February 6, 2007
Feb 06 02:37 GOP Displays Spine; Agenda Media Shows Bias Feb 06 03:36 Rudy's In Feb 06 04:41 DFL: Unproductive But Resolute Opponents of War Feb 06 10:11 Reid Demagoguery Falls on Deaf Ears Feb 06 20:13 Will Amy Testify, Too? Feb 06 23:44 Haws Responds
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006
GOP Displays Spine; Agenda Media Shows Bias
Monday, Senate Republicans successfully filibustered Harry Reid's attempt to limit debate on non-binding resolutions to the Biden-Warner resolution. Here's how USA Today described the filibuster:
Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed they would eventually find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops. "We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid.I'd ask USA Today if they'd define "full-fledged Senate debate" as one that said "We're debating a resolution that's anti-victory" or if "full-fledged Senate debate" meant debating several resolutions, including a pro-victory resolution. It seems to me that debating the terms of American defeat isn't full-fledged debate. It's a debate over whether we're spineless wimps who cave to biased public opinion polls or if we're courageous people fighting for the enduring principles of liberty and self-determination.
Here's why Reid doesn't want a true debate:
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described the test vote as merely a "bump in the road" that could possibly be overcome within hours. GOP lawmakers "welcome the debate and are happy to have it," he said, adding they were insisting on equal treatment for an alternative measure expected to draw strong support. The proposal, by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., says Congress should neither cut nor eliminate funding for troops in the field. That measure takes no position on the war or the president's decision to deploy additional forces.In other words, the filibuster would disappear if there was a debate over whether the Senate was pro-victory or defeatist. That seems like a big enough thing for the Senate to debate. I suspect that America would be interested in listening to that debate. Instead, Dingy Harry doesn't think we should debate it because they want to have it both ways. That's exactly what Joe Lieberman accused them of:
The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their Commander's orders. This resolution does nothing to alter these facts.I've long believed that Joe Lieberman was a genuine American hero. After reading his speech, I'm resolute in my belief that he's a man of principle, courage and steadfastness. More importantly, he's a man with the facts on his side. Contacting the Library of Congress about the history of resolutions similar to the Biden-Warner resolution gives these mice amongst men no cover whatsoever.
Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening.
What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America's will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.
This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.
For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.
If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.
The non-binding measure before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. It is at once for the war but also against the war. It pledges its support to the troops in the field but also washes its hands of what they are doing. It approves more troops for Anbar but not for Baghdad.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.
Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.
Frankly, I don't know why Sens. Reid, Levin and Warner would want to continue this debate after Lieberman's speech. I wouldn't want to be fighting against a man as patriotic, well-informed and well-respected as Sen. Lieberman. That's a fight you couldn't win because Sen. Lieberman takes national security issues seriously.
Sen. Lieberman's speech also put the spotlight on people like Hillary and Obama. They're straddling the political equivalent of a electric barbwire fence with both feet on banana peels. They're essentially caught in no man's land. If their policies prevail, whatever the specifics, they're cast as unilaterally surrendering the war. If the President's policy prevails, they're wrong on the biggest issue of this generation.
Contrast that with Rudy Giuliani's interview with Sean Hannity:
Giuliani: I think he could go back and as we develop positions and explain things I think it's quite appropriate to explain well I might have done it this way or more troops, I might have done it some other way. But here's reality. We're at war. And we're at war because they're at war with us. I mean sometimes when you listen to these debates in congress and listen to politicians debating, you get the impression that they think we're in control of whether we're at war or not. It doesn't matter what we think. They want to come here and kill us. And they did on September 11th. And they did a long time before September 11th. Way back in 1993 they came to this city and killed people. So we've got to put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq. And getting Iraq correctly, in other words, getting stability there is real important. And I support what the President has asked for support to do and what general Petraeus has asked for support to do. Not because there's any guarantee it's going to work. There's never a guarantee at war. But if we can come out with a correct solution or better solution that Iraq it's going to make the war on terror go better. We got to get beyond Iraq.Notice that Mayor Giuliani gets it. He understands that this isn't just about Iraq. He knows that it's about all the different pieces of the puzzle. Iraq is definitely a major piece to the puzzle but Iran and al Qa'ida are big pieces of that puzzle, too. His statement that "sometimes when you listen to these debates in Congress and listen to politicians debating, you get the impression that they think we're in control of whether we're at war or not" is a shot across Hillary's bow. It's a direct shot at her, saying that she doesn't have a serious position on the war. She's talked about it but it isn't a serious position.
Democrats will lose ground on this issue if the debate is about whether there should be a full-fledged debate like Republicans want or if Democrats should be allowed to ram a defeatist resolution down Republicans' throats. That won't play well with the American people because the vast majority of them are pro-victory and because they believe in full debate, not a staged, tactical limited debate.
Posted Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:39 AM
No comments.
Rudy's In
Rudy Giuliani sat down with Sean Hannity Monday night and revealed what we've all expected: that Rudy's running for president in 2008. Follow these links to view the interview.
One of the things that I took note of was this exchange:
HANNITY: Let me ask about Iraq. You have been very supportive of the president and the Iraq war. Is there anything you would have done differently? Do you think there's been any mistakes made?This is an impressive exchange because it tells us that Rudy understands all that must happen if we are to defeat the Islamic extremists. There simply isn't another option. In his response, Mayor Giuliani explains that this isn't just about Iraq, that this is a war that the Islamic extremists will wage on us whether we admit that there's a war or not.
GIULIANI: Sure. The president has explained mistakes made.
HANNITY: If were you the president.
GIULIANI: I think he could go back and as we develop positions and explain things i think it's quite appropriate to explain well I might have done it this way or more troops, I might have done it some other way. But here's reality. We're at war. And when we're at war because they're at war with us. I mean sometimes when you listen to these debates in congress and listen to politicians debating you get the impression the they we're in control of whether we're at war or not. it doesn't matter what we think. They want to come here and kill us. And they did on September 11th. And they did a long time before September 11th. Way back in 1993 they came to this city and killed people. So we've got to put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq. And getting Iraq correctly, in other words, getting stability there is real important. And I support what the president has asked for support to do and what general Petraeus has asked for support to do. Not because there's any guarantee it's going to work. There's never a guarantee at war. But if we can come out with a correct solution or better solution that Iraq it's going to make the war on terror go better. We got to get beyond Iraq.
This is also a sharp jab at the Clintons. Notice how he mixed the 1993 World Trade Center bombing into his answer, saying that Islamofascists had declared war on us long before they got our attention on 9/11. This is an indictment of the Clinton administration's indifference to terrorism, something that won't go unnoticed.
Rudy still needs to win over alot of social conservatives but I think that's doable, especially since he told the South Carolina GOP executive committee that he'd nominate justices like Scalia, Alito and Roberts. Fiscal conservatives will like Giuliani's tax-cutting record. All conservatives will appreciate Giuliani's crime fighting record. Here's another exchange that's worth noting:
HANNITY: How do you feel about the borders? It's one of our most important security issues. There's talk about building a fence. Do you support that? Do you support amnesty? Do you support guest worker?Talk of a "technological fence won't sit well with conservatives but he's at least being honest about what he believes. There are some hurdles that Giuliani will have a difficult time overcoming but I think people would be foolish to write him off for the GOP nomination. The nomination process is how we'll measure each candidate. I wish Rudy the best of luck.
GIULIANI: I support security at the border. I think its enormously important in the post September 11th period. We have to know who is coming into this country. We have to be able to identify them and figure out who they are. I do think that with the fence,the fence honestly has to be a technological fence. The head of my party, the new head, Mel Martinez who is a Senator from Florida, a great guy, he was being interviewed and they asked him about a fence. Do you think a fence should be put up. He said sure. He said except the only people that will pull put it up will be the illegal immigrants. I thought what the point that Mel was making was we need a technological fence.
Posted Tuesday, February 6, 2007 3:39 AM
Comment 1 by deminn at 06-Feb-07 11:34 AM
I don't see how Mr. G has a hope. Too much baggage you'd think for republicans, not enough liberality for democrats, and his positions don't really reflect mainstream america on issues at a basic level outside the East Coast.
Seems like money here that might be better spent elsewhere.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Feb-07 03:55 PM
Deminn, What would you know about a conservative's thinking? You've bought into liberals' image of conservatives, which is a major mistake.
Comment 3 by deminn at 07-Feb-07 05:47 AM
Is there such a thing as "conservative thinking", or are there many tribes here? I haven't seen and tradition conservative spenders in as party representatives for I can't remember how long.
I think I probably have more conservative tendancies than you understand Gary. If I let liberals do my thinking form me I wouldn't be in a very defensable position, nor an intelligent one considering the basic injustices promoted by the liberal arm of the party.
Mr. Will be as puffy as the rest of the contenders, spend a lot of money and make a lot of statements and what "we" need to do on this or that. In the end it's going to come down to a contest between who the democrats choose and the different marketing stratedgies advanced by the well funded campaign committies. Best marketing is going to take the day despite the serious erosions of our country's freedoms and justice quotient over the last 8 years. The republican arm of the party has a mcuh better chance of winning of anyone other than the democratic arm at this point. The day is there's to win.
Comment 4 by deminn at 07-Feb-07 05:49 AM
Mr. G would be highly unlikely to win in that case no matter the democratic candidate I'd think, he's too New York for most of us heartland serfs.
Comment 5 by deminn at 07-Feb-07 05:50 AM
Apologies for the numerous typo's above.
DFL: Unproductive But Resolute Opponents of War
The House DFL wasn't productive in working on important legislation but they've found time to propose a resolution condemning President Bush's troop surge. In fact, here's what the resolution says:
2.15 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Congress should pass legislation prohibitingPerhaps someone should explain to the House DFL that they need to take care of their work before poking their nose into somebody else's business. It's also alarming to think that Democrats, irregardless of where they are, are pacifists & defeatists.
2.16 the President from spending taxpayer dollars on an escalation in Iraq unless he first seeks
2.17 Congressional approval.
As for what the DFL isn't getting done, here's Minority Leader Seifert's take on things:
"This Legislature is so inactive it makes the Maytag repairman look like the Energizer Bunny," said Seifert, R-Marshall, and the House minority leader. "As a rural legislator, I leave my family to come to St. Paul, and I expect to make progress on real issues. It is disrespectful to taxpayers to waste their dollars on a legislative session that is clearly unnecessarily long."The House DFL is painting a big target on its back for 2008. They're breaking their most important campaign promises. They're meddling in things that they shouldn't be meddling in. Their productivity in doing the peoples' business is proceeding at such a slow pace that they'll be fortunate to get anything accomplished. If they keep working at this pace, they'll be blamed for not getting the main bills passed and for shutting the State government down.
Seifert made criticized specific areas in which he said the Legislature hasn't been active enough. He said:
Seifert said it's not unusual for activity on the House floor to be slow in the first month, but he's frustrated that little is being done within committees. Some haven't even met yet, he said, and some are not processing many bills. "When we were in the majority we processed more bills," Seifert said about Republicans.
- The DFL created more committees in the hopes of processing bills more quickly, but more than half the bills have yet to hear a single bill.
- The E-12 Education Policy Committee, Early Childhood Learning Finance Division and Education Finance Division did not act on a single bill.
- The Property Tax Relief and Local Sales Tax Division did not act on a single bill.
- The Health Care and Human Service Finance Division acted on one bill, and the Health and Human Services Committee acted on two.
He also accused the DFL of not acting quickly on issues it had campaigned upon, especially a tuition freeze for higher education, all-day kindergarten, and fees. He said he had hopes of bipartisan work on a tuition freeze but the DFL has rejected GOP overtures.
He said that while the DFL criticized Republican fees of recent years, the DFL its proposed 16 fee increases in the first month of 2007. "You can't campaign against fee increases and then propose 16 in the first month," Seifert said.
The House GOP leadership, along with GOP blogger/activists, will simply tell the story of how Democrats ignored their responsibilities, passed bad legislation, including 16 fee increases, which will impact all Minnesotans, and take time to criticize our President for protecting us from future terrorist attacks.
That's a sorry record, a record that I wouldn't want to run on.
Posted Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:41 AM
No comments.
Reid Demagoguery Falls on Deaf Ears
Harry Reid is insisting that Republicans have done something dastardly by proposing debate on competing resolutions. Here's what he's said now:
"What you just saw was Republicans giving the president the green light to escalate in Iraq," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV), said, steamed after the vote. Reid contends the Republicans "are trying to avoid a debate on this matter."Dingy Harry best get used to this because he won't be able to play hardball on this issue. In fact, the more word gets out that there are competing resolutions, the more indefensible Reid's position will become. Until Reid caves on this, President Bush wins. In fact, if Reid agrees to debate the Levin-Warner and the McCain-Lieberman resolutions, he still loses because I'm betting that more people will vote yes on McCain-Lieberman than on Levin-Warner.
A massive budget bill for the remainder of the current fiscal year comes before the Senate on Wednesday, and Reid promised war amendments to that debate. Bush has requested $245 billion in funding for the war, to cover this year and next year.Reid's Democrats can offer amendments to that supplemental spending bill but they don't dare put up much of a fight on this. If they actually succeed in putting in language that caps troop levels, they'll be on the record as supporting defeat. They'll essentially be saying that they're for the status quo. By the time that they actually got the bill passed, the 'surge' troops would be in Iraq, leaving Democrats in the precarious position of demanding the troops return home. That won't happen because they'd be signing the death certificate on their Senate majority.
At the day's end, Democrats aren't in a strong position. Yes, they'll huff and they'll puff but they're too spineless to blow the White House down.
Posted Tuesday, February 6, 2007 10:13 AM
No comments.
Will Amy Testify, Too?
According to this KSTP article, the police chiefs and mayors of St. Paul & Murderapolis will testify before House and Senate public safety panels on the issues of crime & transportation:
Crime problems in Minneapolis and St. Paul get some extra attention this evening. The mayors and police chiefs of both cities are scheduled to testify before House and Senate public safety panels. It's being billed as the "State of the Twin Cities" hearing. They'll discuss the state of the Twin Cities and look at the strengths and weaknesses regarding crime and public safety.The reality is that Minneapolis' violent crime rates have risen because Ms. Klobuchar's office didn't press for longer sentences for violent criminals. Here's what MPR said about Ms. Klobuchar's crimefighting record:
This meeting comes after the Metropolitan Council's survey shows residents now believe crime is a bigger concern than traffic. More than 35 percent of respondents say it's the most important problem in the seven county metro. That's the highest since the 90s, although still not as high as it was then.
To deal with the problem, 43 percent of those surveyed pointed to more police officers. About 12 percent of those surveyed wanted tougher sentencing laws.
A Kennedy campaign radio spot takes a lighter approach. "Hello and thank you for calling the Amy Klobuchar for Senate hotline," the ad begins. "If you are a criminal that Amy Klobuchar plea bargained or paroled and you just want to catch-up and say 'thanks,' press three."I'd call a 24 percent increase in violent crime appalling. I suspect that they didn't grill Ms. Klobuchar because (a) the Minnesota Senate was controlled by Democrats and (b) she was running for Senate. Senate Democrats obviously didn't want to call attention to Ms. Klobuchar's ineptitude until she was sworn in as a U.S. Senator. Sadly, the Twin Cities media let them get away with it. That's directly attributable to their being even more liberal than Ms. Klobuchar.
As the chief prosecutor in the state's largest county, Klobuchar has repeatedly claimed to have significantly reduced violent crime. According to the most current statistics from the Minneapolis police department, violent crime in the city is up nearly 24 percent this year compared to last year.
Here's what Mayor R.T. Rybak said about Minneapolis' violent crime situation:
"70% of the people who committed homicide in Minneapolis last year were on Hennepin County probation. The county and the city need to work together, but the county needs to step up."Rybak knew that Ms. Klobuchar was partly to blame. That said, Rybak shouldn't get a pass either. There's no acceptable reason why Amy Klobuchar wasn't raked over the coals for not putting violent people away for life instead of giving them probation. I hope that the new Hennepin County Attorney takes their crimefighting job seriously. Ms. Klobuchar didn't. Rybak needs to get raked over the coals, too. He can't blame it all on Klobuchar's office.
Posted Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:13 PM
No comments.
Haws Responds
I emailed Larry Haws, my local representative to the Minnesota House of Representatives about House Assistant Minority Leader Laura Brod's tax cut proposal. I wrote here that the DFL faced a choice. Here's what I wrote about what choice they made:
House Democrats refused the House GOP a vote on a series of tax cuts. They accomplished this by ruling that the tax cuts weren't germane to the legislation that was being debated, which was absurd because taxes were being debated. They pulled this stunt so that their members wouldn't be on the record as opposing tax cuts.I got Larry's response this afternoon. Here's something that stood out for me:
First, I should note that the predicted "surplus" can be somewhat misleading since inflation is not included on the expenditure side of the forecast, but inflation is assumed in the revenue side which, to my mind, ends up inevitably with a more optimistic and risky forecast than if both aspects were treated equally. It is very challenging to predict income growth, whether that is from higher taxable pay, more workers, increased sales subject to sales tax, more homes sold, more cars sold, or whatever.The reason I consider this section significant is because of what Rep. Haws doesn't talk about, namely wringing out wasteful spending. That's something that's been missing this entire legislative session. I've heard about how municipal governments were shortchanged during the deficit years & how we have to restore those cuts. I'm not willing to concede that all of the money that was 'cut' was justified spending.
Just once, I'd like to hear that a legislator's first priority is in locating & eliminating wasteful spending. Just once, I'd like seeing a Democrat whose first instinct isn't in increasing spending like the prior year's spending is automatically justified for the current year.
I know that a legislator's first responsibility is to fund the things that the various departments need but their second responsibility is to the taxpayers to spend the money wisely & to not spend more than they need to. Thus far, I haven't seen Democrats attempting to hold the line on spending or even shrink it.
It's time that they started. Long past time, actually.
Posted Tuesday, February 6, 2007 11:44 PM
Comment 1 by deminn at 07-Feb-07 05:39 AM
"Thus far, I haven't seen Democrats attempting to hold the line on spending or even shrink it."
You'd have to show them how. It seems like evertything's a NEED with some people and as long as it's other people's money there is nothitng that can't be afforded by us rabble.
