November 14, 2007
Nov 14 00:25 Trouble For Hillary In Iowa? Nov 14 03:50 Where There's Smoke, There's Firings? Nov 14 12:47 Democrats Playing Games With Iraq Nov 14 15:57 Rockville Secessionist Movement Momentum Grows Nov 14 18:37 Spitzer's Freefall Nov 14 22:25 Hillary Finally Takes a Firm Stand
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006
Trouble For Hillary In Iowa?
Hillary's campaign can't be thrilled with this article on the CBS website. Here's what can't be pleasing to her:
One factor in Obama's favor is that nearly two-thirds of the state's independent voters who plan on voting on Jan. 3 say they'll attend the Democratic caucus. Obama attracts the support of 37 percent of those voters, compared to only 17 percent for Edwards and 15 percent for Clinton.Hillary needs to perform better with independents to win Iowa, both in the caucuses and in November, 2008. I don't think it's a good thing that she's running as the establishment candidate in a change election.
The priorities of Iowans will also be crucial. Clinton is seen as the most electable in November 2008 by a wide margin. However, Obama is clearly seen as the most likely to bring about change in Washington and Edwards holds a strong edge on the question of who understands the problems of Iowans.
One thing that's driving independents away from Democrats is the tax issue. Hillary, and for that matter Democrats in general, lose on the tax issue. If there's anything we should take from last Tuesday's election results, it's that people are fed up to here and then some with tax increases. When liberal Oregon defeats a cigarette tax increase to pay for children's health insurance, when liberal Washington State passes a constitutional amendment requiring 2/3 majorities in the House and Senate to increase state taxes, when New Jersey defeats a tax increase to fund embryionic stem cell research, then it's time to realize that people aren't just against tax increases.
It's time that conservatives noticed that taxpayers are sick of tax increases. The scariest thing for Democrats is that it doesn't matter whether it's property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, cigarette taxes or whatever.
I don't think that this poll is being cheerfully received in the Clinton camp either:
Clinton 25%The Clintons have tried building the aura of invincibility around Hillary. This poll, coupled with Hillary's difficulties the past couple of weeks, has removed that aura. I don't think it'll prevent her march to the nomination but it's exposed some serious weaknesses that'll likely hurt Hillary in the general election.
Edwards 23%
Obama 22%
It's almost surreal thinking that we'll likely know the parties' nominees in under 3 months. That time will fly by, too, with Thanksgiving right around the corner, followed quickly by Christmas. A little more than a week after Christmas is the Iowa Caucuses, at which point we'll start talking about who did better and worse than expected.
Personally, I'm watching to see if there's further erosion in Hillary's support or if she'll rebuild it.
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:26 AM
No comments.
Where There's Smoke, There's Firings?
This Philadelphia Inquirer article gives credence to the old saying that "Where there's smoke, there's firings." I suspect that this is just the first wave. I further suspect that it's intended to save their bosses' bacon. Here's what I'm referring to:
Seven Democratic aides, including the chief of staff to House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, have left their state jobs as part of a restructuring of key Democratic caucus personnel.Readers of LFR will remember Brett Cott from this post . Here's what I wrote then:
The seven staffers include Mike Manzo, DeWeese's chief of staff and a key player in crafting both policy and political strategy for House Democrats, according to a House official who did not want to be identified because the matter involves personnel issues.
The official would also not say whether the seven had resigned or been fired.
But the changes in the caucus come in the wake of an ongoing probe by state Attorney General Tom Corbett into whether legislative staffers were awarded taxpayer-funded bonuses for political campaign work they performed last year.
Manzo was among a select few House Democrats who determined who received a bonus, and for how much.
Also leaving their state jobs yesterday were Brett Cott, a special assistant to DeWeese ; Scott Brubaker, the director of staffing and administration; Steve Keefer, director of Democratic information technologies; Earl Mosley, the director of personnel; Eric Webb, director of member services; and Lauren McClure, of the Office of staffing and administration.
Brett Cott, a high-ranking policy analyst in the state House of Representatives, spent 11 weeks straight in Beaver Falls last year working on former House Democratic Whip Michael Veon's unsuccessful re-election campaign.Here's more damning information on Mr. Cott:
Both continued to draw their state salaries while they campaigned, according to records obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Mr. Cott's annual salary is $87,412 and Mr. Grill's is $67,552.That's quite a racket they put together. Putting these facts together, it isn't surprising that some of these staffers left their positions right now. In fact, it isn't a stretch to think that they were given instructions by their Democratic leadership to keep their mouths shut. Another thing that's still puzzling me is this information:
--------------------
Mr. Cott received a $25,065 bonus and Mr. Grill received $12,685. They were among 717 House Democratic staffers who received taxpayer-fund bonuses worth $1.9 million.
Rep. Bud George, D-Clearfield, who once was Manzo's boss, said the former chief of staff "was a damn good employee" and called Manzo "articulate, intelligent" and loyal.Why isn't Mike Manzo still in his former position? Why would anyone let an employee go who's considered "a damn good employee" who was "articulate, intelligent" and who's in a powerful position?
One thing that's perfectly clear is that Bill DeWeese is his own worst enemy. Here's what his official statement said:
"As Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, I am committed to working each and every day to earn the trust of our constituents and Pennsylvania's taxpayers. I am confident that the actions I have taken today will result in additional reform and accountability in this great institution."The notion that a politician who's served 30+ years is suddenly a reformer is laughable, as I said here . Here's what he said in that post:
I have been straightforward in proclaiming that I was late to the call for reform. But after the toughest fight of my political career last year, I made a commitment to changing my ways.He isn't denying that reforms weren't a priority prior to last election. I find his 'Come To Jesus Moment' just a little difficult to swallow, especially after he instructed Rep. Babette Joseph to gut the Transparency Act :
Both the committee's process and the content of the bill are outrageous. Committee Chair Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, pushed through amendment after amendment, most of which the members were seeing for the first time. Their cumulative effect was to exempt broad categories of state records from being open. When members of the committee pleaded with Rep. Josephs to slow down by either holding more hearings or not reporting the bill to the floor for a quick vote, she refused. Alarmingly, at one point she even said she could not do so because the Democratic leadership (Majority Leader H. William DeWeese, D-Waynesburg) didn't want to.Bill DeWeese told a committee chair to gut an inportant transparency reform. That refutes his claim that he's late getting to a reform agenda. It isn't that he's just late getting to the reform agenda. It's that he's opposed to a reform agenda.
I'd be surprised if this is the only reshuffling of the deck chairs on Bill DeWeese's Titanic. I suspect that it's the first of many reshufflings. If that's true, Pennsylvania will have a very difficult time of things next November.
UPDATE: Here's some new information about yesterday's firings of the 7 senior staffers:
In a startling day of political bloodletting, House Majority Leader H. William DeWeese forced out several top aides as he acted to distance the House leadership from a widening pay bonus scandal.This won't distance Rep. DeWeese from the scandal. This is a sign of desparation on his part. Simply put, it's a sign that he's panicking.
Here's another telling paragraph:
Four other staffers were removed.Rest assured that the seizing of Ms. McClure's hard drive isn't a random act. I'd bet that that hard drive is heading to Attorney General Tom Corbett's office.
One of them, Lauren McClure, a 19-year veteran who worked for Mr. Brubaker as an administrative specialist, was escorted from her office by Capitol employees assigned to carry out the firings. Sources who were present said the hard drive from her computer was seized, her purse was searched and her state-issued cell phone was confiscated.
This might be the most damning graph in the article:
A source close to Mr. DeWeese's office said yesterday the mass ousters followed an internal report by William G. Chadwick, an attorney whose firm was hired by the Democratic caucus earlier this year. The source said two of the individuals let go yesterday were implicated in plans to destroy the boxes later seized as evidence in the August raid at Legislative Research.If the investigation discovers who the individuals were that thought about destroying evidence, they'll be in trouble, to say the least.
I'm certain that Rep. DeWeese is justified in panicking. He's got plenty of things swirling around him, none of them good.
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:06 AM
No comments.
Democrats Playing Games With Iraq
This article is must reading for anyone who thinks that the Iraq war is a war we must win. It isn't surprising that Democrats are playing games with Iraq funding, though it's a sad chapter in their party's existence. Here's the opening paragraph:
The House could vote on a $50 billion, partial-year war funding measure Wednesday, but with Senate passage unlikely, both sides are already preparing plans to re-engage the issue after the Thanksgiving Day recess.Here's what everyone needs to know:
Meanwhile, in the Senate, acknowledgment from Democratic and Republican leaders that the bill is dead on arrival has spurred a drive to consider alternative ways to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon will be forced starting Nov. 17 to borrow from its regular budget to pay for war operations.I'll verbally clobber the next Democrat that says that they support the troops. In their desperate attempt to curry favor with the Nutroots crowd, they aren't attempting to even appear as though they care about the troops.
Also in play is the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill (HR 1585), which is unlikely to be cleared this week and also could become a vehicle for Iraq policy provisions.
Once it's exposed, Democrats will pay a heavy price in public opinion for abandoning our troops right when one article after another is showing the level of success we're having in destroying AQM :
American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the "surge" to depart as planned.Yesterday, I talked about Harry Reid's empty threat to withhold funding of our troops unless we started bringing troops home before the end of 2008:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.Here's the information I pointed to that showed the emptiness of Sen. Reid's threat:
By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.
If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
One hundred members of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, which has been deployed in Iraq since last year, will return to El Paso today. The group arriving at Biggs Army Airfield today are the first wave in the return of about 4,000 cavalry soldiers from northwest Iraq.In other words, Reid's bluster hasn't changed Iraq strategy in the least. He's talked tough to get the Nutroots activists to contribute more money but that's about all his tough talk is affecting.
Soldiers of the advance party will make preparations for the return of the rest of the unit in December, Fort Bliss officials said. For the past 15 months, soldiers have mostly been serving in Nineveh Province, in northwest Iraq. However, some of the unit's members are stationed in Baghdad.
The soldiers have been doing everything from tracking down and killing insurgents to rebuilding libraries and providing food and water to the Iraqi people, Fort Bliss officials said. Officials said the return marks the completion the cavalry's tour of duty in Iraq.
Meanwhile, the DoD will have to start shifting money from account to account just to keep the war going. Furthermore, the thought that Democrat are thinking about using the 2008 defense authorization bill as a vehicle for forcing policy changes is appalling. The American people will recognize this and take it out on Democrats.
As I've said many times, Democrats misread the midterm elections as a license to stop the war. They're finding out that the American people are provictory. They just weren't willing to finance a war that wasn't making progress. Now that they're reading about all the progress being made, their opinion on the war is changing.
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:49 PM
No comments.
Rockville Secessionist Movement Momentum Grows
Rockville Mayor Brian Herberg's job is in danger. The City Council won't listen to the citizens they supposedly represent. Taxes are about to go through the roof for the few businesses on Main Street. One business might be going out of business because of the double whammy of the road construction that dropped its business by 60-70 percent for the entire summer, then being assessed almost $20,000 to pay for the road construction that's putting it out of business. Here's what the SC Times' Mackenzie Ryan wrote about the situation in Rockville:
Resident unrest is growing in Rockville, and some say it reflects how officials have managed the city since its 2002 consolidation with Rockville Township and Pleasant Lake. Some are worried about taxes or assessments they are paying or will have to pay. Others point to the new City Hall and fire station as excess spending and worry about the financial burden placed on residents. It's prompted about 55 households on the south end of town to petition to withdraw from the city and join Maine Prairie Township.Based on what different people have told me & on what's written about here, I'd say that a full scale tax increase revolt is happening. This paragraph should scare the daylights out of Mr. Herberg:
Spurred by a controversial road assessment policy and general dissatisfaction, petitioners will go before the City Council for the first time tonight. At the meeting, officials also will consider approving assessments on two road projects: Stearns County Road 82 and Stearns County Road 8. It's the first implementation of the policy that prompted residents to picket City Hall, hire a lawyer and meet with state
representatives.
Some are worried about taxes or assessments they are paying or will have to pay. Others point to the new City Hall and fire station as excess spending and worry about the financial burden placed on residents.I wouldn't be surprised to find out afterwards that Tarryl promised Mr. Herberg a big chunk of LGA funding for Rockville if they built a new City Hall building and fire station. The citizens are right, though, in describing the City Hall and fire station spending as excess spending. They should be worried that the financial burdens it'll place on them.
One contact told me that last summer's road construction caused a "60-70 percent decrease" in one of the main businesses in Rockville. To add to this business owner's troubles, now Mr. Herberg is aiming a monstrous assessment bill at that business. That bill would likely drive that business into bankruptcy.
"We don't feel it works to be governed by the city this far out in the rural country," said Eugene Merten, who helped organize the petition. The petition covers mostly agriculture land six square miles in length, which was previously part of Rockville Township. The land is about four miles from Rockville's downtown.The irony is that, according to a Rockville resident I spoke with, one of the road construction projects that the Rockville City Council & Mayor want taxpayers assessed for was paid for by the state. If that's right, & I think it is, then Mr. Herberg & the City Council are guilty of adding to taxpayers' tax burden for something the city didn't have to pay for. If that's what's happening, then this City Council must be reigned in ASAP.
Residents are uncomfortable with the controversial road assessment policy, which will assess all landowners along a road project regardless of whether the city is paying for it. There's also no reason for city services, and to pay taxes for city services, in a mostly agriculture area that was served well by township government, Merten said. "We're not too comfortable with the whole City Council and the way things are happening in the last five years since we've been consolidated," Merten said.
If that's what's happening, then that's the type of thing that'll fuel the secessionist fires even more. The alternative to seceeding from Rockville's jurisdiction is for Rockville residents to replace the current administration with one that'll actually listen to the will of the people. That's obviously needed based on this quote:
The City Council has worked on the policy since January, when it formed a committee. Unlike an ordinance, creating a policy does not require public hearings, City Clerk/Administrator Rena Weber said.This is another attempt by a unit of government to do what it pleases without accepting real input from the people they're charged with serving. That's simply unacceptable. Theoretically, the City Council & Mayor are public servants. Instead, they're acting like an accumulation of autocrats. Thankfully, people are stepping into the gap:
On Monday about a dozen Rockville residents met with state Rep. Steve Gottwalt, explaining what they feel is a lack of public input and an unfair burden the policy places on residents. The meeting is one of a handful of steps residents have taken in an effort to change the policy; Gottwalt was one of several legislators contacted by the group.This is how uprisings build momentum. Rockville is fortunate to have Rep. Gottwalt on their side. This type of unresponsive government is the type of thing that fans the flames of reform. I'm confident that Steve will willingly take up this cause in St. Paul despite the fact that the House & Senate are autocratically run by the DFL.
Residents have been picketing in front of City Hall since last week. They've also raised money to hire a lawyer and plan to protest the policy in court, said Mary Ann Hermanutz. "We're fighting for our city. We're fighting for our survival," said resident Audrey Schaefer.
Gottwalt said he would work with residents and officials and see what he could learn and do at the Legislature. "You have to be careful with how fast you go with public (improvements)," Gottwalt said. "Too fast is unaffordable."
Residents said they hope something will be done at the Legislature to prevent other cities from adopting a similar policy. "This will spread like wildfire," Schaefer said. "We have to protect all city residents."
If the DFL doesn't start listening to taxpayers, they'll quickly find themselves filling the role of minority party in the House. That's the destiny of any political party that ignores We The People.
UPDATE: Here's the link to the petition people signed.
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:59 PM
No comments.
Spitzer's Freefall
It isn't surprising that Eliot Spitzer is in an historic freefall following his plan to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. The surprise is the magnitude of his freefall. This NY Post article lays out the perfect storm that's enveloped Spitzer's freefall:
Gov. Spitzer's once-sky-high popularity has fallen faster and further than that of any governor in modern state history as a result of his driver's-licenses-for-illegals plan and the ongoing Dirty Tricks Scandal, according to a devastating new poll released yesterday.This graphic tells the story of Spitzer's meteoric plummet:
If that graphic's prediction is right, Eliot Spitzer will be a one term wonder as governor with Andrew Cuomo becoming New York's next governor. Considering how lofty a perch Elliot once occupied, this is a disasstrous drop. If he doesn't recover soon, he'll have to kiss his national ambitions goodbye.
Here's how Siena College Research Institute Spokesman Steven Greenberg frames Spitzer's plight:
The Siena College Research Institute survey, conducted before the revelation that Spitzer is scrapping the plan, found that New Yorkers, by an overwhelming 64 percent to 33 percent, disapprove of the job the governor is doing, and only 25 percent think he should be re-elected. In addition, by 70-25 percent voters said they were against Spitzer's effort to grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens. And by almost the same amount, 65-28 percent, voters opposed the governor's revised three-tier driver's-license plan, according to the poll.Spitzer's problems are gigantic. What's worse for Gov. Spitzer is that there doesn't appear to be an end in sight.
"Eliot Spitzer's standing with voters has fallen faster and further than any politician in recent New York history," said Siena spokesman Steven Greenberg. "A year ago, Eliot Spitzer won 69 percent of the votes for governor, and in January, 75 percent of voters gave him a favorable rating. "All that's changed in a New York minute," Greenberg continued, adding, "It's breathtaking and dramatic in terms of his fall."
Greenberg attributed Spitzer's enormous unpopularity to massive public opposition to his license plan, as well as concerns over the Dirty Tricks Scandal, in which top aides to the Democratic governor used the State Police in an effort to damage his chief Republican rival, Joseph Bruno.
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:38 PM
No comments.
Hillary Finally Takes a Firm Stand
What's most delicious about Gov. Spitzer's pulling his drivers license proposal is that it's finally prompted Hillary to take a firm position on granting drivers licenses to illegal immigrants:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday came out against granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, after weeks of pressure in the presidential race to take a position on a now-failed ID plan from her home state governor.Had she given that answer when Tim Russert asked her, she wouldn't have lost her momentum. Now that she's given a straightforward answer, it's time to ask her why she thought Tim Russert's question was a gotcha question.
Clinton has faced criticism from candidates in both parties for her noncommittal answers on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's attempt to allow illegal immigrants in his state to receive driver's licenses. Spitzer abandoned the effort Wednesday.
"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal," Clinton said in a statement. "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."
The bad news for her is that her opponents aren't willing to let her off the hook:
"When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it's easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them," said Barack Obama spokesman Bill Burton, referring to the Clinton campaign's admission that aides had staged a question for her at an Iowa event.As I said here , "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."
Colleen Flanagan, a spokesman for Chris Dodd, called Clinton's position "flip-flopping cubed. She was for it before she was against it, before she was for it, before she was against it."
Howard Fineman's article that explains Hillary as well as I've heard her explained. here's the money line:
A campaign is an extension of the candidate, reflecting his or her personality. Bill Clinton's in 1992 was a brilliant combination of soap opera and floating crap game. George W. Bush's cold-blooded machine had no compunction about waterboarding Sen. John McCain in 2000 or swift-boating Sen. John Kerry four years later. Hillary's campaign too is personality writ large: defensive, and seeking dominion over everything that moves.Hillary is defensive and "seeking dominion over everything that moves." That's Hillary to a T. Here's another line that's certain to evoke her wrath:
She has a lifelong obsession with seeking out, and trying to control, unruly events and people. She often fails, and harms herself trying. If she doesn't ease up, she risks losing the race. Brainy women don't frighten voters; control freaks do.Hillary is the personification of a control freak. Here's what I posted yesterday on her control fetish:
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.Everything written in this post fits together seemlessly. Hillary finally gave us a firm answer, though I'm certain it isn't the policy that she'd advocate if she was elected. Hillary's avoidance of Russert's question was evasive because she didn't want people to know her real position. Her attacking Russert was pure Clintonian, simply proof of their time-tested technique of attacking the messenger.
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.
After all, that's typically what control freaks do.
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:27 PM
No comments.
