March 24-26, 2007
Mar 24 01:20 NY Times Counts House Vote As Win Mar 24 22:25 Staring At A Disaster? Mar 25 02:33 Brzezinski: Bush Is Harming U.S. Mar 25 10:30 The 'What Have You Done To Me Gang' Strikes Again Mar 25 10:57 Gov. Pawlenty's Transportation Plan Mar 26 01:47 Propaganda 101 Mar 26 11:32 That Isn't The Problem Mar 26 17:27 The Gift That Keeps On Giving
Prior Years: 2006
NY Times Counts House Vote As Win
In an unbelievable show of defeatism, the NY Times called Friday's vote a must win "for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and for the party as a whole."
After reading that, I can't fathom how voting to unilaterally declare defeat is winning. It can't seriously be considered a win militarily. This vote won't be considered a win for the Democrats, either. They just handed Republicans a billy club the likes of which they haven't had since Jean Francois Kerry was babbling something about a "global test" in October of 2004. Among the Democrats who just became one term wonders because of this vote are: Nick Lampson, Tim Mahoney, Heath Shuler and Tim Walz. They might as well start polishing up their resumes because they're history after November, 2008.
They held caucuses, private meetings, conversations on the House floor, and pieced together a majority, a vote at a time, while fighting the longstanding divisions that critics loved to highlight as "Democrats in disarray."The truth is that the Democrats are essentially two different camps. People like Jim Marshall and John Barrow of Georgia are relatively conservative Democrats who will vote more often with Republicans than Democrats on national security issues. the other group is comprised of moonbats like Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Keith Ellison and Chaka Fattah. Those groups mix together like oil and water. Disarray is relatively mild.
They're still accurately called a party in disarray but now they've added a couple of other characterizations to the list: defeatists and anti-military.
Critics quickly noted that the majority on this vote could be a fleeting thing. "You've got to ask yourself, why go through this long, drawn-out exercise of going and wheeling and cajoling and trying to buy votes within your own party when, in fact, you know it's not going to go anywhere," said Tony Snow, the White House spokesman.In the final analysis, the House legislation imperiled a number of freshmen from swing districts for nothing. This legislation won't be taken seriously by the Senate. The deadlines certainly won't make it out of the conference committee. Finally, Pelosi, Murtha and the other moonbats will cave or be the majority party for a single term.
Mr. Snow noted, in essence, that Democrats would have to quickly go back to the legislative drawing board, given the President's resistance to their plan, and given the fact that, "the need for funding the troops is urgent, the clock is running."
That isn't smart politics. The NY Times knows that. They still chose to characterize this as a win for Pelosi. How arrogant is that?
Posted Saturday, March 24, 2007 1:21 AM
No comments.
Staring At A Disaster?
Thanks to the reporting of Audrey Hudson and Katherine Kersten, and thanks to yesterday's floor vote in the House, America is getting a glimpse into what national security would look like if Democrats had their say. Let's first look at the impact the House vote would have on our national security. Here's what John Murtha said in his interview on National Public Radio:
"They won't be able to deploy troops unless they extend troops overseas. And if we limit the extension, then it'll be very difficult for them to continue this surge, which the American people are against and the Iraqis don't want," Murtha said yesterday on National Public Radio.If we don't defeat al Qaeda in Iraq and the Iranian-funded Shi'ite insurgents, Iraq will become the mixing ground of the worst influences in the Middle East: Iran's mullahs and al Qa'ida. By voting to establish deadlines for our troop deployment, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha & Company are telling Iran and al Qa'ida when they can take control of Iraq.
Of course, John Murtha doesn't believe that. He believes that al Qa'ida will disappear once we leave:
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.Is Murtha the type of person we want offering military advice to future presidents? I think that thought should scare every voter.
In addition to Pelosi, Murtha and Company not taking the war against the jihadists seriously, we also know that Nancy Pelosi is a passionate advocate of ending racial and religious profiling:
Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is co-sponsoring the "End Racial Profiling Act". The proposed bill is said to have been prompted by the recent removal of six Muslim imams, who are reported to have acted in a decidedly provocative manner, from a US Airways' flight.If this legislation passes, the Democrats will be making the TSA's job more difficult. Passengers will assume a greater risk when flying commercial airplanes as a result of this legislation. The other thing to note about this is that Democrats, led by CAIR-Michigan's Man of the Year John Conyers and Speaker Pelosi, will be well on their way to systematically dismantling airport security if this bill becomes law.
Pelosi said: "Since September 11th, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin, without any credible information linking individuals to criminal conduct. Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal."
The other co-sponsor of the bill is Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) who is also preparing documents to lead to Articles of Impeachment against President Bush. Pelosi and Conyers are calling for the end of all racial profiling, additional severe limits placed on the Patriot Act and the implementation of broad-based US citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Speaking of airport security, Katherine Kersten's Wall Street Journal op-ed documents how radical Islamists like CAIR are trying intimidation to prevent airline passengers from speaking up when they see suspicious behavior:
By piggy-backing on our civil rights laws, Islamist activists aim to equate airport security with racial bigotry and to move slowly toward a two-tier legal system. Intimidation is a crucial tool. The "flying imams" lawsuit ups the ante by indicating that passengers who alerted airport authorities will be included as defendants.That's what the imams' lawsuit is about. The good news is that another Muslim organization, along with the law firm of Faegre & Benson, have stepped up to criticize the lawsuit:
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site (www.aifdemocracy.org), told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams. "It's so important that America know there are Muslims who understand who the victims are in air travel," said Dr. Jasser. "But I hope it doesn't get to that point because the backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."This lawsuit was predictable. From the beginning, the speculation was that the imam event was staged. That speculation was only reinforced when John Conyers had a resolution ready the day after the incident:
The lawsuit specifically cites two passengers who stared at the men as they prayed, then made a cell phone call that the imams say went to U.S. Airways to complain about the prayer.
Gerry Nolting, whose Minnesota law firm Faegre & Benson LLP is offering to represent passengers for free, says the judicial system is being "used for intimidation purposes" and that it is "just flat wrong and needs to be strongly, strongly discouraged. As a matter of public policy, the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] presently tells traveling passengers to report suspicious behavior as part of its homeland security program," Mr. Nolting said. "This has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but trying to intimidate and discourage reporting of suspicious behavior and [also discourage] the promotion of safe travel."
CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of "flying while Muslim." Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.Based on their vote on funding the Iraq War, their willingness to be CAIR's advocates, it isn't unreasonable to think that Democrats would weaken homeland security through their anti-profiling legislation and that they'd weaken our national security by not defeating the jihadists.
If, after peering over that cliff, you think that the Democrats' agenda for national and homeland security are serious-minded and rational, you'd best rethink things. The Democrats' plans to secure our air travel and secure things in the Middle East aren't serious. They're plain scary.
Posted Saturday, March 24, 2007 10:40 PM
No comments.
Brzezinski: Bush Is Harming U.S.
Zbigniew Brzezinski's op-ed in Saturday's edition of the Washington Post offers a scary glimpse into how the mind of a foreign policy disgrace works. Here's an example:
Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.Congress voted to authorize the use of military force to remove Saddam because hoping he wouldn't use the WMD's, which we know he used on the Kurds and Iranians, was a fool's policy in a post-9/11 world. We didn't need to postulate about WMD's because he used them in the past. We didn't need to postulate on them because the cease-fire his generals signed demanded that he either (a) turn over his chemical or biological weapons or (b) show he disposed of them. We didn't have the obligation of proving that they existed at the time of the attack. Saddam had the obligation of proving that he didn't have them. Brzezinski is also wrong in hinting that President Bush has been a demagogue about Iraq.
Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."Why is Mr. Brzezinski hinting that we weren't a nation at war? Is he suggesting that we aren't at war with the jihadists? The truth is that the jihadists declared war on us during Brzezinski's time as Carter's National Security Adviser. We ignored the acts of war, such as the terrorist attacks of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the first World Trade Center attack, the bombings of the East African embassies, the Khobar Towers and the USS Cole. We chose to ignore them until 9/11 forced us to realize that the jihadists had been at war with us for a quarter of a century.
Support for President Bush grew because people understood that we were at war and that John Kerry wanted to pretend that this was all just a police matter. They rejected Kerry's approach because they knew how foolhardy his ideas were.
To justify the "war on terror," the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.Just because the jihadists don't have massive standing armies like the Nazis and Soviets had doesn't mean that they don't have substantial, though unconventional, military tools at their avail. Furthermore, to assume that the war against the jihadists will be a short war is dangerous. This war might well last a generation. Our participation in World War II didn't even last half a decade. Any comparisons between WW II and the war against the jihadists is irresponsible and inaccurate.
This is one article that I'd strongly recommend that you don't read. Simply put, it's too painful for truth-seeking serious-minded people. That's what you'd expect from a man whose record is one of a foreign policy disaster.
Posted Sunday, March 25, 2007 2:34 AM
No comments.
The 'What Have You Done To Me Gang' Strikes Again
There's a belief that loyalty doesn't exist in pro sports, that loyalty has been replaced by the saying "What have you done for me lately"? That question applies to players, coaches & management alike. This DFL legislature is earning the moniker of the 'What have you done TO ME lately' gang. Yesterday, the House voted to increase an assortment of taxes to pay for a huge transportation budget. Here's how House DFLers rationalized the tax increases:
But chief sponsor Rep. Bernie Lieder, DFL-Crookston, said that many drivers who don't buy a new car would pay no more than $5 a month in higher gas taxes.What the hell is Rep. Lieder talking about? What does buying a new car have to do with the gas tax increase? Does he think that the gas pump will ask if you bought the car new, then adjust the amount of tax accordingly? The truth is that DFL legislators are hoping nobody raises a big stink about their tax increasing bent. They'll say anything to avoid taking responsibility for raising taxes.
Rep. Al Juhnke, DFL-Willmar, said the measure would provide lots of property tax relief for homeowners straining under county levies, from which he said up to a third of the revenue goes to transportation needs left unfunded by the state. "And almost every dollar in this bill goes to jobs in Minnesota," Juhnke added.
Al Juhnke is a great example of that tactic. His 'justification' for increasing your taxes is that the DFL is raising taxes so that they can cut other taxes while increasing spending. The last time I looked, a tax cut is defined as cutting the marginal tax rate, whether it's on regular income, capital gains or property taxes. Tax cuts aren't defined as modestly cutting taxes (let's use property taxes here) while dramatically increasing another tax (let's use the gas tax here). That latter example might be described as a tax increase, or at best, a tax shift. It isn't a tax cut.
As for Rep. Juhnke's statement that the revenue raised by their tax hike goes for Minnesota job creation, only a fool would believe that. Tax increases generally kill job creation. That's why Republicans fight so hard to keep taxes low or to cut taxation rates.
DFL leaders, however, have suggested that a scaled-down transportation bill will eventually become law this spring, with or without Pawlenty's cooperation. "He's a reasonable man," Lieder said. "He can maybe change his mind."Lieder is right that Gov. Pawlenty is a reasonable man. I wish I could say that Larry Pogemiller & Tony Sertich were, too. Unfortunately, I can't say that because I'm an honest man. If you look in the political dictionary for the definition of unreasonable, you'll find Larry Pogemiller's & Tony Sertich's pictures there.
The DFL will have to change their tune because the GOP will stick together to protect Minnesota's taxpayers from getting soaked by the irresponsible spending increases that the DFL dreams about. The DFL will change their tune, too, because we'll hammer them with Mike Hatch's statement that he made during his acceptance speech last June:
Hatch gave his task an initial shot in a rambling acceptance speech that punched some of the right buttons. He cast Pawlenty as too stingy with education, responsible for large class sizes and rising college tuition. He tagged him for an inadequate response to soaring health care costs and the emerging biosciences industry. He promised more state investment in those things. Significantly, he said, "we can do this without raising taxes."Isn't it time that the DFL admitted that they've never met a tax hike they didn't love? As I said then, I agreed with Hatch that we could make "significant investments" without raising taxes. I said that I didn't believe that they wouldn't try raising taxes. At least Sen. Steve Murphy is honest about it:
"I'm not trying to fool anybody," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing..."There's a lot of taxes in this bill."Minnesota can't afford the DFL's wish list. As my good friend King loves pointing out, government can't do " many good things." The private sector, which would get starved with this onslaught of tax increases, is where "many good things" happen. That's where wealth is created. That's where jobs and savings are created. That's the primary location for life improvement takes place.
That's a concept that the DFL doesn't grasp. That's a concept that they oppose with their irresponsible spending wish lists and their major tax increases. If the DFL doesn't change their tune quick, they'll be to blame for the inevitable special session & for increasing the tax burden on Minnesota's taxpayers.
By the way, shouldn't St. Cloud voters ask Sen. Clark why she's signed off on fast-tracking Murphy's bill? Shouldn't St. Cloud voters demand that Sen. Clark justify all of the tax increases included in Sen. Murphy's legislation? After all, she told Leo & I that only 2 tax bills would be given serious consideration & that one of them would provide property tax relief. Here's what I wrote then:
Pressing forward, I then asked Sen. Clark why six tax increase bills were introduced the first week. She said that "there were really only 2 tax bills, one to lower property taxes, the other to raise them." She assured us that the other bills weren't going anywhere and that they "were introduced by individual" legislators and "weren't part of the leadership's agenda."Shouldn't Sen. Clark explain her 'sudden' conversion to a tax increase advocate? If she's had a change of heart, we should give her the opportunity to explain why she's changed her mind.
Sen. Clark, we're waiting for that explanation.
Posted Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:30 AM
No comments.
Gov. Pawlenty's Transportation Plan
Lt. Gov. & MnDOT Commissioner Carol Molnau provided the Marshall Independent a glimpse of what's included in Gov. Pawlenty's transportation budget for the Marshall area. Here's a few of the things that would happen in & around Marshall:
- MnDOT will widen six blocks of Minnesota Highway 68 in Marshall's downtown this year, Molnau said.
- Other upcoming projects include the reconstruction of Minnesota Highway 23 from Marshall to Cottonwood in 2009 and the extension of four lanes of Highway 23 to past Lyon County Road 33, Molnau said.
- A passing lane will also be installed on Highway 23 south of Cottonwood, Molnau said.
- MnDOT also plans a bike trail from East College Drive to Marshall High School.
Molnau briefly touched on recent transportation issues including the proposed 10-cent gasoline tax passed by the state Senate on Friday and a similar increase expected to pass the House today but that was about the only discussion recent topics.The DFL is trying to get a transportation bill passed before their Easter recess. They're also trying to include gas tax increases in their legislation as a poison pill with the intent of drawing a veto. They'll then say that Gov. Pawlenty's veto proves that he doesn't really want to solve the state's transportation problems. That's a difficult sell even with the most gullible people.
"We know it's going to be vetoed by the governor," Molnau said of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's response to a gas tax increase. "He has three days but he won't need three days."
Expect these DFL taxaholics to get an ear full when they try casting blame on Gov. Pawlenty for keeping taxes low. Don't expect them to come back chastened, though.
Posted Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:57 AM
No comments.
Propaganda 101
This afternoon, I read an 'article' in the Chicago Tribune. The article was essentially a puff piece on Ahmed Rehab by Noreen Ahmed-Ullah. The more accurate way of describing it would be to say that she asked softball questions and Mr. Rehab told some fanciful fibs. Here's the best example of Mr. Rehab's fanciful fibs:
Q. What is the source of the latest criticism/accusations being launched against CAIR at the national level?As an occasional contributor to Americans Against Hate blog, I take it personally when people say that I'm spreading urban legends. I'd further submit that Mr. Rehab's line that a "second look exposes them as career Islamophobes who are deathly afraid of Muslim-American enfranchisement and its possible effects on the Israeli lobby's interests" is a fanciful flight of fibbery. Speaking strictly for myself, I can unequivocally state that I'm not "deathly afraid of Muslim-American enfranchisement" nor am I worried what effect that might have on "the Israeli lobby's interests." Based on my conversations with a friend who also blogs at AAH, I got the distinct impression that he found Rehab's answer to be nothing short of hilarious.
A. Every one of the dozen or so urban legends about CAIR that are circulating out there can be traced back to a single and homogeneous source of interlinked individuals and groups with such deceptively benign names as the Investigative Project, the Middle East Forum, Jihad Watch and Americans Against Hate. These groups typically flourish in the unmoderated, chaotic world of the blogosphere; they attempt to sell themselves to political and media circles as experts on Islam and terrorism and as patriots who are looking out for American interests. A second look exposes them as career Islamophobes who are deathly afraid of Muslim-American enfranchisement and its possible effects on the Israeli lobby's interests.
As for these 'urban legends', let's examine one of them:
Disinformation: Former CAIR employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities.Let's not forget what Nihad Awad said:
This is probably the most widely recycled example of McCarthy-like attempts to portray CAIR as guilty by association. Such efforts evoke memories of attempts to smear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a communist or womanizer. CAIR would like to make it absolutely clear that it is our belief that anyone who is found guilty of committing a crime, especially one in the furtherance of terrorist motives, should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. CAIR would never compromise its principles, both American and Islamic, in the furtherance or assistance of any illegal criminal endeavors.
Anyone who has any knowledge of the law would know that the acts of a person done outside the scope or duration of his or her employment, and without the employer's knowledge, have no legal bearing on the employer.
For example, when Aldrich Ames (CIA) and Robert Hanssen (FBI) admitted to being spies for foreign governments, it did not automatically associate the CIA or FBI with being complicit in any of these criminal activities. Currently we have members of US Congress serving jail time and many others under the cloud of ethical suspicion. Does such behavior by members of Congress while in office incriminate the entire US Congress? Only Islamophobes will assign guilt to Muslims by such false associations.
These smears against CAIR are disseminated by agenda-driven extremists who seek to marginalize and disenfranchise the American Muslim community and its leaders. The smears normally involve the following individuals: Ismail Royer, Dr. Bassem El-Khafagi, Rabih Haddad, and Ghassan Elashi.
At a 1994 meeting at Barry University, Nihad Awad stated succinctly, "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement."Here's how CAIR got started:
CAIR was co-founded in 1994 by Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad, and Omar Ahmad, all of whom had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and functioned as Hamas' public relations and recruitment arm in the United States. Awad and Ahmad had previously served, respectively, as IAP's Public Relations Director and President. Ibrahim Hooper was also an employee of IAP. Thus it can be said that CAIR was an outgrowth of IAP.In other words, it isn't just that a few bad apples happened into CAIR. It goes much deeper than just association. CAIR accuses anyone of highlighting their checkered history as making "McCarthy-like attempts to portray CAIR as guilty by association." That's nice spin but, with all due respect, the fact is that it isn't guilt by association. It isn't that difficult to make a case that CAIR's been rotten from its inception. They opened their first office with a donation from the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), a 'terrorist charity'. What's worse is that CAIR had a fit when HLF was shut down, saying that it was "unjust" and "disturbing."
CAIR opened its first office in Washington, DC, with the help of a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a self-described charity founded by Mousa Abu Marzook. In May 1996, CAIR coordinated a press conference to protest the decision of the U.S. government to extradite Marzook for his connection to terrorist acts performed by Hamas. CAIR characterized the extradition as "anti-Islamic" and "anti-American."
Here's another enlightening Q & A exchange:
Q. Is CAIR linked with Hamas and Hezbollah?Either Mr. Rehab's memory is faulty or he just told a whopper. After all, Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad were originally part of the IAP, which essentially was the American PR firm for Hamas.
A. No, CAIR is not associated with Hamas, Hezbollah or any other foreign group. CAIR unequivocally condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state.
Q. Does CAIR pursue an extremist Islamist political agenda?Speaking of CAIR's political agenda, here's what they've involved themselves with:
A. You would have to be living under a rock to buy that. CAIR's contribution to the democratic process of this country is hard to miss. In dozens of American cities, we have helped guide Muslim Americans toward political enfranchisement: voter registration, education and mobilization. We consistently urge our constituents to funnel political grievances to their elected representatives. Conspiracy theories will be just that, and right now, Muslims make for a convenient lightning rod.
- They've sought to limit the reach of the Patriot Act.
- They've asked John Conyers to shepherd the End Racial Profiling Act through the House. Speaker Pelosi is a "proud co-sponsor" of the bill, having first lent her support to ending racial profiling in 2004.
Here's another noteworthy exchange:
Q. How much money has CAIR accepted from individuals or foundations associated with wealthy Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia? What has the money been used for? Why take such donations when many non-profit Islamic organizations have faced problems post-9/11 because of this?Here's what the American Islamic Forum for Democracy said in their press release opposing CAIR's lawsuit filed on behalf of the 'Flying Imams':
A. All CAIR chapters, which are independent corporations, solicit contributions only from people residing in the states where they are incorporated. Neither CAIR chapters nor the national office solicits or accepts money from any foreign government.
The CAIR national office does on occasion receive donations from private citizens of foreign countries. Such donations are the exceptions, not the rule, and have to meet three conditions: They come with no strings attached, they go toward supporting existing CAIR projects...and they come from people who have standing within their societies as upright citizens engaged in legitimate professional pursuits.
A relatively small percentage of the 5-6 million American Muslims are enrolled as members of CAIR. Recent reports of considerable donations to CAIR from foreign nations like Dubai and Saudi Arabia make these types of costly, distractive actions against domestic airlines such as US Airways very concerning in its manifestation of foreign interference.If AIFD's information is correct, then these donations fail to meet any of CAIR's supposed conditions. First of all, they're donations from foreign governments. Second, this money clearly comes with strings attached, specifically to a lawsuit against an American company. Third, this lawsuit isn't an "existing CAIR project."
In other words, it's difficult to find the truth in anything that Mr. Rehab said in the interview. In political America, that's called spin. In the Middle East, it's called al taqiyya, which means: literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies."
In real America, it's called lying.
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 1:49 AM
No comments.
That Isn't The Problem
Tim Dickinson's article in Rolling Stone Magazine purports to tell the Democrats what's holding their party back. In Mr. Dickinson's mind, the Democrats would be better off if their consultants weren't so greedy:
The Democrats' most dangerous opponent in '08 may be their own campaign consultants, who charge far more than GOP strategists -- and deliver far lessDickinson then sizes things up this way:
2008 has the makings of a banner year for Democrats. The wave of discontent that swept the GOP from Congress last November is growing, and the Iraq debacle will make it difficult for Republicans to retain the White House. But there is one group of powerful Washington insiders who have a proven ability to derail the Democrats. Working behind the scenes, these top-tier operatives humiliated Mike Dukakis in a tank, muzzled Al Gore on the environment and portrayed John Kerry, a lifelong crusader for gun control, as a rifle-toting Rambo. Year after year they have made sure that the Democratic message comes across as little more than a fuzzy, focus-grouped drone about child tax credits, prescription-drug plans and the "fight for working families."In the spirit of bipartisanship, I'd like to offer Mr. Dickinson some free advice, something I don't do often. I don't often offer advice because of an old, old cliche I read way back when I was young:
Socrates gave great advice. They made him drink poison.Nonetheless, here's my analysis and advice:
While it's true that the strategists employed by the Democrats have a spotty track record, at least part of the blame should reside on the pathetic candidates they've had to strategize for. Let's face it, creating a winning strategy for John Kerry is a monumental task. Some might say it'd take a miracle.
Another thing that's problematic for Democrats is that they can't be themselves without turning off voters in the heartland. Can you imagine the electoral trainwreck that would happen if Hillary would come right out and tell you what she really wants? It's the strategists' job to hide these candidates' far outside the mainstream ideas, at least until after the election.
Remember the effort that was required when John Conyers started talking impeachment? Political experts have agreed that he believed in impeaching President Bush. How does a strategist hide that type of silliness?
Democratic consultants stand to walk away with an even bigger payday in 2008: The campaign could easily cost at least $2 billion, more than twice the '04 bill. And if the party continues to pay strategists a commission for every TV ad, much of that money will wind up wasted. "The consultants will be spending more money on bigger ad buys, trying to catch the few people who watch ads today," says Chris Lehane, a strategist on the Clinton and Gore campaigns. "It's a crazy, illogical position."If these consultants worried about winning, they wouldn't be making the money they're making now. This information shouldn't surprise anyone. Think of it as the Democrats' welfare program for logic-challenged activists.
But as long as that's where the money is, that's what the consultants will do. "There's little impetus to try anything new," says Joe Trippi, who orchestrated Howard Dean's insurgency in 2004. "You can't get a ten percent commission on a million people viewing something for free on YouTube."
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 11:33 AM
No comments.
The Gift That Keeps On Giving
I promise to never say a bad word against the Strib ever again. Not after reading the quote from this article. Suffice it to say that they're feeding the GOP their campaign theme for next year. Check out this quote:
C. Scott Cooper, a longtime gay-rights advocate, said the new crew is among the boldest he's seen.Does Mr. Cooper really think that advocating an aggressive tax increase policy is a winner for DFL candidates & incumbents? I wish that Mr. Cooper would be talking exclusively about House DFL freshman but he isn't. He's talking about House & Senate DFL freshman alike. The good news for the GOP is that House DFL freshmen are voting for enough tax increases to make the case that they're just as wedded to major tax increases as are longtime lefties like John Marty & Tom Ruckavina.
"This is the first time I've ever seen freshmen running this far out in front of senior members," Cooper said. "Especially on the tax issue. They're just not afraid. Not of senior legislators, not of opposing lobbyists, not of anyone. They know they can either raise taxes and get something done or not raise taxes and get very little done. It looks like they've decided they can get reelected on the first [strategy] but not on the second."
If the DFL takes the approach that every House district has the same demographics & mentality as Iron Range & Metro districts, they'll be back in the minority in the House after this term. Their willingness to dramatically increase taxes is proof that they're badly overplaying their hand. That isn't the way to retain power.
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007 5:27 PM
No comments.
