November 26, 2007
Nov 26 09:15 Murtha's 'Charity' Is Expensive Nov 26 10:39 Can We Get A Real Conservative Now? Nov 26 11:15 Lame Duck President Creams Reid, Pelosi...Again Nov 26 17:25 Obama Takes Gloves Off Nov 26 16:29 ***BREAKING NEWS*** Ritchie Must Testify Nov 26 17:02 ***Nobles' Statement*** Nov 26 17:42 More Ricthie Links & Quotes Nov 26 22:45 Death By A Thousand Cuts?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006
Murtha's 'Charity' Is Expensive
Earlier this month, I wrote about CTC's sweetheart deal in which they're receiving no-bid contracts, aka earmarks, through John Murtha's 'work' on the House Defense Aprpopriations Subcommittee. I've said that eventually Johnstown will need to develop a real economy. Here's what I posted in that earlier post:
Concurrent Technologies began two decades ago doing metalworking research in Pennsylvania's struggling rust belt. In the years since, the Johnstown, Pa., company has become a federal contracting chameleon.Despite the steady stream of income into CTC's Johnstown facility, it seems that Johnstown is now in financial hot water :
It is an intelligence adviser, an environmental consultant and a software engineering specialist. It has trained mine-detecting dogs and managed religion-based initiatives. It oversees construction projects, organizes conferences and studies ways to use hydrogen for fuel in Pennsylvania and South Carolina. Missile-defense research is part of its portfolio. So is the development of special armor for combat vehicles in Iraq and "solid waste technology" in Florida.
And it is a nonprofit charity.
Behind the rise of Concurrent is Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee, who helped arrange funding to launch the organization in 1988. Murtha has since arranged millions of dollars more in directed congressional appropriations called earmarks. Now Concurrent has early $250 million in annual revenue and 1,500 employees.
Concurrent is a prime example of how to marry entrepreneurial savvy, influence on Capitol Hill and arcane procurement rules to create budget magnets in congressional districts. Unlike many other big contractors, Concurrent pays no income tax on most of its revenue. Unlike nonprofit, federally funded research-and-development corporations, it is not chartered by the federal government.
In cash-strapped Johnstown, an extra $1 million per year could go a long way.I wonder how many of those tax exempt properties are owned by Murtha's cronies.The next logical question is whether Pennsylvania's taxpayers can afford much more or Murtha's charity. Here's how Pennsylvania plans on dealing with this crisis:
A new bill proposed in the state House could give Johnstown, and other cities struggling with high levels of tax-exempt property, financial relief annually.
Initial projections show Johnstown receiving more than $994,000 in state aid under the bill's current formula.
The plan would use state revenues from the 18 percent "Johnstown Flood Tax" on liquor sales. That levy initially was conceived to rebuild Johnstown after the 1936 Flood.
"Now, we're trying to rebuild a bunch of communities in Pennsylvania," said state Rep. Bob Freeman, a Northampton County-based Democrat who introduced the bill this month.
Johnstown's tax-exempt dilemma is one example of a big problem plaguing urban centers, Freeman said. Officials in cities across the state have watched their tax base erode even while operating expenses continue to rise.
As business and industry migrated to the suburbs, cities were left with nonprofit entities that, while used by residents regionally, are not taxable. Hospitals are one example.
"They're unfairly disadvantaged," Freeman said of the municipalities his bill would assist. "It just doesn't give government the base to operate from in order to provide essential services."
Nearly half of Johnstown's total assessed property value is tax-exempt. The city receives payments in lieu of taxes from some nonprofits, but that total contribution represents only a fraction of the tax revenue the city would receive from a taxable entity.
The bill would create "tax-exempt property municipal assistance fund" using revenue from the liquor levy, which in the 2006-07 fiscal year generated $239.4Some red flags are going off. Why would 17 percent of a city's property be tax exempt?
million. That "flood tax" money currently goes straight into the state's coffers.
To be eligible for aid, a locale must prove that 17 percent or more of its total assessed property value is tax-exempt.
Here in Minnesota, Gov. Pawlenty responded to Sen. Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller's whining about his not raising taxes by saying that "you can't government your way to prosperity." It's time that Pennsylvanians leaned that, too. If Johnstown wants a real solution to its dilemma, they'll lobby Harrisburg to cut taxes so they can develop a real economy built on businesses that pay property taxes.
The legislation proposed isn't a solution. It's an expansion of oppressive governemt. Isn't it time Harrisburg started thinking like real humans instead of thinking that they can "government [their] way to prosperity"?
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 9:17 AM
No comments.
Can We Get A Real Conservative Now?
When I saw the headline that Trent Lott will be resigning before the year's end , the first thing that crossed my mind was "Good riddance." The second thing that crossed my mind was "Can we get a real conservative to replace him in the Senate GOP leadership"?
Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Senate's No. 2 Republican, plans to resign his seat before the end of the year, congressional and White House officials said Monday.First, let me state that I won't miss Trent Lott. When I first started following politics, he was a decent, though not outstanding, legislator. He's gone downhill since. When Porkbusters tried policing the money being spent on Katrina reconstruction, Lott took offense, essentially saying that it's none of their business and that this is the way things were always done. Porkbusters pushed back, saying that it's our taxes that are getting spent and that it is our business because he's a public servant.
Lott, 66, scheduled two news conferences in his home state later in the day to reveal his plans. According to congressional and White House officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement, Lott intends to resign effective the end of the year.
Then came the immigration debate. After Lott signed onto the bill, it didn't take long before he lashed out at We The People and conservative talk radio. It didn't dawn on him that he served We The People , that we didn't just have to sit back and accept Washington's decisions.
It's time for the GOP to cleanse themselves of dinosaurs like Trent Lott. In Lott's mind, We The People are there to elect him, then sit down and shut up. In We The People's mind, he's supposed to do the right thing in terms of protecting our sovereignty and being frugal with our taxes.
He had clearly lost his way on both important issues. In reality, his love of pork was emblematic of how the Senate GOP mirrored Senate Democrats. There's nothing to be gained by that. In fact, they've refused to learn the lesson that we're trying to teach them, which is that we won't contribute to them until they start acting like Republicans.
That's why we need a fresh conservative voice as GOP Whip. The next Whip should come from this short list: John Cornyn, Tom Coburn or Jim DeMint. If they nominate another fossil for the job, we should express our displeasure with them by withholding campaign contributions to the NRSC, instead directing the money towards genuinely conservative candidates.
According to this MSNBC article , Lott is asking Gov. Haley Barbour to pick Chip Pickering as his replacement. Sen. Lott is also backing Jon Kyl to replace him as Minority Whip.
I'd be ok with Kyl, though I'd prefer Jim DeMint, John Cornyn or Tom Coburn.
The Lott resignation is good news to reform-minded conservatives. We won't start winning sustainable majorities again until we're seen as a party serious about reforms, accountability and fiscal sanity.
It's been obvious that Trent Lott had left those camps ages ago.
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 10:40 AM
No comments.
Lame Duck President Creams Reid, Pelosi...Again
That's the verdict of this SF Gate article . I couldn't agree more. It's just further proof that good policies will win whether you're a supposedly lame duck president or the greenest freshman.
Just a year after Democrats charged into power on Capitol Hill against a Republican president with bottom-scraping poll numbers and a soured war, it's the Democrats who are crying uncle in the biggest budget confrontation since the 1995 government shutdown.This reporter isn't a happy camper. They expected President Bush and the House and Senate GOP to roll over. When they didn't, they didn't know how to react. Now they're looking dazed and confused, not to mention clueless and inept. That's what happens when you're 'led' by incompetents like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Democrats do not want a repeat of that fight, which crippled the GOP revolution and revived Democrat Bill Clinton's presidency. Yet they seem astonished to find themselves on the defensive in a budget confrontation where Bush is asking for $200 billion to pay for the Iraq war, but promises to veto domestic spending bills that are $23 billion more than he wanted.
Democrats are struggling even to pass a middle-class tax cut under the banner of fiscal responsibility. A House plan to shield 21 million mainly Democratic households from the alternative minimum tax, and offset the lost revenue with higher taxes on Wall Street, appears to be unraveling. If it does, so does the vaunted "pay as you go" rule that Pelosi pledged would re-establish fiscal responsibility in Washington after years of rampant Republican borrowing.
History will record them as the most inept pair of party leaders of the last half century. Reid in particular is so inept that he makes Trent Lott look like a solid majority leader.
Pelosi and Reid have already begun backing down. The Democratic speaker from San Francisco and the Senate leader from Nevada wrote the White House this month asking for negotiations. Last week, Reid offered to "split the difference" with Bush on the spending bills. The White House refused.I've been predicting that Reid and Pelosi would get rolled, especially on the Iraq supplemental. It isn't a matter of if. It's a matter of inevitability. If Democrats keep insisting on putting troop withdrawal deadlines while we're winning, they'll soon find themselves in the minority in the House.
A budget office spokesman said the Democratic leadership "should concern itself less with capturing political news cycles and more on their fundamental responsibility to fund the federal government."
The truth is that Reid and Pelosi chose to start with confrontation instead of accumulating a few achievements first. In choosing that path, they told everyone that their primary coal was to play to their base instead of addressing the people's business. Voters will tolerate the partisanship because that's part of the puzzle. What they won't tolerate is blind partisanship that doesn't get anything done.
As long as Democrats keep choosing confrontation over accomplishment, they'll be incurring We The People's wrath. They're free to choose that option. We're also free to choose the option of dropping them like a hot potato.
It isn't just Pelosi and Reid that President Bush is frustrating:
Nowhere is the antagonism more pronounced than on funding for the war, where Bush has managed to put Democrats on the defensive on their biggest issue. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, insisted that Bush will only get a $50 billion "bridge fund" to pay for the war over the next few months on the condition the president comes up with a plan for a withdrawal by the end of next year.The president's "return message to the American people is, 'I don't care what message you thought you were delivering last November, I'm the Great Decider. We're going to decide things my way, and it's my way or the highway.' And he's behaved that way on the federal budget at home, and he's behaved that way on Iraq. And the American public is not happy with either stance, and they expect us to try to do something besides sit like potted palms."
Obey called Bush's claim last fall that he would be drawing down troops "a study in calculated public deception ... as far as I'm concerned, that was the last straw."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that without new funds for the war, "the Pentagon will soon be forced to send furlough notices for as many as 100,000 Army and Marine Corps civilian employees at bases around the country."
Openly frustrated, Obey said the public sent two messages to Washington in the last election - one calling for a new policy in Iraq, the other for a new set of budget priorities at home.
That's what Democratic frustration sounds like. Frankly, it's music to my ears.
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 11:18 AM
No comments.
Obama Takes Gloves Off
After reading this article , it's safe to say that Barack Obama is taking the gloves off against Hillary Clinton. Look at what he just said in Iowa:
"I think the fact of the matter is that Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn't work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it," Obama said, and added, referring to his relationship with his wife, Michelle, "There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues," Obama said. "On the other had, I don't think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States Senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I've done."Rest assured that Hillary's minions won't let that go unanswered. Metaphorically speaking, that's a stiff right hook to Hillary's jaw. It'll be interesting to see if Bill Clinton plays the 'Boo-hoo card' again . That didn't play well the last time. I doubt it'd work this time. Here's another shot from Obama that's sure to sting:
"Our most successful presidents have been people who were successful not because of their wealth of Washington experience," Obama said, "but because of the life lessons and schools of hard knocks that they had gone through."That's supported by the fact that most of our recent presidents have been governors first. Only two people went directly from being a senator to being a president, with JFK being the last one almost a half century ago.
Hillary isn't inspiring much loyalty from some Democrats :
I thumb my nose at media elite, and throw my support behind any other Democratic contender, going so far as to pledge my vote in the general election to the Republican, any Republican, if my party nominates this pathetic excuse for a candidate. Here's why:This is clear-headed thinking for the most part. The mentions of Hillary's ethical unsuitability and her lack of a successful track record legislatively are things that Republicans will surely pick up on. In fact, I think Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have already started that discussion.
1. Clinton does not have the credentials to lead America. She has no track record of successful management of any large organization . She has never led the charge for successful passage of any consequential legislation. Even liberal Democrats give Hillary a pitiful 60% approval rating for piggyback voting, i.e. a failing grade on legislation Clinton supported but did not initiate.
2. She is ethically unsuitable for the office of president. Clinton will do or say anything to get elected. Her recorded support on opposite sides of the same issue recently came home to roost. This isn't the first time opponents have caught Hillary in the act of doublespeak. Not long ago, Clinton equivocated her stance on the Iraqi war, stating, "I do not think it is smart strategy to set a date certain." More recently, she introduced legislation setting a date certain to bring the troops home.
3. Clinton casually employs intimidation, marginalization, and fear of elimination to silence detractors. As first lady, Clinton viciously vilified numerous women levying sexual harassment charges against hubby Bubba. Her disingenuous finger pointing exemplifies the depths she is willing to sink to deflect blame. Had Monicagate not blossomed into a full-blown national scandal, Hillary very well may have destroyed the lives of numerous womanized victims.
That's only a partial list of reasons this blogger gives for not supporting Hillary. You'll want to read them all at the link above.
Hillary's campaign has now attacked Obama , though it isn't on Obama's comments:
This morning, we learned that Senator Obama has been using his leadership PAC to give political contributions to officials in the early primary states. In fact, 68 percent of contributions from his PAC have gone to those in states that are scheduled to hold nominating contests on February 5th or earlier.The last thing Hillary should do is accuse Obama of being unethical. She'll lose that fight everytime. Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton has responded to Hillary's attack:
It is our understanding that a candidate's campaign is barred from using the candidate's leadership PAC to benefit his or her campaign which is why we shut down HillPAC when Senator Clinton announced her run for the White House.
Whatever happened to the confident frontrunner who said she wouldn't attack other Democrats just two weeks ago? The latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton is a completely false attempt to misrepresent Barack Obama's full disclosure of his campaign finances. Senator Obama's commitment to disclosure is one that Hillary Clinton does not share, and until Senator Clinton is willing to make this commitment, by disclosing her White House records, the list of donors to her husband's presidential library, how much her bundlers raise, and releasing her personal tax returns to the public, she's not really in a position to point fingers at others.I've seen Obama growing as a candidate lately. He's gaining confidence and keeping Hillary off stride. Meanwhile, Hillary has tried regaining the momentum she had earlier but it's apparent that she's a bit perplexed at how she should attack Obama. Whenever she tries attacking him, he's had a sharp reply.
Each time that happens, he gains some respect while Hillary loses ground. That isn't a dynamic that Hillary can afford to continue. She's doing her best to slap that image down but she hasn't found an effective way to counter Obama's points. She'd better figure out a way to counter Obama's points or she could be turning her coronation into a real race.
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment 1 by CherylT at 30-Nov-07 01:28 AM
Thank you very much for publicizing the article from this Democrat. It is gratifying for a new blogger like me to see her message picked up by more established and experienced bloggers.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 30-Nov-07 02:33 AM
Cheryl, You're most welcome. I agreed with your points. That's why I linked to it. I'd suspect that we'd disagree on a number of things but right is right. I thought your observations were spot on. When that happens, I'll make note of that.
After all, isn't that the basis for true bipartisanship?
Stop over often.
FYI- I've bookmarked your website.
***BREAKING NEWS*** Ritchie Must Testify
According to this Strib article , Mark Ritchie's troubles just got exponentially bigger. Here's what you need to know:
The state's legislative auditor is racheting up his investigation of Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie after a response Ritchie's office provided proved "unreliable" regarding allegations of inappropriate use of a mailing list generated through an official program.Mr. Nobles' announcement is a gigantic step forward in this case. I can't overstate that point. Mr. Nobles has essentially, and politely, said that Mark Ritchie's answers were lies. When Mr. Nobles talks about confirming "the veracity of [Ritchie's] statements", he's saying that there were some significant contradictions in Ritchie's statements.
As a consequence, the legislative auditor will be requiring Ritchie and members of his staff to submit to questioning under oath, an unusual step in legislative audit investigations.
Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles said today his office will continue working on several other investigations but will proceed quickly into the Ritchie probe.
" If (Ritchie) was not forthcoming, that is a serious matter in and of itself ," Nobles said. " If we cannot confirm the veracity of the statements from him and others in his office we'll have to take other measures to determine what went on ."
This also ends Brian Melendez's attempt to spin this issue. When the Legislative Auditor says that "Ritchie's office provided" statements that "proved 'unreliable'", that eliminates the argument that Melendez was making :
I'll repeat now what I said then: We jumped on this story because Mark Ritchie knowingly provided misleading & dishonest responses to the questions Rep. Laura Brod & Rep. Tom Emmer submitted to him. We jumped on this story because of Mark Ritchie's hypocrisy of saying that he'd depoliticize the Secretary of State's office. In fact, he's politicized the Secretary of State's office to such an extent that we're in uncharted political & ethical waters.DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez defended Ritchie's integrity, saying Ritchie did nothing illegal or wrong and that Republicans are going after Ritchie because he was pursuing an agenda of more inclusiveness in voting.
"We just had an election last November where we kicked out Mary Kiffmeyer because her agenda seemed to be more about voter suppression than about letting people vote," Melendez said. "That's what the Republicans really have a problem with and that's why they are hitting Mark Ritchie so hard."
This is a disgraceful moment in DFL history. Not only did the Secretary of State attempt to politicize his office but we also had the chairman of the DFL attempt to defend the indefensible.
The good news for Minnesotans is that Jim Nobles has stopped their disgusting behavior in its tracks by ordering Mark Ritchie to testify under oath. The only question that remains is whether Jim Nobles will direct Attorney General Lori Swanson's office to prosecute Ritchie & members of Ritchie's staff.
UPDATE: Michael is all over this too . Rest assured that this development will spread like wildfire throughout the Right & Left Blogospheres
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 4:33 PM
No comments.
***Nobles' Statement***
UPDATE II: Here's the full text of Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles' statement :
November 26, 2007I'm not questioning Bert Black's honesty because it's entirely possible that he was accurately relaying the information that he was given. Furthermore, I don't have to question Mark Ritchie's veracity because Legislative Auditor Nobles is questioning Mark Ritchie's honesty.
Members of the Legislative Audit Commission:
I informed you at the commission meeting on October 31 that I had received an allegation concerning Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. The allegation accused Mr. Ritchie of using individual contact information gathered during civic education events organized by the Secretary of State's office to solicit contributions for the Mark Ritchie campaign fund. Recently, the issue has been in the news, and I thought commission members would appreciate an update on my review of the allegation.
On November 2, I sent a letter to Mr. Ritchie asking him for information about his office's civic education program. I specifically asked Mr. Ritchie to explain how contact information gathered at a civic education event was obtained from the Secretary of State's office and used to solicit contributions for the Mark Ritchie campaign fund. I asked for a response by November 12.
On November 9, I received a letter and attachments from Bert Black, Legal Advisor and Data Practices Compliance Officer for the Office of the Secretary of State, indicating that he had been directed to respond to my request to Mr. Ritchie. The following is Mr. Black's explanation of how contact information from the Secretary of State's office was obtained and used to solicit contributions for the Mark Ritchie campaign fund:
A printed copy of the directory/contact list of organizations and individuals involved in civic education and engagement, a public document, was provided to everyone who attended the [civic education and engagement] meeting on June 22 as they registered. It was also e-mailed to over 400 people after that meeting and handed out at the Minnesota State Fair. It is my understanding that this is how the directory/contact list was obtained.
On November 20, I was asked by a reporter to comment on the fact that Mr. Ritchie had recently acknowledged to the StarTribune that he personally transferred contact information from the Secretary of State's office to his campaign organization. I told the reporter I could only confirm that my office had an open investigation concerning Mr. Ritchie, and we were assessing the information submitted to us by the Secretary of State's office.
Later that day, I received an e-mail from Mr. Ritchie, which said in part: "I provided this directory [containing contact information] to my campaign and requested that listed groups get a copy of the campaign's civic engagement newsletter." He went on to note that his campaign's civic engagement newsletter contained a solicitation for a contribution to his campaign fund.
Mr. Ritchie's belated acknowledgment of personal involvement renders the information I received from his office on November 9 unreliable. Therefore, I have informed Mr. Ritchie that I intend to conduct an investigation into the allegation concerning the Secretary of State's office by interviewing Mr. Ritchie and his staff under oath.
As you know, the Legislative Auditor's office is currently working on many other audits, evaluations, and investigations. Therefore, it will undoubtedly take several weeks to complete a report on the allegation concerning the Secretary of State's office. However, my staff and I will proceed as quickly as possible to complete a thorough investigation and report our finding to you.
Sincerely,
Jim Nobles
Legislative Auditor
What I will say is that, when all the dust settles, this will be viewed as the darkest moment in Minnesota constitutional office history. I will also say that Mark Ritchie's reputation was sullied by Mark Ritchie & Mark Ritchie alone. His politicization of the Secretary of State's office and his attempt to hide that politicization will always be connected to his name.
I'd also like to commend Jim Nobles for following the trail wherever the facts took him. That's how investigations are supposed to be conducted.
UPDATE: Here's how John Aiken, Ritchie's director of communications , is attempting to spin this news:
"The office of secretary of state takes the matter very seriously and we welcome the additional attention being given to this matter by the legislative auditor," said John Aiken, Ritchie's director of communications. "We're looking forward to receiving their conclusions and implementing any recommendations."
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 5:11 PM
No comments.
More Ricthie Links & Quotes
The Bemidji Pioneer is running this AP article on the burgeoning Ritchie scandal. Here's the money quotes from the article:
On Nov. 9, Ritchie's legal advisor, Bert Black, told Nobles in a letter that the mailing list was public information and widely distributed, including at the State Fair. Black said that was his understanding of how the directory was obtained by the Ritchie campaign.Here's the link to the Rochester Bulletin's article. Here's the part that should raise red flags for people:
"Mr. Ritchie's belated acknowledgment of personal involvement renders the information I received from his office on November 9 unreliable," the letter said. "Therefore, I have informed Mr. Ritchie that I intend to conduct an investigation into the allegation concerning the Secretary of State's office by interviewing Mr. Ritchie and his staff under oath."
Ritchie said he had personally provided a copy of the directory to his campaign and requested that those on the list get a copy of his campaign's civic engagement newsletter. It has been distributed to about 12,000 individuals and groups whom he described as active in civic life in the state.Based on his record of politicizing the nonpartisan office of Secretary of State, coupled with his conflicting answers, why should we believe that Ritchie "maintains a donor and potential contributor list that is separate from the newsletter list"?
He said his campaign maintains a donor and potential contributor list that is separate from the newsletter list.
UPDATE: Here's the link to WKBT's article. Here's the important section of their article:
Today, state legislative auditor Jim Nobles says he'll seek testimony under oath.Here's the link to the WC Tribune's article on Ritchie's dilemma. Here's what they're saying:
Nobles says he's taking the rare step after a report last week in which Ritchie acknowledged he was personally involved in giving the list to his campaign, which used it to solicit contributions.
Initially, Ritchie said he did not know how his campaign obtained the list. Nobles says if Ritchie was not forthcoming, that's a serious matter in and of itself.
"If (Ritchie) was not forthcoming, that is a serious matter in and of itself," Nobles said. "If we cannot confirm the veracity of the statements from him and others in his office we'll have to take other measures to determine what went on."That last sentence can't bring peace of mind to Ritchie and his staff.
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 9:07 PM
No comments.
Death By A Thousand Cuts?
Hillary is learning firsthand that it isn't fun not being the frontrunner. A month ago, she was riding high in most polls. Hillary had an aura of invincibility back then. Her troubles began when Tim Russert asked her a simple question. When she tried being on both sides of the issue, her troubles began. Then came the planting of questions at an Iowa townhall meeting. Her latest troubles are a direct result of those stumbles. John Zogby's latest interactive poll shows her trailing all five of the major GOP presidential candidates:
Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.It's amazing to see a prohibitive favorite stumble. It isn't s a pretty sight to watch them get their feet back underneath themselves. The only ones that are able to recover are people who don't resort to pandering. Unfortunately for Hillary, that's about the only thing that she does well. As I wrote this afternoon , Hillary can't regain her political equilibrium because Barack Obama gets the better of her in the back-and-forth exchanges.
In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.
All that said, the biggest reason why Hillary's lost her lead is because Hillary couldn't resist the opportunity of having things both ways on the Spitzer drivers license issue. That panderfest hurt her. In fact, it's been all downhill since then.
The most damaging thing about her panderfest was that it reinforced the image she had of not being sincere. It reinforced the belief that she'd say whatever she needed to to win. It reinforced the belief that she doesn't take positions on anything for longer than a conversation.
Everyone knows that each of the GOP frontrunners have their flaws but only Romney has a reputation similar to Hillary's. He's the only person that people can't trust amongst the frontrunners:
Next we have Mitt Romney. He's got pretty hair. He's also got executive experience. The last hundred years indicate that a person with executive experience has the advantage. Romney also has a lot of experience in the business world. To his credit, he's the one guy who has been out the whole time talking about the Republican foundation, the "stool" he calls it, life, taxes, and defense. Let me go back to my mantra of pro-life, strong defense, small government, and pro-entrepreneur. Romney was the later. And he has given every indication he will be for the three former. He also was willing to do something with health care and did try his best to limit government involvement. I don't like the plan, but good on him for trying.This also refutes Mark Penn's claim that Hillary would win handily if the election was held "tomorrow":
But this is where I left Mitt months ago and where I leave him still. I think he's a great guy, but there is a trust issue with me. When he needed to out gay and out abort Teddy Kennedy, he did. And now he's gone the other way. I'd like to trust him, but I just have this feeling that if we are no longer convenient for him, he'll turn his back on us. Perhaps that is unfair, but that's where I'm at. I also think, given the last thirty year track record, candidates from Massachusetts make bad candidates for President. I think the Democrats will club Mitt Romney to death. Already they are going for the flip-flop label that the GOP used so well against Kerry. And voters seem to be picking up on that.
Mark Penn, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) chief strategist, said Thursday that the Democratic front-runner would get 360 electoral votes if the election were held tomorrow and she faced former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R).Here's what I said then:
Penn's quote is pure BS. For Hillary to reach 360, she'd have to flip red states worth 111 electoral votes. That won't happen. for that to happen, she'd have to flip Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico & Colorado. Even then, I don't think that that'd get her to 360. According to the 2004 electoral map, that list of states would be worth 92 electoral votes. According to a friend of mine who is a county Republican chairman in Florida, there's no chance that she'll win Florida.I'm more certain that that memo's sole mission was to change the subject and shift the coverage away from Hillary's pandering, manipulative ways. Zogby's poll proves that that tactic didn't work. Now it's time for them to roll out Pland D, E or F. (It's difficult, if not impossible, to remember that sort of thing when dealing with the Clinton spin machine.
This memo's only value is about changing the subject. The true test for Hillary will come when she's facing a real candidate. Thus far, she's faced a group of toy poodles. She won't get the kid glove treatment when she's going against Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani.
The biggest thing that Republicans should take from this is that Hillary isn't superhuman, that she's perfectly beatable if we just come together on a positive, reform-minded agenda.
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 10:46 PM
No comments.
