November 5-6, 2007
Nov 05 03:15 They're Admissable Nov 05 12:56 It Isn't 2006 Anymore, Part II Nov 05 20:27 Corruption's Currency Nov 06 02:44 What An Embattled Mayor Sounds Like Nov 06 04:41 What Are These Idiots Smoking? Nov 06 13:06 Tommie the Commie's Deceit Showing Nov 06 20:31 Hillary: "I've Been Very Clear On Where I Stand"
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006
They're Admissable
When I first started writing about the Democrats' Bonusgate scandal, I wrote that their attorney, Robert Graci, argued that the documents confiscated under a valid search warrant shouldn't be admitted . According to Tracie Mauriello's reporting , the state Supreme Court yesterday unanimously rejected the House Democratic caucus's appeal:
State investigators yesterday won access to 20 boxes of campaign and political documents seized in an August raid on House Democratic offices.Let's refresh your memory. Here's what Judge Feudadle found in his initial investigation of the House Democratic Office of Legislative Research:
The state Supreme Court yesterday unanimously rejected the House Democratic caucus's appeal of a Sept. 26 order by Judge Barry Feudale. Judge Feudale had ruled that the material could be presented to a grand jury investigating whether state employees received substantial state bonuses as payment for campaign work. Judge Feudale is a Northumberland County senior judge supervising the grand jury.
Contents of the 20 boxes were "overwhelmingly and patently non-legislative in nature," said Judge Barry Feudale , who allowed the documents to be considered in a grand jury investigation into whether taxpayer-funded resources were used to run elections.Here's the more specific information:
The boxes, taken by search warrant from the House Democratic Office of Legislative Research on Aug. 23, included files with labels such as "opposition research," "incumbent protection plan" and "memo on challenger in election."Here's Mr. Graci's argument:
Robert Graci, attorney for the Democrats, had argued that the boxes contained privileged legislative information that should not be disclosed and that the execution of the search warrant violated the constitutional provision for separation of powers. The attorney general's office, which executed the warrant, is part of the executive branch, while the House is part of the legislative branch.Judge Feudale rejected Mr. Graci's arguments.
Wtih the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that those 20 boxes of documents are admissable for the grand jury investigation, I'd expect the bombshells to start dropping. I'd be surprised if those documents don't lead to numerous indictments, plea bargains and, worst of all, revelations that'll end several prominent political careers, starting with Bill DeWeese's career. How many other careers it ends depends solely on what these documents show and who authorized the various actions.
This could get ugly for Pennsylvania Democrats.
Posted Monday, November 5, 2007 3:17 AM
No comments.
It Isn't 2006 Anymore, Part II
I posted something in the aftermath of Jim Ogonowski's near-upset of Nikki Tsongas in the MA-5 special election that was based on Michael Barone's analysis of the conditions candidates will likely face next year. Follow this link to read Mr. Barone's article about how the immigration issue is shaping up. Let's put it this way: it isn't shaping up the way Democrats had hoped:
In the Democratic debate on Oct. 30, Tim Russert demanded to know whether Hillary Clinton supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's policy of issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. The forthright answer: yes and no. A clarifying statement by the Clinton campaign later in the week did not much clarify things: a hedged yes. It was one of several issues on which Clinton seemed to take calculating and ambiguous non-positions. But it is one that may have major reverberations in the presidential campaign, and in congressional races, as well.To say that Bush and Senate and House Democrats are "out of line with public opinion" on immigration is understatement. The public has staked out a position that says "Enforce the law or you won't be legislating anymore." I'll proudly admit that I'm part of that coalition. Immigration laws must be enforced or else we'll stop being the United States. That isn't just Tom Tancredo's opinion or Duncan Hunter's position. It's Chris Matthews' position too:
The reason is that the Democrats, and Bush, are out of line with public opinion on the issue. That became clear as the Senate debated a comprehensive immigration bill in May and June. Most Republicans and many Democrats, in the Senate and among the public, turned against the bill. Supporters of the bill tended to ascribe that to something like racism: They just don't like having so many Mexicans around.
But if you listened to the opponents, you heard something else. They want the current law to be enforced. It bothers them that we have something like 12 million illegal immigrants in our country. It bothers them that most of the southern border is unfenced and unpatrolled. It bothers them that illegal immigrants routinely use
forged documents to get jobs, or are given jobs with no documents at all.
MATTHEWS: Nobody likes ethnic change. It's always hard to deal with. You try to be a liberal about it. But when things change in your neighborhood, you have to get used to it and deal with it. Nobody is thrilled by it, because it just happens in our country. People, neighborhoods change. Life changes. But when you hate, when you see the federal government or the state government papering over a problem by giving people documents, driver's license, which they can use for all kinds of purposes, especially building a paper trail to establish a fact they should be here legally, it looks like the government has given up.He later said this:
It said, well, we can't stop illegal immigration, so we'll give everybody a driver's license. It strikes me as a death blow, a death knell to government. If you can't protect your border, you're not really a country, are you?
MATTHEWS: Every one of us travels and gets on airplanes. What do we have to show? Our driver's license. We might as well show our Mickey Mouse Club Cards the way this is going, because they're just passing them out.Compare Matthews' dramatic change in position to what Mr. Barone witnessed at a Peter Hart focus group:
You don't have to be a racist to be bothered by such things. You just have to be a citizen who thinks that massive failure to enforce the law is corrosive to society.I speculated in this post that immigration would cause troubles with Democrats:
That was apparent to me as I listened to a focus group of Republican voters in suburban Richmond, Va., conducted by Peter Hart for the Annenberg School of Communications. One voter after another complained that the immigration laws were not being enforced. None of them made any derogatory remarks about Latino immigrants; two said they admired how hard they work. They don't want to see Latinos banished from this country. They want the immigrants here to be legally here.
Considering Ted Kennedy's support for lenient enforcement measures, does anyone think that this is a winning issue for Democrats? Let's face facts: 70 percent of voters think that the borders should be secured first before any other steps are taken with regard to immigration issues. There's two dangers about this issue for Democrats: (1) It cuts across party lines and (2) people have a visceral, passionate reaction to it.Here's how Mr. Barone puts it:
That means there isn't the opportunity to triangulate or be too clever by half. You either stake out a 'shut the borders' position and hold fast to that or you triangulate and get whipsawed. Mrs. Clinton tried triangulating, which is why she's getting whipsawed.
Which leaves Democratic politicians and political candidates out on a pretty flimsy limb. Most of them reflexively back a comprehensive bill, and some of them (like Bush and a number of Republicans backing such a bill) have dismissed opponents as racists.Simply put, the only way Democrats don't get devastated by immigration is if the candidates challenging GOP incumbents in the House take a hardline approach. even then, it'd simply negate part of the damage that GOP candidates will do to House freshman Democrats that ran as moderates so they could win in swing districts. That won't fly this time because they'll likely have an anti-enforcement immigration record to run on.
Most Democrats have also been backing bills extending various benefits to illegal immigrants, like the Dream Act for college education for illegals brought over as children. There are appealing arguments for such bills. But most voters reject them. And most voters certainly reject driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. That was one of the issues that led to the recall of Gov. Gray Davis in California in 2003.
Hillary's pandering doublespeak isn't surprising. It's utterly predictable. She's finding out that it's difficult to triangulate on issues that people feel passionately about. She's trying to triangulate on Iraq and immigration.
Hillary's about to find that that's political suicide just like Democrats will find out that they're on the wrong side of immigration.
Technnorati: Hillary , Chris Matthews , Michael Barone , Peter Hart , Immigration , Focus Group , Election 2008
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Monday, November 5, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment 1 by PeterP at 05-Nov-07 03:04 PM
I was listening to NPR the other day and the host was interviewing two members of a pro Amnesty immigration group. They played several very selective excerpts from right wing radio hosts about illegal immigrants and used them to slander the entire anti-illegal immigration movement.
Rest assure that the left will play the hate card with this issue as it has done in the past with issues such as affirmative action, social security and terror.
If you want our immigration laws enforced and you want to stop people from breaking the law (i.e. you don't want to reward people for breaking into the country illegally) get ready to be branded a hater and a racist. Read more about the left's slandering the anti-illegal immigration activists at www.quidblog.com/.
As Tip O'Neil said, "politics ain't bean bag."
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Nov-07 05:01 PM
If you want our immigration laws enforced and you want to stop people from breaking the law (i.e. you don't want to reward people for breaking into the country illegally) get ready to be branded a hater and a racist. Read more about the left's slandering the anti-illegal immigration activists at www.quidblog.com/. I've been catching that flack for a couple years. It's a badge of honor with me.
Corruption's Currency
If you ever wondered how corrupt John Murtha is, this Washington Post article paints the perfect picture. Here's the telling snapshot:
Last month, Concurrent came under scrutiny by Congress after The Washington Post reported that a nonprofit subsidiary, Commonwealth Research Institute, agreed to pay a senior civilian Air Force official $13,400 a month while awaiting White House approval of his appointment.The first logical question is what this has to do with John Murtha. Here's that explanation:
The official, Charles D. Riechers , said in an interview that he did not meet company officials before he took the job and did no work specifically for the company in the two months he was on its payroll . Instead, he said, he worked for the Air Force's acquisition office as a senior adviser on a variety of technical matters through a consulting arrangement that service officials said is common in the Pentagon. Riechers became principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition in January.
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.I said in this post that John Murtha's DC office should be renamed the "Corporate Welfare office." I'm having second thoughts about that, though not because I think the title isn't appropriate. I'm thinking that they should just shut Murtha's office down for a couple years after he's run out of DC.
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 nearly $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.
Here's how CBSNews explained how CTC's revenues rose so quickly:
Defense contractors have found that if they open an office there and hire the right lobbyist, they can get lucrative, no-bid contracts. Over the past decade, Concurrent Techologies Corp., a defense-research firm that employs 800 people, got hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to Murtha despite poor reviews by Pentagon auditors.Let's summarize this. If you hire a Murtha crony as your lobbyist and if you move into Murtha's district and if you hire Murtha's political allies to do-nothing jobs while they're waiting for their Pentagon appointment to be approved, you're rewarded with millions of dollars of no-bid contracts, aka earmarks, aka corruption's currency. the bonus is that, if you follow these 'semi-federal guidelines', your corporation attains tax exempt status so your corporation won't pay taxes on its 'profits'.
That's a can't lose proposition if I've ever heard it. I wouldn't want to be a welfare recipient when I can be a charity case. I just need to hire one of John Murtha's cronies.
Posted Monday, November 5, 2007 8:31 PM
No comments.
What An Embattled Mayor Sounds Like
If you've never heard what an embattled mayor sounds like, here's a perfect example :
The city council has been working the last seven months on an assessment policy for the city of Rockville. Trough this process we have started the assessments on two road projects without much public support. The council has looked at many options for trying to fund our roads for necessary repairs and this current assessment seems to be the most reasonable solution. I know this frustrates many residents and I encourage you to contact me or the council members to discuss this personally or at the council meetings where it can be addressed.The reason why residents are taking their anxieties out on "the city staff" is because Brian Herberg is proposing massive tax increases. My contact said that Granite's Edge Cafe's assessment bill would be north of $18,000. This contact said that 300 people had signed a petition telling Herberg not to raise their taxes anymore. The bad news for Rockville residents is that Herberg has allied himself with Tarryl Clark in this fight. The good news is that Rockville residents aren't taking Herberg's tax increases sitting down. The latest news I've heard is that they've retained an attorney to fight Herberg in court if he tries pushing his super-sized tax increase.
The last thing I would like to address is to remind residents to please keep in mind that the city staff is following policy and procedure and regulations set by the council. Sometimes these practices may seem to be unfair and residents have taken their frustrations out on the staff. These people are here to help you not work against you and if anyone is concerned or upset about the process and procedures to please contact myself or any council member. If changes are necessary then proper channels will be followed.
Perhaps unwittingly, Herberg used the quarterly newsletter to tell us which side he's on:
One of the things that the council is going to be dealing with this year is the cut in LGA (Local Government Aid) from approximately $62,000 last year to $15,000 this year. Last year I wrote a letter to the constituents explaining the legislative action we were trying to pursue to restore our LGA and we were successful. It was passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate, however, it was vetoed by the governor . This is why our LGA is set at a reduced amount again this year. I am already working with our legislators in this next legislative session in hopes of restoring up to $250,000 of LGA back to the city.That paragraph screams out "It's all Gov. Pawlenty's fault." As regular readers of LFR know, there's a reason why Gov. Pawlenty vetoed the LGA bill :
Capping a regular legislative session defined by his vetoes, Gov. Tim Pawlenty fulfilled a threat and vetoed a tax bill on Wednesday, taking down with it more than $70 million in local government aids and $33 million in direct homeowner property tax relief.Here's the reason:
The main poison pill in this legislation was an 'inflation accelerator' that would've given the DFL a stronger position to raise taxes. It also would've assumed that once something is appropriated, it's always appropriated plus inflation. It essentially eliminates legislative oversight of the budgets.Simply put, the DFL legislature didn't bother with budget oversight. Had Gov. Pawlenty signed the Tax Bill, the DFL legislature wouldn't have ever done oversight. By whining about Gov. Pawlenty's veto of this reckless legislation, Herberg is saying that his LGA check is more important than fiscal discipline, which certainly sounds like a Tarryl ally.
I'd be worried if I were Herberg. His term expires next year and his constituents are emphatically opposed to his excessive tax increases. Forgive me if I don't think that that's a winning recipe for re-election.
Posted Tuesday, November 6, 2007 2:46 AM
No comments.
What Are These Idiots Smoking?
After reading this editorial, I'm convinced that the Fergus Falls Journal's editorial board must either be using some expensive drugs or they think we are. Here's what I'm basing my opinion on:
Minnesota does not require photo identification of voters, despite some attempts by state lawmakers to change that practice. Ellison's bill would force all states to conform to that practice, on the theory that requiring photo identification tends to discriminate against the poor, the elderly and minorities, those who are least likely to have a driver's license or passport with their photograph.As I wrote here , banning photo ID's for federal elections isn't practical. Here's a portion of Minnesota's election law that the editorialists didn't consider:
200.031 DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE.I'd dare these editorialists to explain how election officials should determine a voter's residence without a photo ID. These editorialists hear the phrase poll tax and immediately agree that we can't tolerate that type of racism.
Residence shall be determined in accordance with the following principles, so far as they may be applicable to the facts of the case:
(a) The residence of an individual is in the precinct where the individual's home is located, from which the individual has no present intention of moving, and to which, whenever the individual is absent, the individual intends to return;
(b) An individual does not lose residence if the individual leaves home to live temporarily in another state or precinct;
c) An individual does not acquire a residence in any precinct of this state if the individual is living there only temporarily, without the intention of making that precinct home;
(d) If an individual goes into another state or precinct with the intention of making it home or files an affidavit of residence there for election purposes, the individual loses residence in the former precinct; (e) If an individual moves to another state with the intention of living there for an indefinite period, the individual loses residence in this state , notwithstanding any intention to return at some indefinite future time;
(f) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an individual's residence is located in the precinct where the individual's family lives, unless the individual's family is living in that precinct only temporarily;
Unfortunately, they didn't think things through thoroughly enough. If they had, they would've realized that it's just as dangerous, if not moreso, for there to be no safeguard against voter fraud. Here's how gullible the editorialists are:
If there was any real evidence of systematic, widespread voter fraud at the polls, then there might be a need for photo identification.
"If there's any real evidence"??? What do they think this is :
But the most interesting news came out of Seattle, where on Thursday local prosecutors indicted seven workers for Acorn, a union-backed activist group that last year registered more than 540,000 low-income and minority voters nationwide and deployed more than 4,000 get-out-the-vote workers. The Acorn defendants stand accused of submitting phony forms in what Secretary of State Sam Reed says is the "worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history" of the state.Does the Fergus Falls editorial staff think that that doesn't constitute proof? God help us if they don't think that that's proof.
The list of "voters" registered in Washington state included former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, New York Times columnists Frank Rich and Tom Friedman, actress Katie Holmes and nonexistent people with nonsensical names such as Stormi Bays and Fruto Boy. The addresses used for the fake names were local homeless shelters.
There's another fatal flaw with Ellison's legislation. The last time I looked, there hasn't been a midterm or presidential election where state legislatures weren't elected. I didn't look but I'm betting that numerous states require photo ID's to vote for state legislatures. The Tenth Amendment says that the federal government can't tell states how they elect their legislatures because the Constitution doesn't claim to regulate state elections. The Constitution clearly states the methods to be used in federal elections but it doesn't say how states elect their legislatures.
Since they don't explain how states elect their legislatures, that's left to the states. Any attempt to tell them now how they elect their governor, attorney general, state auditor, etc., couldn't be sanctioned by a court adhering to the Tenth Amendment.
That begs this confounding question: How can you ban photo ID's for federal elections when those races are held at the same places where state and municipal races are being held? The honest answer is that it can't effectively be done.
Finally, these questions are eliminated if the photo ID's are given to financially-challenged individuals.
Posted Tuesday, November 6, 2007 4:41 AM
No comments.
Tommie the Commie's Deceit Showing
I don't know how I missed this diatribe from 'Tommie the Commie' Rukavina. I'll try to rectify that situation here. Here's the quote I'm talking about:
"From the very beginning, Gov. Pawlenty and his administration has been less than honest about the circumstances leading to the collapse of the 35W bridge. He has further blocked all efforts to address the lack of transportation funding in this state. He is ignoring the rapid decline of the Minnesota economy. He needs to be held accountable for his misrepresentations of the condition of the bridge, his unwillingness to correct prior mistakes and his failure to lead Minnesota back to the economic juggernaut it was under the leadership of Gov. Perpich."Before he spewed that bunch of misinformation, he had the audacity to say this:
The always-colorful Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, delivered even harsher words after Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, wrote a column blaming Democrats for transportation problems.We ought to excuse Mr. Rukavina. He's obviously suffering from DFL ITF Syndrome. For those who don't have a political medical license, the only symptom of ITF Syndrome is Ignoring The Facts, hence the acronum. Here's the information that Rep. Rukavina is ignoring:
"Rep. Emmer, you may not be a liar, but you aren't telling the truth," Rukavina replied.
Rukavina says: "Gov. Pawlenty and his administration has been less than honest about the circumstances leading to the collapse of the 35W bridge."
What Rukavina is ignoring: The NTSB hasn't finished their investigation on the I-35W bridge collapse. Neither has MnDOT.
Questions for Rep. Rukavina: (a) How can Gov. Pawlenty be "less than honest about" why the bridge collapsed when we don't knwo what caused the bridge collapse? (b) Why are you stating your opinion as though it's irrefutable, verified fact? (c) Isn't your long-winded quote really part of the DFL spin campaign?
Rukavina says: He has further blocked all efforts to address the lack of transportation funding in this state.
What Rep. Rukavina is ignoring: Gov. Pawlenty offered a plan to increase spending on roads last year. Rep. Ruckavina isn't talking about how the DFL-dominated legislature utterly ignored Gov. Pawlenty's proposal because Gov. Pawlenty's proposal didn't include the litany of tax increase that Steve Murphy's legislation did. Rep. Rukavina is also ignoring the fact that Gov. Pawlenty said everything is on the table in terms of repairing the roads and rebuilding the I-35W bridge, including a gas tax increase.
Questions for Rep. Rukavina: (a) Why did the DFL leadership ignore Gov. Pawlenty's transportation proposal during the regular session? (b) Why did the DFL leadership reject Gov. Pawlenty's reasonable proposals for the special session? (c) Did the DFL ignore Gov. Pawlenty's transportation proposals because they needed the money to pay off their political allies at MnDOT?
Rukavina says: He is ignoring the rapid decline of the Minnesota economy.
What Rep. Rukavina is ignoring: Minnesota's economy isn't in "rapid decline." King tells me that Minnesota's economy is moving toward a recession but that hardly means that Gov. Pawlenty isn't paying attention to the economy. The other thing Rep. Rukavina is ignoring is the effect $5.5 billion worth of DFL tax increases would've had on Minnesota's economy, both long- and short-term. It would've sent Minnesota's economy into a deep recession almost immediately. Their tax increases would've driven businesses from Minnesota for the long-term, too.
Questions for Rep. Rukavina: (a) What irrefutable proof do you have that Gov. Pawlenty is doing nothing while Minnesota's economy is crashing? (b) Why don't you think that taking billions of dollars out of small businesses' and average working people's pockets will cause a deep, protracted recession?
Rukavina says: He needs to be held accountable for his misrepresentations of the condition of the bridge, his unwillingness to correct prior mistakes and his failure to lead Minnesota back to the economic juggernaut it was under the leadership of Gov. Perpich."
What Rep. Rukavina is ignoring: Rep. Rukavina continues with his assault on Gov. Pawlenty but ignores the negative effect LRT funding has had on road and bridge repair. Rep. Rukavina is also turning a blind eye to the negative effect Jim Oberstar's earmarks for bike trails and interpretive centers have had on road and bridge repair.
Rep. Rukavina is also ignoring the fact that Minnesota's economy wasn't an economic juggernaut under Gov. Perpich's leadership. We had some good years. We had some recessions. I can't say the Perpich years were awful but I can't say they were stellar, either.
Questions for Rep. Rukavina: (a) Are you ignoring the negative effect that LRT is having because that's the DFL's pet project? (b) Why are you mischaracterizing the Perpich administration's economic record? (c) If his handling of the economy was so stellar, why is he the only governor in Minnesota history to be defeated twice?
Rukavina says: "Rep. Emmer, you may not be a liar, but you aren't telling the truth."
Gary Says: "Rep. Rukavina, you aren't a liar but you aren't being factually accurate, either."
That's what happens when you're this badly afflicted with ITF Syndrome. Let's pray that Rep. Rukavina is cured of this affliction soon, preferably before the next legislative session.
Posted Tuesday, November 6, 2007 1:08 PM
Comment 1 by Dog training at 25-Nov-07 12:52 PM
Very interesting... as always! Cheers from -Switzerland-.
Hillary: "I've Been Very Clear On Where I Stand"
Yes, that's an accurate quote. That's Hillary's quote from an interview she did with CNN's Candy Crowley. Here's that statement in context:
"I wasn't at my best the other night," Clinton told CNN's Candy Crowley. "We've had a bunch of debates and I wouldn't rank that up in my very top list. But I've answered probably, I don't know, more than 5,000 questions over the last 10 months and I have been very clear about where I stand and what I want to do for the country."Suffice it to say that Dick Morris doesn't agree with Hillary on her being clear about where she stands:
Every time she approaches a microphone, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton labors under the necessity of fudging on her program, offering, instead, an artificial personality and a variety of poll-tested bromides that let her duck key issues.If there's anything that I won't believe about Hillary, it's that she's the re-incarnation of John McCain's Straight Talk Express. That's utterly laughable. The Clintons turned parsing sentences into an art form. Does anyone seriously think that the woman who manned the "Bimbo Eruptions" desk in the Clinton War room, then said that Monicagate was "part of a vast Right Wing conspiracy" is capable of being "very clear" on what she believes?
The resulting circumlocutions were evident in Tuesday night's Democratic debate. Her plans for Social Security? Clearly, she thinks she may need to raise Social Security taxes - but she can't say so. Instead, she repeats the poll-tested mantra of "fiscal responsibility" and a "bipartisan commission."
By "fiscal responsibility," she means ending Treasury borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, a policy already in place. By a "bipartisan commission," she means sharing the blame for unpopular policies with Republicans to minimize the deadly electoral impact. But she can't explain any of that, so she just repeats the mantra.
If Hillary's been very clear on where she stands, why didn't Hillary give a straight answer on whether she supports giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants? That's a straightforward question. It's an answer that Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson would answer in their sleep.
In the wide-ranging interview exactly a year before the election, Clinton continued to hold back from offering full-fledged support for a plan offering illegal immigrants driver's licenses, saying it's a question that doesn't allow a candidate to answer simply by "raising their hand."That's typical Hillary. If someone tries getting a straight answer from Hillary about the most important issues in a generation, she goes into evasive mode. She acts like it's a difficult moral question that's painted in shade of gray. This isn't difficult. It's extremely straightforward.
"It depends upon what state they're in, it depends upon what [governors] think the risks are," Clinton said. "The governor of New York has a lot of immigrants, many of whom we know are not their legally; [he] has to worry about security. A governor of another state where that's not a problem doesn't.
"This issue has been so politicized," Clinton continued, "and I understand that, because you can score points, you can score all kinds of political, demagogic points."
Furthermore, when she says that "it's a question that doesn't allow a candidate to answer simply by 'raising their hand'", she's exactly wrong. Of all the possible questions she could've been asked, this is the most tailor-made for a straight yes or no answer. There isn't much nuance to this. Either she's for maintaining America's sovereignty or she doesn't care about maintaining America's sovereignty.
Another telltale sign that she's being evasive is her saying that "you can score all kinds of political, demagogic points." That's Hillary's way of telling candidates (a)that she's demagoging this issue and (b) how she'll defend herself when they exploit her weakness.
The thing to notice is that she's still taking the same evasive actions that she did during last Tuesday's debate.
It's another perfect example of Hillary refusing to board the Straight Talk Express.
Posted Tuesday, November 6, 2007 8:34 PM
No comments.
