November 28, 2007
Nov 28 01:59 PA Voters Fed Up With Business As Usual Crowd Nov 28 03:17 ***Absolutely Shocking*** Nov 28 04:02 A problematic mix of business and ambition Nov 28 04:45 Bemidji Pioneer Weighs In On Ritchie Scandal Nov 28 18:18 The Worst News Imaginable For Dems Nov 28 22:45 Debate Notes
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006
PA Voters Fed Up With Business As Usual Crowd
I don't normally get too excited when I read someone saying that this or that politician is out of touch. If I did, I'd forever be excited. This time, it's just a bit different. This editorial sums things up so neatly, though, that I have to mention it. Here's the key portion of the editorial:
The latest outrage in a long string of "public purpose" outrages is reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer: Legislative leaders have paid $466,000 this year to conduct focus groups and public-opinion polls whose purposes smack of politics and not public policy.That editorial got me thinking. That convinced me I'd better start digging into this. Here's a portion of what I found:
To wit, one poll conducted for House Democrats said members "should feel comfortable picking fights" with Democrat Gov. Ed Rendell because Western Pennsylvanians "are fed up with Harrisburg generally and Rendell specifically."
The same pollster warned Democrats away from "liberal positions on immigration" and said members needed "to do a better job touting their accomplishments."
Here is a question every Pennsylvanian should have the opportunity to answer: Do you want your legislative leaders to spend nearly $500,000 of your money for pollsters to determine issues that are important to you? We're betting that answer would be accompanied by many spicy adjectives.That anyone would attempt to justify this spending as "an effective way to shape legislative priorities" isn't just laughable, it's thoroughly insulting to thinking people.
But that's exactly what both the Democratic and Republican Party leaderships did in 2007. They authorized spending $466,000 of your money to sponsor focus groups and conduct public-opinion surveys to determine the mood of state residents on a number of issues.
Even more appalling is that leaders spent your money and then refused to release the results, apparently following the logic expressed by Steve Miskin, press secretary for state House Republicans. "It's an internal document to help benchmark the issues," he said. Wow.
Other defenders in Harrisburg insist this money is spent wisely because it's an effective way to shape legislative priorities.
What's more insulting is that politicians of both parties thought that they could keep this information private. This speaks to another issue that's getting people's blood boiling: the gutting of the Transparency Act .
These issues will get voters' blood boiling because they're government at its worst: secretive, wasteful with taxpayers' money and telling We The People what's public and what's private. That won't cut it because We The People are the people who will either dictate how our money is spent or we'll defeat the politicians who think they'll dictate the terms of government spending. We The People have a remedy for that. They're called elections.
Right now, voters, whether they're from Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon or Washington State, are upset with the level of wasteful spending and taxation. The incumbents that think they can do whatever they want will quickly find out that they'll be looking for work in the private sector next December.
Ttechnorati: We The People , Reform , Wasteful Spending , Arrogance , Tax Increases , Focus Groups , Ed Rendell , Transparency , Bill DeWeese , Incumbents , Election 2008
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:59 AM
No comments.
***Absolutely Shocking***
Absolutely shocking is the only way to describe the news in this article . I can't say that I'm totally surprised but shocked would fit perfectly. Here's the shocking news:
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported hearing from several unidentified sources, including a Democrat lawmaker, that dozens of boxes worth of documents were shredded during the course of grand jury proceedings to determine whether bonuses paid out by all four state legislative caucuses went to employees for campaign work as opposed to legislative duties. Paying staffers on the state dime for such services is illegal.If this Democratic legislator is willing to testify that this happened, alot of people's careers will be finished. I wish I could say that I'm surprised but I'm not Anyone that would use staffers to run their campaigns is obviously willing to do anything to get re-elected. They'd be willing to do anything to keep their crimes secret, too.
The sources said they believed the documents reportedly shredded included leave slips and compensation records.
Both parties in both chambers are alleged to have given out bonuses for political work totaling $3.6 million, but House Democrats are alleged to have paid the most, $1.9 million. House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D-Fayette) asked for and received the resignations of seven caucus staffers the week before last. He did not publicly tie his action to the bonus scandal, but many reform activists have suggested that it triggered the firings.
The Democrat legislator reported that he heard of concerns that the paper records took up too much space, thus their shredding was approved. It is undetermined as of yet how many of the destroyed documents exist in electronic format.
Check back for updates during the day.
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:17 AM
No comments.
A problematic mix of business and ambition
The Pi-Press has finally jumped into the Ritchie scandal with this editorial board editorial . It took them awhile to jump into the fray but they make several worthwhile points. Here's the first solid point they made:
We had no beef with Kiffmeyer over the quality of Minnesota's elections, but Ritchie certainly did. We endorsed him and said in this space that we will "hold Ritchie accountable to his promise to run his office as a 'nonpartisan.'" This e-mail co-mingling appears to be different from what he promised. It smacks of an old Capitol trick of blurring the line between politicking and governing.I was waiting to see if the Pi-Press would keep its promise of holding "Ritchie accountable to his promise" of running a nonpartisan office. They've kept that promise. Here's another point they made that's worth noting:
But this job, considering its role in mediating election disputes, should be one where scrupulous fairness and avoidance of partisan hackery are paramount.That's the standard that Mary Kiffmeyer upheld during her time in office. Mark Ritchie failed in the first year of his term in office. The Pi-Press did say something, though, that I have to take issue with. Here's what they said that I disagree with:
Ritchie is not the first to straddle this line and won't be the last.Ritchie didn't "straddle this line." He lept across that line with reckless abandon. This wasn't a gray area. This was a pitch black/bright white line. Ritchie didn't hesitate in ignoring that bright line.
The Pi-Press closes with this:
We don't know all the facts in Mark Ritchie's e-mail list dust-up. We do know that robust, loud, hard-fought and fair elections are critical to our democracy. We know that in the heat of the contest, the secretary of state is the closest thing Minnesota has to a referee, and that the referee's independence is far more important than his political upside.I've asked this question before & I'll repeat it again:
Hasn't Mark Ritchie betrayed our trust in such a way that we can't have confidence in his ability to impartially monitor elections? He didn't get the right vote totals for the school board & school levy questions posted on the Secretary of State's website for over a week. Why should we believe that he'll be impartial next November when the stakes will be exponentially higher?
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:02 AM
No comments.
Bemidji Pioneer Weighs In On Ritchie Scandal
The Bemidji Pioneer didn't jump into the Mark Ritchie scandal right away but they've certainly jumped in with this editorial . Here's part of what they said:
When Mark Ritchie campaigned for Minnesota secretary of state last year, he pushed hard that the office, as the state's No. 1 watchdog over fair and impartial elections, should be non-partisan. He alleged that under then-incumbent Mary Kiffmeyer, it hadn't. In some regards, Kiffmeyer, a Republican, did run the office as a partisan way in that she embraced conservative ideals of going to extremes to prevent voter fraud where none previously was found, and sought to mandate voter ID at the polls such a photo driver's license.In saying that Ritchie's campaign promises of being nonpartisan lack credibility is a gentle way of saying that he didn't tell the truth. If I'd written the editorial, I wouldn't have been that gentle. I would've simply said that ritchie lied. Either way, the point is clear: Mark Ritchie has betrayed the trust Minnesota voters gave him in electing him to the Secretary of State's office.
There would be none of that, Ritchie, a Democrat, pledged. The office would be non-partisan with the goal of making it as easy as possible for people who are eligible to vote to register and vote, removing as many barriers as possible. While Kiffmeyer was the Republican secretary of state, Ritchie would not be the DFL secretary of state, he promised.
The credibility of those words are now in question as Mr. Ritchie has done just what he said he wouldn't: politicize the office. At issue is a list of names of people who attended a secretary of state-sponsored non-partisan seminar on civic involvement which somehow ended up in the hands of Ritchie's campaign, which sent them all a newsletter which included a campaign donation request.
But troubling is the ongoing investigation by the legislative auditor into the affair, who announced this week he may seek sworn testimony from Ritchie and his staff after receiving "unreliable" information and that the legislative auditor "cannot confirm the veracity of the statements" from Ritchie and his staff. First, Ritchie denied knowing how the list got to his campaign. Then, last week he acknowledged to a Twin Cities newspaper that he personally transferred the list from his state office to his campaign organization.Mark Ritchie lied to Rep. Laura Brod & Rep. Tom Emmer. He also lied to Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles. Those lies are chronicled here & here . Here's where I take issue with the Bemidji Pioneer:
Republican Party officials have asked Ritchie to resign, a far too drastic measure that is basically a knee-jerk reaction and even perhaps political payback for the rough time Ritchie gave Kiffmeyer.Considering the fact that Mark Ritchie quite possibly broke the Data Practices Act, I don't think that calling for Ritchie's resignation is the least bit drastic. Ritchie will forever be remembered as the man who politicized the Secretary of State's office unlike any of his predecessors. I won't be surprised if future Secretaries of State don't come close to politicizing the office like him, either.
Regardless of whether he's convicted of a crime or not, Ritchie has lost all credibility in terms of being an impartial, competent Chief Election Official. I defy the Bemidji Pioneer to give me a single reason why Minnesotans should trust Mark Ritchie's ability to impartially monitor another election.
As for the Bemidji Pioneer's claim that Ron Carey's reaction is "basically a knee-jerk reaction and even perhaps political payback", I'll simply repeat what I said in responding to Brian Melendez's spin of the Ritchie scandal :
Brian Melendez knows that we're simply exposing the unethical behavior of an unethical man who used information gathered at an official function to solicit political contributions.Here's the other thing that the Bemidji Pioneer said that I can't agree with:
If that is so, Mr. Ritchie has undercut his pledge of running a non-partisan operation and his promise to separate his Democratic politics from his overseeing and management of state elections. Again, if that is so, Mr. Ritchie owes the Minnesota public a meaningful and sincere apology for abusing the privileges of his public office.That's nonsense. I don't want an apology. I want a trustworthy person leading that office. That person isn't Mark Ritchie. How does an "I'm sorry" letter restore the trust that's demanded of the Secretary of State? It doesn't & it can't. It's that simple.
Finally, there's this gobbledygook:
As it is an elected office, Mr. Ritchie is responsible to the public that elected him, so Republicans should lay off calls for his resignation and let the voters decide that in 2010. But Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature should make ethics an issue and set a code of conduct for all public officials, including constitutional officers, that clearly sets a barrier up between public and party work , one more clear than state law now.What the Bemidji Pioneer is insinuating is that there isn't a "code of conduct for all public officials" that "clearly sets a barrier up between public and party work." Such a law exists already. It's called the Data Practices Act. Article 13.04 clearly states :
Tennessen warning. An individual asked to supply private or confidential data concerning the individual shall be informed of: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting government entity; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This requirement shall not apply when an individual is asked to supply investigative data, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 7, to a law enforcement officer.Simply translated, the Tennessen Warning says that (a) the information gathered can't be used for anything other than the reason given when the information was collected and (b) that the information can then only be used "within the collecting government entity."
As I've said to others, the Mark Ritchie campaign isn't a government entity and they certainly didn't use the email information for the purposes that they explained that day.
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:46 AM
No comments.
The Worst News Imaginable For Dems
If this Pew Research Poll isn't the worst possible news for Democrats, then it's extremely close. Here's what Pew's poll is reporting:
For the first time in a long time, nearly half of Americans express positive opinions about the situation in Iraq. A growing number says the U.S. war effort is going well, while greater percentages also believe the United States is making progress in reducing the number of Iraqi casualties, defeating the insurgents and preventing a civil war in Iraq.After all the cold water that Democrats have tried throwing on the Surge's success, whether it's Rick Sanchez's remarks or one of Harry Reid's doom & gloom diatribes , the American people have noticed the reports about the Anbar Awakening, the refugees returning from Syria to Baghdad and the dramatic drop in Iraqi casualties and US troop casualties.
Roughly half of the public (48%) believes the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going very or fairly well. Judgments about the overall situation in Iraq have been improving steadily since the summer. As recently as June, only about a third of Americans (34%) said things were going well in Iraq.
What that means is that Harry Reid's diatribes don't carry much weight with the public. It means that they're essentially ignoring Rick Sanchez's statements, too. Here's another bit of news that'll impact next year's presidential and congressional campaigns:
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Nov. 20-26 among 1,399 adults, finds that improved public impressions of Iraq are particularly evident when it comes to security-related issues. The number of Americans who say that the United States is making progress in reducing the number of civilian casualties in Iraq has doubled from 21% to 43% since June. The proportion saying that progress has been achieved in preventing terrorists from establishing bases in Iraq is also up substantially, as is the number saying the U.S. is making progress in defeating the insurgents militarily.The verdict is in: The American people have tuned out the Harry Reids and the John Murthas. They trust the reports from Iraq more than they trust Harry Reid and John Murtha. This also means that Democrats will have to retool their campaign strategy in 2008 because a repeat of the 2006 campaign will flop.
Democrats have sown the stories that the war is lost, the surge has failed, etc. Now they'll be held accountable for those votes and statements. How would you like to be a freshman Democrat in a southern swing district having to explain why you voted with John Murtha in cutting off funding for the troops? I'd have to think that they're seeing the 2008 election with apprehension.
Here's what this news' impact is on 2008:
- Democrats will be on defense on the Iraq issue;
- Republicans will be on offense;
- President Bush won't be the drag on the GOP he was in 2006;
- Hillary will have to explain why her position has changed...again.
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 6:20 PM
Comment 1 by Kermit at 29-Nov-07 11:20 PM
Excellent news. There are California conservatives? Like Arnold?
Debate Notes
Admittedly, I haven't been watching the entire debate but I thought Rudy's best moments were his saying that he'd veto the federal legislation making abortion a crime. He correctly said that it's a states' rights issue.
Rudy's answer to the kid from Atlanta was possibly the best, most direct response of the debate that I've seen. Rudy gets an A+ on that.
Fred Thompson's YouTube hit on Romney and Huckabee was surgical and powerful. Romney's 'I'm not perfect' response was lame at best. His saying that he consistently chose the side of life doesn't square with the fact that his health care program has a $50 co-pay for abortions. MAJOR OOPS!!!
As the debates roll on, there are a couple thing that are predictable:
Paulites actually believing that bin Laden wouldn't have attacked America if we hadn't put forces in Saudi Arabia and Hugh ignoring objective criteria to declare Mitt Romney the winner of the debate.
Let's deal with the last item first. It's embarassing to hear someone who is as intelligent as Hugh ignore basic conservative principles out of self interest. That's the only reason I can think of why he's sticking to the line that Romney is a conservative. He's to the left of President Bush. That isn't a conservative. As I stated earlier, Romney's health care plan has a $50 co-pay for abortions.
That information demands an answer to this question: When exactly did Romney's conversion happen? RomneyCare was one of the last things he did as governor. Hugh knows this but still touts Romney. It's a sad thing to watch. I didn't think I'd see the day when Hugh Hewitt became part of the Agenda Media but it's happened. What's particularly shameful is that he's doing this to support a closet liberal like Romney.
Another thing that's obvious is that Ron Paul's supporters blindly follow him. Tom Tancredo's reply that "I don't know what world Ron's living in" but it doesn't sound like the real world nailed it. You know that something's wrong when Tom Tancredo sounds like the voice of reason on a subject.
I thought a couple of Fred's answers were right on target. His response to the "Name 3 things you'd cut" question was fabulous. He started off by citing the need for entitlement reform, then moving onto the list of programs he listed in his report as chairman of the Government Reform Committee was the best answer of the night. Fiscal conservatives are cheering that answer.
I also thought that his answer on the question on whether he'd veto a bill to ban abortions should Roe v. Wade was overturned was strong and predictable. One of Fred's strength is his belief in states' rights.
This is another question where Mitt Romney stumbled a bit. When he said that he'd sign it, it was his attempt to capture a few extra pro-life votes, nothing more. It said that he isn't a states' rights person. That'll lose him more libertarian votes than pro-life votes he gained.
There isn't a true conservative who isn't a big Tenth Amendment person. Romney failed that test miserably.
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:52 PM
No comments.
