December 4-10, 2007
Dec 04 04:50 New Complications In Ritchie Fiasco Dec 04 11:24 Murtha's Thanksgiving Menu Features Seconds On Crow Dec 09 00:32 Everything's On The Table Dec 09 20:07 Waterboarding: Nowhere to Hide Now Dec 10 11:49 Birds of a Feather Dec 10 12:08 Seifert To Appear at Severson-Gottwalt Town Hall Meeting Dec 10 14:26 Liberals Piling Onto Hillary Dec 10 19:31 Romney's Abortion Transformation
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006
New Complications In Ritchie Fiasco
Just when I thought the Ritchie fiasco couldn't get more complicated, it got more complicated. Here's how the AP reported the new complication :
Tomczak says he and a colleague provided their e-mail addresses during a meeting on civic education at the Secretary of State's office, and later received a campaign message from Ritchie that included a request for contributions. His complaint accuses Ritchie of illegal use of government resources for a campaign.Not surprisingly, Michael's post is more detailed :
At no time did Mr. Ritchie suggest that he was attending-indeed, chairing-the "civic education" meeting in any capacity other than that of a public official. At no time did anyone at the meeting have reason to believe that Mr. Ritchie was in attendance as a representative of his political campaign.Here's another complication:
Moreover, we know that the list of "civic education" meeting participants that we received was compiled by at least one state employee, David Olson, by looking at the "properties" of the Excel spreadsheet/list that was sent to us after the meeting. If it is this list that Mr. Ritchie transferred to his campaign-and we have no reason to believe anything different-then this would constitute another use of public resources for political campaign purposes. (In one broadcast interview, Mr. Ritchie claimed that a campaign volunteer entered the information into his campaign database, yet even if this is true, this does not negate the fact that the list was originally compiled by a state employee.)If this John Tomczak's statement is accurate, as I believe it is, 'nonpartisan' Mark Ritchie has just been caught using a state employee as a campaign worker. I don't think anyone is willing to defend Ritchie if he did that. Why should anyone think that Ritchie has even a bit of credibility considering his claims of taking the partisanship out of the SoS's office? Here's the other troubline information from Mr. Tomczak's complaint:
More unsettling is the fact that Mr. Ritchie's campaign e-newsletter, right at the top, suggests that people should forward the e-newsletter to others. Considering that most of the participants in the "civic education" meeting were heads or representatives of nonprofit and grassroots organizations, it seems that Mr. Ritchie was suggesting that nonprofit resources be used illegally to disseminate his campaign message even further.The longer this drags on, the more damage that's done to the DFL. They control the legislature. Thus far, they've refused to investigate this, making them look like they'll protect unethical people if they're Democrats. That's definitely not something freshmen Democrats will want hanging around their necks next fall.
Posted Tuesday, December 4, 2007 4:50 AM
No comments.
Murtha's Thanksgiving Menu Features Seconds On Crow
It seems that Jack Kelly's article is giving John Murtha heartburn, what with the extra helpings of crow that Murtha is reportedly dining on. Here's the first helping of crow that Rep. Murtha had to digest:
While most of us were enjoying turkey for Thanksgiving dinner, Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Johnstown), was eating a little crow. "I think the surge is working," Rep. Murtha said last week after a quick holiday visit to Iraq.It's remarkable that Rep. Murtha wasn't called on his strident comments about believing the Pentagon. Simply put, Rep. Murtha isn't a patriot. He's a porker who spends tons of money on military pork. That isn't the same as being a hawk, as he's been described in the NY Times and the Washington Post.
The observation isn't remarkable. The signs of progress in Iraq are so obvious that even the New York Times has begun to report them. For, instance, U.S. deaths in Iraq in November (35, 26 in combat) were the lowest since March of 2006. Iraqi civilian deaths were about a third of what they had been in November of last year.
But it was remarkable coming from Rep. Murtha, who declared the troop surge a failure before it had begun. At a news conference on the eve of his trip, he'd accused the Pentagon of lying when it reported good news: "Because the Pentagon said it, you believe it?" he yelled at a reporter who'd cited statistics showing improvement.
There's more to this story than just questioning the Pentagon's credibility. In addition to the Pentagon's statistics, there's been article after article, from the NY Times op-ed by Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon to John Burns' articles to the Chicago Tribune's recent article . When Rep. Murtha questions the Pentagon's figures, isn't he really questioning these other articles, too?
It's great seeing someone of Kelly's stature ridicule Rep. Murtha's diatribes. Murtha is a pawn in Ms. Pelosi's quest for political power. When this issue fades, Rep. Murtha will be dropped like a hot potato.
Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash, who accompanied Mr. Murtha on the Thanksgiving trip to Iraq, agreed both that the surge is working, and that U.S. troops should be withdrawn anyway. But he admitted there was hypocrisy in Democratic criticisms of the Iraqi government.That hypocrisy isn't lost on American voters. That's why Democrats are panicking away from the public spotlight. (More on that later.)
"I felt kind of embarrassed to tell the Iraqis they had to get their act together and pass legislation when we can't do it back here," Rep. Dicks told the Seattle Times.
That's why Boston Herald City Editor Jules Crittenden thinks Rep. Murtha may have been acting quietly on behalf of the Democratic leadership when he signaled willingness to back off on the war funding bill.I'd respectfully disagree with Mr. Crittenden because Sen. Reid has deviated from this supposed script :
"I believe that what Murtha is saying is that he is ready to discuss surrender terms, but would like to be allowed to keep his sword," Mr. Crittenden wrote on his blog.
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.Some script.
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.
Posted Tuesday, December 4, 2007 11:28 AM
No comments.
Everything's On The Table
That's the message from Larry Haws in Larry Schumacher's blog last Thursday. Here's Larry Schumacher quoted Larry Haws as saying:
"We will be looking at ways to balance the budget, cut spending, use reserve funds, and close Foreign Operating Corporation tax loopholes, everything will be on the table for consideration."That's rather odd considering how much of the overbloated DFL budget Mr. Haws voted for. Had that passed, we wouldn't have been facing a $373 million deficit. It would've significantly higher, most likely in the billions of dollars range.
Let's compare Rep. Haws' statement with Rep. Steve Gottwalt's statement that got things started:
Steve Gottwalt had just said that we needed to do a better job prioritizing education spending, prompting Larry Haws to say "Maybe we do need to prioritize."Why should we believe that Rep. Haws will prioritize cutting spending considering his record in the last session? Rep. Haws voted against 10 of the 12 items on the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce priority list.
Here's a final quote from Rep. Haws:
"Long-term deficit projections of over $1.2 billion are another matter and will call on us to be innovate and forward thinking as we work to balance the budget and return to investing in education, job creation, transportation, and research and development."Rest assured that a Democrat's translation of innovate is raise taxes. We already know that Democrats plan on refighting last session's budget fights. At least, that was their plan until last week's deficit report.
Another thing that we're certain of is that they'll attempt to increase spending on education, especially after the amount of school referenda that didn't pass a month ago. The DFL will be under alot of pressure from EdMinn after that.
I guess Rep. Haws is right that "everything is on the table." Unfortunately, we aren't sure if he means last year's budget or fixing this year's budget deficit. Hopefully our goalie will come up big again.
Posted Sunday, December 9, 2007 12:32 AM
No comments.
Waterboarding: Nowhere to Hide Now
Democrats have complained about waterboarding for quite some time, saying that it's torture and violates the Geneva Conventions. After reading this Washington Post article , it's apparent now that they're talking out of both sides of their mouth:
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour , the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.Ms. Pelosi, among others, has some explaining to do. John McCain's stance is sincere because he's been subjected to torture while he was a POW. Ms. Pelosi, it appears, had a 'Come to Jesus' moment well after she sanctioned waterboarding. Perhaps the best explanation for her change of heart isn't that she had a 'Come To Jesus Moment' but rather had a 'Come to MoveOn Moment'.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Whatever motivated her to change positions, a question remains unanswered: Why the change? It won't be sufficient to give an evasive answer, either. Specifics are needed as to why the change of heart, if that's what really happened.
Here's the most telling quote in the article:
"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"Think of how revealing that answer is. The first instincts after 9/11 was to do whatever it took to "protect the American people." It wasn't until groups like CAIR and the ACLU took exception that Democrats objected. What does that tell you about Democrats' ability to prevent terrorist attacks? It tells me that they aren't using everything that's available. It says that they're more worried about a terrorist's civil rights than about protecting US citizens. That's unacceptable.
Democrats rely on interest groups like CAIR and the ACLU for financing their campaigns. These organizations are doing everything possible to hamstring our intelligence-gathering capabilities. That's a scary thought when you consider the fact that we're fighting against ruthless, nimble foe that's perfectly willing to wear us down over a long period of time.
We can't afford to let Democrats, who are that influenced by people who don't take national security seriously, have the White House levers of control. The thought is downright scary.
Posted Sunday, December 9, 2007 8:11 PM
No comments.
Birds of a Feather
Michael has an interesting post up about Al Franken attending an event featuring Rep. Maxine Waters. Waters is one of the most out there liberals in Congress. What I found fascinating is that Rep. Waters once wrote Fidel Castro. Here's what Michael posted about that letter:
Waters Wrote Fidel Castro To Urge Him Not To Deport Convicted Killer. "Assata Shakur, a member of the Black Panthers formerly known as Joanne Chesimard, fled to Cuba after being convicted of the 1973 execution-style killing of a New Jersey state trooper, Werner Foerster. The final shots to his head were fired as he lay wounded on the ground. Shakur's friends helped her break out of prison. Federal officials have been trying to get her back from Cuba since she surfaced there in the 1980s. Despite Shakur's murderous acts, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., wrote Cuban President Fidel Castro and urged him not to deport Shakur. Waters claimed Shakur had been persecuted 'as a result of her political beliefs and political affiliations.'" (David B. Cooper Op-Ed, "Murderers Deserve No Part Of Clemency," Akron Beacon Journal, September 9, 1999)The name Assata Shakur rang a bell for me. Here's why :
But Ellison's call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. "We need to come together and free,all the Saras," he proclaimed.Sounds familiar, doesn't it? The thought that Al Franken would associate himself with someone that doesn't want a cop killer be brought to justice is disgusting enough. What's worse is that Keith Ellison agreement with that.
Like who? Like Assata Shakur, Ellison told his audience. Shakur is a former member of the Black Liberation Army, a "revolutionary activist organization," who killed a New Jersey state trooper "execution-style at point-blank range," according to the
FBI's Wanted Fugitives website.
Shakur escaped from prison in 1979, and eventually fled to Cuba. She "should be considered armed and extremely dangerous," says the FBI, which is offering a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to her apprehension.
Ellison, however, lauded Shakur. "I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they're going to get Assata Shakur, they're going to get a whole lot of other people," he told the crowd. "I hope the Cuba[n] people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent
people depends on it."
Rep. Ellison should be ashamed of calling Shakur a "good decent person." When did convicted cop killers become good, decent people?
Al Franken, Maxine Waters and Keith Ellison are indeed birds of a feather.
Posted Monday, December 10, 2007 11:52 AM
No comments.
Seifert To Appear at Severson-Gottwalt Town Hall Meeting
(H/T: Larry Schumacher )
This Wednesday night, House GOP Leader Marty Seifert will be in Waite Park to participate in a town hall meeting co-hosted by Rep. Steve Gottwalt & Rep. Dan Severson. Here are the particulars on the meeting:
The meeting will be from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Waite Park City Hall, 19-13th Ave. N and is open to the public.Marty Seifert did a great job holding the caucus together last winter. As a result, the DFL couldn't override any of Gov. Pawlenty's vetoes. He deserves strong praise for that alone.
Environment, health care, transportation, state spending, taxes and more are on the list of discussion topics for the meeting, which is open to the public.
In talking with Rep. Gottwalt this morning, Wednesday night's meeting will largely focus on the positive agenda that the GOP will be focusing on during this winter's session & during the 2008 campaign.
I strongly encourage everyone to make plans to attend Wednesday night's meeting. I'll guarantee you'll be glad you did.
Posted Monday, December 10, 2007 12:08 PM
No comments.
Liberals Piling Onto Hillary
Al Hunt is the latest in a growing list of liberals criticizing Hillary. Here's a portion of his article for Bloomberg:
When Hart pushed the group during a two-hour conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates, a different picture emerged.Hillary's running as the establishment candidate, touting her experience as a reason to vote for her. These days, Democrats are saying that change is more important to them than experience. That favors Obama in a big way.
Obama, they worried, can't win the nomination; voters aren't ready for an African-American president (a point expressed most directly by the two black women participants), and he may not be sufficiently experienced.
A couple of victories in Iowa and New Hampshire would cure most of those problems.
The concerns about Clinton, 60, a New York senator, are that she is devious, calculating and, fairly or not, a divisive figure in American politics.
Those are a lot tougher to overcome.
It was revealing, too, when Hart pushed them to envision these senators as leaders of the country or, as he put it, their "boss." Obama, they say, would be inspirational, motivating, charismatic and compassionate. After praising Clinton's experience and
intelligence, they say she would be demanding, difficult, maybe even a little scary.
It doesn't help that she's seen as divisive. I've said for a very long time that Hillary's personality will prevent her from reaching large segments of potential voters. I don't think she can afford that.
Candor and authenticity were repeatedly cited. "I don't feel like I look at her and see someone who's telling me the whole truth," says Allison Lowrey, a 30-year-old human resources consultant. "I'd like to see her approach a problem without the polls" helping her make her decision, says Andrew Alebergo, a 39-year-old tanning-salon operator.Allison Lowrey's opinion is an emerging concern voters have about Hillary. Hillary's troubles started with her evasive answer on granting drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Ever since then, she's been criticized from all different directions on that. If Hillary wins the nomination, expect her to get a dialy dose of not being forthcoming, about her being mmore evasive than any candidate in recent history, etc.
Even strong Hillary supporters acknowledge the electorate's deep-seated concerns. "She is walking a fine tightrope now, because she is such a divisive personality," says Lynda Connelly, a thoughtful 58-year-old Red Cross manager. She plans to vote for Clinton while fearing that, if elected, "the right- wing noise machine is going to do
everything it can to derail her."
Lynda Connelly's statement that "she's walking a fine tightrope" right now is telling in the sense that it says Hillary isn't telling us what she really plans on doing if elected. If I were a GOP consultant, I'd focus on that like a laser beam. I'd even tell my candidate to start asking why Hillary can't give a straight answer on the biggest subjects of the day, followed by questions of whether we want to elect people who are that secretive and evasive.
In essence, it's asking if we want a bill of goods or the real deal.
Posted Monday, December 10, 2007 2:27 PM
No comments.
Romney's Abortion Transformation
I've stated before that Mitt Romney's credibility on the abortion issue isn't exactly high. Here's the link to the RomneyCare pdf that casts his credibility into doubt. Look at this section:
Outpatient careDuring the last debate, Gov. Romney said that he'd made mistakes on the abortion issue but that he'd experienced a transformation before becoming Massachusetts' governor. We also know that RomneyCare was the last major piece of legislation Romney signed as governor. Considering the $50 co-pay for abortion in RomneyCare, it's only fair to ask if this transformation really happened and, if it happened, when it happened.
Office visit to your PCP $5
Office visit to a specialist $10
Radiology, imaging (x-rays), lab work $0
Outpatient surgery at a hospital or ambulatory surgery center $50
Abortion $50
It's sounding more like Gov. Romney's transformation is an election scheme than true transformation. What this means is that mitt Romney isn't being honest with the American people.
This renders his 'Mormon speech' irrelevant. Frankly, I've never cared about his religious beliefs. What's worried me, though, is his honesty. If he can't tell the truth about this issue, then his credibility doesn't exist. I won't say that he's got less credibility than Hillary but I won't say he's got alot more credibility than her, either.
If Gov. Romney doesn't want to get ambushed by this, he'd better come clean on this ASAP. If he doesn't, rest assured that Team Hillary will expose it in the general election.
If Romney's signing socialized health care isn't bad enough, his lying about his abortion views make things that much worse.
UPDATE: I just got an email from Stephen Smith of the Romney campaign. He's provided me with an explanation on including abortion in the health care plan. Here's the information that he provided me:
I wanted you to know that the Commonwealth Care benefit services package was developed by the Connector Authority, an independent authority separate from theI appreciate the Romney campaign supplying this information. They should be commended for that. That said, it's still a troubling decision considering the fact that Gov. Romney chose to sign a health care plan rather than vetoing it.
Governor's office.
And, under Massachusetts law and court precedent, if the state is funding health care benefits, as it is with the subsidized Commonwealth Care products, it cannot refuse to fund abortions.
- The Commonwealth Care Package Is Designed And Administered By The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. "The Connector administers two separate programs; Commonwealth Care and Commonwealth Choice. Commonwealth Care offers subsidized insurance to people whose annual incomes are up to 300% or the Federal Poverty level." (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)
- The Commonwealth Heath Insurance Connector Authority Is An Independent Public Authority And Their Decisions Were Made Separate Of The Romney
Administration. "The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority is an independent public authority created to implement significant portions of the new landmark health care reform legislation. The Connector assists qualified Massachusetts adult residents with the purchase of affordable health care coverage if they don't already have it." (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The Massachusetts Constitution Required Payment For Abortions For Medicaid-Eligible Women. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)So, the inclusion of funding for abortion in the Commonwealth Care benefit services package is an unfortunate consequence of long-standing Massachusetts mandate. It isn't the excuse to question Governor Romney's convictions on life that our opponents might claim it is.
According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On "The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right" Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer "Medically Necessary Abortions." In Moe, "[W]e concluded that the State's failure to fund medically necessary abortions, while funding all other medically necessary procedures (including services in connection with childbirth), invaded a woman's constitutional right of choice to a degree that was not counterbalanced by the State's interest in the preservation of potential life." (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)
It isn't a stretch to think that Gov. Romney wouldn't have had this problem had he gotten behind a market-based health care system rather than a state-run health care system.
Originally posted Monday, December 10, 2007, revised 11-Dec 4:42 PM
No comments.
