM
I understand the conservative argument (and the commonsense position) that schools should be a matter of local control. But what degree of local control do you think can be exercised when the national and state teachers' union control all the levels of power on funding, standards, etc.? These unions have control right now but it's my goal to strengthen parents' position by publicly pitting parents vs. the unions whenever they don't agree.
If the unions don't agree to these commonsense positions, then they'll have to be defeated politically.
I don't pretend that that'll be easy but it's doable because we're on the side of the angels with this.
Yepsen: Thompson Wins Debate
Veteran Iowa political reporter David Yepsen thinks that Fred Thompson won yesterday's debate . Mr. Yepsen has been covering Iowa politics for many a year so I pay particularly close attention to his opinions just prior to the Iowa Caucuses.
Fred Thompson came out on top in Wednesday's debate among the Republican presidential candidates in Iowa. Of all the candidates, he did himself the most good.Simply put, Fred Thompson looked authoritative yesterday. When he essentially told the moderator that he wasn't going to play her little handraising game, he looked the part of a leader. What was impressive was his response:
Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney also scored well. They avoided any last-minute derailments of their front-running candidacies in Iowa and shored up the support they've built.
But it was Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, who was specific, good-humored and exuded an executive persona during the low-key, 90-minute session that was sponsored by The Des Moines Register and broadcast by Iowa Public Television.
He had several high points. One of them came when he flatly refused to play the 'raise your hand' game in answering a question about global warming. Another came when he said the biggest problem facing education was the National Education Association. (Bashing teacher unions is always popular with Republican audiences.)
Thompson also gets credit for being a stand-up guy willing to take on entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt the country if left unchanged. He made it clear that wealthy, older Americans could no longer expect full Medicare benefits if he's elected. Thompson also teased Romney about his wealth and how the former Massachusetts governor is "getting to be a pretty good actor."
If you want to give me time to give an answer, I'll gladly do that.When the moderator said she wouldn't do that, he said he wouldn't play her little game. Simply put, he determined the rules of the debate at that point. It's the 'the momment' that people will be talking about the rest of this week and into next week.
I thought his answers about entitlement reform were particularly forceful. His saying that it's time to tell Warren Buffett that the government wasn't going to pick up the tab for his health insurance "because we can't afford it" was wonderful straight talk. It's what a leader does.
As Mr. Yepsen said, Sen. Thompson's lambasting the NEA was particularly forceful, too. The great thing was that he didn't just chide them. He also threw in why he thought that. After watching the Bush administration communications team go defensive, it's great to see Republicans going on the offensive.
I thought the other part that'll help him alot was his answer that he'd talk with the American people about the dangers we're facing from the terrorists, the disaster heading our direction if we don't do entitlement reform and his saying he'd first reach out to everyone to reform entitlements but that he'd "go over their heads to the American people" if they balked at reforming entitlements.
I wish more Republicans showed that type of political courage and leadership. If they did, we'd be facing alot better 2008 than we're currently facing.
Sen. Thompson has alot of ground to make up so I don't know how much he'll be helped by yesterday's performance. It was great seeing him win the debate, though. At least we know that there's a true conservative leader in the field of candidates.
Posted Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:21 AM
No comments.
Dem Feuding Dems
This Washington Post article is a a delicious thing to read. It seems that the House and Senate Democrats want to have a food fight with each other. In my opinion, nothing could be more delicious. Here's some examples of the bitter feelings:
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death.This is unprecedented. I've never witnessed such a widespread public food fight within a political party. These aren't backbenchers criticizing each other, either. They're part of the Democrats' leadership.
Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker's "iron hand" style of governance.
Asked about his decision on government funding, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) groused to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call: "I'll tell you how soon I will make a decision when I know how soon the Senate sells us out." Senate Democrats have fired back, accusing Pelosi and her liberal allies of sending over legislation that they know cannot pass in the Senate, and of making demands that will not gain any GOP votes. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) noted that, this summer, Reid employed just the kind of theatrics Rangel and other House Democrats are demanding, holding the Senate open all night, pulling out cots and forcing a dusk-till-dawn debate on an Iraq war withdrawal measure before a vote on war funding. Democrats gained not a single vote after the all-night antics.Rush is calling it a meltdown. I couldn't agree more. These guys are self-destructing in public. The Democratic firing squad is in place (In a circle) and they're unloading the full clips from their AK-47's.
The disputes have at times taken on starkly personal tones. In closed-door bicameral leadership meetings, Pelosi has questioned Reid's intentions on issues such as war funding tied to troop withdrawal timelines and an alternative minimum tax fix that is fully funded by tax increase offsets, suggesting that his words have not always matched his actions.
Reid has let his own frustration show. After Republican senators accused Pelosi of lying about her intentions on a comprehensive energy bill, the majority leader offered a backhanded defense.
"I can't control Speaker Pelosi," he said on the chamber floor. "I hope everybody understands that. She is a strong, independent woman. She runs the House with an iron hand. I support what she does, but no one needs to come and tell me I didn't keep my word."
This is disastrous for Democrats. First, they've got the most incompetent Speaker & Senate Majority Leader in his tory. Next, it appears as though this duncely duo don't like each other much. Don't bet that voters won't notice the Democrats' miniscule list of accomplishments, either. They're a total disaster substantively and temperamentally.
A few months back, pundits were saying that Democrats would gain a minimum of 2-3 seats in the Senate, with an outside shot at 6-7. I can't see republicans regaining control of the Senate but I've totally eliminated the possibility of the Democrats picking up 6-7 Senate seats. To win that many seats, you need a long list of accomplishments, something they certainly won't have.
With Hillary's campaign imploding and with the Democrats' intraparty infighting and with their tiny list of accomplishments, this isn't shaping into a banner year for Democrats. Of course, 11 months is a lifetime in politics but I just don't see them getting their things together before then.
That's why it's imperative that GOP activists should get involved in their local campaigns ASAP. There's a very strong possibility that we can retake the US House and retain the White House. If that doesn't motivate you, then you likely don't have a pulse.
Posted Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:02 PM
No comments.
