October 23-25, 2007
Oct 23 02:01 The Mudslinging Begins Oct 23 18:46 DeWeese the Reformer? Oct 23 23:21 House Committee Guts Transparency Legislation Oct 24 00:26 What A Post!!! Oct 24 13:45 What Nightmare? Oct 24 16:05 RINO Oct 24 19:50 Kerrey Isn't Running Oct 25 01:37 When Will Washington Listen? Oct 25 13:53 Reid's Running in 2010
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006
The Mudslinging Begins
It was just a matter of time before the Democrats' partisan attacks began. They needed to do something to take people's attention off of the scandal that they're involved in. Here's their method this time:
Various Republican bigwigs who have worked closely with Republican state legislators alleged to have awarded large, undisclosed staff bonuses donated big sums to Attorney General Tom Corbett's 2004 campaign.Listen to the partisan slant to that opening paragraph. What isn't mentioned is that these "various Republican bigwigs" aren't accused of any wrongdowing. What isn't mentioned is that Tom Corbett isn't accused of taking big campaign contributions from the state legislators he's theoretically supposed to be investigating. It says that people who know these legislators contributed to his campaign.
The revelation comes as Mr. Corbett manages a grand jury investigation into about $3.6 million in bonuses awarded by leaders of both the Republican and Democrat parties in both chambers of the General Assembly.
The Democrats' attack doesn't end there:
Attorney general spokesman Kevin Harley dismissed suggestions by some, particularly Northampton County District Attorney and probable Democrat attorney general candidate John Morganelli, that Mr. Corbett's reported conduct of the investigation and his GOP ties bespeak an "appearance of partisanship."The inference from Mr. Morganelli is that a Democrat wouldn't be partisan, which is absurd. Republicans and Democrats alike are perfectly capable of being partisan. The suggestion that Democrats would be more fair or more ethical isn't supported by any objective or irrefutable fact.
The question shouldn't be about whether a person is capable of being partisan. The question should be about whether the person is capable of following the information wherever it leads.
What's getting lost in this spat is that Democrat staffers saw a 400+ percent increase in their bonuses despite the fact that Patrick Grill took time to do campaign work :
Patrick Grill, also a policy analyst, squeezed in at least 10 trips from Harrisburg to Waynesburg to campaign for Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese.We shouldn't forget that a search warrant was issued for the House Democratic Office of Legislative Research, a search that found some unusual things:
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."I won't start worrying about the lopsided nature of who's getting called into the grand jury proceedings until it's proven that Tom Corbett isn't taking action if tips come in that there's file folders labeled "opposition research", "incumbents protection plan" and "memo on challenger" in the House Republican Office of Legislative Research.
If tips come in that such materiel exists and Mr. Corbett doesn't investigate, then I'll worry that he isn't faithfully fulfilling the responsibilities of his office. Until then, I'll just write this off as a partisan attempt to distract people from a genuine, verifiable scandal.
It's important that I state this clearly. If Republicans committed the same types of corrupt acts, they should be treated just as harshly as the Democrats. No rationalizing. No yeah, buts. Administering justice is the only acceptable behavior.
Posted Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:02 AM
No comments.
DeWeese the Reformer?
Bill DeWeese has an op-ed in this morning's Pittsburgh Trib-Review in which he makes his case that he's now a reformer. Here's some of the reforms that he's either started or supports:
- This month, the Legislature will implement long-awaited changes to the state's Open Records law, including placing the Legislature under those entities that are covered by it.
- There are no votes in the middle of the night, as the House will not conduct business beyond 11 p.m.
- The House Rules Committee, of which I am chairman, will not substantially alter any legislation before it, unlike what had been done during the past 12 years of Republican rule in Harrisburg.
- All legislation will have a 24-hour waiting period before its final passage, allowing greater public input than in the past.
I have been straightforward in proclaiming that I was late to the call for reform. But after the toughest fight of my political career last year, I made a commitment to changing my ways.Here's what he had to do to win re-election:
Patrick Grill, also a policy analyst, squeezed in at least 10 trips from Harrisburg to Waynesburg to campaign for Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese.This information begs two straightforward questions:
Both continued to draw their state salaries while they campaigned, according to records obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Mr. Cott's annual salary is $87,412 and Mr. Grill's is $67,552.
Altogether, at least 45 House Democratic employees campaigned on weekdays last year but never left the state payroll and still received bonuses as a reward for their state work, the records show.
Mr. Cott received a $25,065 bonus and Mr. Grill received $12,685. They were among 717 House Democratic staffers who received taxpayer-fund bonuses worth $1.9 million.
- Why didn't 'reformed' Bill DeWeese care that he was using state employees in his re-election campaign?
- Why didn't 'reformed' Bill DeWeese do the ethical, legal thing when he was fighting for his political life.
Should Bill DeWeese be re-elected, considering all that he's done?
His 'come to Jesus' conversion smacks more of doing the politically expedient thing while the spotlight is on than it is about having a deeply held conviction of doing what's right all the time. Count me as skeptical of Rep. DeWeese's motivation for reform. It's my opinion that people shouldn't trust him until he's re-earned people's trust. Here's part of the Democrats' distraction campaign :
Members of the state House of Representatives will have to attend two hours of ethics training every two years and will receive an ethics handbook as part of the chamber's attempt to improve its public image in the wake of the legislative pay raise controversy and a grand jury probe into legislative bonuses.Real people don't need ethics training, much less every couple of years. Only politicians think that way. This shouldn't be seen as anything more than a CYA gesture.
Rep. Jaret Gibbons, D-10, Ellwood City, said the training should be helpful, especially for freshman lawmakers.It's only important from a political standpoint. Real people know how to act ethically naturally. We don't need training to be ethical.
"I think it's important considering everything that's going on now," he said, referring to the investigation into the bonuses.
Rest assured that this scandal is making Democrats nervous. They saw how politicians were thrown out in 2005 when they tried sneaking a pay raise through in the middle of the night. I don't think Democrats will be in the majority beyond next year if they don't adopt a passion for reform. Call me skeptical on Democrats adopting a true reformist attitude.
Posted Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:47 PM
No comments.
House Committee Guts Transparency Legislation
Last Friday, the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee took up debate on a series of measures aimed at increasing government transparency. According to this editorial , it failed:
As promised, the state House of Representatives took action on a new open-records law last week, with a hearing Wednesday in front of the State Government Committee. With all due respect, the members should have stayed home.It's apparent that this editorialist isn't the only one with this opinion :
The committee approved House Bill 443. In its original intent, this measure would have improved Pennsylvania's weak open-records law. But when the Democratically controlled committee was through with it, House Bill 443 had become a step backwards. Considering that the existing open-records law is among the weakest nationwide, that is a depressing fact.
Both the committee's process and the content of the bill are outrageous. Committee Chair Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, pushed through amendment after amendment, most of which the members were seeing for the first time. Their cumulative effect was to exempt broad categories of state records from being open. When members of the committee pleaded with Rep. Josephs to slow down by either holding more hearings or not reporting the bill to the floor for a quick vote, she refused. Alarmingly, at one point she even said she could not do so because the Democratic leadership (Majority Leader H. William DeWeese, D- Waynesburg) didn't want to. So much for caucus leaders sharing power. One other point about the committee chair: She had the nerve to address a pro-open records rally on Tuesday as a reform leader...and then led the way as the committee rammed through this travesty.
State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fayette), sponsor of a bill to increase public access to government records, still wants the legislation passed after the House State Government committee modified it considerably. House Bill 443 would change Pennsylvania law to presume all government records are public and that only narrow exceptions should be made. Some members of the House State Government Committee and nonprofit groups have said they will oppose the bill because they believe those exceptions have been lamentably widened.Babette Joseph chairs the House State Government Committee that dramatically diminished the transparency provisions of the bill. Here's what she said about moving the bill forward:
Mr. Mahoney's measure, as amended, would establish a Pennsylvania Public Records Office headed by a gubernatorial appointee, a provision critics believe would diminish the independence of an office charged with handling state government record requests. The bill would also allow agencies to withhold information if they consider its disclosure too "burdensome."
In response to the opposition the modified bill has generated, State Government Committee Chair Babette Josephs (D-Philadelphia) said she was "disappointed in the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association."Stiff opposition to the legislation is expected:
Ms. Josephs expects the bill to go to the House floor for amendments tomorrow.
"We're changing what it actually means halfway through the process," Russ Diamond, chair of PA Clean Sweep, told The Bulletin. "I think [legislators] have slid onto some kind of different railroad spur that leads to nowhere."The train that Mr. Vereb is refering to is being run by Bill DeWeese and Babette Josephs. They're attempting to do to this bill what Washington Democrats did to earmark/ethics reform. The title on these bills sounds pretty but they don't do what they're supposed to do.
Groups like the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association and Common Cause PA that have previously rallied behind the bill have withdrawn their support because of the changes. Mr. Mahoney, however, does not want the changed legislation to fail nor be sent back to committee. "We need a starting point and this is a starting point," he said. "There are going to be some things changed back, I'm sure."
Rep. Mike Vereb (R-Montgomery) said committee Democrats should not have voted to report the bill to the full house without further deliberation on the changes. "I'm going to oppose the bill," Mr. Vereb said. "This is a train being operated here and we're being run over. Why are we rushing into this?" He said he and other Republicans are working to get the bill sent back to committee.
What's worse is the chutzpah Rep. Josephs and Rep. BeWeese have displayed. It takes near Hillary levels of chutzpah to speak at a transparency rally, then use her committee to gut the transparency legislation almost to the point of meaninglessness.
Rep. DeWeese's actions are just as reprehensible. It appears as though he gave Rep. Josephs orders to push the bill through committee without much debate. That's bad enough but now he's written an op-ed talking about reforming government as his new passion:
After reading the columns by Brad Bumsted ("Paying for ethics," Oct. 14 and PghTrib.com) and Eric Heyl ("Bet these won't be in the DeWeese collection," Oct. 14 and PghTrib.com), I guess the old adage that "no good deed goes unpunished" is applicable.What's worse than his chutzpah is (a) his playing the victim card and (b) his saying that hiring a Pennsylvania insider like Chadwick to reform government is a step in the right direction. Here's a portion of Chadwick's profile:
People are outspoken that they want "change" in state government. Now that I have hired an outsider, William Chadwick, of Washington, D.C., to help implement such reforms for the House Democratic Caucus, I am called on the carpet for doing so.
Prior to the founding of Chadwick Associates, Mr. Chadwick held a number of distinguished positions in both government and the private sector.Reading the left sidebar of his firm's website also tells us alot about Mr. Chadwick. It says that he's involved in "healthcare consulting, investigative consulting and integrity consulting." Here's a few things mentioned in healthcare consulting :CAREER HIGHLIGHTS
District Attorney of Philadelphia
As second-in-command of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office beginning in 1985 and as Acting District Attorney in 1991, Mr. Chadwick oversaw a budget of $21 million and supervised a staff of more than 500
employees who handled more than 55,000 criminal prosecutions annually. He first became an Assistant District Attorney in 1974, trying more than 150 jury trials in serious criminal cases. In addition to his trial practice, Mr. Chadwick practiced in appellate courts and directed grand jury investigations of organized crime and government corruption.
Inspector General of Pennsylvania
In 1991, Governor Robert P. Casey appointed Mr. Chadwick to serve in the cabinet level position of Pennsylvania Inspector General. In that role, he directed a staff of more than 400 persons investigating fraud, waste and corruption in the State's government and welfare programs.
Executive Deputy General Counsel to Pennsylvania Governor Tom RidgeIn 1994, Governor Tom Ridge appointed Mr. Chadwick to serve as his Executive Deputy General Counsel. As second-in-command of the State's legal office, Mr. Chadwick oversaw 450 attorneys, one of the largest legal staffs in Pennsylvania, with a highly diverse practice ranging from transactional work on behalf of the State's public employee retirement systems to litigation in all State and Federal courts.
Managing Director, Vance International Consulting, Inc.
In 1997, Mr. Chadwick joined the Washington D.C.-based firm as Managing Director of its international consulting group, providing business intelligence, specialized investigative services, integrity compliance monitoring, and other services to investment banks, multi-national corporations, and law firms. He developed clients and directed complex projects in the United States, as well as in countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Healthcare CEOs must address an enormous range of issues, including:That last part sounds alot like lobbying the legislature about medical regulations, doesn't it? I'm not automatically opposed to lobbyists. They serve a practical function. It's just odd that DeWeese hired a Pennsylvania political insider to reform all the wrongs inside state government. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that an outsider would be a better choice to reform government.
- Acute pressures to contain costs, but also to innovate, to improve the quality of care and service, to reduce legal and malpractice claims, and to satisfy a myriad of conditions and requirements set by a multitude of payers.
- Intense competition for patients and consumers, as well as experienced physicians, nurses, pharmacists, technicians, and other qualified staff, in an
environment of rapid consolidation and reorganization.- Countless regulations and standards from government, certification, and accreditation agencies, covering everything from clinical testing protocols and infectious disease controls to maintaining auditable accreditation records and servicing durable medical equipment.
Another thing that bothers me is that DeWeese calls Mr. Chadwick a "Washington, DC" outsider . Based on his profile information, he sounds like a Philadelphia insider . That may seem like insignificant but my question is why DeWeese would characterize a Philadelphia insider that way. It just sounds like DeWeese is trying to spin things, which sets off red flags for me.
It's time that Pennsylvania voters rallied around a true reform agenda, not a RINO (Reform In Name Only) agenda. It's obvious that Democrats like Babette Joseph and Bill DeWeese are intent on sabotaging the biggest reforms. My guess is that they're more interested in privacy than transparency.
Posted Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment 1 by dani_k at 24-Oct-07 10:46 AM
For more on open records "reform efforts," visit www.passopenrecords.org - the PA Newspaper Association's blog.
Comment 2 by FedUp at 25-Oct-07 02:48 PM
As a Pennsylvanian, I can't wait to vote these sleezes out of office!
What A Post!!!
Earlier this week, I emailed Scott Wright from , telling him that I'd fire Childress & bring back Daunte. Yes, that's a sign of desparation on my part. I admit that I'm tired of seeing QB's with rag arms (Brad Johnson) or QB's who shouldn't be starting in the CFL (TJax). Daunte had his faults but he made all the throws and he was accurate. Anyway, Scott chose to answer my email on his Wright Stuff blog . Make sure you check Scott's answer out.
I'd post his answer here but that might stop you from checking Scott's website out. I'd feel bad for you if you didn't check NFLDraftCountdown out. Like I said last year , Scott's site is a must read for NFL Draft junkies like me. Scott spends the entire week in Mobile for the Senior Bowl as well as the weekend in Indianapolis at the annual NFL Annual Combine.
Scott is one of the most informed guys in the mock draft business. The best news is that we don't have to subscribe like we'd have to for that ESPN guy.
Posted Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:26 AM
No comments.
What Nightmare?
That's essentially the question that Peter Hegseth asks in this NY Post op-ed . He's asking why some Democrats still see Iraq as an unending nightmare. To be more accurate, he's asking why Democrats are insisting on using 2006 data to formulate their opinions:
War critics painted a similar picture when violence in Iraq peaked in '05 and '06, using terms like "civil war" and "sectarian violence", as they pushed for a rapid draw-down or immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. An Iraq "at war with itself" shouldn't be America's problem, they argued. In fact, the existence of a "religious civil war" remains the chief antiwar talking point to this day.Mr. Hegseth then makes a forceful case for using today's data:
Problem is, the new U.S. strategy has changed the facts on the grounds.
A year ago, the assertions of Sanchez and the antiwar critics were an accurate description of the violence throughout Iraq: Armed death squads freely roamed the streets in Baghdad and outlying areas, responding to massive bombings committed by al Qaeda. And vice versa. Each week saw hundreds of innocent Iraqis, the victims of sectarian attacks and reprisals, kidnapped and killed. Worst of all, compromised members of the security forces (Iraqis in uniform) were complicit in many killings.
The critics had a point: American soldiers were simply caught in the middle, not permitted to take action to stop the violence, and yet still very much in harm's way. But what the critics failed to see was that it didn't have to be that way, that what the troops lacked was an adaptive strategy that recognized and addressed underlying causes of the violence.Simply put, the Agenda Media cares infinitely more about carrying the Democrats' water on this than they care about reporting all the facts about Iraq. That was proven when Howard Kurtz caught Robin Right and Barbara Starr admitting that declining casualty rates weren't news but an increase would've been treated as news:
Enter Gen. David Petraeus and a strategy that did just that. (The term "surge" is far too simplistic, as it implies simply throwing more forces at the problem, when Petraeus' changes in tactics are even more important).
The new counterinsurgency approach, namely, to take territory from al Qaeda, hold it, secure it and empower tribal sheiks to work together and rebuild their communities, finally provides an effective "counteroffensive" to the chief tactics of al Qaeda militants and Shiite death squads.
The U.S. military reported last week that troop deaths in Iraq went down for the fourth month in a row, and the Iraqi government reported that civilian deaths declined by half in September.The good news for the Bush administration is that lots of blogs are informing the people that the tide has turned. That's what's behind the Agenda Media outlets finally talking about positive developments in Iraq. I was talking about the Anbar Awakening in July. The Washington media elitists started reporting that a little over a week ago.
What to do? Well, CBS and NBC gave the new casualty figures a few sentences on their evening news programs, and the major papers played the news far from their front pages. Only ABC led with the story. In fact, the Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, wondered about the short-shrift the media gave this news after four years of "continuously depressing" news. On CNN's "Reliable Sources," he asked the Washington Post's Robin Wright and CNN's Barbara Starr whether the news should have received more attention. Perish the thought, they both said; we're not sure there is a trend yet.
OK, four months is not a trend. But Kurtz then asked the obvious question: If those casualties figures had gone up, wouldn't that have made front pages? "Oh, I think inevitably it would have," replied Starr. "I mean, that,by any definition, is news."
The debate is essentially over. Yes, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid talked tough yesterday about not being a rubberstamp for President Bush's Iraq supplemental but everyone knows that they'll fold like a lawn chair once President Bush starts pushing. Here's what Reuters reported:
"Isn't this getting to be a little old?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democratic war opponent from Nevada, asked on the Senate floor after Bush spoke. Reid and other Democrats noted Bush had recently vetoed a bill to expand a popular children's health program. "We've been fighting for America's priorities while the president continues investing only in his failed war strategy," Reid said.Sen. Reid's endless rants are getting tiring. It's apparent that they're getting on Nevadans' nerves, too, with his approval rating hovering 15 points lower in Nevada than President Bush's approval ratings.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, said there would be no "blank checks" for the war. "Every line-item will be scrutinized," he said. "Hearings will be held to determine the need for this spending request. Tough questions will be asked of this administration."
As for Robert Byrd saying that "Every line-item will be scrutinized," that's code for "I won't sign off on this until I get my cut."
Here's Ms . Pelosi's official statement :
"Demanding nearly $200 billion for Iraq while vetoing health care for 10 million children exemplifies the Bush Administration's misplaced priorities. On key issues ; from the Iraq war to children's health insurance ; the President continues to oppose the will of the American people and obstructs the New Direction Congress' bipartisan agenda.Talk about irresponsible. Ms. Pelosi is saying we should redeploy now that victory is within sight? That isn't responsible. That's irresponsible. Ms. Pelosi doesn't think that we're getting the news from the internet, not demagogic politicians with a political axe to grind.
"For the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage to 10 million children for an entire year.
"The colossal cost of this war grows every day, in lives lost, dollars spent, and to our reputation around the world. The American people long ago rejected the President's planned 10-year occupation of Iraq and want the Administration to provide a concrete plan to bring our troops home.
The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment of our troops and the President's plan to spend another trillion dollars for a 10-year war in Iraq. We must end this war."
Organizations like Vets For Freedom and Victory Caucus are aggregating news articles telling us what's really happening. their credibility is still high. Pelosi and Reid don't have any credibility left on this issue. Here's Sen. Reid's machismo-laden statement :
"President Bush wants us to rubber stamp another $200 billion in war funds, all borrowed money, none of it paid for, for next year alone. But when we sent a bipartisan CHIP bill to his desk to provide health insurance for the children of working families, the President called it too expensive. Let's remember, every dime of the money for CHIP was paid for.That's spin if ever I heard it. It gets worse:
"The Iraq war is leaving us less secure, unprepared to fight an effective war on terror or respond to the unexpected. President Bush should not expect the Congress to rubber stamp this latest supplemental request. In the coming weeks, we will hold it up to the light of day and fight for the change in strategy and redeployment of troops that is long overdue."TRANSLATION: Over the next coming weeks, we'll pretend to hold this bill up to the light of day so that our campaign contributions keep rolling in. Then we'll fold like a lawn chair the minute President Bush starts pressuring us. We'll talk about changing strategies and redeploying our troops to pay lip service to our nutroots allies but we can't afford to listen to closely to them because following them blindly would spell disaster for us next November.
It's also curious what information Sen. Reid is using in claiming that "The Iraq war is leaving us less secure." That's been the Democratic mantra since Howard Dean's campaign in 2003. We still haven't had a terrorist attack her in the US and violence is dropping dramatically in Iraq. Does that sound like we're less secure?
Reid, Pelosi and Murtha haven't figured it out that the New Media is making them look like idiots. We're the ones who are knowledgeable and trustworthy. We aren't spinning the news. We're the people exposing Reid, Pelosi and Murtha as spinmeisters who'll say anything to advance their agenda.
We've done our jobs so well that informed voters are now asking where the nightmare is. I suspect that the nightmare is the electoral implications winning will have on Democrats.
Posted Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:48 PM
Comment 1 by FedUp at 25-Oct-07 02:46 PM
And... Nancy, just how much is all the pork that your fellow congress-critters are stuffing in their pockets? Guess we don't want to talk about that, do we! Hypocrits!
RINO
Most people think that that's an acronym for a Republican In Name Only. While it certainly means that, it means Reform In Name Only , too. Here's what first got me thinking about that new definition of the acronym:
The committee approved House Bill 443. In its original intent, this measure would have improved Pennsylvania's weak open-records law. But when the Democratically controlled committee was through with it, House Bill 443 had become a step backwards. Considering that the existing open-records law is among the weakest nationwide, that is a depressing fact.Here's my commentary later in that post:
Both the committee's process and the content of the bill are outrageous. Committee Chair Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, pushed through amendment after amendment, most of which the members were seeing for the first time. Their cumulative effect was to exempt broad categories of state records from being open. When members of the committee pleaded with Rep. Josephs to slow down by either holding more hearings or not reporting the bill to the floor for a quick vote, she refused.
Alarmingly, at one point she even said she could not do so because the Democratic leadership (Majority Leader H. William DeWeese, D- Waynesburg) didn't want to. So much for caucus leaders sharing power. One other point about the committee chair: She had the nerve to address a pro-open records rally on Tuesday as a reform leader,and then led the way as the committee rammed through this travesty.
It's time that Pennsylvania voters rallied around a true reform agenda, not a RINO (Reform In Name Only) agenda. It's obvious that Democrats like Babette Joseph and Bill DeWeese are intent on sabotaging the biggest reforms. My guess is that they're more interested in privacy than transparency.It's my contention that these folks are mimicking the tactics used by Democrats in passing earmark/ethics 'reform'. They pass legislation that has a great title, then gut the bill from having any effect in real life. This type fo tactic won't work with the new paradigm. An Army of Davids can read bills. We're approaching expert status in putting the pieces of the various policy puzzles together.
Thanks to Al Gore's inventing the internet, we can read all kinds of source documents outlining policies and legislation. It's only a matter of time before we expose bogus reform legislation. People like Bill DeWeese, Tony Sertich, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can't hide information from us.
The even worse news for these control addicts is that this Army of Davids gets upset when someone tries pulling a fast one on people. When we get upset, we get working on that spinmeister's defeat. In Sertich's case, he's in a safe seat. He's essentially untouchable. When we can't defeat the Tony Sertiches (Nancy Pelosi works, too) of the world, we tie their liberal, anti-transparency votes around other people's necks.
Freshmen who frequently vote with Sertich will suffer because we'll tell these freshmen's constituents about all the votes they cast against common sense spending bills. These freshmen will suffer when they frequently vote for unsustainable spending increases, too.
We demand transparency. We demand reform. We demand sensible spending priorities. We demand that politicians keep taxes low on everyone so that the businessman and the worker prosper. These aren't timid suggestions; they're demands. We aren't asking for the world. We're just demanding politicians use common sense in doing the right thing for the right reasons.
Based on the low approval ratings of the House and Senate, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that politicians that don't heed us face an uphill fight next November.
Posted Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:08 PM
No comments.
Kerrey Isn't Running
That's the great news coming from Sen. Bob Kerrey today. For all intents and purposes, this keeps Chuck Hagel's seat in Republican hands.
The former governor and U.S. senator from Nebraska cited family and unfinished plans at The New School university in New York, where he is president, in his decision not to run.It's immaterial which of Kleeb or Fahey runs. The Democrat running in next November's general election will be facing current Nebraska AG Jon Bruning or former Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns. Both are popular figures in a deep red state.
But "I got much closer to saying yes than I thought I would," Kerrey said. "Bringing a voice of moderation in the Senate was very important to me," Kerrey said. "I'm very worried about the direction of the country. We're polarized on many issues."
Kerrey, 64, would have brought Washington connections and fundraising ability to the race to replace Republican Chuck Hagel, who announced in early September he wouldn't seek re-election.
Now that Kerrey is out, Democrats will likely turn to Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey, and if Fahey passes, Scott Kleeb, who lost the 3rd District Congressional race last year, has said he might jump in. Fahey said Wednesday he'll take the next few weeks to decide whether to run. Kleeb said he won't run against Fahey, and isn't ready to make a decision about a possible Senate bid. No other Democrats have declared.
For months, pundits have generally believed that this race would only be competitive if Bob Kerrey ran. He had the name recognition, experience and fundraising ability to make this a fight. Now that Kerrey decided against running, you can pretty much tuck Nebraska solidly into the 'staying red' category.
Posted Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:51 PM
No comments.
When Will Washington Listen?
Tom Curry has written a good article on the defeat of the DREAM Act. Mr. Curry thinks one of the lessons people should take from this defeat is that the immigration issue has staying power:
Illegal immigration remains at a legislative impasse, and that may be a good thing for GOP chances since the party's base in the South and West tends to be vehemently opposed to any accommodation with illegal immigrants.They should be running scared. Illegal immigration is costing states, counties and school boards tons of money. When an illegal immigrant visits an E/R, we pay for it in the form of higher premiums. When illegal immigrants attend school, taxpayers foot the bill in the form of higher property taxes, higher tuition and bigger state budget outlays.
In his post-vote assessment, the Dream Act's chief sponsor, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said, "In a campaign year, it is a very difficult issue. If it's a tough this year, it's tougher next year." Some senators, he said, "are running scared" on the illegal immigrant issue.
Naturally, Dick Durbin started spinning this the minute it was defeated:
"Switchboards light up, the hates starts spewing, and people get concerned, to say the least," Durbin told reporters.It hasn't dawned on Sen. Durbin that the reason why the "switchboards light up" is because we don't like the additional costs and security risks that come with the illegal immigrants. It also hasn't dawned on him that support for making citizens out of illegal immigrants is strongly opposed by Republicans, Democrats and independents. If Sen. Durbin continues saying that opponents to amnesty are haters, then I'll point out that he's talking about Republicans, Democrats and independents. Here's proof that I'm right:
Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, who is up for re-election next year, said the Dream Act was "huge, huge" as an issue on the minds of people in his state. "People are very upset, they're outraged; it's like amnesty, it's virtually the same" he said after casting his "no" vote. Mail, phone calls, and e-mail on the issue pouring into his office were "off the wall," Baucus said.It's impossible to make the case that this was a party line vote. It wasn't close to a party line vote because 12 Republicans voted for cloture while eight Democrats voted against cloture. Sen. Durbin can peddle that spin wherever he wants but people won't believe him because his spin doesn't match up with the facts.
Most Montanans, he said, believed the bill would have given an unfair benefit to illegal immigrants. Baucus's freshman Democratic colleague from Montana Sen. Jon Tester also voted "no," as did another freshman Democrat, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Southern Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Robert Byrd of West Virginia all voted against the Dream Act.
Check out Kent Conrad's statement:
The bill would have allowed illegal immigrants, if they passed background checks and became permanent legal residents, to qualify for lower in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities, a point cited by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D, who voted "no."The question seems to be changing. The new question that people will demand an answer to is this: When will Washington listen to us?
Conrad explained that from his constituents in North Dakota, "I was hearing, 'wait a minute, this is more generous than what we're doing for people who were born in this country.' And it's certainly commendable to want to give this kind of educational assistance to people. But how can you justify that when we don't do it for people who were raised in our country?"
From North Dakotans, Conrad said, "What I hear is, 'look, you've got to secure the border. That's got to be priority number one.'"
It's apparent that people think that politicians are tuning them out. That's why their approval ratings are nearing Nixon/Saddam territory. If Washington politicians keep ignoring We The People, We The People will retire them involuntarily. This issue is why I firmly believe that it isn't an anti-Republican election as much as it's an anti-Washington, anti-corruption election.
Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:37 AM
No comments.
Reid's Running in 2010
That's the word according to this article in Politico.com . That noise you hear are Nevada Republicans rejoicing.
The Nevada Democrat has been meeting with his "inner circle" over the past two months to chart his future, holding sessions in both Washington and Nevada, participants said.With a job approval rating almost 1o points lower than President Bush, Reid doesn't stand a chance. Frankly, I'm worried that he'll drop out because that'd give Democrats a better shot at holding this seat.
The group includes Susan McCue, his former chief of staff; Gary Myrick, his current chief of staff; Penny Lee, a senior communications aide; Jimmy Ryan, a Citigroup lobbyist who oversaw the Senate floor for Reid; Mark Mellman, who handles Reid's polling; and Jim Margolis, the Democratic political advertising specialist.
Reid has told the group that he will definitely seek a fifth term, according to McCue and others who have attended the sessions, and he is bringing back McCue, a top political adviser, to fortify his standing here and at home.
"He's committed to running again," said McCue, who announced on Wednesday that she is leaving her post as president and CEO of the anti-poverty ONE Campaign to return as a senior adviser to Reid.
Reid has faced a number of serious challenges since taking over as majority leader in January, including a hostile president, uncooperative Senate Republicans, an increasingly restless anti-Iraq-war faction within his own Democratic Party, behind-the-scenes jockeying among his Democratic colleagues for position in a post-Reid world and a looming showdown over this year's spending bills.His biggest challenge has been himself. He's made a series of idiotic statements that've eroded his credibility. Chief among those statements was his "the surge has failed" statement. Reid is his own worst enemy. He's incompetent. It hasn't helped that he's picked the wrong fights, either.
It doesn't help to have your allies being your worst nightmare. He's been forced to mimic MoveOn.org's talking points to keep the campaign contributions rolling in. While MoveOn.org's money is a welcome sight, their rhetoric isn't. Simply put, it doesn't play well in the Heartland.
And things aren't much easier back home. Reid, who will turn 68 in December, has also seen his personal approval ratings slump in Nevada, according to a recent poll by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.Incumbents don't get re-elected with a JAR of 32 percent. Incumbents don't get re-elcted with a 42 percent JAR. To borrow an old Don Meredith tune:
Only 32 percent of Nevadans now approve of the job he's doing, and 51 percent disapprove. This is a stark reversal from the previous poll in May, when 46 percent approved of Reid and 42 disapproved.
Turn out the lights, the party's over.
You can put this race to sleep.
Tetchnorati: Harry Reid , Polling , Elections
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:54 PM
No comments.
