March 6-7, 2008
Mar 06 03:38 Murtha Gets His Way On Haditha Mar 06 11:23 Obamicans vs. McCainicrats & Post-Partisan Leadership Mar 06 12:57 Howard Wolfson Unhinged Mar 06 16:56 Thursday's Must Reading Mar 06 17:26 The New Definition of Bipartisanship? Mar 06 22:00 Ms. Obstructionist & Her Minions Mar 07 01:56 Big GOP Win On Tax Bill Mar 07 03:46 RNC Leads DNC in Fundraising
Murtha Gets His Way On Haditha
According to this Thomas More Law Center action alert , Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani is being thrown under the bus because the military caved to John Murtha's political agenda. Here's what Richard Thompson said on behalf of his client:
"Military Judge Colonel Stephen Folsom's, USMC, ruling yesterday refusing our request to take the deposition of Congressman John Murtha, D-PA, is the latest indication that it will be impossible for Marine Lt. Colonel Chessani to get a fair trial regarding November 19, 2005, Haditha incident," said Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, the Ann Arbor, Michigan based public interest law firm defending Lt. Col. Chessani.John Murtha's despicable behavior should turn every American's stomach. He started this in motion because he wanted to be the House Majority, not because he'd found out that the Haditha Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" but because he's a despicable human being without a hint of integrity.
"This entire prosecution is politically motivated and stinks to high heaven. Denying us the right to take Murtha's deposition so that we could show undue command influence, as well as denial of our request for production of documents in the possession of Lt. Col. Chessani's superiors makes it impossible for us to render this loyal Marine officer the effective assistance of counsel he deserves - they are attempting to throw him under the bus. In many ways this is a trial like the one in Alice in Wonderland-the verdict first and then the trial."
Continued Thompson, "In the next couple of weeks we will reveal startling facts tracing the impetus for this prosecution to the highest levels of military and civilian
command."
If Murtha were to repeat under oath the things that he's said on TV, he'd be convicted of perjury in the shortest trial in history. This timeline reveals all the discrepancies in Murtha's evolving story. Here's Rep. Murtha's initial account:
Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19. The incident is still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Multi-National Forces Iraq.First of all, there was a day-long firefight. We know this because it was captured on film by a UAV monitoring the events of that day. Second of all, of the 24 people killed that day, eight were known insurgents.
"It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine," Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. "There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people," Murtha explained, adding there were "about twice as many" Iraqis killed than Time had reported.
When first asked by reporters how he got his information, here's Rep. Murtha's explanation:
Murtha confidently replied, "All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they're talking about." Although Murtha said that he had not read any investigative reports by the military on the incident, he stressed, "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine."It wasn't long before Rep. Murtha's story started 'evolving':
Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is being sued by one of the accused Marines for libel. He had told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Gen. Michael Hagee had given him the information on which he based his charge that Marines killed innocent civilians.When ABC's Charlie Gibson pressed Rep. Murtha on this, here's the exchange they had:
But a spokesman for the Marine Corps said Hagee briefed Murtha on May 24 about Haditha. Murtha had made comments on the case as early as May 17 . On May 17, for example, he said at a news conference, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
GIBSON: Jonathan just mentioned, there's no charges yet filed against any of the Marines that were in this outfit, but Jonathan mentioned a moment ago, defense lawyers are already saying, well, there's drone video and there is actual radio traffic to higher-ups that will give a different picture than you have been talking about of this incident. What do you know about that?"I know there was a cover-up someplace"? You'd think that if Rep. Murtha knew it, he'd be able to point directly to it. It's worth noting Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore's testimony on what happened that fateful day in Haditha:
MURTHA: I can only tell you this, Charles. This is what the Marine Corps told me at the highest level. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in my office just last week, so you know, I know there was a cover-up someplace . They knew about this a few days afterwards and there's no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn't excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.
Intelligence gathered by Marine S2 officers in advance of the events of Nov. 19th, 2005, revealed that it was known that an insurgent ambush was planned for the day. Although exact details of the planned ambush were not known, some important details were revealed, most importantly, that some 20 insurgents would take part, and a white car would play an important role in the ambush. The intelligence was made available to the officers and men of Kilo Company, including Sgt. Frank Wuterich who has been charged with, among other things, murdering the occupants of a white car that came on the scene following the IED explosion that killed one Marine and seriously wounded another. The evidence will show that Wuterich acted appropriately when he shot the passengers of the vehicle.By now, it's clear that Rep. Murtha's deposition testimony would expose him as a liar. It's also clear that he threw innocent Marines under his bus strictly for political gain.
Although the media continues to report that 24 innocent civilians were killed that day, the S2's testimony shows that eight of the dead, including four of the five occupants in the white car killed by Wuterich, were known insurgents and the dead civilians therefore numbered 16, not 24.
The insurgents whose communications were intercepted and which revealed the planned ambush were the same two men who were the sources of the fallacious and dishonest Time magazine story, which was the source of the accusations against the Marines.
This is reprehensible behavior for a man who claims that he's the soldier's best friend. He's nothing of the sort. He's a disgusting, corrupt excuse for a man. Of all the sleazy people I've seen serve in the nation's capitol, John Murtha is easily the most corrupt, most reprehensible man to serve in elected office.
Because of Murtha's influence-peddling, it's now likely that Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani will be convicted of the "dereliction of duty" and "orders" violations broght against him. Here's something else that should get everyone's attention:
Murtha also has ties to Navy Secretary Donald Winters. Winters had over 65 NCIS investigators assigned to investigate Lt. Col. Chessani and the Marines charged in the case. The NCIS Director claimed that to be the highest number of investigators assigned to an investigation in the history of the NCIS.This is extremely strange considering how straightforward this is. All that needs to be done is to look at Capt. Dinsmore's testimony and view the aerial footage shot by the UAV to know that these charges are without foundation or merit.
It's time for this travesty to end. It's time that Rep. Murtha apologized for his treachery perpetrated against the Haditha Marines. Most importantly, it's time to remove him from his position of power.
UPDATE II: Welcome BLACKFIVE readers. It's my goal to put so much pressure on John Murtha AND on the House Democratic leadership that Nancy Pelosi's only option is to give sanctions serious consideration or to face stunning losses this fall's elections. It's time to end Murtha's reign of corruption.
More importantly, it's time to get these American heroes justice.
UPDATE III: Welcome Mudville Gazette readers.
UPDATE IV: Welcome Thomas More Law Center readers. readers.
UPDATE: Welcome Gateway Pundit readers. I strongly encourage everyone to start writing editorials to their local newspapers to highlight the despicable actions of Rep. Murtha. Feel free to use the things I put together in my timeline in your editorials. It's pretty damning stuff.
Originally posted Thursday, March 6, 2008, revised 07-Mar 10:00 AM
Comment 1 by skep41 at 06-Mar-08 10:00 AM
We all know what a traitorous, corrupt piece of dogmeat Murtha is but let's take it one step farther. The retirees, many of them veterans, in his district are so addicted to the giant helpings of pork doled out by their ugly wart-hog of a socialist congressman that they'll continue to vote him into office until the happy day that he has a massive heart attack and dies squealing and snorting like the commie pig he is. There is no such thing as a Democratic 'moderate'. No matter how conservative any one of them might be on this or that issue they'll join the retards in Murtha's district in a vote to make this guy one of the leaders.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Mar-08 10:12 AM
Unfortunately, I agree.
Comment 3 by Faith at 06-Mar-08 11:01 AM
What recourse do we have? Is there anything we can do legally to force a deposition or at least bring this to national attention? Any Vet groups that are willing to get involved?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 06-Mar-08 11:30 AM
Faith , At this point, I'm not sure what legal recourse we've got.
What I do know is that we can spread the word about the timeline I put together to everyone who'll listen. There are major discrepancies in Murtha's evolving stories.
A number of vet groups are already involved, including GOE.
If you want to do something to move this forward, I'd start writing editorials to the major newspapers asking why Murtha isn't willing to give his deposition in this case.
If he won't give a deposition, then let's at least expose his manipulation of the facts in this case as well as his using his ties in the Pentagon to cover for him.
Comment 5 by Snooper at 06-Mar-08 11:37 AM
Murtha must go.
Comment 6 by Solaratov at 06-Mar-08 12:15 PM
Murtha is the only person I have ever heard refer to himself as an EX-Marine. For others of honor, it's "once a Marine, always a Marine". Murtha is a liar, a charlatan, a mountebank, and a traitor (besides being a corrupt politician). He is a piece of dog manure that has to be scraped off the boot-heel of history and dropped into the nearest rubbish bin. There is no lie to audacious for this dishonest piece of garbage to tell as long as he thinks it will help to line his pocket. God preserve the country from such beings as he.
Obamicans vs. McCainicrats & Post-Partisan Leadership
Karl Rove's op-ed in the WSJ is must reading if you want to know the dynamics that the rest of the media isn't talking about. Here's a glimpse of that:
The big development to watch is not the rise of the "Obamicans", Republicans who are backing the charismatic Illinois senator. The interesting electoral phenomenon is the emergence of the "McCainicrats", Democrats backing Mr. McCain. It's not just Sen. Joe Lieberman. In three recent polls, (Fox, LA Times/Bloomberg and Gallup), almost twice as many Democrats support Mr. McCain as Republicans support Mr. Obama. Three times as many Democrats support Mr. McCain as Republicans back Mrs. Clinton.I've been predicting that Lieberman Democrats would vote Republican with more regularity ever since Lieberman's defeat by Ned Lamont in the 2006 primary. I predict that that'll be especially true this year with Sen. Lieberman endorsing his friend Sen. McCain. The likelihood of Sen. Lieberman giving a prominently featured speech at the Republican National Convention are practically guaranteed.
I suspect that it'll become fashionable to talk about how much Obama cuts into GOP support but I suspect that it won't be talked up much about how much support Sen. McCain will get from Democrats.
Mr. Rove is advocating that Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton attack Obama on talking the talk but not walking the walk on uniting America:
Both need to focus on Mr. Obama's biggest weaknesses. One is the Illinois senator's claim to be the new "post-partisan" leader to bring Republicans and Democrats together. Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton have earned reputations for doing that, though Mrs. Clinton rarely mentions it. Mr. Obama has no real record of voting and working across party lines on high profile issues like judges, immigration, intelligence reform, troop funding and energy.Sen. Obama is a gifted orator but his walk rarely matches his talk. For someone who passionately advocates changing the tone in Washington, he sure hasn't done much on that front. In fact, he's been a staunch partisan on the issues listed by Mr. Rove. It goes beyond him voting against these things. It's that he's given speeches talking about why he was opposing these things.
Thus far, people have believed him because he's talked in general platitudes. That level of trust is likely to end as quickly as the information about his staunch partisanship is highlighted.
If you're a Republican, I wouldn't worry much about the polling right now. The dynamics of this race are changing pretty significantly as we speak. With the Democratic nomination unlikely to be decided until their convention, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton will likely attack each other enough to hurt each other for the fall campaign.
I'm sure that there will be a number of momentum swings between now and the convention but a general outline is starting to emerge. This figures to be an interesting campaign.
Posted Thursday, March 6, 2008 11:24 AM
No comments.
Howard Wolfson Unhinged
It's never a pretty thing to see a Democrat come unhinged. That's certainly not the case in Howard Wolfson's over-the-top attack of Barack Obama. Here's Mr. Wolfson's unhinged comments:
"When Senator Obama was confronted with questions over whether he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief and steward of the economy, he chose not to address those questions, but to attack Senator Clinton," Wolfson said. "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."Sheesh. That isn't just a little bit over-the-top. That's unhinged over-the-top. This is the worst way to attack Obama. He'll swat this aside as the politics of derision or something to that effect. What this tells me is that the Clinton campaign is back to running a stupid campaign. This tells me that they didn't learn the lesson from Tuesday's primary wins. If they want to hurt Obama, they should stick with measured statements on specific shortcomings. Clearly, they're back to attacking without thinking the implications through.
It doesn't stop there, though:
Wolfson was attacking Obama's explicit strategy, in the wake of his March 4 losses, to attack elements of Clinton's record on the grounds of secrecy, and to revisit the questions raised by Clinton foes in the 1990s and earlier.
This is fair game since Hillary implied that she'd been vetted. Obama's simply raising the point that she hasn't been vetted and that she's been secretive all her life. It seems to me that that's fair game. Here's another non sequitur that likely won't work:
"Over 20 years of the Clintons' tax returns are part of the public record," he said, referring to their White House years and also to her more recent Senate disclosure forms. "Everyone knows we have made clear that all of the post-White House tax returns will be put out by the campaign on or about tax time ; April 15," he said, though he didn't explain why they wouldn't be out sooner."I don't care about the "20 years of the Clintons' tax returns"; I'm mostly curious about the tax returns since leaving the White House. I want to know who's given to Bill's library. I want to know which companies and/or countries have paid Bill Clinton for speaking to them so I can figure out if they've gotten special treatment.
The bottom line is this: Team Hillary has a number of people with big reputations but I'm not certain that they're a cohesive unit at this juncture. I'm not certain that they're ready for prime time yet. That's played a significant role in Hillary's disappointing campaign. I suspect that this is just another opportunity for Obama to make Team Clinton look petty.
She can't afford that at this point.
Posted Thursday, March 6, 2008 12:59 PM
No comments.
Thursday's Must Reading
Moe Lane at Redstate has written a briliant post on what he calls Dean's 48 State Strategy. His post offers some insight into Gov. Dean's decisionmaking ability.
This is the redstate-bluestate map of Hillary vs. McCain:
Frankly, that's a pretty grim-looking map if I'm a Democrat. In fact, it's something that would give me an "Here we go again" feeling in the pit of my stomach. This certainly argues against Conventional
Isn't it amazing how people outside the Beltway insist on playing by different rules than the supposed powerbrokers try imposing on us?
Here's the redstate-bluestate map of Obama vs. McCain:
Read the entire article if you need a late afternoon-early evening pickmeup. You won't regret it.
Posted Thursday, March 6, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 06-Mar-08 05:09 PM
excuse me for being a little alarmed. If I looked at the maps right even Hillary wins with the electoral votes she will get. How on Earth is she losing Michigan yet winning Arkansas? I think Michigan goes to her camp, but then again I heard Michigan's Gov has done some naughty deeds.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The New Definition of Bipartisanship?
Forgive me if I'm not particularly impressed with the DFL's definition of bipartisanship as displayed in the House Bonding bill. According to Steve Gottwalt, the bonding bill seeks to spend $927 million. Of that $927 million, $28 million is heading for GOP districts.
What's particularly troubling is that all of the big arena/civic center projects are in DFL districts. Let's remember, too, that the bonding bill also includes these DFL pet projects :
The Bottineau Boulevard Transit Way is slated to get $500,000. The Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit is requesting $6,000,000 to "acquire land, or an interest in land, and to design the Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit in Dakota County. The Central Corridor Transit Way is requesting $ 70,000,000 "For one or more of the following activities for the Central Corridor light rail transit line that will connect downtown Minneapolis with downtown St. Paul.Then there's my favorite Metro pork:
$11 million on Como Zoo Gorilla Exhibits .It's important to note that the bonding bill exceeds the 3% limit that was agreed upon back during the Perpich administration. The limit isn't law but it was agreed to to keep Minnesota's bond rating as high as possible. It's apparent, at this stage at least, that the DFL is putting a higher priority on spending money than on maintaining the highest possible bond rating. The higher the bond rating, the lower the interest rate, which means that we'd be heaping less debt on the next generation.
I'd bet that that isn't the picture of fiscal responsibility taxpayers were looking for in 2006. I'll guarantee that that isn't the picture of bipartisanship voters were hoping for.
Posted Thursday, March 6, 2008 5:27 PM
No comments.
Ms. Obstructionist & Her Minions
According to this article , Ms. Pelosi won't promise to bring the FISA reform legislation to a vote before Easter. As Generalissimo writes here , Pelosi's Democrats have obstructed the will of the people and the will of the House and Senate.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated Thursday that new legislation regulating electronic surveillance may come to the House floor next week, but would not commit to a vote before the Easter recess.If Ms. Pelosi insists on saying that the Senate bill that passed with 69 votes isn't right, how would she characterize her not voting on a much-needed FISA reform bill? As Kit Bond, Peter Hoekstra and Lamar Smith ponted out here , using the old bill is hurting US intelligence-gathering efforts:
She called the bill that easily passed the Senate on Feb. 12 "not right," and said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., continues talks with the Senate on how to meet House Democrats' objections.
We are less safe today and will remain so until Congress clears up the legal uncertainty for companies that assist in collecting intelligence for the government, and until it gives explicit permission to our intelligence agencies to intercept, without a warrant, foreign communications that pass through the U.S. Here's why:
- Intercepting terrorist communications requires the cooperation of our telecommunications companies. They're already being sued for having cooperated with the government after 9/11. So without explicit protection for future actions (and civil liability protection for the help they provided in the past), those companies critical to collecting actionable intelligence could be sidelined in the fight.
- It has already happened, briefly. "[W]e have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act," Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in a letter dated Feb. 22 to Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
- The old FISA law does not adequately protect the U.S., which is why it was revised by the Protect America Act last summer. The problem is that, although it has a few work-around-provisions, such as allowing intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance for up to 72 hours without a warrant, FISA ultimately requires those agencies to jump through too many legal hurdles. Those include the Fourth Amendment's "probable cause" requirements, protections never intended for suspected terrorists' communications that are routed through the U.S.
What has Speaker Pelosi done with her time since she single-handedly put the country at greater risk by intentionally weakening the national defense? On February 14th, the House considered 8 suspension bills, and 2 motions to adjourn, about five hours work. They then broke for ten days to celebrate President's Day. On the 25th, they took up 3 suspension bills. On the 26th, they started to work on the public housing bill, but withdrew it before final consideration. On the 27th, Pelosi actually passed something - the energy tax bill. On the 28th, 3 more suspension bills. Total work week? 15 hours and 5 minutes .Then Duane lays the wood to Ms. Pelosi:
This week, there were three more suspension bills on the 4th, six more suspension bills and the mental health bill on the 5th. And then we saw today's antics.
The House scheduled amendments and debate to reauthorize Americorps for five more years. After tediously working through a couple of amendments, former California Attorney General and current Congressman, Dan Lungren, took to the floor and tried to hijack the Americorps bill by instead demanding the House take up the Senate version of the FISA bill. Even blue dog Democrats want to get this thing done before something bad happens and Nancy Pelosi politically ruins the party. But no, leadership can't have this discussion now, not when there's lawsuits to be had against the telcos for cooperating with the U.S. government to catch terrorists. George Miller, acting as the chief stooge for Nancy Pelosi, sought and achieved a ruling from the chair that Lungren's amendment was not germane, and therefore out of order. Lungren and the Republicans appealed the ruling, and forced a vote. It was narrowly defeated.
Next Amendment to the Americorps bill was another Republican-drafted amendment to recommit the bill unless all Americorps candidates would have to subject themselves to a background check. On the surface, that doesn't seem like such a bad idea; we would typically not want to see criminals flooding the ranks of Americorps volunteers. This amendment sent the House leadership into a frenzy, not wanting to see a vote on this amendment. After a brief delay in the action, Pelosi and her gang ended up pulling the overall Americorps bill from consideration, and abruptly adjourned for the week. Another ten hour work week, and foreign terrorists know that for at least one more week, we are bound to an arcane law that is 20 years behind our current technology , providing a loophole for them to plot and scheme.
It will have been 23 days of blinding intelligence to foreign terrorist communications before the House reconvenes next week. And there is literally one person on which to lay the liability-- Nancy Pelosi.For all their spin that they care about national security, I can't find proof of that. If they were serious about it, they would've dealt with this issue instead of doing everything possible to not deal with it. It's time for the White House, John McCain and John Boehner to go on a major media offensive decrying the House's inaction on this important legislation.
Technnorati: FISA , Nancy Pelosi , George Miller , Obstruction , National Security , Peter Hoekstra , Intelligence , John McCain , John Boehner , President Bush
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Thursday, March 6, 2008 10:01 PM
No comments.
Big GOP Win On Tax Bill
Steve Gottwalt just sent out an e-letter update on the Tax Bill. Here's what the email said:
Dear Neighbor:Congratulations to the GOP for standing steadfast against the original bill. This is a big win for Team GOP. more importantly, it's a big win for Minnesota taxpayers. By standing fast on common sense principle, the GOP forced the DFL into making the Senate DFL change the bill in a significant way.
I'm getting back to you again today (Thursday) to report what happened with the Tax Bill.
After all Republicans and some DFLers voted against the earlier version, it went to the Senate where many measures were removed; they did keep most of the federal tax conformity provisions which will save Minnesotans millions of dollars . As it came back to us from the Senate, this bill represented real compromise, and fiscal moderation.
It wasn't everything we wanted but it is a good bill overall for Minnesotans, it accomplishes federal tax conformity. For this reason, I voted for concurrence on the Tax Bill, which passed the House on a 132 to 1 vote.
This shows how, by standing firm for changes we need and principles that are important, we can accomplish compromise and moderation in legislation . This is the first tax reducing legislation we've passed this session.
Several committees will be meeting into the night, including committees on which I serve addressing education and health care. Thanks for your continued interest.
Sincerely in service,
State Rep. Steve Gottwalt
House District 15A
This also means that enough DFLers voted with the GOP, most likely because they can't afford to vote for every tax increase that comes down the pike. This tells me that the tax issue will be a more potent force in this year's legislative elections than the DFL would like you to believe.
The roll call for final passage was 81-51, which sent a clear message to the Senate that the DFL wouldn't get their way on this. Here's the Yeas & Nays:
Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Anzelc
Atkins
Benson
Bigham
Bly
Brown
Brynaert
Bunn
Carlson
Clark
Davnie
Dill
Dominguez
Doty
Eken
Faust
Fritz
Gardner
Greiling
Hansen
Hausman
Haws
Hilstrom
Hilty
Hornstein
Hortman
Hosch
Huntley
Jaros
Johnson
Juhnke
Kahn
Kalin
Knuth
Koenen
Laine
Lenczewski
Lesch
Liebling
Lieder
Lillie
Loeffler
Mahoney
Mariani
Marquart
Masin
Moe
Morgan
Morrow
Mullery
Murphy, E.
Murphy, M.
Nelson
Norton
Olin
Otremba
Paymar
Pelowski
Peterson, A.
Peterson, S.
Poppe
Rukavina
Ruud
Sailer
Scalze
Sertich
Simon
Slawik
Slocum
Solberg
Swails
Thao
Thissen
Tillberry
Tschumper
Wagenius
Ward
Welti
Winkler
Wollschlager
Spk. Kelliher
Those who voted in the negative were:
Abeler
Anderson, B.
Anderson, S.
Beard
Berns
Brod
Buesgens
Cornish
Dean
DeLaForest
Demmer
Dettmer
Dittrich
Drazkowski
Eastlund
Emmer
Erhardt
Erickson
Finstad
Garofalo
Gottwalt
Gunther
Hackbarth
Hamilton
Heidgerken
Holberg
Hoppe
Howes
Kohls
Kranz
Lanning
Magnus
McFarlane
McNamara
Nornes
Olson
Ozment
Paulsen
Peppin
Peterson, N.
Ruth
Seifert
Severson
Shimanski
Simpson
Smith
Tingelstad
Urdahl
Wardlow
Westrom
Zellers
The final vote after it returned from the Senate was 132-1 so everyone can say that they voted for a strong bill but that's their 'show & tell' vote. The vote that tells people where they really stand is on the House final passage vote before it went to the Senate. The bill that went to the Sante didn't cut taxes. It didn't have federal tax conformity. The 'pre-Senate bill' was where the House DFL's heart was.
Look at the votes before the final passage vote. The DFL defeated 2 amendments by Rep. Gottwalt & another amendment by Rep. Drazkowski on an almost party line vote. That's the bill the DFL would've prefered.
It's time to congratulate Leader Seifert & the leadership team for holding the GOP caucus together, for standing on core conservative principles & for delivering a morale-boosting victory to the troops.
Posted Friday, March 7, 2008 2:03 AM
No comments.
RNC Leads DNC in Fundraising
With Barack Obama and Hillary fundraising articles often occupying the front page, it isn't unreasonable to think that the RNC trailed the DNC in fundraising, too. According to this NY Times article , that isn't the case at all.
The Democratic National Committee ended 2007 nearly flat broke, with cash of $2.9 million and debts of $2.2 million. Since then it has raised some money, paid down debt and managed to put $3.7 million in its piggy bank. This compares, however, with $25 million that the Republican National Committee has in cash on hand, after having raised $97 million since the beginning of 2007.That isn't the only bad news for Democrats:
Already, President Bush, who spoke at 29 Republican fund-raisers and is credited with raising $63.5 million last year, is lined up for more R.N.C. fund-raising in the weeks ahead. This money is likely to provide the financial muscle for Mr. McCain to continue his attacks on both Democratic candidates.Expect John McCain to have all the finances he'll need in fairly short order. I've always maintained that the fundraising totals for the GOP presidential candidates was as much about the big money guys waiting until the nominee was picked as it was about each candidate having some serious flaws.
Once McCain is fully funded, expect the alphabets (RNC, NRSC & NRCC) to kick into high gear. By the time the fall campaign kicks in, we'll be able to fund alot of challengers for the House.
I've always been an optimist but I'm seeing some indicators that tell me that 2008 isn't going to be the bad year like everyone's predicting. We've weeded out alot of the RINOs in congress which will energize us for this fall's campaign. We'll have the money to fund our candidates. All that's left after that is to outwork our opponents. That's certainly possible.
Posted Friday, March 7, 2008 3:49 AM
Comment 1 by Lady Lucy at 07-Mar-08 07:40 AM
I watched the senate debate on this bill and the DFL blocked all amendments, when did it change? The conversation was that it was the same as the House bill and they did not want to change it so as not to have a conference committee. I am very confused with your article - when did the bill change?
