November 20, 2007
Nov 20 04:20 Penn Has Another Poll to Refute Nov 20 05:17 DeWeese Wins Chutzpah Award Nov 20 11:21 Eight Years Of Failed Leadership? Nov 20 12:45 Kelliher on LGA, aka Property Tax Relief Nov 20 13:37 Steve Murphy: Competition Doesn't Work & Republicans Hate Education Nov 20 14:27 Break Out The Skates
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006
Penn Has Another Poll to Refute
I'm sure it won't take long before Mark Penn is facing the microphones explaining why he thinks this poll isn't trustworthy . More troubling than the horserace numbers, though, are what people think of Mrs. Clinton's
While Clinton still leads on more personal attributes than any of her competitors, just half of Iowa Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll believe she's willing to say what she really thinks, far fewer than say so of either Obama or John Edwards. Obama beats her by 2-1 as the most honest and trustworthy candidate.It's my opinion that this polling reflects Mrs. Clinton's refusal to answer a simple yes or no question on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants at the Russert/MSNBC debate. I also think that the planting questions story drives her negatives higher.
Expect Rudy, Fred and McCain to make political hay out of Mrs. Clinton's unwillingness to answer difficult questions. Thus far, she hasn't given anyone a good reason to think that she's the most evasive, secretive presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter.
Right before the general election in 1976, there was a cartoon in the St. Cloud Times ridiculing Jimmy Carter. There was a downed apple tree in the background with Jimmy standing in front of the tree with a hatchet in his hand with his dad questioning him "Jimmy, did you cut down that cherry tree." The caption of Jimmy's response would fit Hillary to a T "Father, I cannot tell a lie. Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't."
That's essentially what Mrs. Clinton gave for her answer of whether she's issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Frankly, I didn't know that Hillary could tapdance that fast.
There's other trouble for Hillary in the poll:
Most Democratic likely voters in Iowa, 55 percent, say they're more interested in a "new direction and new ideas" than in strength and experience, compared with 49 percent in July, a help to Obama, who holds a substantial lead among "new direction" voters.This is a change election. Hillary is running as the establishment candidate, which will hinder her later. It also doesn't help her that Congress's job approval rating is next to nothing. It doesn't hurt Obama nearly as much because he's the newcomer, meaning it's more difficult to put the Washington insider tag on him.
Another thing that's hurting Washington politicians is last summer's immigration debate. When Ted Kennedy and John McCain introduced immigration 'reform' the first time, they touted the 'pathway to citizenship' provisions. When they introduced it a second time, they touted it as a 'tough on border security bill'. The American people knew that Kennedy hadn't changed it in any significant way.
When Kennedy and Arlen Specter tried selling the bill as beefing up border security, they figured that Washington politicians were up to their same old tricks. It didn't take long to trash Immigration Reform Part II.
I suspect that that's part of the reason why voters think that they're more interested in "new direction and new ideas" than to be strong and experienced. I think that more people are interested in that in the Democratic Party because than in the GOP. While I don't doubt that Democrats, whether they're DLC types or part of the Kos/MoveOn.org wing, will vote for their nominee, I do think that more will hold their nose when they pull the lever because (a) the Nutroots are upset that the new majority hasn't stopped the war yet and (b) the DLC types think that Congress is catering too much to the Nutroots.
This has to be more than a little disconcerting for Mrs. Clinton:
Obama is within sight of Clinton on another of her main features, an image of strong leadership: Thirty-two percent call her the strongest leader, vs. 27 percent for Obama; it was 36-23 percent last summer. And both Obama and Edwards lead Clinton in honesty and trustworthiness, and in empathy, two relative weaknesses for her nationally as well.Anytime people think that John Edwards is more honest and trustworthy than someone, that spells trouble. John Edwards is the poster child for beautiful hair and articificiality. Hillary is attempting to create an image of reliability and experience. It's impossible to think that she's less than trustworthy and reliable at the same time.
With another poll that's less than flattering for Mrs. Clinton, you can expect Mark Penn will be telling the media why the poll doesn't say what it says. That's a Clinton War Room trademark.
Posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:22 AM
No comments.
DeWeese Wins Chutzpah Award
Based on this article , Bill DeWeese is the runaway winner of this week's Chutzpah trophy. Here's what I'm basing my opinion on:
House Democrats plan to try again today for a vote on legislation that would expand public access to legislative records and other government documents after their first attempt flopped. House Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, announced late Monday that he's gearing up for a full House vote on a revamped version of the state's Open Records Law.That's utterly laughable considering DeWeese instructed Babette Josephs to gut the bill in committee :
The law governs access to documents ranging from school board budgets to lawmakers' travel receipts. "We are going to make a full-court press toward our objective of an open records proposal," he told reporters at an impromptu news conference in the Capitol.
The committee approved House Bill 443. In its original intent, this measure would have improved Pennsylvania's weak open-records law. But when the Democratically controlled committee was through with it, House Bill 443 had become a step backwards. Considering that the existing open-records law is among the weakest nationwide, that is a depressing fact.DeWeese doesn't want truly open records. He only wants to say that he's for open records. He wants to pass a RINO- Reform In Name Only. This post at PassOpenRecords.com explains why DeWeese & the Democrats don't want true transparency:
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.
One theory for lawmakers' insistence on secrecy is that email gives lobbyists access to lawmakers at the instant they are voting on legislation. In previous eras of corruption, PA was notorious for the influence lobbyists had over lawmakers. The leading industries of the Gilded Age were given seats on the floor of the House so that they could conveniently tell lawmakers how to vote. Eventually, lobbyists were banned from the floor of the General Assembly and relegated to the lobby outside the ornate House and Senate chambers.The last thing that career politicians want is to have to turn over their communications with lobbyists, especially communication they have while they're voting on legislation. If those communications were exposed, citizens would likely want to string up the politicians & their lobbyist friends together.
Until email. Now, email puts lobbyists back on the floor of the House and Senate, but in a way that neither citizens nor reporters can see.
Bill DeWeese isn't a reformer. I've yet to see an entrenched incumbent who's been a reformer in the true sense of the word. Lots of legislators claim to be reformers but many of the so-called pieces of reform legislation that they produce are simply more layers of bureaucracy. They don't change the culture or the mindset.
Ted Kennedy signed onto the immigration reform bill but I'd doubt that anyone thinks that that legislation would positively reform our immigration laws. Bill DeWeese isn't any different when it comes to reforms.
State Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Township, sponsored legislation in March intended to overhaul the Open Records law. But House members spent an entire day in October weakening Mahoney's bill by adding language that would keep certain documents off-limits to the public, including all government officials' e-mail messages and 911 recordings.Listen to what this legislation attempts to do:
Another amendment tacked onto Mahoney's bill would have allowed state and municipal officials to deny information requests deemed burdensome. Good government groups criticized the massive loopholes, claiming the bill could give the public less access to information on how government spends taxpayer money.
On Monday, Mahoney said he realized that his bill had been severely weakened.He plans to support the revised bill that will look more like one introduced in the Senate than his own."I've said all along that I want the best open records bill that we can pass," Mahoney said. "I know that my bill was watered down. It was hit by a tidal wave. I believe this is a way to put it back together."
Another amendment tacked onto Mahoney's bill would have allowed state and municipal officials to deny information requests deemed burdensome.Think of how ridiculous that is. At least theoretically, the citizens should be the customers while the state and municipal employees are the employees. Since when did service personnel tell a customer that they wouldn't honor their request because "That's too burdensome" and get away with it? If that happened at Walmart or Macy's, that employee would be unemployed in a New York minute.
Another provision included in this 'reform' legislation is putting emails off-limits. Who told these legislators what is and isn't off-limits? Isn't that We The People's call? I'd doubt that the citizens told legislators 'Keep entire segments of communications away from public scrutiny'. I know watchdog groups like Common Cause PA & PassOpenRecords.com didn't tell them to put those communications off-limits.
Bill DeWeese didn't just have this dubious award drop in his lap. He earned it with his repulsive behavior.
Originally posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007, revised 21-Nov 3:36 AM
Comment 1 by Net the Truth Online at 15-Jan-08 10:08 PM
Sorry to have to point out, but the original Mahoney bill included the language which exempted the legislative emails.
See Net the Truth Online report
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
PA: DeWeese Remains Chief Democrat
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/pa-deweese-remains-chief-democrat.html
Eight Years Of Failed Leadership?
Hillary's op-ed says that we've had eight years of failed leadership. Candidates say that type of thing each election cycle but this time, I thought her claims were a bit hilarious. Here's the opening paragraph:
After eight years of failed leadership under President Bush, the next president will face extraordinary challenges: a war to end; an economy to revive; an energy crisis to solve; 47 million Americans to insure; a homeland to secure; alliances to repair; and a world in need of American leadership.
Let's examine her priorities. Hillary says that we have "a war to end" yet she refused to say at a recent debate that she couldn't guarantee that she'd have the troops out by the end of her first term in office. This is typical Hillary, typical Clinton. She's attempting to curry favor with the Nutroots by suggesting that she'd end the war ASAP without committing to ending it ASAP.
That isn't any different than saying that Gov. Spitzer's plan of issuing drivers licenses "makes alot of sense" right before she refused to say that she endorsed his plan which was right before she said she wouldn't give drivers licenses which was right after Gov. Spitzer officially dropped his plan.
Does that sound like leadership to you?
Next Hillary says that there's an economy to revive. She's actually right in saying that. The US economy is slowing down. Unfortunately, her perscription is all wrong. She wants to pass a $1 trillion tax increase when our economy is weakening. That'll sink us into a recession that's longer and deeper than our recessions traditionally have been.
I'll admit that that sounds like leadership...right before we go off the cliff.
Next she says that there's an energy crisis to solve. In the past, she's voted for a bill that taxed oil companies. How does that solve our energy crisis? It's a well-known fact that she's against drilling off the coasts or in ANWR. In other words, she doesn't have a short-term solution.
I'll politely refuse that type of 'leadership'.
Then she says that "we have a homeland to secure." To be fair, she voted for the scanning equipment for screening cargo. On the negative side, she said that she's opposed to the NSA intercept program. How do you secure the homeland if you're opposed to learning what the jihadists are saying?
Then we come to my favorite line. She says that we have "alliances to repair", which is wrong-headed thinking and typical liberal thinking. During President Bush's first term, an irresponsible showboat named Jacques Chirac and his lapdog Gerhard Shroeder made a big fuss. These were weak-kneed politicians grandstanding on the world stage. They've now been replaced by an unabashedly pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy and helpful Angela Merkel. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown says that the most important British bilateral relationship is with the United States.
The question I have for Mrs. Clinton is simple: Which alliance is in need of repair? Implicit in her statement is her belief that the United States was the villain, not Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder. I can't imagine what it's like to live with a worldview that automatically thinks that America's foreign policy is wrong when a Republican is in office.
Here's the funniest line in the entire op-ed:
You know where I stand. And you know that when I stand with you, I never give up, I never back down and I never stop fighting - no matter how tough it gets.We don't know where she stands because she's refused to get pinned down to anything. As I pointed out earlier, she said that Gov. Spitzer's plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants "made alot of sense" right before she told Tim Russert that she wasn't endorsing Gov. Spitzer's plan.
That isn't that different than her starting off as the most hawkish of Democratic senators on Iraq to now sounding like she's the nuttiest of the nutroots who's said that "If George Bush doesn't end this war, I will." That's right before she said that she couldn't guarantee that she'd have all the troops out before the end of her first term.
Here in Minnesota, the cliche is that "If you don't like our weather, wait an hour. It'll be different." We can adapt that to fit Hillary by simply changing a couple words "If you don't like Hillary's positions, just wait until the next poll comes out. Her position will change."
That isn't leadership. It's Hillary's promise of an eight year panderfest. People have a right to know how she'll "never stop fighting - no matter how tough it gets" if she's willing to abandon her positions at the drop of a hat.
Posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:22 AM
No comments.
Kelliher on LGA, aka Property Tax Relief
Speaker Margaret Anderson-Kelliher issued this statement after Gov. Pawlenty said that he wouldn't call a special session:
"This year the Minnesota House of Representatives passed property tax relief with bipartisan support. It would have provided much needed property tax relief to families and local communities across Minnesota," she said.That statement is so riddled with lies, I don't know how she said it with a straight face. Look at that first statement:
"It is clear the governor has been troubled by his veto of the bill ever since he first issued it in June. But despite his concerns, the governor has not offered one concrete proposal for caucus leaders and their members to consider," he said.
"The House remains ready to work on any property tax relief proposal the governor is willing to offer," said Kelliher.
"This year the Minnesota House of Representatives passed property tax relief with bipartisan support."That's a bunch of bull. If that legislation would've had bipartisan support, it would've passed with a veto-proof majority. With an 85-49 majority in the House, they only needed 5 GOP votes to override Gov. Pawlenty's vetoes. In this instance, they didn't get those 5 votes.
Then she makes this statement:
"It would have provided much needed property tax relief to families and local communities across Minnesota."Wrong again. As I wrote w-a-a-a-y back during session, the DFL's idea of property tax relief isn't what most taxpayers would recognize as relief:
Marquart's proposal would cost $543 million, most of which would come from a new, higher income tax rate on couples earning more than $400,000 a year. The new property tax relief money would spend:It gets worse:
- $223 million to increase refunds.
- $133 million to lower school levies.
- $83 million to increase aids paid to local governments.
- $104 million to fill gaps while the property tax system changes.
House Tax Committee Chair Ann Lenczewski says that everyone would benefit from the House DFL plan. The property tax relief isn't guaranteed, though:In other words, the DFL's property tax is imaginary. The average taxpayer wouldn't see his property tax go down. They'd simply hope that the increased LGA & hundreds of millions of dollars sent to school districts would halt the string of massive increases in property taxes. Like King said months ago, the income tax increase is guaranteed, the property tax relief is iffy.However, that relief will not come if money is not available to fund it.
Then there's this whopper:
"But despite his concerns, the governor has not offered one concrete proposal for caucus leaders and their members to consider."Ms. Kelliher might get away with that talking with her constituents but that won't fly here. Gov. Pawlenty had proposals to provide property tax relief and to improve Minnesota's roads without increasing taxes. The DFL leadership chose to ignore those proposals. Instead of considering those proposals, they simply ignored them as if they didn't exist.
This is just another instance of Ms. Kelliher getting caught telling whoppers. Certainly we all remember this quote :
"We're a fiscally moderate caucus," Kelliher said of the sprawling 85-member majority that now includes significant numbers of moderates from the suburbs,She said that just 60 days before the DFL attempted an unprecedented tax-raising spree that would've crippled Minnesota's economy. She said that right before the DFL started passing spending bills before they set budget targets, saying how much they planned on spending. Ms. Kelliher said this right before the DFL started passing spending bills that would've increased state spending by almost 20 percent.
exurbs and rural areas.
That isn't most people's definition of being a "fiscally moderate caucus." I'm betting that the average taxpayer would call the '07 DFL caucus the most liberal, irresponsible spending machine in a generation. I think they'll say that next November, too.
It's time that the DFL, all entrenched politicians really, noticed that we have the internet & search engines that point out their whoppers. It's time that they noticed that we aren't tolerating their propaganda anymore. It's time they realized that we'll hold them accountable if they start telling Kelliher-sized whoppers.
Posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:47 PM
No comments.
Steve Murphy: Competition Doesn't Work & Republicans Hate Education
State Sen. Steve Murphy recently wrote an op-ed in the Strib . One of the message he sent was, in simplest terms, is that competition is bad, especially as it pertains to education. Here's how he worded it:
The problems with education, Hann claims, stem from two places: the teacher's union and money-grubbing zealots who want to take money from taxpayers and throw it down the drain. The simple solution to this mayhem, he claims, is a voucher system that will design segregated mini-academies for the rich and turn our public schools into deteriorating shells for the underprivileged. This is not the Minnesota education system we need or want.What Sen. Murphy is trying his best not to say is that increased competition from private schools or charter schools would lead to more voters seeing the vast difference between public schools and private/charter schools. If they saw that difference, they'd want more vouchers so that their kids would be able to attend better schools.
Education Minnesota is too often concerned with finances while showing little concern for educational reform. In fact, I don't think I've heard them speak about reforms to any extent. Here's a definite Murphy whopper:
According to Hann, all that's necessary to improve education is to pay teachers less and bust their union.That'd likely come as a surprise to Sen. Hann. Here's something from his press conference with State Rep. Mark Buesgens :
"Minnesota has for decades been recognized as a national leader in K-12 education. We all recognize the importance of excellent education in the lives of our children, and for the health of our state," said Hann. "Yet for better or worse, we are facing circumstances that require us to change what we are doing in education if we wish to continue to be a leader in the years and decades to come."Does that sound like Sen. Hann is attempting to bust the teachers' union? That'd be a remarkable thing to pull off considering how he's working with Mark Buesgen who is "a long-time public school educator." I know that Mark's a loyal Republican but I'd bet that he wouldn't propose something that'd cut his pay or bust his union.
"As a long-time public school educator, I can tell you that this is no way an anti-public school proposal," said Buesgens. "That being said, the system simply cannot help every student. As policymakers, we have a moral obligation to provide enough educational opportunities so that all children will have the chance to succeed."
The education access grant program would closely resemble Minnesota's higher education financial assistance program for college students and the state's child care financial assistance program for families that meet income guidelines. Minneapolis and St. Paul families with incomes below 250 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible for the grants.
Notice, too, that Murphy makes it sound like vouchers & grants don't & shouldn't exist. Unfortunately, that's the type of hyperbole that we've come to expect from Sen. Murphy. What he's lacking in accuracy, he makes up for with hyperbole.
We do need a reasoned, civilized debate about how we should fund our schools andensure that our students remain the best and brightest in the nation.That statement assumes that Minnesota students "remain the best and brightest" in the world. They don't, though they do better than other students across the nation. It's time we started bringing our children up to the world's standards. That's the only standard that matters in a global economy. That won't happen by simply dumping more money into a system that isn't all it needs to be.
I agree with Sen. Murphy that we "a reasoned, civilized debate", though I don't know how much he brings to the table in a reasoned, civilized debate. I'll readily admit that he's great if the situation calls for hot-headed, outlandish accusations or quotes, though.
Posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:37 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 20-Nov-07 07:23 PM
Notice Murphy's fundamental assumption here, that public schools can't compete? So if that's true, why would ANYBODY want to send their children to public schools?
Instead, voucher proponents should be suggesting the "universal voucher," which can be used at ANY school, public or private. That's the only way to get competition and improve ALL schools for ALL students. I hope Hann and Buesgens try this approach; FORCE the DFL to admit that public schools can't compete.
Break Out The Skates
It's time to break out the skates because hell must've frozen over. Either that or they've hired a conservative as the NY Times editor. That's the only conclusion you can draw from this article . Who would've thunk it that the NY Times would write such an article? I didn't.
The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad's streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.This is undeniably good news on the Iraqi security front. I've given the NY Times alot of grief over the years, most of it richly deserved. It's only fair that I compliment them when they publish a story that is well-researched and accurate.
As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.
As each upbeat article is published, whether it's published in the NY Times or Newsweek or the Chicago Tribune , Democrats like Harry Reid and John Murtha and their CodePink friends have to fight a steeper uphill fight. the longer they have to fight that fight, the less their odds of winning that fight.
Iraqis sound uncertain about the future, but defiantly optimistic. Many Baghdad residents seem to be willing themselves to normalcy, ignoring risks and suppressing fears to reclaim their lives. Pushing past boundaries of sect and neighborhood, they said they were often pleasantly surprised and kept going; in other instances, traumatic memories or a dark look from a stranger were enough to tug them back behind closed doors.I think that sounds like the most realistic perspective on Iraq in general and Baghdad in specifically. Situational awareness is obviously required. It isn't wrong to prepare for the worst, expect the best and smile when you spot proof that your fears aren't reality.
It's important to remember that Saddam took 35 years to pit one group against another. This won't be solved overnight. I suspect that it'll get solved bit by bit at first, though I suspect that things will come together in a hurry once more impediments to free society are eliminated.
Whenever that day comes, one thing is important in the present. It's important to discredit Harry Reid and John Murtha when they talk about our troops being caught in the middle of a civil war. These Baghdadi residents signal with their actions that they don't think they're living in the middle of a civil war.
It's great to read all the improving statistics because they paint an improving picture. It's better to read stories featuring real Iraqis who are living proof that conditions are improving.
Posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:38 PM
No comments.
