November 7-8, 2007
Nov 07 00:10 House Sends Cheney Impeachment to Judiciary Committee Nov 07 09:52 SR-R, St. Cloud Levies Fail Nov 07 10:55 Law & Order Troubles for Democrats? Nov 07 20:07 Sarkozy Enthusiastically Embraces United States Nov 08 01:40 Talking Impeachment Nov 08 15:06 Democrats Are Spineless Nov 08 19:22 Repetition Without Reason
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006
House Sends Cheney Impeachment to Judiciary Committee
In a stunning development, House Republicans forced a vote on Dennis Kucinich's privileged resolution calling for Dick Cheney's impeachment . Reluctantly, liberal Democrats voted, by 218-194 margin, to send the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. Follow this link to see how your representative voted.
This is the Democrats' worst nightmare. With this vote, the Nutter base of the Democratic Party will demand action. In fact, they'll demand the House Judiciary Committee to pass articles of impeachment against Cheney. This will be the lead story the rest of this week. This isn't likely to go away anytime soon, with the distinct possibility of it rambling on after the parties' nominees are picked.
Here in Minnesota, Reps. Ellison, Peterson and Walz voted for sending this to the House Judiciary Committee. I suspect that that vote will make Tim Walz's re-election campaign a very bumpy affair. He ran as a independent voice. He's voted like Nancy Pelosi's puppet.
Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich expressed satisfaction Tuesday with a series of procedural twists on the House floor that resulted in the Ohio congressman's impeachment articles against Vice President Dick Cheney being sent for committee review.The information in those paragraphs should scare the daylights out of Ms. Pelosi. Unfortunately for Ms. Pelosi, that isn't the worst news. This is:
A series of strategic maneuvers on both sides of the partisan aisle ended with a 218-194 vote along party lines to deliver the impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, the panel of jurisdiction for such matters.
Kucinich savored the victory, saying that Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers had reassured him and backers of the resolution "that he would in fact launch an impeachment inquiry." But Conyers told FOX News that he would announce his decision on Wednesday after speaking with House Democratic leaders.Anytime that Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers are the public face of the Democratic Party, it's a bad day for Democrats. What's worse is that this puts Ms. Pelosi in an awful place with the DailyKos/MoveOn.org bunch and moderates. If she orders Rep. Conyers not to pursue impeachment, she'll alienate the Nutroots, thereby drying up their campaign contributions. If she supports impeachment hearings, she'll imperil every moderate, regardless of whether they voted for impeachment hearings or not.
Ms. Pelosi's 'bodyguards' are already surfacing:
High-ranking Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings, who was himself impeached while a judge in Florida, said he was not happy with Kucinich's attempts to raise the matter on the floor in an attempt to circumvent the normal legislative process. Kucinich "is on a quest of his own. He sees flying saucers and he acts like one," Hastings said.Ms. Pelosi's spokesman is upset about the Republicans' maneuvering:
Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami called the two-hour debate "absurd." "It would have been one 20 minute vote to dispose of the motion, but instead Republicans switched their votes and forced the House to take two additional votes. They wasted the American peoples time and, honestly, these comments from the White House are just laughable," Elshami said.What's laughable is Pelosi's spokesman talking about Republicans wasting the House's time. What's laughable is Pelosi's spokesman ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the Democratic Party wouldn't take Pelosi's no for an answer.
Pelosi tried burying Kucinich's privileged resolution but the Out of Iraq Caucus wouldn't accept Pelosi's edict. Tonight's vote essentially says that Ms. Pelosi isn't the House's leader. She's simply a powerless figurehead. Don't think that the Democratic caucus didn't notice.
Vice President Cheney's office, along with the White House, criticized the House leadership:
Conversely, Cheney's office and the White House blasted Democrats for bringing up the issue at all.I think it's time to ask a new set of questions during a poll. Here's how I'd word the questions:
"It is one thing for Congressman Kucinich to use this political ploy in his presidential campaign. It is another thing to do so on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Democrat-led Congress still has not sent the president a single appropriations bill. It's time to do so, our troops are waiting," Cheney spokeswoman Megan Mitchell said.
"This Congress has not sent a single appropriations bill to the presidents desk this year ... yet, they find time to spend an entire work period on futile votes to impeach the vice president or to pass contempt citations against the president's chief of staff and former counsel," said White House press secretary Dana Perino, referring to House efforts to issue citations to former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers for failing to respond to subpoenas.
"It is this behavior that leaves the American people shaking their head in wonder at this Congress," Perino said.
- The Democrats formally took control of the House and Senate in January, 2007. Since that time, they haven't sent President any of the 13 appropriations bills funding the government for FY 2008. Based on this information, has the Democratic leadership spent their time productively?
- Has the Democrats' legislative agenda improved your life?
- Other than increasing the minimum wage, what is the Democrats' greatest achievement?
What's stunning to me is that Collin Peterson voted for impeaching Vice President Cheney. Rep. Peterson has tried maintaining an image of a moderate. He's a charter member of the Blue Dog Democrats. Tonight, that facade was ripped away. Tonight, Collin Peterson showed himself to be out of touch with his constituents.
When I told Leo that Peterson had voted for sending Kucinich's motion to the Judiciary Committee, there was stunned silence on both ends of the line for almost a minute. Leo said that he wasn't surprised by Ellison and Walz voting that way but that he was surprised to hear about Peterson's vote. I said that I wholeheartedly agreed with him.
Today's vote has put Pelosi's speakership in danger. It's clear that the American people aren't calling for Cheney's impeachment. Kucinich hasn't noticed that only the Nutroots are calling for Cheney's impeachment. By forcing this vote, Kucinich has forced Democrats to take the 25 side of a 75-25 issue. That's definitely not where Ms. Pelosi wants to be.
That'll frequently happen if you align yourselves with fringe bombthrower. That's exactly what Pelosi did. Don't be surprised if, next November, she'll pay the price for her association with her speakership.
Posted Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:19 AM
No comments.
SR-R, St. Cloud Levies Fail
The DFL & Education Minnesota were dealt stunning defeats Tuesday night when St. Cloud voters said no to two levy questions . Elsewhere, voters denied SR-R schools a $2.8 million levy over 10 years.
Of the 3 local school districts, Rocori's issue was the only levy approved. SR-R Superintendent Greg Vandal was despondent after the vote:
Sauk Rapids-Rice Superintendent Greg Vandal said two factors were difficult to overcome. Voters told him they were not ready for increased taxes and they felt that the financial difficulties of the schools should be fixed at the state level.Notice how Mr. Vandal talks about "losses to programs & services." Notice, too, that he doesn't say anything about the students getting a lower quality education, though. That's likely because he thinks that more money means a higher quality education, something that isn't supported by the facts.
"We will have to balance our budget. We are going to have to go into the programs and services we offer children. There will be losses to programs and services," Vandal said.
It's worth noting the trend operating here. Mr. Vandal hit it right on the head when he told of voters saying that "they were not ready for increased taxes." That should be something that every DFL activist should cringe.
Those weren't the only defeats the DFL & Education Minnesota suffered tonight:
- Sauk Centre voters said no to a $300,000 levy to maintain programs by a 898-580 vote margin & to a $110,000 levy for all day kindergarten. That vote was 1,055-506.
- Albany's $1.2 million, 10 year levy to increase staff failed 1,245-1,154.
- Princeton defeated three proposals totalling $55 million.
People are sick & tired of the DFL's tax increases, whether they're gas taxes & wheelage fees to pay for road & bridge repair & the Northstar line or whether it's higher proprerty taxes to pay off their Education Minnesota allies.
Last night, voters sent the DFL a message that they won't tolerate an unending parade of tax increase proposals. Last night, they said that they wouldn't be treated like the DFL's ATM machine anymore.
Most importantly, the voters told Tarryl that they disagreed with her quote from the League of Women Voters' Education Forum:
"I've studied everything thoroughly and there simply isn't any place to cut. We just need more revenue in the system."Voters studied their financial needs & said that they needed the money. The voters said that their needs took priority over the schools' requests.
UPDATE: Follow this link to read all about how the various schoolboard elections and levies fared in Central Minnesota.
Posted Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:46 PM
No comments.
Law & Order Troubles for Democrats?
According to this article , Democrats have a big law enforcement problem stemming from their position on illegal immigration.
Last week there was a feverish debate following Hillary Clinton's rhetorical acrobatics over proposals to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Yet it's the uniform backing of this policy by the leading Democratic presidential candidates that may prove more foreboding for liberals in the general election.This isn't good news for Democrats. I wouldn't be surprised if illegal immigration is the defining issue in 2008. I'd be shocked if it wasn't a stiff wind behind the GOP's back. Here's why I think that:
The rising American discontent with illegal immigration has the potential to sever Democrats from the majority of voters, especially those in the working and middle class, like no issue has in four decades.
1. People are getting sick of the additional expenses illegal immigrants force on working families. These additional expenses range from higher property taxes to school children of illegal immigrants to higher health insurance and health care costs to 'pay for' illegal immigrants' ER visits.
2. People have read enough articles about illegal immigrants committing violent crimes against American citizens. They're saying enough with their violence.
3. People think that not enforcing the border is how the next group of terrorists will get into the country.
4. They simply want our government and our law enforcement officials to do their job. They don't care why they aren't enforcing the borders; they're simply demanding that they start immediately.
Conventional wisdom has it that Republicans will slip into permanent minority party status if they fail to woo Hispanics, which critics suggest means softening the party's traditional hard-line stance on immigration. That could very well happen in three decades, as demographic trends continue to slip away from the GOP.That last paragraph constitutes a 'bridge-too-far' scenario for Democrats. The only time that Democrats were seen as tough on crime since the Chicago riots was when Bill Clinton passed the Brady Bill and the 100,000 cops on the street program. Those things are distant memories to voters now.
But Democrats have more to lose in the short term over the immigration issue. After all, the vast majority of blacks (76 percent) and whites (86 percent) oppose issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, an October CNN/Opinion Research poll found.
And when a recent Gallup Poll asked Americans what the "top priorities" of the president and Congress should be, combating illegal immigration was topped only by dealing with the war in Iraq.
The real problem for Democrats, however, is that the very voters they need to win back are most concerned over immigration.
The voters that worried about gun violence then worry about toothless borders now. As I've said before, immigration is a potentially explosive issue because you can't triangulate on it. That's what got Hillary in such deep trouble. Yesterday, Hillary was evasive again :
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."Hillary's evasiveness is getting her in trouble with most voters. As Leo points out here , finessing this issue isn't smart politically; 77 percent of voters oppose giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
"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."
It's really pretty simple. Either you're for maintaining America's sovereignty or you aren't.
Even Chris Matthews figured that out . I'd doubt if Hillary will learn that lesson, too.
Posted Wednesday, November 7, 2007 10:57 AM
No comments.
Sarkozy Enthusiastically Embraces United States
President Nicolas Sarkozy's stirring speech is the ultimate refutation of the Democrats' mantra about needing to elect Democrats so Americans can be respected in the world again. Here's an example of Sarkozy's enthusiastic endorsement of America:
Friends may have differences; they may have disagreements; they may have disputes.That isn't the sound of a foreign leader dissing the United States. That's the sound of an unabashed friend of the United States. Nicolas Sarkozy isn't as steadfast an ally of George Bush's as Tony Blair was but it's close. President Sarkozy's mentions of sharing the same ideals, principles and values speaks volumes to his indifference to Jacques Chirac's elitism.
But in times of difficulty, in times of hardship, friends stand together, side by side; they support each other; and help one another.
In times of difficulty, in times of hardship, America and France have always stood side by side, supported one another, helped one another, fought for each other's freedom.
The United States and France remain true to the memory of their common history, true to the blood spilled by their children in common battles. But they are not true merely to the memory of what they accomplished together in the past. They remain true, first and foremost, to the same ideal, the same principles, the same values that have always united them.
From the very beginning, the American dream meant proving to all mankind that freedom, justice, human rights and democracy were no utopia but were rather the most realistic policy there is and the most likely to improve the fate of each and every person.It's obvious that President Sarkozy isn't just an admirer of America's accomplishments. President Sarkozy understands the essence of America's brilliance. He's unapologetic and effusive in his praise of the United States, too.
America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who--with their hands, their intelligence and their heart--built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.
In my opinion, here's President Sarkozy's finest, most stirring, tribute to the United States:
What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope forThese aren't the polite words of a politician visiting a lukewarm ally. They're the words of a man who admires the character of the United States, who appreciates the sacrifices of American soldiers and who has the heart of a true American patriot.
all mankind.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The men and women of my generation heard their grandparents talk about how in 1917, America saved France at a time when it had reached the final limits of its strength, which it had exhausted in the most absurd and bloodiest of wars.
The men and women of my generation heard their parents talk about how in 1944, America returned to free Europe from the horrifying tyranny that threatened to enslave it.
Fathers took their sons to see the vast cemeteries where, under thousands of white crosses so far from home, thousands of young American soldiers lay who had fallen not to defend their own freedom but the freedom of all others, not to defend their own families, their own homeland, but to defend humanity as a whole.
Fathers took their sons to the beaches where the young men of America had so heroically landed. They read them the admirable letters of farewell that those 20-year-old soldiers had written to their families before the battle to tell them: "We don't consider ourselves heroes. We want this war to be over. But however much dread we may feel, you can count on us." Before they landed, Eisenhower told them: "The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you."
And as they listened to their fathers, watched movies, read history books and the letters of soldiers who died on the beaches of Normandy and Provence, as they visited the cemeteries where the star-spangled banner flies, the children of my generation understood that these young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children.
I strongly encourage everyone to read President Sarkozy's entire speech. You'll be glad you did.
Posted Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:08 PM
Comment 1 by madmatt at 08-Nov-07 10:12 AM
Thats great...too bad we are not at war with France...unfortunately I don't see many Iraqi's...or actual Frenchmen repeating his words. It is called diplomacy...something you have proven to be less than knowledgable about.
By the way, what about his evil socialized medicine?
Comment 2 by Fred at 08-Nov-07 10:21 AM
This is the sound of a lap dog, or someone that will say whatever they think the person in front of them wants to hear. Boy do you wax hot and cold. One word of scolding and you go off the deep end trashing France, one kind word and suddenly they are your best friend. How do you spell 'unstable'?
Comment 3 by Paul at 08-Nov-07 01:47 PM
I can't wait until Sarkozy's monthly payments from the PNAC lapse, and he does something in the interest of his own citizens, at which point this "true American patriot" will become Public Enemy #1 in your eyes. I'll bookmark this page for when this inevitably occurs.
Comment 4 by Rand at 08-Nov-07 02:25 PM
Yeah, we don't need to elect a President who can get us respect, we just need every other country to shift to the right to be closer to us.
Comment 5 by psmarc93 at 08-Nov-07 02:29 PM
Well, Bush "looked into Putin's soul" and trusted him, and now he's selling materials to Iran. Bush calls Mushareff our greatest ally -- but he hasn't done squat to get Bin Laden and now has demolished democracy (all for only $10 of our dollars!). Bush and his adoring fans seem easily flattered into submission. Here's an idea: think. Check their records, history, past behavior is the best indicator of future action. Stop "looking into souls" and going weak in the knees with compliments. Why are conservatives so gullible?
Comment 6 by psmarc93 at 08-Nov-07 02:30 PM
Sorry... meant "only $10 BILLION of our dollars."
Comment 7 by Susan at 08-Nov-07 04:08 PM
"Patriot" means someone who loves his own country. If Sarkozy has the soul of a true American patriot, perhaps it means that he's about to emigrate and apply for American citizenship, for which I wouldn't blame him, considering that his popularity in France is about as impressive as Bush's poll ratings here. And why should he be popular, when he makes nice with the President who not only ignored France's wise advice about starting an unprovoked war, but heaped adolescent insults and nastiness on them? The man who threw a tantrum at an American reporter for addressing a question to Sarkozy's predecessor in French -- when he was IN FRANCE?
Comment 8 by john Ryan at 09-Nov-07 12:13 AM
The French know that the Democrats are going to win the White House in 2008
Comment 9 by jugger at 10-Nov-07 11:32 AM
It's unfortunate the the citizens of France are not mirroring his sentiments, he's just saying what he thinks and not speaking for the country itself...take a quick peruse of French news, his statements have been widely panned
Comment 10 by jugger at 10-Nov-07 11:36 AM
oh, your tagline is a nice rip-off from that left of center doc about the CIA sponsored coupe of Chavez - "This Revolution will not be Televised".
Comment 11 by john Ryan at 10-Nov-07 11:45 PM
do you think he knows that the Democrats are going to win the White House and gain even more in Congress
Comment 12 by chip hosek at 16-Nov-07 08:57 PM
I am 51 years old. I have been outraged by the comments our own "leaders" have made over the past 15 years. These comments are made by Americans about Americans. The snivling liberals of this country should wake up and see just how wonderful our nation really is. They spend so much of their time blaming the USA of all that is wrong in the world that they don't make the time or even care to explore all that is good. I beleive America is the greatest nation and would hope the elected officials we put into office would stop pointing the finger at our own brothers and sisters for all the world's troubles. Maybe I am too American? Is that even possible? Patriotism, a forgotten word in todays liberal think tank. I thank the President of France for his courage to stand up for the American way of life when so many "Americans" are ashamed of their own brothers and sisters for nothing more than political posturing.
Talking Impeachment
According to this article , Jennifer Umolac of ImpeachforPeace.org had a lengthy conversation with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Rep. Maxine Waters and Rep. Keith Ellison on the subject of impeachment. Suffice it to say that there's alot of activity boiling beneath the surface on this subject despite Nancy Pelosi's objections to it:
Unlike during his visit to Minneapolis, Rep. Conyers did not mention the matter of "time" as one of the factors against bringing forward H. Res 333. His most prominent rationale for not bringing forward the resolution was that he felt there wouldn't be support for the measure and subsequently that it wouldn't go anywhere. He spoke about all of the freshman Congresspeople who were elected in Red States and how they were unlikely to come out in favor of impeachment. He then stated that if he weren't in his position, he would be "one of you...lobbying for impeachment." I implored him to be one of us IN his position and to lobby his fellow Representatives in support of H. Res 333.TRANSLATION: Rep. Conyers doesn't want to follow through on his impeachment promises because he doesn't want to put the Democrats' majority in jeopardy. In fact, he essentially admits that freshman Democrats that got elected in red states would lose their seats if they brought impeachment forward.
Ms. Umolac wouldn't be detered:
I also mentioned to him that I had a conversation with a Minnesota Representative, Tim Walz, who was in exactly that position, representing a traditionally conservative area that had narrowly elected him. In our conversation on impeachment, Rep. Walz had stated that though he wouldn't sign on to H. Res 333, he would support articles of impeachment should they come to the floor. I suggested that this might be a far more widespread stance than he would expect.That pretty much trashes Rep. Walz's campaign promise that he'd be "an independent voice for Southern Minnesota." The truth of the matter is that he's a liberal extremist with an extremist's voting record.
When I expressed dismay with Speaker Pelosi's leadership and asserted that, in my opinion, she had castrated the Democratic party by taking impeachment off the table, Congressman Conyers said "well, maybe we should get new leadership." As we were leaving the meeting room, on our way to a filming for BET, we were again discussing bringing forward H Res 333 and the Congressman turned to me and said, "I really want you to convince me to do this."WHOA!!! "Maybe we should get new leadership"??? This isn't coming from some freshman nobody. That's coming from a man who's considered one of Ms. Pelosi's strongest allies. This ties into the storyline that there's alot of complaining because Ms. Pelosi is riding herd on her committee chairs. Awhile back, I read a quote from an anonymous congressman who said that "The only thing real about Nancy Pelosi is her meanness." That certainly seems to fit into this.
If that quote is accurate, then I'm inclined to believe that there's widespread dissatisfaction with Ms. Pelosi, whether it's coming from Rep. Conyers or impeachment activists. With this much animosity flowing towards her, I'd suspect that Ms. Pelosi sits with her back against the wall so she can't be stabbed in the back politically.
This explains why the 110th Congress has gotten so little done. They've dealt with impeachment activists. When they weren't dealing with impeachment activists, they've dealt with anti-war activists demanding they stop the Iraq war. When they haven't been dealing directly with those activists, they've been conducting
I asked Rep. Waters if I could walk with her to her office, and we subsequently spent the next 5 minutes debating the "practicalities" of impeachment. (How impractical to defend the Constitution!) She seemed most moved by the argument that the Democrats are in danger of blowing the 2008 elections if decisive actions aren't taken to show the electorate that the Democratic party is interested in change.I might be mistaken but that sounds alot like a veiled threat to House Democrats to take the impeachment activists seriously or else they'll quickly return to minority status.
Anyone that thinks that impeachment isn't being talked about is kidding themselves. Check out this article :
The Minnesota GOP just had a press release in which they rightly point out Rep. Tim Walz's inconsistency on the impeachment issue. They reference an article published by Impeach for Peace a few days ago revealing one conversation (of two we've had with Rep. Walz) where he has indicated that he would support impeachment if it came to a floor vote . He then failed to support Kucinich's impeachment resolution when it was presented yesterday to the House. Impeach for Peace calls on Walz to respond to this obvious inconsistency and lack of support for the Constitution. Walz took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Cheney needs to be held to account.That isn't the only conversation that Impeach for Peace has had with liberal lawmakiers. Here's some excerpts from Rep. Wexler's letter to his constituents :
I voted against the motion to table debate on H.Res. 333. Along with only 85 other Democrats, I opposed tabling the measure and supported beginning immediate debate and a vote on the Cheney impeachment resolution. The vote on tabling the Kucinich resolution was rejected, and the House subsequently voted to refer the matter to the Judiciary Committee.I can't tell if Rep. Wexler is a true believer or if he's pandering for campaign contributions. When the dust settles, it isn't that important. Either way, he's standing in the way of getting things done for the American people.
The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration...
I hope this information tells GOP activists that there are misguided people out there who think that impeachment is the remedy for solving political disputes. This is a batle we must fight. There isn't an alternative.
People can't really think that having this misguided, disgruntled bunch in charge of the committees is capable of producing meaningful legislation that makes America prosperous and safe. Isn't that reason enough to get these people fired?
Posted Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:42 AM
No comments.
Democrats Are Spineless
That isn't what I'm saying. It's the money line in this commercial running on Air America. Here's a transcript of the advertisement:
Soldier 1: Hey, Sergeant Ralph. You know how Bush says they hate us for our freedom?Calling Betty McCollum spineless isn't a stretch. She's been in the House since 2000, during which time she hasn't exactly noticeable. In fact, about the only time she's noticed is when she's nearing another Election Day.
Ralph: Yeah?
Soldier 1: And you know how we're forced to occupy Iraq and tons of innocent people are dying as a result?
Ralph: Yeah, I noticed that. Why?
Soldier 1: I'm starting to think maybe *that's* the reason they hate us. Also, Cheney and Bush have said they won't send us home as long as they're in office, and Iran may be next. So now I think impeachment may be the only solution.
Ralph: (Frustrated) Yeah, but the Democrats are spineless. My representative, Betty McCollum, won't sign the impeachment resolution currently in Congress.
Other: Yeah, my rep John Kline won't do it, either. But at least we've got people in Minnesota working for us. I was looking at Impeach For Peace dot org, and they're encouraging people to call Congress at 800 828 0498.
Narrator: Accountability *is* possible if we tell our representatives we want impeachment. Representative Kucinich will be forcing a House vote on impeachment before Thanksgiving, so call your representative now. Also visit ImpeachforPeace.org to join the push to have the Minneapolis and St. Paul City Councils pass an impeachment resolution. This ad paid for by your donations at Impeach For Peace dot org.
Ralph: Our buddies could die here, and it's good to know people care enough to act.
This advertisement isn't having an impact. It isn't having an impact because it's running on Air America, which isn't listened to by anyone who's in the political mainstream and it's a poorly written, contrived script. Also, the timing isn't good. In fact, it's almost worthless considering the major improvements that can't be ignored even by the Agenda Media.
It's worthwhile to note that the frustration level in the anti-war movement is rising. They expected results. They didn't work 12 hours a day the last half of the year to get a majority who's with them in rhetoric but not in deed. Whether you agree or disagree with their cause, it isn't difficult to empathize with them. They worked hard and have a do-nothing leadership. Their frustration is starting to show.
This is just more proof that this isn't 2006 anymore .
Posted Thursday, November 8, 2007 3:08 PM
No comments.
Repetition Without Reason
That's the phrase that stuck out in reading Marty Seifert's statement on the DFL's beneath-the-radar attempt to turn Minnesota's legislature into a fulltime machine. Here's the money section of Rep. Seifert's statement:
"The explosive growth of government shows what happens when Democrats take over," said House Republican Leader Marty Seifert. "The complicated and bloatedDemocrats have attempted creating a fulltime legislature without telling Minnesotans that that's their intent. They dramatically increased the number of committees and subcommittees at the start of the 2007 session so that almost anyone who wanted a chairmanship got one. During the legislative session, they created one commission after another. Now those commissions are meeting on a regular basis. Theoretically, their mission is to put in place legislative proposals for this winter's session.
process is confusing to the public, time consuming and expensive. There is very little to show for the excessive amount of meetings taking place. When all is said and done, there will be a lot more said than done."
Seifert said it is nearly impossible to determine how many groups are working on legislation and how much this process is costing Minnesota taxpayers.
"There seems to be a lot of repetition without reason. We question the necessity of having so many subgroups working on legislation that a standing committee should be able to accomplish on its own and the great number of meetings being held at taxpayer expense to hear about the problems but not bring forward solutions," Seifert said. "The Democrats have turned a part-time citizen legislature into a
full-time job."
I don't think that the average Minnesotan would differentiate between what they're doing now and a fulltime legislature. Essentially, it's a distinction without a difference.
"We have important issues we need to resolve and this process doesn't make me confident that we will achieve those results," Seifert said. "In the private sector, failing businesses are often over managed and under led. The more than 80 House Democrat committees are too busy mopping the floor to take time and turn off the faucet."There's essentially committee chairmanships for each of the 85 Democrats in the Minnesota House of Representatives. What's the likelihood of Speaker Kelliher being able to justify why they have that many committees? I'd say Speaker Kelliher's chances are well south of slim and just barely north of none.
It's quite easy to rationalize all the committees. She wants everyone to have the title of chairman. I'm betting that Speaker Kelliher thinks it sounds more impressive for re-election. To a certain extent, she's right. That said, people have noticed that they didn't pass property tax relief. They didn't help reduce insurance costs. They didn't increase people's prosperity.
Rest assured, the people will notice those things more than they'll notice their representative's fancy title.
Posted Thursday, November 8, 2007 7:22 PM
No comments.
