October 17, 2006 Posts
01:55 Calling Baghdad Bob 04:21 Common Good Unifies Dems 12:14 The Lynne Stewart Injustice 14:04 Gov. Bush Campaigns With Joe Negron 16:50 CREW Files Complaint Against Living Word Christian Center 19:08 Polling vs. Common Sense
Calling Baghdad Bob
The Strib should contact Baghdad Bob after publishing this propaganda piece. I've seen online polling that have been closer to the truth. This isn't scientific polling. It's pure propaganda. Here's what I'm refering to:
DFLer Patty Wetterling leads Republican Michele Bachmann 48 to 40 percent in the hot race for Congress in Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District, according to the latest Star Tribune Minnesota Poll.This propaganda should be used as a motivator for Minnesotans of good will to not let the media influence this November's election. The purpose of this poll isn't to present a snapshot of the race. Purely & simply put, the purpose of this 'poll' is to discourage Christian conservatives from voting , thereby tilting this election in St. Patty's direction. St. Patty knows that she can't win without Christian conservatives staying home in droves.
The dirty little secret is that people of MN-6 have figured out that Patty Wetterling reached her apex as a child safety advocate. They've figured out that she's a political lightweight in over her head. For this poll to be right, we'd have to ignore (a) the unpopularity of her tax increase proposal with small businesses; (b) her nonexistent campaign with the Christian community; (c) her lack of understanding of the terrorist threat & (d) her advocating the pullout of troops from Iraq without victory. We'd also have to ignore her vanishing act every time there's a Chamber of Commerce debate. Don't think that that sits well with small businessmen.
Those who said they know a lot about the Foley story, and those who said that it was affecting their vote favored Wetterling by a significant margin.These are Democrats or left-leaning people. Logical-thinking people know that the Foley fiasco was cleaned up within hours. They're also intelligent enough to compartmentalize, meaning that their votes wouldn't be subject to change.
Negative feelings toward President Bush, opposition to the Iraq war and a belief that the country is on the wrong track all seemed to be hurting Bachmann, even in a district that Bush carried 57 percent to 42 percent in the 2004 election.That's because they're oversampling Democrats. I know numerous Republicans that aren't happy with various Bush administration policies but each is planning on voting for Michele Bachmann. Opposition to the Iraq war is almost exclusively found on the far left. Not even old-fashioned 'JFK liberals' fit into that group.
The poll has a margin of sampling error of 4.5 percentage points.That's if this were a scientific poll, which it isn't.
The possible volatility in the race caused by the Foley story makes the numbers susceptible to two interpretations, said political scientist Lawrence Jacobs of the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute. "This could be a sign of a political tsunami approaching the mainland in which Democrats can win even Republican-friendly districts, or it could be a momentary blip following the Foley scandal," he said. "What's clear is that, depending on how the last weeks of the campaign go, the Republicans now face the possibility of dire results in this election." A smattering of in-depth interviews with poll respondents suggests that many are voting more against than for one of the candidates.It's neither an indication of a tsunami or a blip following a scandal; it's just bad polling. It's also noteworthy that the article said that "many are voting more against than for one of the candidates." This tells me that the Strib cherry-picked the interviews it chose to put into the article because the vast majority of Bachmann supporters know exactly why they're supporting her. I've talked with lots of Republicans & each one has been able to tell me why they're voting for Sen. Bachmann. Not coincidentally, they also told me why they couldn't consider Ms. Wetterling. Suffice it to say that most of Sen. Bachmann's supporters are more policy-driven than events-driven.
As for Larry Jacobs' saying that "What's clear is that, depending on how the last weeks of the campaign go, the Republicans now face the possibility of dire results in this election", that's purely wishful thinking on Mr. Jacobs' behalf. Don't think that Jacobs' Humphrey Institute Poll also showed Amy Klobuchar with a huge lead after the Minnesota Poll showed her with a huge lead is coincidental. They're partisan Democrats hoping to suppress voter turnout. PERIOD.
Anne Dimock, 54, of Afton, a writer and political independent, said, "I'm for Wetterling in large part because I'm against Bachmann." Dimock has followed Bachmann since her 1999 race for school board and views her as "an extreme conservative, even for a Republican...I don't think she really is in favor of public education. I do not trust her. I think she is part of a very conservative right-wing Republican cadre who are evangelical Christians and who want to foist their view of the world on the rest of us."There's no way to prove this but my bet is that Ms. Dimmock hasn't voted for a conservative in her life. At most, I could buy that she's what the Strib would call a moderate Republican & that's only if I'm feeling particularly generous. The truth is that that job description screams FLAMING LIBERAL BUT TOO EMBARASSED TO ADMIT IT.
After a miniscule amount of 'google-digging', my hunch was proven correct. She's a playright supported by an endless parade of NPT's & philanthropic organizations. She's obviously eccentric. One thing's certain: those don't fit into a desciption of your average conservative.
Bachmann campaign manager Andy Parrish said that Bachmann has been "consistently up in the polls, and we feel comfortable with where we're at now."That doesn't sound like a man who's managing a losing campaign, does it? It sounds like someone who's totally comfortable with their lead, doesn't it?
Wetterling campaign manager Corey Day said: "Its pretty obvious that Patty's message of hope, opportunity and promise for Minnesota's families is beating the cynical, extremist positions taken by politician Michele Bachmann."It's insulting that Day says that "Patty's message" is one of "hope, opportunity & promise" while characterizing Sen. Bachmann's positions as extremist. The truth is that Patty Wetterling's positions are extremist. If I were the reporter on this article, I'd ask Mr. Day if "Patty's message of hope, opportunity & promise" shines through most with her "435" ad where she implies that unnamed 'Republicans' tried covering up the Foley fiasco or her "More" ad that 'implies' that Sen. Bachmann wants to raise people's taxes or her "Crimes" ad which says outright that "Congressional leaders have admitted covering-up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the internet to molest children.?"
I don't know about you but I get goosebumps just thinking about the positivity emanating from St. Patty's "message of hope, opportunity and promise" in those commercials.
Posted Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:16 AM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
Common Good Unifies Dems
That's the partial headline of this AP article describing the Democratic Party's mantra this year. It's also a bunch of Barbra Streisand.
"It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community, sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."That's nice spin but it isn't likely to work on the people that it's hoping to appeal to. In fact, most people that hear it would say it sounds like socialism. The truth is that it's another focus-grouped catchphrase that Democrats hope people will warm to. This becomes apparent here:
Mara Vanderslice, a religious outreach director for Kerry's presidential campaign, formed a political consulting firm last year called Common Good Strategies to "help Democrats reframe the national religious debate." The Casey campaign in Pennsylvania is a Vanderslice client.I googled Ms. Vanderslice and here's what I found:
"After graduating, Mara spoke at rallies held by ACT-UP, the anti-Catholic group that disrupted Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1989 by spitting the Eucharist on the floor. In 2000, she practiced civil disobedience when she took to the streets of Seattle in a protest against the World Trade Organization. In 2002, she tried to shut down Washington, DC in a protest against the IMF and the World Bank."What would Pennsylvanians think if they knew that Bob Casey's campaign consultant was part of ACT-UP? ACT-UP is an anti-Catholic organization preaching civil disobedience whose cause is AIDS? What would they think if they knew that Casey's campaign consultant was also a socialist, a pacifist and an anti-war activist? I can't imagine that they'd be thrilled to know that.
Tom Perriello, a co-founder of the Catholic Alliance, said the approach would help end what he sees as a self-defeating practice among liberals, treating religious Americans as a constituency that needs special handling, instead of crafting a message meaningful to all voters.Mr. Perriello is a piece of work, too. As the article states, he's the founder of the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good but before that he worked for an organization known as Res Publica, which "ran as a pilot project in Sierra Leone in 2001-2002." Here's the 5 core principles listed on Res Publica's vision webpage:
1. Common ThingsHere's part of their explanation of Common Things:
2. Global Community
3. Good Government
4. Deliberative Democracy
5. Personal Commitment
We believe that the most precious things we have are our "res publica", the things we have in common, our values, our principles, our community, our freedom, our earth. We are concerned that a rising philosophy that celebrates individual selfishness in the world is undermining our stewardship of these things. We are working for culture change, to revitalize 'the public thing', the thing we share, in our communities, our nations, and our world.Does that sound like socialism to you? If there's any doubt, check the first 2 sentences of their description for Global Community:
Gandhi said "I am a human being first, and a citizen of India second". His beliefs would never allow him to ignore the demands of his humanity for any national political affiliation.After reading that, is there any doubt but that Res Publica is a socialist organization?
I'd further suggest that a vivid picture of socialism emerges when you combine Mara Vanderslice's socialism with Res Publica's socialism. Now let's put the rest of this puzzle together.
Earlier, I mentioned the Center for American Progress. It touts itself as "a nonpartisan research and educational institute" aimed at "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals." What it is is a Soros-funded ultra-liberal organization
Here's what a Discover the Network article says about the Center for American Progress:
The Center for American Progress (CAP) describes itself as "a nonpartisan research and educational institute" aimed at "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals."That's quite a picture we've painted, isn't it? You start with John Halpin, who sounds like a socialist. Then you move to Mara Vanderslice, who sounds like a socialist AND pacifist. Then you finish with CAP, a group started by George Soros, who's a believer in a 'One Government World'. Here's what his OSI bio tells us about Soros:
Robert Dreyfuss reports in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: "The idea for the Center began with discussions in 2002 between [Morton] Halperin and George Soros, the billionaire investor.,Halperin, who heads the office of Soros' Open Society Institute, brought [former Clinton chief of staff John] Podesta into the discussion, and beginning in late 2002 Halperin and Podesta circulated a series of papers to funders."
While a student at LSE, Soros became familiar with the work of the philosopher Karl Popper, who had a profound influence on his thinking and later on his professional and philanthropic activities.It turns out that Karl Popper had some fascinating, though radical, ideas. Here's what I've learned by reading Popper's biography:
Popper challenged some of the ruling orthodoxies of philosophy: logical positivism, Marxism, determinism and linguistic philosophy. He argued that there are no subject matters but only problems and our desire to solve them. He said that scientific theories cannot be verified but only tentatively refuted, and that the best philosophy is about profound problems, not word meanings.In other words, Popper was a believer in relativism. What can we conclude about George Soros through Popper besides his being another relativist? I'd suggest that he's anti-religious and quite possibly a socialist.
Based on all this information, it's impossible to conclude that the people supporting 'the public good' are much interested in America's common good. In fact, I'd suggest that they're anti-American.
Posted Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:23 AM
August 2006 Posts
Comment 1 by neil at 12-May-08 03:53 PM
Be careful with the Popper characterisation. Yes, it is true he believed that theories couldn't be verified and that we could only hold them tentatively. However, he was not a relativist.
In fact in the 1961 addendum to his "The Open Society and it's Enemies Vol. 2" the opening sentence reads as follows: "The main philosophical malady of our time is an intellectual and moral relativism, the latter being at least in part based upon the former."
The Lynne Stewart Injustice
Andy McCarthy is all over the obvious injustice and the underlying injustice in this article:
According to Preston's article, Harris has told the judge that the terrorism counts against Ms. Stewart were "unwarranted overkill." Harris reportedly elaborated that Stewart "didn't have a clue that the stick she was poking in the government's eye was going to have consequences beyond her imagination."
The bottom line is that Jo Ann Harris, the Clinton Justice Department's Criminal Division chief at the time the blind sheikh was indicted, showed the real 'strategy' that the Clinton administration and Democrats advocate in prosecuting the GWOT. It should scare people to think that a Democratic Congress, or a Democratic administration, would prosecute the GWOT in America's courthouses.
In 1999, [Clinton]pardoned 16 members of the FALN terrorist organization which, as Investors Business Daily editorialized last month, "carried out more than 150 bombings in the U.S., including the lunchtime bombing of Fraunces Tavern in New York on Jan. 24, 1975, that killed four." (Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris has indicated that this was done to help then-First Lady Hillary Clinton win the votes of Puerto Ricans in the anticipated New York Senate race.)
On January 20, 2001, moreover, Clinton's very last acts in power included pardons for two convicted Weather Underground terrorists, Susan Rosenberg and Laura Sue Whitehorn.
Lynne Stewart is a figure who straddles the September 10 and September 11 worlds, the divergent Clinton and Bush counterterrorism models. As the lead-up to her sentencing shows, it matters a great deal which model we choose.
This section of McCarthy's article should scare people because Lynne Stewart is just the tip of the iceberg. Here's what Discover the Network said about Stewart:
Stewart is on record supporting terrorism against defenders of "capitalism" and "racism." "I don't believe in anarchist violence but in directed violence," she told the New York Times in 1995. "That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions and accompanied by popular support."
That's the Lynne Stewart that was sentenced to 28 months in prison, which is likely to get appealed. It's even possible that that appeal might result in her getting the sentence zeroed out.
There's nothing comforting coming from this sentence, whether you consider Judge Koeltl's ruling, Jo Ann Harris' running interference in the sentencing of Ms. Stewart or the thought of another Clinton Justice taking pity on a terrorist-enabler or the thought of a Hillary Justice Department.
Rush spent most of his first hour talking about this, too. The most salient point he made about this election was stating that a Democratic Senate wouldn't let a strict constructionist get to the courts. We'd be well advised to remember that when we think about this November's elections.
Originally posted Tuesday, October 17, 2006, revised 20-Sep 5:01 AM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
Gov. Bush Campaigns With Joe Negron
Jeb Bush is campaigning with Joe Negron so that (a) Rep. Foley's seat doesn't go to Tim Mahoney and (b) Nancy Pelosi ascends to House Speaker. This article highlights Joe's and Jeb's campaigning:
Few people in Charlotte County had heard of Negron before Foley resigned over lurid messages he sent to teenage pages, but Republican leaders are pushing hard to educate voters about him and let them know that checking Foley's name on the ballot is really a vote for Negron. "If Joe Negron is not elected, a Democrat you don't know will be, and he'll be part of a majority, possibly, that has Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as it's speaker" Bush said to boos. "This is a huge race."Let me remind you what the difference between a Speaker Pelosi and a Republican as Speaker:
- Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers immediately starts impeachment proceedings or Chairman Sensenbrenner writes the legislation that codifies into law the NSA intercept program.
- Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel writes gigantic tax increases or a Republican Chairman extending the Bush tax cuts.
- Intelligence Committee Chairman Alcee Hastings, convicted as a perjurer and for corruption, playing games with the Intelligence Committee or Peter Hoekstra doing the serious work of reforming the CIA.
Democrat Tim Mahoney was thought to have little chance to win before the Foley scandal, but suddenly is the favorite in the race.TRANSLATION: Tim Mahoney has suddenly become the Media's favorite in the race.
The truth is that Mahoney is toast. The truth is that the district re-elected Foley with a 36 point margin in 2004. The truth is that Negron will win by 15+ points because Tim Mahoney (a) is ultra-short on campaign cash and (b) he led a company that lost $300,000,000 in 2000.
This race is important but it's also more than an uphill climb for Mr. Mahoney.
Posted Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:04 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
CREW Files Complaint Against Living Word Christian Center
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a complaint with the IRS against Living Word Christian Center, according to this press release. Here's the content of their press release:
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today filed an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) complaint against the Living Word Christian Center in Brooklyn Park, Minn., for violating IRS law by openly endorsing State Sen. Michele Bachmann's candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives.Before we get any further along in the process, let's put these facts on the table:
Churches, like Living Word Christian Center, are absolutely prohibited from intervening in elections for any public office. This prohibition is a condition of the very favorable tax benefits public charities receive under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code.
On Oct. 14, Bachmann delivered a campaign stump speech from the Living Word Christian Center's pulpit and the church's pastor, Mac Hammond, openly endorsed her candidacy. Hammond's comments and Bachmann's speech were made during the Living Word Christian Center's weekend services, presented before the entire congregation and broadcast over the Internet. By using church resources to promote the candidacy of Bachmann, the church jeopardized its tax status.
Excerpts from Bachmann's speech and the pastor's endorsement can be found in CREW's complaint at [ CREW's website]. Videos of the speeches are available at YouTube.
Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today, "The IRS has pledged to investigate non-profits that violate the law. So far the IRS has targeted only progressive organizations such as the All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif., the NAACP and Texans for Public Justice.
"This complaint and the clear evidence supporting it should spur the IRS to investigate the Living Word Christian Center and all 501(c)(3) charities that abuse their status, regardless of ideology."
- Melanie Sloan is a former aide to Representative John Conyers and Senator Charles Schumer.
- CREW is funded by George Soros.
It should also be noted that Curt Weldon is accusing Melanie Sloan of calling for the FBI investigation of Weldon's daughter. Here's what Captain Ed said about the matter:
The Congressman, in an appearance at the University of Pennsylvania last night, claimed that an associate of John Conyers and Chuck Schumer had campaigned for this investigation to be opened by the FBI during the election. Melanie Sloan now heads CREW, the same outfit that had its fingers on the infamous Mark Foley instant messages, and Weldon says she's leaked the information on the story to the press.The first thing I thought when I heard about CREW's involvement in the Weldon hit job was "that's what we should expect from such a hyperpartisan." Captain Ed's commentary just re-inforces that impression.
CREW originally filed the complaint in 2004, after a Los Angeles Times article on the murky ownership of Itera and its connections to Solutions North America. Karen Weldon and Charles Sexton run Solutions North America and they registered as lobbyists for the Russian firm in 2002, severing the relationship in 2004. SNA wanted to help Itera pursue federal contracts for gas and oil products. In this they appear to have been unsuccesful; the FedSpending.org database lists no awards to Itera from 2002-2004.
I just found that Melanie Sloan appeared on the Al Franken show this morning. To say that it's filled with lies is understatement.
I checked CREW's history of complaints. While it wasn't an exhaustive search, it's accurate saying that Ron Dellums is the only liberal they've complained about. No mention of Dingy Harry Reid. No mention of John Murtha, who steered millions of dollars to Kit Murtha's company. No mention of William 'Cold Cash' Jefferson. No mention of Claire McCaskill's weekly ethical lapses.
What they've talked about are Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Mark Foley and Ron Dellums. What they've talked about is how Curt Weldon threw his influence around to get his daughter a job paying her $240,000.
That isn't my definition of fair and balanced. I doubt that it's your definition either.
Posted Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:53 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
Polling vs. Common Sense
As LFR's readers know, I've written about being skeptical of polling data several times in the past 2-3 weeks, including here, here, here and here. Just a few minutes ago, I found a press release that solidifies my belief.
Election forecasting models completed by political scientists months before recent events predict significant Democratic gains in the 2006 midterm elections, including a likely 22 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 2 to 3 seats in the U.S. Senate. The predictions appear in two articles coauthored by Carl Klarner and Stan Buchanan (both of Indiana State University) and a third article authored by Alan Abramowitz (Emory University).Forgive me if I think there's more than a hint of subjectivity involved in this poll but what else am I supposed to think when two-thirds of their model is based upon "candidate attributes and national partisan tides" instead of on the most important issues of the day, partisan breakdowns and demographics.
---------------
For their House forecast, made in late April 2006, Klarner and Buchanan considered three factors in examining past elections from 1972 and on: district partisan composition, candidate attributes and national partisan tides.
What makes Mssrs. Klarner and Buchanan experts on which candidate attributes are most appealing? Why do Mssrs. Klarner and Buchanan think that national partisan tides are more important than the hottest issues of the day? Why don't they give substantial weight to demographics?
For their Senate forecast, made on June 30, the authors employed a similar model and data in examining past elections from 1972 and on: a state's partisan composition, candidate attributes and national partisan tides. They weighted these factors based on an analysis of Senate vote results for Democrats in the two most recent elections; average results of the two most recent presidential votes in the state; incumbency; voting records; office-holding experience; national vote intentions; presidential approval; performance of the economy; and the "midterm penalty" for the president's party.As I said earlier, red flags went up when I read about Mssrs. Klarner and Buchanan factoring in "national partisan tides" because it doesn't make sense. Ask yourself when the last time was that you decided on which way you were going to vote by saying "Boy, this is a tough political year for Republicans"? I'd bet that no one's ever factored that in in their decision-making.
I'd further suggest that "the midterm penalty" applied until 2002 and 2004. Historically speaking, the party out of power usually picks up seats in the first midterm of a presidential administration. That didn't happen in 2002. For that matter, President Bush beat the odds when Republicans gained seats in 2004, too. So much for historical precedents being absolute.
Aside from polling, the notion that all is lost for the GOP doesn't take into account their superior GOTV operation and the reliability of our voters to show up rather than stay home because we're upset with the current GOP leadership. Things like GOTV operations, issues and voter reliability are better predictors in winning elections than "midterm penalties", "candidate attributes and national partisan tides" combined.
Something else has been gnawing at me so I'll put it out there right now. The Minnesota Poll shows Patty Wetterling with a lead that's well outside the margin of error, which conservatives know is BS. We know because we'd have to believe that MN-6 voters would vote for a woman who's promised to raise taxes on small businesses, who's dissed faith voters, who's culturally out of step with MN-6 voters and who's told the military that they can't win in Iraq. As I told Andy Aplikowski Sunday night at the Patriot Rally, we'd have to believe that MN-6 voters would have to vote against everything they believe or stay home.
In short, the polls are telling us that our common sense isn't reliable. Frankly, I don't buy that. I'd suspect I'm not alone.
- To those readers from Missouri, does your common sense allow you to believe that Claire McCaskill's lead in the polls hasn't slipped in the wake of weekly scandals surrounding her?
- To those readers from Pennsylvania, does your common sense allow you to believe that Ed Rendell can take a pounding in his debates with Lynn Swann, once in Pittsburgh, the other time in Philadelphia but still have a 15-17 point lead with Pennsylvanians?
- Does your common sense allow you to believe that Bob Casey, as close to a totally empty suit as has ever 'graced' the political landscape, is still leading his race with Rick Santorum?
- To readers from Virginia, does your common sense allow you to believe that George Allen is really only 5 points ahead of a moron like Jim Webb?
When we speak the truth in a coherent, understandable way, conservatism wins every time.
Originally posted Tuesday, October 17, 2006, revised 22-Oct 12:28 AM
August 2006 Posts
Comment 1 by Thomas at 19-Oct-06 01:25 AM
I am impressed with your ability to refute all existing statistical evidence gathered in this election cycle. Bravo in rationalizing away scientific findings with your iron clad "common sense" its also common sense that the world is flat and that the earth is at the center of the universe, would you care to take on all that BS? Do you know what would really help your case? ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL!!
