November 1-3, 2007
Nov 01 10:37 Who Is Ellen Malcolm? Nov 01 15:02 I Agree With Tarryl Nov 01 20:29 Conservative Chris Matthews Nov 02 09:43 October's Job Creation Nov 02 11:38 Ellison's Latest Legislation A Big Mistake Nov 03 09:50 Immigration Causing BIG Problems In Democratland Nov 03 10:16 Will The Logjam Be Broken? Nov 03 22:39 John Murtha's Debt
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006
Who Is Ellen Malcolm?
According to this website , she "and 25 friend founded EMILY's List in her basement." They created EMILY's List in 1985. The rest, as they say, is history. It turns out that EMILY is an acronym . It stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast (it helps the dough rise).
Here's their stated mission :
EMILY's List members are dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office. We believe in the power of women as candidates, as contributors, as campaign professionals, and as voters to bring about great change in our country.That's just part of who Ellen Malcolm is. She also helped start ACT :
EMILY's List will win today and build for tomorrow. Our immediate focus is to win elections to turn back the Bush Republicans and their right-wing agenda. At the same time, we are making a long-term investment in women to develop their political skills and cultivate resources so that we can bring more women into politics and elected office. Only then can we build a progressive majority and construct a society built around equal opportunity for all, civil rights, diversity, and compassion.
America Coming Together (ACT) organized the Democratic Party's Government Union wing, which is represented by such leftist labor unions as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and AFSCME. ACT was one of the 33 "progressive" member organizations constituting the America Votes coalition. It was also a member group of the so-called Democrat Shadow Party, a nationwide network of non-profit activist groups pursuing leftist agendas and campaigning aggressivelyHere's what Discover the Networks said about ACT's canvassing techniques:
for Democrat political candidates.
The original President of ACT was Ellen Malcolm. The Chief Executive Officer was Steven Rosenthal. The Treasurer (and also a Board Member) was Carl Pope. The Assistant Treasurer was Brian Foucart. Other Board Members included Ellen Malcolm (also an Assistant Treasurer), Anne Bartley, Hillary Clinton, Gina Glantz, Rob Glaser, Jonathan Lewis, Rob McKay, Minyon Moore, Cecile Richards, Jonathan T. Soros, and Antonio Villaraigosa.
ACT used intrusive, high-pressure tactics to register and mobilize such voters, both by phone and by door-to-door canvassing. Not only did its canvassers register voters, but they compiled extensive personal dossiers on the latter, including such private information as their drivers' license numbers and social security numbers , information which could be retrieved on demand through the canvassers' hand-held Palm Pilots.Here's what they said about who ACT's canvassers were:
On June 23, 2004, the Associated Press revealed that an undetermined number of ACT's fulltime canvassers were felons, convicted for crimes ranging from drug dealing to burglary, assault, and sex offenses.Let's remember what Powerline reported about ACT right before the 2004 election:
Among the well-funded and supposedly independent groups supporting John Kerry in the campaign is Americans Coming Together (ACT). ACT has taken notice of Minnesota's special vulnerabilty to vote fraud and organized a sophisticated effort to exploit it in a manner that violates Minnesota law. In Minnesota the Bush campaign has come into the possession of the following email from ACT to its Minnesota volunteers:Simply put, ACT put together a detailed plan to commit voter fraud in Minnesota. Considering the other unethical practices, it's difficult to believe that Ellen Malcolm didn't know what was going on.Election Day is upon us. You are confirmed to volunteer with ACT (America Coming Together - http://www.actforvictory.org/) on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 2.This email is a smoking gun of massive premeditated vote fraud. The ACT effort contemplates the prepositioning of registered voters as volunteers at their precincts of residence to provide the "vouching" necessary to get individuals registered to vote on election day in the precinct whether or not the volunteer "personally knows" the residence of the unregistered voter. It is a recipe for illegal voting in every precinct of the state.
We will be creating name badges that include your Ward and Precinct information for each of the thousands of volunteers that day to make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter at the polls.
I am emailing you to request your street address, city and zipcode. We've already got your other contact information, but your record in our database does not include this information.
You can save us time on election day by replying today to this email with this information, or give us a call at [phone number with St. Paul area code].
In order to get your badge correct, please reply by Thursday.
Thank you for your help and cooperation. See you on Election Day!
Under Malcolm's leadership, ACT was fined $775,000 by the FEC :
The Federal Election Commission has fined one of the last cycle's biggest liberal political action committees $775,000 for using unregulated soft money to boost John Kerry and other Democratic candidates during the 2004 elections.That's some type of organization that Ms. Malcolm ran. ACT was essentially a voter registration drive that allegedly used illegal contributions to hire a team of convicted thugs to canvass neighborhoods. In the process of registering voters, they're alleged to have gathered such personal information as social security numbers and drivers license numbers. Not only that but ACT put together an elaborate voter fraud operation in Minnesota.
America Coming Together (ACT) raised $137 million for its get-out-the-vote effort in 2004, but the FEC found most of that cash came through contributions that violated federal limits.
The group's big donors included George Soros, Progressive Corp. chairman Peter Lewis and the Service Employees International Union.
The settlement, which the FEC approved unanimously, is the third largest enforcement penalty in the commission's 33-year history.
ACT, which ceased operations in 2005, was formed in late 2003 and rapidly deployed an enormous organization to do the retail-level grunt work of politics.
It's amazing that they didn't get fined alot more than just $775,000.
Here's an exchange between Ms. Malcolm and Ed Gillespie on Jim Lehrer's Newshour :
STEVE ROSENTHAL: The stated purpose of ACT, as a federal/nonfederal PAC, is to defeat President Bush, to elect progressives up and down the ticket, and to bring more Americans into the political process.Based on the fact that the FEC levied a $775,000 fine and that ACT agreed to pay that fine, I'd say it's apparent that Mr. Gillespie was right and that Ms. Malcolm was spinning this issue.
MARGARET WARNER: And that, says Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, means these groups are violating the law.
ED GILLESPIE: It's pure and simple they are operating illegally. If you use nonfederal dollars, as prescribed by the new campaign finance law, commonly known as McCain-Feingold, to elect or defeat a candidate for federal office, you're in violation of the law. And these 527s are taking nonfederal soft money, and they're spending them clearly and explicitly to defeat the president in his bid for reelection.
ELLEN MALCOLM: Well, the Republicans are blowing smoke all over the place trying to intimidate donors and talk about legal issues.
MARGARET WARNER: Ellen Malcolm is president of ACT, and a chief fundraiser for all these groups.
ELLEN MALCOLM: We are doing absolutely the appropriate thing, and they know it. This is much more about politics than it is about law.
When all the smoke clears, it will be honestly said that Ms. Malcolm ran a corrupt organization that saw voter fraud here in Minnesota as nothing more than a way to defeat President Bush and other Republicans. She showed a total disregard for Minnesota's election laws. Sadly, her's isn't the only corrupt GOTV machine on the 'progressive' side of the aisle. ( ACORN is just as corrupt.)
Isn't it time that we beefed up election laws so that people like Ms. Malcolm can't steal elections like they've tried doing the last couple election cycles? Isn't it time that We The People demanded election integrity? Isn't it time that we made life uncomfortable for corrupt progressives?
In my opinion, it's time to rid our elections of the voter fraud systems that Ms. Malcolm and ACORN have attempted to install.
Posted Thursday, November 1, 2007 10:39 AM
No comments.
I Agree With Tarryl
I've been paying so much attention to Pennsylvania and national politics lately that I haven't kept up with local politis. With that in mind, I'd like to talk about Tarryl Clark's Oct. 11 press release . In it, she says that "lawmakers and the Governor" must "take action" in improving Minnesota's economy. Here's one of Tarryl's lamentations:
Despite a long held reputation as a national leader in economic prosperity, Minnesota has slipped in several key economic indicators over the past several years. In 2006, new job growth in the state lagged behind the national average. Adjusting for inflation, the state's median household annual income dropped almost $7,300 between 2000 and 2005.I agree with Tarryl that the legislature & Gov. Pawlenty need to take action to increase Minnesota's economy. That's why I dropped her an email suggesting that the legislature cuts taxes when the session opens on Feb. 12, 2008. Here's the key portion of what I said in my email:
Now would be a perfect time to cut taxes & restrengthen our economy. It's also time to pass a small increase in the gas tax & a big increase in bonding to fix our existing roads & bridges. It's also time to initiate a moratorium on LRT. Our highest priorities should be to fix the existing roads & bridges while not shackling small businesses & individual taxpayers with the crippling tax increases the Legislature passed last session.Based on her past voting record, I'm not optimistic about the chances of Tarryl or the DFL passing tax cuts. That said, the DFL needs to know that their tax increases would've been oppressive & burdensome. Simply put, that's unacceptable if we want to see businesses attracted to Minnesota rather than seeing businesses fleeing Minnesota.
Isn't it time for you & Sen. Pogemiller, Speaker Kelliher & Rep. Sertich to realize that the tax increases on every Minnesotan is driving businesses out of the state? Shouldn't you re-examine your priorities so that they aren't preventing average citizens the ability to pursue their dreams?
Look at what Jennifer Granholm's tax increases have done to Michigan's economy. Look at how prosperous Colorado is with their lower marginal tax rates. There's an important lesson we should learn from those states.
It's also important that Minnesotans realized that other states have caught us on the education front & that they did it without increasing taxes. Other states found ways of improving their education funding to the point where taxes now are the determining factor for businesses.
Here's what Michigan did to attract businesses:
In December, Granholm signed legislation giving manufacturers a $600 million tax cut. The tax cut included incentives for companies to create and consolidate jobs in Michigan instead of outsourcing them to other countries. The Governor has also created the $2 billion 21st Century Jobs Fund which provides state grants to a diverse group of innovative companies interested in expanding in Michigan.Let's look at Michigan's recent history. The economy flourished during John Engler's administration but tanked with Ms. Granholm's tax increases. Now they're fixing their economy by providing tax incentives to move into Michigan. By signing this legislation, Ms. Granholm is tacitly admitting that increasing taxes causes the outsourcing of jobs.
Let's compare that with the DFL's model from this past session. They tried raising taxes by almost $5.5 billion. They passed those tax increases so they could increase spending to unsustainable levels. Now Tarryl's complaining about Minnesota's failing economic outlook. Look at this statement:
"We need to take a broader approach to spurring job growth in the state," said Sen. Clark. "Let's do more than create new programs with cute acronyms and logo designs. Let's catch up on some of the basics first. By investing in public education, making higher education more affordable, fixing our roads and bridges, shortening commuting and delivery and transport times, and holding down property taxes for homes and businesses we can do more to ensure Minnesota's economy."That's pretty ironic considering how Tarryl & her DFL cohorts voted to increase commercial property taxes :
The Senate tax bill, likely to be heard before the end of the week, will contain an increase in business property taxes of $222 million in FY 2008-2009 and $467 million in 2010-2011. It is clear that property tax relief is a priority for legislators, however, businesses should not pay for homeowners property tax relief. This priority should be funded out of the $2 billion surplus.Mr. Gorman wasn't the only businessman upset by the commercial property tax increase :
BUSINESS PROPERTY TAX BURDENS ARE ALREADY THREE TIMES THAT OF HOMES!
Call your Senator today. Tell them not to penalize Minnesota 's job providers and slow the economic engine of this state by raising your business property taxes.
"It was harsh and unexpected [and] wasn't budgeted for," said Thomas Loome of Loome Antiquarian Booksellers, a downtown Stillwater business that he said will close as a result.The DFL hasn't figured out that tax policy affects economies, Minnesota's included. They'd better catch on quick before it spirals into a deep recession.
Posted Thursday, November 1, 2007 3:33 PM
No comments.
Conservative Chris Matthews
Yes, You read that right. No, I don't think he's turning into a tax-cutting Reagan man. When I say call Chris Matthews a conservative, it's to highlight his comments on last night's Hardball. Here's what he said that sounded like he's part of the conservative base:
MATTHEWS: Nobody likes ethnic change. It's always hard to deal with. You try to be a liberal about it. But when things change in your neighborhood, you have to get used to it and deal with it. Nobody is thrilled by it, because it just happens in our country. People, neighborhoods change. Life changes. But when you hate, when you see the federal government or the state government papering over a problem by giving people documents, driver's license, which they can use for all kinds of purposes, especially building a paper trail to establish a fact they should be here legally, it looks like the government has given up.If I hadn't revealed who made that statement, isn't it probable that you'd guess Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter? I'd bet a not-so-small amount of money that you would've bet either Tancredo or Hunter. As strange as that sounds, it gets more bizarre:
It said, well, we can't stop illegal immigration, so we'll give everybody a driver's license. It strikes me as a death blow, a death knell to government. If you can't protect your border, you're not really a country, are you?
DONAHUE: Well, you know what is interesting, Chris is I think what you just articulated is where a lot of voters are on the issue. What is ICE doing? Why is this a random process? Why do some people wait two months and others wait ten years to get legal entry into this country? Now, in New Hampshire you have a lot of Canadian people coming in. They don't look different. It's not a hot button issue up here. It's really, they sound and look like Americans.Hillary Clinton won't "own it" because she's too afraid of alienating Hispanic voters. In fact, Dick Morris just said on O'Reilly that she supports giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. that figures because that'd make it easier for illegal immigrants to commit voter fraud and vote for her.
So while we have tons of immigrants, it doesn't really show. I think the bigger concern, and the one that, you know, Giuliani and McCain and Clinton would be wise to take this issue on is that there is no national security without an accounting for who's in the country. And ICE and the former INS have no idea who is in the country. They have no idea how to get rid of them if they're not people who are doing good things. So I think that's the bottom line issue. This is a national security issue.
And if Hillary Clinton is running in some ways as a national security Democrat, which I believe she is, she should grasp this issue, understand it and own it.
Even that analysis isn't the most dramatic commentary of the evening. This is:
MATTHEWS: Every one of us travels and gets on airplanes. What do we have to show? Our driver's license. We might as well show our Mickey Mouse Club Cards the way this is going, because they're just passing them out.After watching Matthews say that, I thought I might've been dreaming but the transcript proves it's reality. Who would've thunk it that Chris Matthews would sound like a conservative on that issue?
Posted Thursday, November 1, 2007 8:30 PM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 02-Nov-07 08:54 AM
First Tarryl and now Matthews???? Has H*ll finally frozen over????
LL
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Nov-07 09:29 AM
First Tarryl and now Matthews???? Has H*ll finally frozen over???? I've got the skates out.
October's Job Creation
The US economy created 166,000 new jobs this October, surprising the experts.
Employers added a surprisingly strong 166,000 new non-farm jobs in October, well ahead of forecasts in an early sign that consumer incomes may be better supported than thought heading into the fourth quarter, according to a government report on Friday.Chalk this up as more proof that low marginal tax rates work.
Posted Friday, November 2, 2007 9:43 AM
No comments.
Ellison's Latest Legislation A Big Mistake
Wednesday, Keith Ellison introduced legislation banning photo ID's for federal elections. I've always known that his beliefs were outside the mainstream but I'm shocked that he'd prove that fact in this way. Here's what his official statement said :
"In America, our right to vote is a sacred right, and a moral obligation," Ellison stated. "We must do everything that encourages, fosters and facilitates everyone's ability to exercise that right. While photo ids seem harmless, they are in fact ; the modern day poll tax," Ellison said.What's just as shocking is this bit of news:
Ellison, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, got an important backer for the bill, as the panel's chairman, Michigan Democrat John Conyers, signed on a co-sponsor.John Conyers isn't exactly mainstream either. Last year, Pelosi told him to stop talking about impeachment because she didn't want that held against Democrats in the midterm elections.
Rep. Ellison is playing to fears amongst minority communities rather than being constructive. He knows that the term poll tax is a racially charged phrase. That's why he portrayed it that way. He then talks proudly about how Minnesota doesn't require photo ID for voting:
"In Minnesota we go to great lengths to make voting as inclusive as possible," he said, arguing that has helped with voter turnout.As I mentioned here , radical progressive groups have tried using that system to commit voter fraud:
In Minnesota the Bush campaign has come into the possession of the following email from ACT to its Minnesota volunteers:Doing everything sanely possible to ensure everyone can vote is the right goal. Banning photo IDs makes voter fraud too simple. Rather than banning photo IDs, shouldn't we mandate them? Shouldn't we mandate the states to provide photo IDs free of charge for people who can't afford them?Election Day is upon us. You are confirmed to volunteer with ACT (America Coming Together - http://www.actforvictory.org/) on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 2.
We will be creating name badges that include your Ward and Precinct information for each of the thousands of volunteers that day to make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter at the polls.
I am emailing you to request your street address, city and zipcode. We've already got your other contact information, but your record in our database does not include this information.
You can save us time on election day by replying today to this email with this information, or give us a call at [phone number with St. Paul area code].
In order to get your badge correct, please reply by Thursday.
Thank you for your help and cooperation. See you on Election Day!
If we took that approach, we'd eliminate voter disenfranchisement while guaranteeing the integrity of our elections. Doesn't that address both important priorities far better than eliminating photo ID's?
I'd like to ask Rep. Ellison to explain why voter disenfranchisement is his only priority. Why isn't eliminating voter fraud a visible priority for him? What proof is there that Rep. Ellison gets as upset with voter fraud as he gets with voter disenfranchisement?
Tie this together with Mark Ritchie's bio on the 21st Century Democrats' website and a scary picture appears:
To combat low young adult voter turnout, Mark proposes to establish automatic voter registration for all high school seniors. By doing so, Minnesota can register all eligible students before they graduate. Mark also believes we need to create a national Leave No voter Behind Program, focused on achieving 100 percent voter registration for young people. As secretary of state Mark will work with local governments to find ways to remove all barriers, legal and technological, to the free exercise of this choice . This includes establishing instant runoff voting, voting by mail, and preventing the photo-ID-to-vote requirement so that students, seniors, soldiers, and anyone else who has lost or forgotten their ID on Election Day isn't denied their right to vote.Interestingly, Keith Ellison is also listed as a rising star on the 21st Century Democrats website. It appears that he and Mr. Ritchie share the opinion that we shouldn't require affirmative photo ID in preserving the integrity of our elections. I'm not saying that Mssrs. Ellison's and Ritchie's motivation in eliminating photo ID's is to create a system that fosters voter fraud. That's something only they know. What isn't clear, though, is that either was thinking about increasing voter turnout while preserving the integrity of elections.
Here's a section of Minnesota's election law :
The secretary of state is the chief election official in Minnesota and is responsible for administration of the Minnesota election law. In this capacity, the secretary of state operates the statewide voter registration system and prepares the official roster of voters for every election conducted in Minnesota. Other election activities include certifying voting systems, conducting administrative recounts, accepting filings by candidates for multi-county offices, and training of local election officials. The secretary of state chairs the state canvassing board, which certifies the results of state elections.Here's some of the things contained in Minnesota's election laws :
Let's have Mssrs. Ellison and Ritchie explain how they'd determine whether someone's a resident when they don't have any form of identification? Let's take it a step further. Can anyone picture department stores dropping a photo ID requirement for major credit card purchases? I know that restaurants and grocery stores don't require photo ID if a purchase is under a certain amount but they definitely require it when the bill reaches toward the $30 mark.200.031 DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE .
Residence shall be determined in accordance with the following principles, so far as they may be applicable to the facts of the case:
(a) The residence of an individual is in the precinct where the individual's home is located, from which the individual has no present intention of moving, and to which, whenever the individual is absent, the individual intends to return;
(b) An individual does not lose residence if the individual leaves home to live temporarily in another state or precinct;
c) An individual does not acquire a residence in any precinct of this state if the individual is living there only temporarily, without the intention of making that precinct home;
(d) If an individual goes into another state or precinct with the intention of making it home or files an affidavit of residence there for election purposes, the individual loses residence in the former precinct ;
(e) If an individual moves to another state with the intention of living there for an indefinite period, the individual loses residence in this state , notwithstanding any intention to return at some indefinite future time;
(f) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an individual's residence is located in the precinct where the individual's family lives, unless the individual's family is living in that precinct only temporarily;
The point I'm making is that the integrity of our elections should be as high a priority as preventing voter disenfranchisement. Protecting the integrity of the elections shouldn't be higher than eliminating voter disenfranchisement but it shouldn't be a lesser priority than it either .
Tetchnorati: Keith Ellison , John Conyers , Poll Tax , Photo ID , Race Baiting , Mark Ritchie , Secretary Of State , Voter Fraud , Election Law , Voter Disenfranchisement
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Friday, November 2, 2007 12:09 PM
Comment 1 by Leo Pusateri at 02-Nov-07 09:24 PM
If you can't win on the issues, cheat.
Comment 2 by I got a Vikings Adrian Peterson Jersey at 24-Mar-09 03:53 AM
Can you provide more information on this for the rest of us far-away (Europe) Vikings fans?
Immigration Causing BIG Problems In Democratland
Don't take my word for it, though. Listen to what E.J. Dionne wrote in his latest column :
More significant than Hillary Clinton's supposed gaffe at the end of this week's Democratic presidential debate is the subject around which she tiptoed so delicately: Immigration is the issue Democrats fear because it could leave them with a set of no-win political choices.Chris Matthews appears to have figured that out:
MATTHEWS: Nobody likes ethnic change. It's always hard to deal with. You try to be a liberal about it. But when things change in your neighborhood, you have to get used to it and deal with it. Nobody is thrilled by it, because it just happens in our country. People, neighborhoods change. Life changes. But when you hate, when you see the federal government or the state government papering over a problem by giving people documents, driver's license, which they can use for all kinds of purposes, especially building a paper trail to establish a fact they should be here legally, it looks like the government has given up.According to Dionne's column, Rahm Emanuel seems to have figured it out, too:
It said, well, we can't stop illegal immigration, so we'll give everybody a driver's license. It strikes me as a death blow, a death knell to government. If you can't protect your border, you're not really a country, are you?
"The debate to date has been a debate about corporate interests, ag (agriculture), the tourist industry and advocates of immigrants," he said in a telephone interview on Thursday. "This is a debate in which the rest of America is left out.Hardline conservatives have been preaching this since mid-2005, if not longer. Chris Matthews and Rahm Emanuel sound like hardline conservatives, don't they? That doesn't mean that I think Emanuel will co-sponsor border enforcement immigration reform with Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter anytime soon but I think it shows how concerned Democrats are about this issue. Here's ample reason why they should be concerned:
"This is a values issue: How does a superpower not have control over its border? You have to enforce the rule of law as it relates to the border and you have to enforce the rule of law as it relates to benefits. Then the American people will be open to resolving the issue as it relates to what industry needs and what immigrant advocates need."
One poll finding this week that shook Democrats came in a survey conducted by Democracy Corps, a consortium organized by party consultants Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan and James Carville. It asked voters to pick two from a list of seven problems that explained "why the country is going in the wrong direction."Considering Ted Kennedy's support for lenient enforcement measures, does anyone think that this is a winning issue for Democrats? Let's face facts: 70 percent of voters think that the borders should be secured first before any other steps are taken with regard to immigration issues. There's two dangers about this issue for Democrats: (1) It cuts across party lines and (2) people have a visceral, passionate reaction to it.
The survey found that among independent voters, 40 percent, by far the largest group, picked this option: "Our borders have been left unprotected and illegal immigration is growing."
By contrast, a lack of action on health care was named by only 24 percent of independents as a core problem, and Iraq by 23 percent.
That means there isn't the opportunity to triangulate or be too clever by half. You either stake out a 'shut the borders' position and hold fast to that or you triangulate and get whipsawed. Mrs. Clinton tried triangulating, which is why she's getting whipsawed.
By contrast, Republicans should exploit this Democratic vulnerability. Rudy Giuliani should keep his powder dry for the time being, then unload on Hillary's pandering and her shifting position on this issue later in the cycle. That Democracy Corps poll says that Democrats are in trouble on that issue and that this issue is something that people feel passionately about.
Posted Saturday, November 3, 2007 9:53 AM
No comments.
Will The Logjam Be Broken?
Based on this article in Politico.com , the Hillary document logjam will be broken. Personally, I'm nore than a bit skeptical because of this sentence:
But Bill Clinton's lawyer will have the final say on whether 10,000 pages of Hillary Clinton's private White House "daily schedules" will be immediately released to the groups who requested her calendar under the Freedom of Information Act.Until it clears that hurdle, I'll remain skeptical. Having a lawyer review the documnets isn't bad by itself. It's just that the lawyer can say that he isn't releasing the documents & Hillary can claim that she tried getting the documents released.
If that's what happens, conservatives & independents will be skeptical & upset. If the woman who would be president can't get a lowly personal attorney to release documents, then she'll be the object of well-deserved ridicule. Hillary's rivals are jumping on her secrecy, too:
Clinton rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) criticized her at the Oct. 30 debate for not releasing more White House documents.The old axiom that sunshine is the best disinfectant doesn't seem to matter with the Clintons. They don't seem to care must about disinfecting their ethically-challenged lives. In a change election, relying on the same old, same old isn't likely to work. In fact, I suspect that it'll become a hindrance to her.
"We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history. And not releasing, I think, these records, at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem," he said.
Posted Saturday, November 3, 2007 10:16 AM
Comment 1 by retro at 20-Nov-07 12:11 AM
As much as I'd like to see a woman president, I don't trust Hillary as far as I can throw her.
John Murtha's Debt
Obviously, every congresscritter contributes to the annual budget deficit. That said, John Murtha 'contributes' more to it than most :
Twenty-one members were responsible for about $1 billion in earmarks, or financing for pet projects, according to data lawmakers were required to disclose for the first time this year. Each asked for more than $20 million for businesses mostly in their districts, ranging from major military contractors to little known start-ups.It's time we stopped calling them earmarks & called them what they really are: the price of corruption. Here's how the WSJ worded it :
The list is topped by the veteran earmark champions Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who is the chairman of the powerful defense appropriations subcommittee, and Representative C. W. Bill Young of Florida, the top Republican on the panel, who asked for $166 million and $117 million respectively. It also includes $92 million in requests from Representative Jerry Lewis, Republican of California, a committee member who is under federal investigation for his ties to a lobbying firm whose clients often benefited from his earmarks.
Johnstown's good fortune has come at the expense of taxpayers everywhere else. Defense contractors have found that if they open an office here and hire the right lobbyist, they can get lucrative, no-bid contracts. Over the past decade, Concurrent Technologies Corp., a defense-research firm that employs 800 here, got hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to Rep. Murtha despite poor reviews by Pentagon auditors.When Democrats won majorities in the House & Senate, Nancy Pelosi said that they'd use a pay-go system to restore fiscal discipline. It sounds to me like John Murtha has a different type of pay-go system. If you don't pay Johnstown's Piper, you don't pass go. You don't collect your share of corruption markers, aka earmarks.
"Pork hasn't gone away at all," said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, an earmark critic who cites the "circular fund-raising" surrounding many of them. "It would be wonderful if this was a partisan issue, with Republicans on the right side, but it is really not. Many of these companies use money appropriated through earmarks to turn around and lobby for more money. Some of them are just there to receive earmarks."Ms. Pelosi was more interested in campaigning on earmarks than she was worried about reforming the system or "draining the swamp." Simply put, she wasn't & isn't serious about earmarks or cleaning up corruption.
That's why she needs to be a one-term Speaker & why John Murtha needs to be involuntarily retired.
Originally posted Saturday, November 3, 2007, revised 04-Nov 8:58 PM
Comment 1 by DES at 04-Nov-07 12:20 PM
Earmarks were for the intelligence committee and the planning and funding of the Afghan war. Everything else is this being passed.
