February 22, 2007
Feb 22 02:59 Is Hillary Rattled? Feb 22 03:57 Steamed Pelosi Demands Apology Feb 22 05:18 Senate Gives Themselves a 45 Percent Raise Feb 22 11:14 The Peaceniks Are Coming Feb 22 11:51 Daily Delusional Global Warming Diatribe Feb 22 22:42 Tread Lightly
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006
Is Hillary Rattled?
After seeing how badly they overreacted to David Geffen's quotes in a Mo Dowd column, you'd have to think that they're plenty rattled in the Clinton camp. It's also obvious that Howard Wolfson isn't qualified to be Hillary's campaign spokesman. Let's first look at what Geffen said about the Clintons:
"Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling," Geffen had said.More from Dowd:
Among other things, Hollywood and music mogul Geffen had told Dowd, "God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton?" and "Obama is inspirational, and he's not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I'm tired of hearing James Carville on television."
"I don't think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person," Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they'll wait until Hillary's the nominee to use it. "I think they believe she's the easiest to defeat."Now let's look at what Wolfson said:
She is overproduced and overscripted. "It's not a very big thing to say, 'I made a mistake' on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can't," Mr. Geffen says. "She's so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms."
"While Senator Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband.David Geffen isn't the Obama finance chair. He simply held a fundraiser for Obama because (a) he thinks that Hillary is beatable and (b) he thinks that Obama has more 'upside' than Hillary. I suspect that Geffen believes that Hillary's negatives are so high and her personality is so divisive that she wouldn't stand a chance against Rudy Giuliani. I suspect that's right.
"If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money.
"While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama's principal fundraiser.
The other thing about Wolfson's diatribe is that he shares Hillary's tone deafness. It's hard imagining a political consultant with less charm or personality than James Carville or Paul Begala but Mr. Wolfson apparently has less charm and personality than either of them.
I know that people are saying that Hillary has this great organization in place and that she'll have all the money she needs, which I believe is true. Still, her personality and her lack of political intuition won't help her. I think that she'll still be the Dems' presidential nominee but I could see her personality grating on people's nerves or her lack of political touch getting her in serious trouble against Rudy.
Posted Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:00 AM
No comments.
Steamed Pelosi Demands Apology
There's an old saying that a little paranoia goes a long way. Let's just say that Nancy Pelosi's paranoia is showing and it isn't a flattering picture of her. Here's the AP article that exposes her paranoia. Let's start with what touched off her paranoia:
"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people...try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."This isn't just opinion. Osama bin Laden said that America's leaving Somalia convinced them that American was a paper tiger. Here's the specific quote:
In his 1996 "Declaration of War Against the Americans," Osama bin Laden cited the U.S. retreat from Somalia in 1993: "You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear," he said. "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse."Staying true to his form, John Murtha advised Bill Clinton to pull out of Somalia. He's given President Bush the same advice:
"The thing that disturbed me and worries me about this whole thing is we can't get them to change direction. And I said over and over in debate, if you listen to any of it, in Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia President Clinton changed direction, and yet here, with the troops out there every day, suffering from these explosive devices, and being looked at as occupiers...80 percent of the people want us out of there."In other words, Vice President Cheney is merely stating that Osama bin Laden said that our pulling out of Somalia was taken as a sign of weakness and that that weakness was the motivation for al Qa'ida to plan more and bigger attacks, with 9/11 being the attack that finally got our attention. In other words, Ms. Pelosi is miffed because Vice President Cheney exposed the Democrats' strategy as defeatist and reckless. Here's how Ms. Pelosi responded:
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), CNN's The Situation Room, June 16, 2006
Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support. And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said.Who questioned their patriotism? This is typical Democrat behavior after they've been shown to not be serious about fighting the jihadists. If they don't want to be chastised for advocating a reckless foreign policy, all they need do is advocate a serious, coherent policy. Until they do, the administration is within their bounds to chastise their misguided foreign policy.
As for her assertion that the vice president's comments have "no place in our debate", I'll simply ask her what does have a place in this debate? If you can't characterize the Democrats misguided and dangerous Iraq policy as misguided and dangerous, what should they say? Should the administration sit silent while Democrats talk about supporting the troops while undercutting their mission? Should the administration sit silent while Democrats make things up in attacking the administration? Here's an example of them making something up:
JACK MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE: People tend to say, well, if we leave there's going to be chaos. I don't believe that. Seventy-eight percent of the Iraqis say that's not going to happen, 78 percent of the Iraqis say it'll be...we're the ones that are causing this and al Qaeda's going to be... al Qaeda's going to disappear.Jack Murtha hasn't spoken the truth about Iraq in ages. This is just another example of his speaking with a double-forked tongue. Serious people won't agree with him when he's saying that "al Qaeda's going to disappear." John Murtha could've chosen to act with integrity. Instead, he chose temporary glory. Almost as outrageous as saying that "al Qaeda's going to disappear" is his saying that our troops are staying in Saddam's palace.
The United States should not be lowering its standards to the standards of terrorists and I think that's a very important point. This is in the hearts of minds of people. That's why I say it's important to get them out of the Green Zone, get them out of Saddam's palace. They're in Saddam's palace. What does that signify?
If John Murtha got his way, America would be a far more vulnerable place to live because al Qa'ida would take his pacifism as a sign of weakness just like it did in 1993 when we fled Somalia.
The simple fact is that Nancy Pelosi has chosen to endorse John Murtha's 'Slow Bleed' strategy. It's her decision. Now she's got to live with that decision.
"I said to him perhaps when he saw what the vice president said he might have another comment," Pelosi said. White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Cheney "was not questioning anyone's patriotism." But she said Bush and Cheney believe that Pelosi and Murtha's "position to immediately pull out our troops would be harmful to our national security and that it is the wrong strategy to pursue."Ms. Pelosi reverted to the Dems' 'time-honored' technique of acting like Republicans question their patriotism. The truth is, Republicans question Democrats' seriousness more than anything else. If she can't handle the criticism, perhaps she should rethink her policy decisions.
Unfortunately, she can't because that'd mean the virulently anti-war left Nutroots crowd would dry up their campaign contributions.
Posted Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:58 AM
No comments.
Senate Gives Themselves a 45 Percent Raise
The Senate gave itself a 45 percent per diem pay raise yesterday. The vote was 59-7. Here's more of the details on the vote:
The Senate voted 59-7 to ratify an increase in daily expense allowances from $66 to $96 per senator, a 45 percent boost. The ratification came with a hitch: Those who voted for it automatically get the expense payments, known as per diems. The seven senators who voted against it don't get it. "You can't vote 'no' and take the dough," Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, said after the vote.The per diem allowance is considered part of the Senate's rules, making it off-limits to a veto. I suggest that we keep this in mind for 2010, when the Senate is next up for re-election. We should keep it in mind in 2008 if any of the senators who voted themselves a major pay raise runs for Norm Coleman's U.S. Senate seat or a U.S. House seat.
The seven dissenters, all Republicans, can still collect expense checks. But first, they must tell the Senate fiscal staff how much they will take, and that paperwork will be public. Voting "no" were Sens. Ray Vandeveer, of Forest Lake; Dick Day, of Owatonna; David Hann, of Eden Prairie; Bill Ingebrigtsen, of Alexandria; Amy Koch, of Buffalo; Geoff Michel, of Edina; and Pat Pariseau, of Farmington.
I'd also like to congratulate the Republicans who did the right thing. This won't go unnoticed. Here's Dick Day's quote on the issue:
Day said voters "didn't send us here to raise our salaries the first days we're here."After voters hear about how legislators voted themselves this big of a raise, I suspect voters won't take kindly to this. This vote pretty much makes it impossible for me to take Tarryl Clark seriously after she told me that they'd cut out wasteful spending. Why should I believe that they'll hold oversight hearings to eliminate wasteful spending after she gave herself a 45 percent per diem pay raise? If these senators don't think that $96 per day meal allowance isn't wasteful spending, then there isn't a chance that they'll find other wasteful spending.
I think this quote sums it all up:
"I don't know how we spend $96 (a day) on meals," [Geoff] Michel said during the Senate debate. "That's a pretty healthy diet."Frankly, $96 is more than a week's worth of groceries for me. They're getting that per day and they expect me to believe that they're against wasteful government spending? Forgive me if I don't think that they've got a shred of credibility on being fiscally prudent.
No further action was required to raise the per diem after the Jan. 10 vote. But Vandeveer forced the full Senate to take a second look at it. He called the per diem increase a backdoor pay raise and said all senators should vote on it so voters can hold them accountable. In an unprecedented action, the Rules Committee agreed.A special tip of the hat to Sen. Vandeveer for forcing the vote so we can hold these senators accountable:
DEMOCRATS VOTING YES: Anderson (St. Paul); Bakk (Cook); Berglin (Minneapolis); Betzold (Fridley); Bonoff (Minnetonka); Carlson (Eagan); Chaudhary (Fridley); Clark (St. Cloud) ; Cohen (St. Paul); Dibble (Minneapolis); Doll (Burnsville); Erickson Ropes (Winona); Foley (Coon Rapids); Higgins (Minneapolis); Kubly (Granite Falls); Langseth (Glyndon); Larson (Bloomington); Latz (St. Louis Park); Lourey (Kerrick); Lynch (Rochester); Marty (Roseville); Metzen (South St. Paul); Moua (St. Paul); Murphy (Red Wing); Olseen (Harris); Olson, M. (Bemidji); Pappas (St. Paul); Pogemiller (Minneapolis) ; Prettner Solon (Duluth); Rest (New Hope); Rummel (White Bear Lake); Saltzman (Woodbury); Saxhaug (Grand Rapids); Scheid (Brooklyn Park); Sheran (Mankato); Sieben (Newport); Skoe (Clearbrook); Skogen (Hewitt); Sparks (Austin); Stumpf (Plummer); Tomassoni (Chisholm); Torres Ray (Minneapolis); Vickerman (Tracy); Wiger (North St. Paul)
REPUBLICANS VOTING YES: Fischbach (Paynesville); Frederickson (New Ulm); Gerlach (Apple Valley); Gimse (Willmar); Johnson (Ham Lake); Jungbauer (East Bethel); Koering (Fort Ripley); Limmer (Maple Grove); Neuville (Northfield); Olson, G. (Minnetrista); Ortman (Chanhassen); Robling (Jordan); Rosen (Fairmont); Senjem (Rochester); Wergin (Princeton)
Posted Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:18 AM
No comments.
The Peaceniks Are Coming
I've written about alot of the national anti-war organizations over the past year. Now I get to write about Minnesota's own anti-war organization. This organization, Minnesotans Against Escalation in Iraq, is no different than the national anti-war organizations in that they're trying to get us to believe what didn't happen happened. Here's what I mean:
"People here in Minnesota and across America spoke loudly in November: Enough is enough," said Donald McFarland, state director of U.S. Action, one of the groups in the coalition. "These delaying tactics are unacceptable....Coleman has to stand up to his party's leaders."Mr. McFarland is pretending that most people across the nation, including Minnesotans, voted in a Democratic majority because they're opposed to the war. While there were plenty of anti-war nuts voting Democrat, the reality is that the Democrats' majority is more the result of conservatives staying home because they opposed Bush's border policy and Republican spendaholics.
Mr. McFarland also is ignoring this poll, which clearly shows that Americans are pro-victory.
7. The Democrats are going too far , too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.Mr. McFarland would have us believe that they have the power to ruin Republican politicians, which is nonsense. Republicans like Jim Ramstad have far more to fear from Victory Caucus activists than from the peaceniks.
[Somewhat or Strongly Agree] 53%
[Somewhat or Strongly Disagree] 46%
9. I support finishing the job in Iraq , that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.
[Somewhat or Strongly Agree] 57%
[Somewhat or Strongly Disagree]41%
10. The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
[Somewhat or Strongly Agree] 57%
[Somewhat or Strongly Disagree] 41%
Jason Bensley, an Army Reservist who served a year in Iraq, is a representative of VoteVets.org, another group in the coalition.It's apparent that Bensley's idea of supporting the troops is bringing them home. Look at their brief history:
"It's just not going to work, and this is punting the football to the next president," he said during a news conference at the State Capitol. "If Coleman's not supporting the troops on this, he needs to be looking for a new job."
The state effort, mirrored in other states Wednesday, took place five weeks after Americans Against Escalation in Iraq was organized. Among its founding members were MoveOn.org, Win Without War, Progressive Action Network and the Service Employees International Union.I went to VoteVet's website. Here's a sampling of what I found:
General Wesley Clark joins VoteVets.org in the launch of new website: StopIranWar.comIn other words, these folks are part of Keith Olbermann's far left freakshow, clueless activists who probably worry that Howard Dean might get a little too conservative for their taste. As with all these groups, we should ignore them. Here's what I said yesterday about John Murtha, another fatally flawed peacenik:
StopIranWar.com is a one-stop resource for all Americans to help stop the looming conflict with Iran. With the latest news on Iran and online tools to contact President Bush, lobby your members of Congress, and write letters to the editor to local and national print media, StopIranWar.com will help us create the groundswell of support needed to stop another dangerous war in the Middle East.
Visit StopIranWar.com now and sign the petition to President Bush. War is not the answer!
Keith Olbermann consults with VoteVets.org about the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
If John Murtha got his way, America would be a far more vulnerable place to live because al Qa'ida would take his pacifism as a sign of weakness just like it did in 1993 when we fled Somalia.Americans need to demand better results from Iraq but they must demand that we fight to win in Iraq, too. That's the only serious solution to the problem.
Posted Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:16 AM
No comments.
Daily Delusional Global Warming Diatribe
Just when I thought global warming activists couldn't sound sillier, I read an article like this which proves me wrong. Here's the silliest-sounding claim I've heard yet:
GLOBAL warming will take a toll on children's health, according to a new report showing hospital admissions for fever soar as days get hotter. The new study found that temperature rises had a significant impact on the number of pre-schoolers presenting to emergency departments for fever and gastroenteritis. The two-year study at a major children's hospital showed that for every five-degree rise in temperature two more children under six years old were admitted with fever to that hospital.I've decided that I'm releasing a report that's just as scientific as this one that listening to crap like that will cause you to go deaf. Or at least make you wish you had. Where do they come up with this crap? Is this crap the result of them using very expensive drugs that cause illusions? Or perhaps they have an over-active imagination? Or is it that they're former used car salesmen who haven't gotten over their need to tell whoppers? Perhaps all of the above?
The most likely answer is that this "major children's hospital" is hoping to get a major grant from the federal government and figured that this was the best way to qualify for that grant.
What's worse is that John McCain has bought into this crap:
"It's now widely acknowledged to be a great threat to our planet, our children and our grandchildren," McCain said. "Time is not on our side, we must act." He also used the opportunity to blast the Bush administration as unresponsive to global warming. "This administration's record on global warming is terrible," McCain said. "I've held hearings for years and got no cooperation from the administration on this issue."If McCain is hoping that this will endear himself to GOP voters, he's badly mistaken. If he truly believes this nonsense, he's worse than badly mistaken. As I said here, global warming isn't science; it's a political movement. Just to be clear, I acknowledge that there is a climate change happening. That's painfully obvious. I'm equally certain that there isn't proof that human activity is causing that climate change.
What these pseudo-scientists haven't proven is causation. They haven't proven that global warming is the result of human activity. Just because their statements sound definitive doesn't make their 'results' scientifically provable, which is the only benchmark we should care about.
Posted Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:52 AM
No comments.
Tread Lightly
According to this article, Joe Lieberman is hinting that he'd start caucusing with the Republicans if Democrats try defunding the war. Here's what the Politico's Carrie Budoff is reporting:
"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."I've said that Murtha's 'Slow Bleed' legislation is DOA if it even makes it to the Senate. If the anti-war activists get stubborn about this, though, the Senate might be forced to take action, leaving Harry Reid's Democrats in a lose-lose big situation. Other than Russ Feingold, Senate Democrats would rather criticize the President than actually defunding the war. I suspect that the anti-war activists won't be satisfied with that. If they force Democrats into introducing legislation that defunds the troops, they'll push Joe Lieberman into the Republican Party, ending the chairmanships their party currently has. Worse, they'll be on the record as being the party that didn't financially support the troops.
Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war. He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.
In other words, there isn't a way for them to triangulate on this issue. Democrats rode these anti-war activists contributions to the majority. These activists have stated their displeasure with Democrats' timidity with regards to defunding the troops.
Let's hope that the Democrats follow their activists over the political cliff as if they were led by the Pied Piper.
Posted Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:44 PM
No comments.
