November 12, 2007
Nov 12 03:09 What's Wrong With This Picture? Nov 12 11:31 'Hanoi Jane' Fonda to Visit Minnesota Nov 12 13:10 Nancy Pelosi's Difficult Times Nov 12 15:08 Where Did Hillary's Mojo Go? Nov 12 15:46 Hillary's Hostility Nov 12 17:30 Great Stuff Larry Nov 12 17:52 I Thought We Weren't Respected In The World Nov 12 18:31 But What About the Pork? Nov 12 22:00 Bill Still Playing the 'Boo-Hoo Card'
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Is it just me or do Pennsylvania Democrats look guilty of paying staffers more in election years? Here's what the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Tracie Mauriello & Dennis Roddy say on the matter:
In all, 12 full-time Veon staffers and one intern received $79,215 in bonuses for their work in 2006, nearly twice as much as Senate Republicans distributed as bonuses caucuswide. Bonuses for the same Veon staffers in 2005, a non-election year, totalled $1,130.That's a 7,000 percent increase from 2005. To be fair, some of those bonuses seem relatively 'justified' compared with other bonuses:
Julie Jarbeck-Walko, wife of state Rep. Don Walko, D-North Side, had worked for Mr. Veon from 1998 until 2004, when she resigned her state job and began drawing on her pension. She was rehired by the Veon staff in late September of last year, and after three months was given a $5,000 bonus.Mrs. Jarbeck-Walko's answer doesn't pass the laugh test. Democrats were in charge of bonuses for Democratic staffers just like Republicans were in charge of bonuses for GOP staffers. Does Mrs. Walko expect us to think that everyone in the Democrats' staffers got bigger bonuses in 2006 for their "years of dedication and service"? Just to play devils' advocate, I'd enjoy asking Mrs. Walko why these employees didn't get that type of bonus in 2005? Meanwhile, Chester gave much the same answer:
"I assumed the bonus was for my years of dedication and service," said Mrs. Jarbeck-Walko, who is now an aide to state Rep. Frank Dermody, D-Oakmont, the majority caucus secretary.
She said her brief conversation with Mr. Veon left her with the impression that everyone in the district office who received such a bonus was being rewarded and compensated for a job well done. "I assumed it was for our hard work and dedication and the fact that we had just lost our jobs," she said.
There is no evidence in campaign records that Mrs. Jarbeck-Walko was involved in Mr. Veon's campaign, but she was reimbursed for expenses related to her husband's. Most of her work for that campaign came before she joined the Veon staff.
She has worked for Mr. Dermody since January.
"She's a great employee. She knows the ropes in Harrisburg better than anybody," said Mr. Dermody, who noted that she had previously worked for state Rep. Joseph Petrarca, D-Vandergrift, and for Mr. Walko, whom she later married, before moving on to Mr. Veon's office.
Meanwhile, another Veon staffer received more than double the amount of Mrs. Jarbeck-Walko's bonus. Chester Orelli, a staff aide, received $10,065 in payroll bonuses, despite being on leave from his state job from mid-March to June of last year.
Mr. Orelli spent those three months on the payroll of the House Democratic Campaign Committee, which Mr. Veon oversaw. The committee was responsible for promoting Democratic legislative candidates.
"I was told by former state Rep. Mike Veon that the bonus given to me was for my hard work that I have done through the years," Mr. Orelli said in an e-mail response when reached at his current job at the district office of state Rep. Jaret Gibbons, D-Ellwood City.I didn't buy Mr. Orelli's explanation, either, especially considering he spent 3+ months working for the House Democratic Campaign Committee.
The good news about bonuses is that they'll soon be regulated , thanks in large part to State Sen. John Eichelberger:
Though Eichelberger's bill wouldn't eliminate the practice of bonuses for state agencies, such as the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, they could not be hidden. Under the current law, it took lawsuits to force the PHEAA to reveal travel expenses and bonuses.The difference between John Eichelberger, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is that John Eichelberger is actually attempting to drain the swamp. I didn't expect much from them to begin with, which means that I'm not surprised now. Expecting entrenched incumpents to be true champions of reform simply isn't logical. It's worthwhile but it hasn't been realistic.
The new legislation would make these agreements open to immediate public scrutiny. Allowing the sun to shine on performance-based incentive payments should help prevent excess and abuse. The legislation also exempts personal or collective-bargaining contracts, but the contract terms must be disclosed.
Until we get these reforms enacted & enforced, the pictures from places of power won't look right.
Posted Monday, November 12, 2007 3:10 AM
No comments.
'Hanoi Jane' Fonda to Visit Minnesota
Accordding to this post at Democratic Undergrgound , anti-war icon Jane Fonda will be a featured speaker at the Minnesota Capitol Tuesday at 3 PM. The event is sponsored by the Democratic Women Leadership Coalition and the DFL Feminist Caucus. Here's more of the details:
A new women's Leadership Awards Program created and designed to recognize women as civic leaders, is a combined effort of the Democratic Women Leadership Coalition and the DFL Feminist Caucus. The first Annual Awards ceremony will be held on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 3:00 PM in room G-15 of the Minnesota State Capital and is open to the public.
Academy Award winning actor, writer, and political activist Jane Fonda is the special guest and featured speaker who will help launch this Annual Leadership Awards ceremony and reception.
The four 2007 Leadership awards will be presented to the following recipients:
The Koryne Horbal Fearless Award - Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley
A woman who does what needs doing, and whose actions exemplify answering the questions, "If not me, who? If not now, when?" Speaks truth to power, to allies, to friends and to self. Her work is continuous and personifies qualities enumerated in the other award categories.
Recipient: Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley. Former FBI agent and whistleblower, Time Magazine "Person of the Year" award in 2002, and opinion writer for The Huffington Post
While Coleen Rowley likely has a positive image nationally, Minnesotans got a negative impression of her when she ran against John Kline. After much stumbling for an answer, she applauded a blogger for his depiction of Rep. Kline as a Nazi:
I support this excellent blog written by one of our best volunteers!
--Coleen Rowley
Here's a screenshot of the picture:
Forgive me if I don't see why Ms. Fonda is honoring someone who applauds the depiction of a genuine American military hero as a Nazi. It appears that Ms. Fonda's disdain for the military is still very real.
Thoughtful Minnesotans should reject Ms. Fonda's misguided activism. Ms. Fonda is nothing if not another high-profile anti-war, anti-military Democratic activist.
This also tells us about where the DFL's heart lies. Why on earth would they invite someone with such strong anti-military beliefs to speak at an event like this?
Technnorati: Jane Fonda , Coleen Rowley , Anti-war Activist , Nazis , Bloggers , John Kline , Military
Posted Monday, November 12, 2007 11:35 AM
No comments.
Nancy Pelosi's Difficult Times
Every once in awhile, you've gotta feel sorry for Nancy Pelosi. She rode to power on...an insistant anti-war movement (Admit it- you were thinking of something with a handle and some bristles, weren't you?) that thought she cared about winning in Iraq. It isn't that Ms. Pelosi isn't anti-war. It's that her biggest goal was to attain the highest political rank possible. That's why she's in a pickle . Here's how a Washington Times editorialist describes Ms. Pelosi's dilemma:
These are difficult days for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other politicians who have staked their political futures on an American defeat in Iraq. In the past 10 days alone, the mainstream media has reported the new reality: that the changes in military strategy instituted by Gen. David Petraeus are resulting in major improvements in the security situation there.She knows that she can't argue against the anti-war crowd because they're prolific fundraisers, which is important because she wants to stay Speaker. That means Ms. Pelosi, and Sen. Reid for that matter, are betwixt and between. Put a little differently, she's between Iraq and a hard place.
For example, the Associated Press reported: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops. To many in Amariyah, it seems little short of a miracle." According to The Washington Post:
"The number of attacks against U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of sectarian killing...The death toll for American troops in October fell to 39, the lowest level since March 2006." And on Thursday, the New York Times noted: "American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood in Baghdad , a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned."
Responding to the good news, Mrs. Pelosi has unveiled her newest legislative strategy to damage the war effort: House Democrats this week will try to enact a bill calling for immediately beginning to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, with a goal of completing the pullout in one year (in other words, announcing a date to surrender Iraq to the very jihadists that coalition forces are defeating on the battlefield right now.) The surrender language will be attached to a four-month, $50 billion funding package for the war in Iraq, roughly one quarter of the funding requested by President Bush. The president, in all likelihood, will be forced to veto this irresponsible bill, which will once again jeopardize funding for the troops.
The contrast could hardly be any more striking: American soldiers perform heroically and successfully, risking their lives on the battlefield in Iraq. Mrs. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, by contrast, look for new ways to advertise American weakness to the enemy, in effect, to tell al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that if it can hold out against U.S. forces for another year, "progressive" politicians in Washington will deliver the votes to ensure that Iraq becomes a jihadist colony.
This is a hell of Ms. Pelosi's making. If Ms. Pelosi wasn't a power-hungry, unprincipled politician, she'd tell the Nutroots to take a hike. If Democrats did that, they'd regain the Lieberman Democrats.
At the day's end, we need principled politicians who care about our nation's security more than they care about the next election. That won't happen until Speaker Pelosi returns to being Minority Leader Pelosi. That won't happen until Democrats reject the anti-war nutters.
That's the only way to solve our dilemma.
Posted Monday, November 12, 2007 1:12 PM
No comments.
Where Did Hillary's Mojo Go?
According to this Michael McAuliff article in the NY Daily News, that's essentially the question Clintonistas are asking right now. Based on this paragraph, I'd say that Mr. McAuliff captures the state of the race perfectly:
Top Clinton strategist Mark Penn doesn't own up to his candidate suffering a dip, but he admits it's been tougher of late.As I wrote here , Hillary tried triangulating on an issue that demands clear, concise answers. Hillary couldn't help herself because her plan is to sound authoritatively vague. It's impossible to predict when this cycle will end but it's clear that Hillary has given the GOP nominee great fodder for the general election.
"The opponents went negative, and that created a new dynamic and a different set of headlines," Penn said.
The new dynamic emerged at the debate in Philadelphia two weeks ago, but didn't just spring from sharp criticism by her opponents. Clinton stumbled by offering fuzzy answers to some questions and refusing to take a stance on Gov. Spitzer's license plan for illegal immigrants.
Then Camp Clinton's damage control backfired as she was pounded for suggesting the "boys" ganged up on her. And Bill Clinton brought more scorn when he said the attempt to get an answer out of his wife on licenses verged on John Kerry Swift Boat territory.
Now Penn and company plan to stick to the high road, talking about Clinton's strength, experience and vision for America, fund-raising at a torrid rate and deploying Bill Clinton more.
Another thing that's clear is that the vaunted Clinton War Room isn't hitting on all cylinders like it did in 1992. That said, they were working with Bill, who was a better candidate than Hillary ever will be. Bill Clinton ran at a time when the world didn't seem like as threatening a place as we're living in now. The Soviet Union had collapsed. We'd defeated Saddam. The world looked relatively placid.
That's history. We're now locked in a fight against determined jihadists who want to destroy Western civilization and establish a worldwide caliphate. Iran is threatening to develop nuclear missiles. Pakistan's government is on the verge of collapsing.
Here's the Clinton counteroffensive:
They're also launching counterattacks, calling her opponents mudslingers.That's pathetic. There's no way that anyone believed there wouldn't be a few rounds of comparing Hillary's positions with their own. This is just a derivative of the 'poor little Missus' defense.
"I think it's sinking in to the electorate that people who had pledges to not attack Democrats were abandoning those pledges," Penn said.
If I were consulting John Edwards or Barack Obama, I'd issue a press release saying something like this:
"Sen. Clinton refused to give just one answer to a question about our nation's security. Instead, she attempted to have it both ways. In the end, she was evasive because she wants to be all things to all people.For that matter, I'd recommend that the Republican nominee issue that response when the next Clinton Panderfest opportunity presents itself. If there's anything we can be sure of, it's that the Clintons are expert panderers.
"It's time for Sen. Clinton to stop relying on focus-grouped answers. It's time for Sen. Clinton to speak from the heart and tell the American people what she really believes."
Posted Monday, November 12, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment 1 by Vote for Hillary Online at 13-Nov-07 02:37 AM
Guess what? Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that has these 4 attributes: integrity, honor, patriotism, and compassion. I dare you to find another candidate with these attributes. I got $35 in the bank that says you won't be able to find one. You can count on it.
Hillary's Hostility
In the days of the Clinton War Room, they were known for attacking relentlessly anything that caught their attention. Make no mistakes about it: alot of reports caught their attention. If you thought that the 1992 campaign tried manipulating the press, I just have one word of caution: You ain't seen nothing yet. Here's how TNR's Michael Crowley describes Hillary's War Room :
On June 1, The New York Times published a front-page article titled, ONE PLACE WHERE OBAMA GOES ELBOW TO ELBOW. The feature detailed Barack Obama's love for pickup basketball, his jersey-tugging style, even the time he hit a long game-winning shot after getting fouled.Isn't it time that we told Mrs. Clinton that We The People demand straight talk from her? Isn't it time that We The People demanded that she answer questions directly? Isn't it time that We The People said that we wouldn't tolerate her attempt to speak out of both sides of her mouth?
The Obama camp clearly welcomed the humanizing glimpse at Obama's life; his rivals, probably not so much. In an ordinary campaign, that might have been it. But this is no ordinary campaign, not when Hillary Clinton is a candidate. And so, the Clinton team let Times reporter Patrick Healy, who covers the Hillary beat, know about their "annoyance" with the story, as Healy later put it.
If grumbling about a basketball story seems excessive, it's also typical of the Clinton media machine. Reporters who have covered the hyper-vigilant campaign say that no detail or editorial spin is too minor to draw a rebuke. Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience. Though few dare offer specifics for the record, "They're too smart," one furtively confides. "They'll figure out who I am", privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers. Hillary's aides don't hesitate to use access as a blunt instrument, as when they killed off a negative GQ story on the campaign by threatening to stop cooperating with a separate Bill Clinton story the magazine had in the works. Reporters' jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors. "They're frightening!" says one reporter who has covered Clinton. "They don't see [reporting] as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game."
The answer to those questions is an emphatic yes. It's time...let me rephrase...it's long past time to tell Sen. Clinton that she needs to play by We The People's rules. It's long past time to tell Sen. Clinton that We The People set the parameters for what we want to know. It's long past time to tell Sen. Clinton that she doesn't set the parameters for what she'll reveal about her beliefs.
Simply put, there'll be hell to pay if she won't start telling us what we want to know.
The Clintons have set the rules of engagement for far too long. If Hillary won't give us straight answers, especially on things as important as issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, then she can't earn our trust.
Here's the most important question for voters to answer: Why vote for someone who refuses to tell us what she believes?
Originally posted Monday, November 12, 2007, revised 14-Nov 9:53 PM
No comments.
Great Stuff Larry
Larry Schumacher is one of the charter members of the St. Cloud Bloggers Association (SCBA). He's also a daily read for me. Today, Larry's post was in the form of a quiz. It also did a great job of showing people just how unprincipled people can be in deciding who 'brings home the bacon' & who doesn't. Stop past Larry's blog for the quiz & the answer. You'll be glad you did.
Posted Monday, November 12, 2007 5:30 PM
No comments.
I Thought We Weren't Respected In The World
If you've listened to any Democratic presidential candidate, you've likely heard them bemoaning the fact that we aren't liked throughout the world, that we need to elect a Democrat for the world to like us again. Based on this article , I'd say that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown disagrees with that notion:
Mr Brown told the audience at Mansion House the UK had to work with "all those who share our vision of the future", including Nato, the UN, the EU and the US.This follows French President Nicolas Sarkozy's gushingly pro-American speech to Congress. Forgive me for being skeptical of the Democrats' talking points but I don't see alot of evidence that we aren't respected. Forgive me but I don't see the need in being liked as being more important than being respected. In fact, being respected is infinitely more important than being liked.
He said: "It is no secret that I am a life-long admirer of America.
"I have no truck with anti-Americanism in Britain or elsewhere in Europe and I believe that our ties with America, founded on values we share, constitute our most important bilateral relationship.
"And it is good for Britain, for Europe and for the wider world that today France and Germany and the European Union are building stronger relationships with America."
All it takes to be liked is to do what others tell you to do. Being respected often means doing things in our best interest despite knowing that we won't be liked for doing what we have to do.
If the day comes that Democrats figure out the difference between being liked and being respected, then they'll be worthy of running this country's foreign policy. Until that happens, they shouldn't be entrusted with that responsibility.
Posted Monday, November 12, 2007 5:53 PM
No comments.
But What About the Pork?
When Amy Klobuchar talked about the Labor-HHS appropriations bill , she didn't mention the pork contained in the bill. She must've forgotten that they were airdropped into the bill at conference. In his column, Robert Novak didn't forget . Here's what Sen. Klobuchar talked about:
The bill "invests in programs that provide affordable education, better health care, and innovation that helps our citizens lead healthy, productive lives," U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar said of the domestic spending bill. "These are common sense initiatives that build stronger, more vibrant communities."I'll give Sen. Klobuchar credit. She highlighted the most popular expenditures. Unfortunately, she didn't mention the pork in the legislation. As I said earlier, Mr. Novak didn't forget:
Klobuchar said she supported the legislation as it will protect seniors, strengthen the nation's education system, improve workers' safety and make Americans healthier by investing in research for diseases like Alzheimer's, autism and cancer.
Other funding for Minnesota programs includes $100,000 to the Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center to improve mental health support services to reduce instances of child abuse, substance abuse and domestic violence, and $500,000 to the Minnesota Humanities Commission to develop model curricula and educational resources about Ojibwe and Dakota history, language and culture for teachers across Minnesota.
Klobuchar also cites the bill for its investments in affordable education, job training programs, health care and innovation.
"These investments help ensure Americans have access to education, the resources to work hard and get ahead, and the hope for medical breakthroughs," she said.
At the same time, the pork content of Labor-HHS grew. Citizens Against Government Waste found 2,274 earmarks in the bill worth $1 billion. They include $1.5 million for the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute and $2.2 million for the AFL-CIO Appalachian Council. Democratic Senators Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, North Dakota's two professed budget balancers, got $1 million for Bismarck State College. Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations subcommittee's ranking Republican, procured $882,025 for "abstinence education" in his home state of Pennsylvania.I'm thankful that President Bush is poised to veto the legislation. My only regret is that he didn't veto more legislation earlier in his administration. Here's the even better news from the Klobuchar article:
The conference report's "compromise" Labor-HHS bill, at $151 billion, was actually more expensive than either the House or Senate version. It contains a $1 million earmark for a Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy at South Dakota State University to honor the former Senate majority leader who was defeated for re-election in 2004. Sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Robert Byrd and Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Daschle Center was one of nine earmarks "airdropped" into the final version by the Senate-House conference without being passed by either the Senate or House. Silently removed from the bill by the conference report was the prohibition, passed by the Senate in a rare defeat for earmarkers, against spending $1 million for the Woodstock "hippies" museum in Bethel, N.Y.
Coleman said Democratic leadership combined the military construction bill with the domestic spending bill, hoping Bush will want the military appropriations enough to not veto the package.Democrats tried playing games with the Veterans Appropriations bill but were thwarted when that bill got separated by the Senate. What does it tell you about the Democrats considering that they willingly held veterans hostage to pack a few more pounds of pork into the Veterans' Appropriations bill?
"They did that, knowing the president has said he was going to veto Labor-HHS, but he was not going to veto the mil-con bill, the military construction appropriations and the veterans bill, so they combined the two, in the end believing the president would then have to sign it," said Coleman, who voted for the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
The Senate, however, separated out the bills "because we need to get the veterans funding through," he said. "We've got to put an end to the political games in Washington."
I'm just thankful that they didn't get away with it.
Posted Monday, November 12, 2007 6:33 PM
No comments.
Bill Still Playing the 'Boo-Hoo Card'
Bill Clinton used to be a great campaigner. He's clearly lost part of that reputation. This AP article offers a perfect illustration of how far he's slipped.
Clinton said that his wife's positions on education, health care, the economy and international affairs make her the best qualified candidate to be president.Question for Bill: What positions? It's charitable to say that she's tried triangulating. Frankly, she's tried avoiding taking firm positions the way Superman tried avoiding Kryptonite. Her polar opposite answers on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is a perfect example of her trying to have it both ways.
The United States needs to get out of Iraq, but "we have to do it in a way that doesn't leave it worse than it is now," he said. "Hillary was the first to ask the Pentagon for a plan for orderly withdrawal."Question to voters: Is that the type of answer you'll accept from a presidential candidate? That's a mushier answer than her reply to Tim Russert's Spitzer drivers license question, which is saying something.
The nation must restore its standing in the world, something Clinton said has been damaged during the Bush administration. "They think we act alone whenever we can and cooperate only when we have to," he said, adding that his wife will seek to cooperate first and have the United States act alone only when necessary.Question for Bill: Haven't you been paying attention lately? Nicolas Sarkozy gave a stirring speech about America's virtues last week. This week, Gordon Brown said that the " It is no secret that I am a life-long admirer of America. " Brown added this:
"I have no truck with anti-Americanism in Britain or elsewhere in Europe and I believe that our ties with America, founded on values we share, constitute our most important bilateral relationship.The truth is that Bill Clinton was more worried about being liked than being respected. That's why his foreign policy record is only superior to LBJ's and Jimmy Carter's. What did he accomplish in terms of winning Pakistan over prior to their going nuclear? Nothing. That was dumped in President Bush's lap after 9/11. Let's remember that Bill Clinton was foolish enough to have Jimmy Carter negotiate a treaty with North Korea that they immediately broke.
"And it is good for Britain, for Europe and for the wider world that today France and Germany and the European Union are building stronger relationships with America."
Here's what President Clinton said that sounded whiney:
"It's a great time to be a Democrat," Bill Clinton told more than 800 students and supporters at Trident Technical College. "Even though those boys have been getting tough on her lately, she can handle it."Frankly, he's better being optimistic. He's a lousy whiner. One characteristic of the Clintons is that they'll talk about how great America is right before they try sticking the knife into one of their opponents. The other thing I've noticed, along with pretty much everyone else in America, is that their digs at their opponents don't have to be fact-based.
That used to work back when they only had Rush to villify. That doesn't work now that they have to villify the Right Blogosphere, Rush, Sean, Glenn Beck and Hugh Hewitt. Frankly, the Right Blogosphere is more proficient at being the conservative War Room. The good part is that we don't have to make things up. We just have to tell people what Hillary said, then get out of the way of her words. Once the American people have the information, they'll figure things out.
Posted Monday, November 12, 2007 10:01 PM
No comments.
