July 14, 2008
Jul 14 01:39 A Questionnaire for Candidates & Incumbents Jul 14 03:48 It's All About the Photo Op Jul 14 10:17 Fournier's AP: Cutting Through the Clutter? Jul 14 13:24 Now The Ball Is In Congress's Court Jul 14 13:52 Blogs For Norm Jul 14 18:25 Oil Manipulation & the Crisis of Choice Jul 14 20:18 Pelosi Playing the Hoax Card Again Jul 14 22:35 It's Coleman Vs. Franken
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
A Questionnaire for Candidates & Incumbents
Each election, candidates are scrutinized from a variety of directions and on an even wider variety of issues. Two issues that shouldn't be debated, though, are the First Amendment and our nation's prosperity. With that in mind, every candidate or incumbent nationwide should answer some questions on those subjects. Let's get to the questions:
Do you support reviving the Fairness Doctrine? If you do, explain why? If you don't, why not? Please keep your answers as precise and on point as possible.
If you support the Fairness Doctrine, outline with specificity how it could be implemented. Also, explain what impact it would have on the radio industry.
To House candidates:
Do you support Rep. Michael Capuano's proposal to make it mandatory that representatives get prior approval to post work-related content on blogs, YouTube and other websites containing advertising on them? If you support it, why do you support it? If you don't, why don't you?
To all candidates and incumbents:
Does McCain-Feingold need to be reformed? If yes, which specific portions of it need reforming? If it doesn't need reform, why doesn't it?
Has McCain-Feingold been a success? If it has, what successes can you cite that happened directly because of McCain-Feingold? If it hasn't been a success, why wasn't it successful?
If McCain-Feingold wasn't successful, were its shortcomings forseeable?
Does McCain-Feingold limit free speech? If it doesn't, explain why it doesn't.
As for prosperity, let's ask the candidates this:
1) What specific steps would you take to curb inflation?
2) Can you curb inflation without dropping the price of oil? If you think you can, explain how that's possible. If you think you can't, explain how you'd lower the price of a gallon of gasoline.
3) Can you lower gas prices without exploration in areas that are currently offlimits? If you can, explain how that's possible.
4) If you think you can't lower prices without expanding exploration in areas currently offlimits, would you support opening up new areas for exploration?
5) Are marginal tax rates an important component to national prosperity? If they aren't, why aren't they? If they are, explain what role they play in fostering prosperity.
Candidates should be willing to answer each of these questions. Any reticence on their behalf to answer these questions specifically should be seen as their attempt to hide their unpopular opinions. This should tell us where candidates stand on two of the most important issues of this election cycle.
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 3:41 AM
No comments.
It's All About the Photo Op
Claire 'There's Nothing Inconsistent' McCaskill appeared on Meet the Press Sunday. In a short period of time, she tried telling Tom Brokaw that Barack Obama hasn't changed his policy towards hightailing it out of Iraq. Here's the video and decide for yourself:
Better yet, study this transcript featuring Claire McCaskill doing her best to spin her way out of a difficult situation:
MR. BROKAW: Senator McCaskill, your own candidate has had his own difficulties this past week in explaining his positions, sometimes in the same day. Let's begin with a well-known, now, sound bite about what he would do in Iraq. He's planning a trip there. This is what he had to say two weeks ago in Fargo, North Dakota, something that you supported in the same day in Kansas City. Here's Senator Obama talking about his plans for Iraq.Here's where Brokaw nails Sen. McCaskill:
(Videotape, July 3, 2008)
SEN. OBAMA: I've always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground. I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed, and when I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.
(End videotape)
MR. BROKAW: And later that same day, as you know, Senator Obama called the press together again because he wanted to clarify, as he put it, his earlier remarks. Here's what he had to say at that time.
(Videotape)
SEN. OBAMA: I intend to end this war my first day in office. I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month, and again, that pace translates into having our, our combat troops out in 16 months' time.
(End videotape)
MR. BROKAW: That confused even some of his most ardent supporters. If he goes to Iraq, and commanders on the ground, to whom he says he will listen, say, "Look, we could use 20 months, or maybe even 24 months," will he stick to his 16-month timetable in calling the Joint Chiefs in the day after he's inaugurated?
SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): Listen, there is nothing inconsistent about Barack Obama's position on Iraq. From the very beginning of this campaign, he has said very clearly his mindset is we must get out as carefully and as quickly as possible. There is nothing that he has said that contradicts that. Part of getting out carefully and quickly is listening to commanders on the ground. No commander in chief would ever say, "I'm not going to listen to the guys on the ground." And that's all he said is he's going to listen in terms of how we get out. But the mindsets are very different here. You have Barack Obama saying we simply cannot afford, either from a position of national security or our economy, to keep borrowing $10 billion dollars a month from China to be mired in this civil conflict in Iraq, whereas John McCain's position, his mindset is very clear, "We're going to stay, and we're not going to change in terms of our position in Iraq." So we have two different mindsets, and I think most Americans understand that.
MR. BROKAW: But, let me be clear about this, he says he'll listen to commanders on the ground. He's going there. But before he goes there, he says, "The day after I'm inaugurated, I'll have Joint Chiefs in the office with instructions to get them out in 16 months."Game. Set. Match.
SEN. McCASKILL: But...
MR. BROKAW: So the real question is why even go if you know that you want to do that in advance?
What's just happened is that Tom Brokaw just exposed the fact that Sen. Obama's trip is purely show, that it isn't a fact-finding mission. Frankly, it's about CYA, political cover . His mind's made up. The generals are just photo op window dressing.
The question that keeps lingering for me is this: Does Sen. Obama have such a strident attitude about Iraq that his only interest in visiting is for the photo op, the CYA session?
Another lingering question is this: Why should the New Media let him go through with the show as though it was a legitimate trip? This isn't a substantive visit.
One thing that's undeniable now is that Sen. Obama isn't about substance. Sen. Obama is the photo op guy, the unserious candidate.
Here's a question I'd love to ask Sen. Obama:
If what's happening in Iraq is irrelevant, how can you say that your policy is based on information, not ideology or on pandering to your anti-war activist base? Unserious candidates make decisions based almost entirely on the wishes of a power special interest group. Serious candidates set policy by listening to the experts.
Now we know which category Sen. Obama fits in.
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 3:50 AM
No comments.
Fournier's AP: Cutting Through the Clutter?
According to this article , Ron Fournier supposedly brought a new style to his new job as head of the AP in a May shakeup. The term for Fournier's new style is "cutting through the clutter." Here's what they're saying:
Ron Fournier says he regards Sandy Johnson, his predecessor as head of The Associated Press's Washington bureau, as "a mentor." Johnson, though, regards Fournier, who replaced her in a hard-feelings shake-up in May, as a threat to one of the most influential institutions in American journalism.TRANSLATION: Now the AP won't pretend to be unbiased. They won't pretend to be unbiased. Instead, they'll be openly anti-conservative and pro-liberal.
"I loved the Washington bureau," said Johnson, who left the AP after losing the prestigious position. " I just hope he doesn't destroy it ."
There's more to her vinegary remark than just the aftertaste of a sour parting. Fournier is a main engine in a high-stakes experiment at the 162-year old wire to move from its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as "cutting through the clutter."
The notion that these guys are remotely attached to unbiased isn't just laughable; it's downright dishonest. When the AP ran their story memorializing Tony Snow , here's what they said:
With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook, if not always a command of the facts, he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses.What the hell are they talking about??? Tony Snow "not always a command of the facts"? Tony Snow was a total wonk. When he walked into the briefing room, he was easily the smartest person in the room.
If that's an example of the AP moving from "its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style", then I'll admit that I can't tell the difference. Either way, they're less than objective and pro-liberal with a poor command of the facts. Their poll, AP-IPSOS, is a total joke designed to re-inforce their storyline rather than provide a snapshot of the nation's mood.
As for Ms. Johnson's hope that Mr. Fournier "doesn't destroy it", I'll simply say that it was well on its way of being destroyed before Mr. Fournier moved into that office and that he's overqualified to finish it off.
Here's a telling statement in the Politico's article:
In the stories the new boss is encouraging, first-person writing and emotive language are okay.It doesn't say that they should call people when they have proof, just when they think he's being a weasel. That's awfully subjective if you're talking about reporting. (Isn't reporting about nailing the facts down by double- and triple-sourcing the information?)
So is scrapping the stonefaced approach to journalism that accepts politicians' statements at face value and offers equal treatment to all sides of an argument. Instead, reporters are encouraged to throw away the weasel words and call it like they see it when they think public officials have revealed themselves as phonies or flip-floppers.
Here's some examples of this more emotive writing style:
The new approach was on display in a Liz Sidoti news analysis written earlier this month with the lead, "John McCain calls himself an underdog. That may be an understatement."Ms. Fouhy and Ms. Sidoti will never be considered giants in the news industry, mostly because they sound more like tabloid journalists from the National Enquirer than they sound like reporters.
Last week Beth Fouhy's dispatch on her feelings about the end of Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign began, "I miss Hillary."
It wouldn't surprise me if the AP continued its downward spiral. Wtih this more subjective, emotive writing style, serious news consumers will be looking for fact-based, well-sourced 'dry' news reporting. Is it any wonder why newspaper circulation is heading for the crapper?
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 10:19 AM
No comments.
Now The Ball Is In Congress's Court
According to this article , President Bush is poised to lift the ban on offshore drilling. Here's what the AP is reporting:
In another push to deal with soaring gas prices, President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.Proverbially speaking, the ball's now in Congress's court. This is just another step in keeping Democrats on the defensive about oil prices. I've said before that they don't have a solution for this crisis of choice. Part of the reason why is because they prefer mass transit because they think that'll reverse global warming, which they think is destroying the planet.
The president plans to officially lift the ban and then explain his actions in a Rose Garden statement, White House press secretary Dana Perino said.
There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by former President Bush in 1990.
Anyone that thinks that this isn't the biggest issue this campaign season is kidding themselves. Gimmicks like this one won't cut it:
He outlined legislation , which could reach the House floor as early as next week, that he said would speed development of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, where drilling activity has been slow.People know that that isn't impossible to drill our way out of this crisis of choice. People won't stand forhalf measures or gimmicks. It's all about results and solutions.
Democratic leaders also hammered away at the U.S. oil industry, saying it is doing little with the leases it already holds to drill on 68 million acres in the lower 48 states. Under the Democratic bill, such lease holders would have to "use it or lose it," Hoyer said.
One GOP staffer told me that "Democrats are painting themselves into a corner" to which I've stated that "It's our job, then, that we keep giving the D's all the paint and paintbrushes they need to finish the job."
If we're seen as the solutions party, we'll do better than the GOP strategists are predicting. President Bush has now put the spotlight on Democrats to put forward some permanent solutions to this big problem.
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 2:59 PM
No comments.
Blogs For Norm
Recently, Michael invited me to start blogging at Blogs For Norm . I'm proud to announce that I've accepted Michael's invitation because I support Sen. Coleman's re-elected.
Over the past year, I've come to appreciate Norm's governing approach. One thing that I've appreciated have been the blogger conference calls. Sen. Coleman hasn't provided evasive answers when we've asked him tough questions.
The reason why I'm supporting Sen. Coleman is because he's voted for victory in Iraq. He's proposed legislation to increase oil production and to start new nuclear power plants. He's voted to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, men that I consider to be among the most impressive judicial nominees in a century.
It's time that we rallied around Sen. Coleman because his decisionmaking, though not perfect, is solid on the important issues of the day. Sen. Coleman is worth supporting because of the solutions he's provided and/or voted for.
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 1:52 PM
No comments.
Oil Manipulation & the Crisis of Choice
It's good to know that Congress is taking this crisis of choice seriously. Thanks to this article , I now know that Congress is working on legislation to ensure that the oil market won't be manipulated:
"When I brought that up to the commodities traders and told them that was the same thing that Exxon had said, the same thing that the OPEC secretary-general had said, the same thing that many of us are asking the questions on, they said, well they're all wrong and we're right," commented Walz.It's nice knowing that "Congress is working on several proposals to make sure prices are not manipulated" but what are they doing to increase energy supplies? Does Rep. Walz and other Democrats realize that speculators only influence markets when there's a shortage of whatever commodity happens to be trading?
Walz says Congress is working on several proposals to make sure prices are not manipulated.
I wrote that speculators weren't important when oil traded for $20/bbl because the world was producing 9 million more bbl/daily than they consumed. That cushion is now approximately 1 million/bbl daily. Rather than attribute high gas prices on the greed of Big Oil or speculators, perhaps Democrats should admit that rising demand and flatlining supplies are what's causing this price spike. Of course, they'd likely need to attend Econ 101 to learn about basic market principles, something that they're either unwilling to accept or are unwilling to admit in public.
It's irritating that Democrats skirt the issue instead of providing real solutions. It's time that they either led, followed or got the hell out of the way before this economy sinks.
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 6:26 PM
No comments.
Pelosi Playing the Hoax Card Again
Just when you thought that Democrats had done a partial flip-flop by saying that they'd allow some increased drilling in Alaska, Ms. Pelosi says that increased drilling is a hoax perpetrated by the White House. If it's such a hoax, why did Steny Hoyer call for more drilling ?
Here's what she said today:
"Once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "The Bush plan is a hoax. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence. It just gives millions more acres to the same companies that are sitting on nearly 68 million acres of public lands and coastal areas."Ms. Pelosi, How can you read this report and say that increasing energy supplies won't drop prices? What thinking person can look at that report and say that the basic tenets of capitalism don't apply to oil? Here's what the DOI said about the oil and natural gas contained in federal lands that are currently offlimits:
Recent DOI estimates put the amount of energy in these off-limits areas at 19.1 billion barrels of oil and 83.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, approximately 30 years' worth of imports from Saudi Arabia and enough natural gas to power America's homes for 17 years . It should also be noted that these initial estimates tend to be low.Ms. Pelosi, what economist could you find that would agree that adding approximately 30 years worth of Saudi imports wouldn't have an effect on oil prices? It's obvious that Ms. Pelosi doens't have a clue about capitalism or market economies. If she had even a basic understanding of it, she wouldn't be able to make these declarations with a straight face.
It isn't just Ms. Pelosi that's making such idiotic statements. Rahm Emanuel is parroting here:
"I've been in Washington long enough to know a political stunt when I see one," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "The good news is the American people won't be fooled. If the President wants to lower gas prices, he should stop hosting press conferences and start taking action."I've been watching Clintonistas long enough to know political spin when I see it. This is Clintonista spin at its pathetic dishonest worst. There's more than a few telltale signs of Clintonista spin, starting with this:
"I've been in Washington long enough to know a political stunt when I see one."I agree because he's participated in lots of political stunts. Mr. Emanuel is a slick politician and I don't mean that in a positive way. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him if I had 2 broken arms and a bad back.
Here's the other spin in his quote:
"He should stop hosting press conferences and start taking action."What clever spin. Does Mr. Emanuel suggest that President Bush just write out an executive order making these federal lands open for exploration? Would Mr. Emanuel suggest that President Bush ignore the legislative branch? That's what his smart-assed statement implies. To his credit, President Bush was on the offensive:
"For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production," Bush said during his Rose Garden announcement. "Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal and now Americans are paying at the pump."I started calling the 110th Congress the No Solutions Congress for a reason. I suspect that it's the same reason why their approval rating is at 9 percent . Thanks to the people at the Institute for Energy Research (via Powerline ), we can see just how much of the OCS is kept offlimits by Pelosi's and Emanuel's actions:
It's time we started asking people if they want Congress to take off the restrictions so we aren't killed with high energy prices. It's time we told the American people that the Democrats' environmental extremist allies are using Pelosi's and Reid's obstruction to delay oil exploration, then using litigation to delay it even further.
America is being held hostage by the House and Senate Democrats and their extremist allies. Isn't it time that we told the extremists and the obstructionists that they couldn't inflict this amount of economic pain on us?
Democrats talk about being for the working people. What a joke that is. If they're for working people, why do they do everything in their power to limit their prosperity with high gas prices? If they're for working people, why do they let high gas and diesel prices drive up the cost of everything from farm products to groceries to heating schools?
If they really cared about working people, they'd stop the nonsense and let our economy prosper. It speaks volumes that Ms. Pelosi and her allies are perfectly content to let families suffer with high inflation that's a product of their choices.
Real people are hurting out here and the supposed best Ms. Pelosi can do is say "There's nothing we can do about it." That isn't what a leader does. Real leaders put a coherent plan together, then implement that plan. By comparison, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Emanuel have figuratively folded their arms and announced that they're going to stand on the sidelines.
That type of leadership is too expensive.
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 8:20 PM
Comment 1 by Jeffrey Hill at 14-Jul-08 10:26 PM
It's obvious that she doesn't even realize that even without the oil today the oil futures market would lower prices.
It's Coleman Vs. Franken
According to this CNN article , we now know that this year's Minnesota Senate race will be between Sen. Coleman and Al Franken. I wouldn't have been surprised with either decision but I had a hunch that Jesse wouldn't jump in. I thought that Jesse's ego couldn't tolerate losing, which is why he didn't run for re-election in 2002.
Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura has decided not to run for U.S. Senate in that state, he told CNN's "Larry King Live" Monday night. Ventura, a former professional wrestler, had said last week he was weighing whether to run. The deadline to file for the race is Tuesday.The only thing that's standing in the way of a certain Coleman vs. Franken race is Franken's primary challenge :
Ventura said he was "close" to running against incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, but he decided against it because he didn't want to submit his relatives to the kind of media scrutiny they endured when he was governor.
As an independent, Ventura won a single term as Minnesota governor in 1998. He beat Coleman and Hubert Humphrey III, a scion of a Minnesota Democratic dynasty.
"An attorney from a well-known family in Minnesota legal circles says she will challenge Senate candidate Al Franken in a Democratic primary. Priscilla Lord Faris says she will file the paperwork to run in the September primary.I don't know what kind of candidate Ms. Lord-Faris is but her dad is a longtime Hubert Humphrey associate.
Lord Faris is the daughter of retired federal judge Miles Lord, who remains active in DFL politics. She is managing partner of a personal injury law firm.
Lord Faris says she has given money to Franken but isn't persuaded he can take the seat away from Sen. Norm Coleman, the Republican incumbent. She says a primary campaign will sharpen the Democratic candidates and give Coleman a tougher challenge in November."
At any rate, Jesse's announcement marks the start of a very uphill climb for Mr. Franken. That's verified by this SurveyUSA-KSTP poll :
Incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman thanked supporters after officially filing for office Monday. And he's got a reason to be optimistic.Don't hold me to this but I don't think that Franken has cracked the 40 percent barrier in quite awhile. It goes without saying that a candidate that can't top 40 percent faces major obstacles between now and Election Day.
Our exclusive SURVEY USA/KSTP Poll shows Coleman with a 13-point lead over Franken, 52 to 39 percent. The margin of error is 3.9 percent. Eight percent is still undecided.
Heres' the breakdown of the poll:
It's a bad sign anytime that a Democrat can't crack 50 percent with women. That's because Democrats almost automatically lose the men vote.Q: Minnesota will elect a United States Senator in November 2008. If the election for United States Senator were today, and the only two candidates on the ballot were Republican Norm Coleman and DFL candidate Al Franken, who would you vote for?
Overall:
Coleman 52 percent, Franken 39 percentMen Only:
Coleman 55 percent, Franken 38 percentWomen Only:
Coleman 50 percent, Franken 41 percent
The other impressive thing from this poll is that Norm tops 50 percent with every age group . That's a significant accomplishment that must rattle the DFL. Rest assured that Brian Melendez won't be out spinning this poll.
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 10:35 PM
No comments.
