October 29, 2006 Posts
08:31 A Vote For Hope? 09:42 Ad Watch 18:13 The 'Tradesports Primary' 22:18 Schumer Confident of Democratic Majority; I'm Confident He's Lying 23:00 Kennedy Clobbers Klobuchar in Tonight's Debate
A Vote For Hope?
Frankly, I'd never heard of the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder before today. What brought them to my attention is their endorsement of Keith Ellison. Let's look at their endorsement:
Ellison stands head and shoulders above the competition for this congressional seat, and we're not saying that because he's a Black man and we are an African American newspaper. Other candidates have expected that of us and have been disappointed. On the contrary, we say this of Ellison because we see him as the only candidate capable of transcending simple labels based on race or religion or sexual orientation. We see him as capable of uniting a powerfully diverse coalition of people around their shared passions for peace and economic and social justice. All other considerations pale in contrast to this opportunity.With all due respect, Ellison doesn't stand "head and shoulders above the competition" in this race. I suspect that the only reason Ellison is the DFL's nominee is because a bunch of trendy uberliberals thought that they'd make the 'diversity' choice rather than ask for someone with real qualifications. That's right. Ellison's nomination didn't have anything to do with his qualifications.
His stance on 'law and order issues' is pathetic, both from a legislative and personal level. As Katherine Kersten said here, Keith Ellison's positions on criminal behavior are disturbing at best. Here's a sample of what she said:
Ellison praised Soliah for "fighting for freedom." At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was "Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people." Soliah pleaded guilty in 2001. In 2002 she also pleaded guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a bank customer shot by another SLA member during a holdup. She's now serving a long prison sentence.It's difficult, if not impossible, to "vote for hope" based on Ellison's statements about cop-killer Kathleen Soliah.
As a criminal defense attorney, Ellison told the crowd, he saw "startling similarities" between Soliah and the gang members he represents: Bloods, Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples. He portrayed gang members as misunderstood victims, ordinary folks whose parents "scrimp, save... maybe sell plates of BBQ chicken so Junior can get an attorney."Forgive me if I don't see a vote for Ellison as a "vote for hope" based on the 'victimhood' of the gangbanger society.
Gangs are "stigmatized" and "vilified," he explained, just as Soliah's Symbionese Liberation Army was. "Nobody ever knows what it means to BE a Blood," he maintained, "because they've already said this is 'just evil.'"
Here's another statement in the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder's endorsement:
That includes all the "dirty laundry" dredged up by bloggers and dutifully rebroadcast by the major media. While not necessarily irrelevant, a candidate's parking tickets and tax troubles surely should not overshadow all else that he or she brings to the table, which in Ellison's case is a great deal.This rationalization is pathetic and unacceptable. Most people would agree that our lawmakers should be law-abiding citizens. Ellison has a long history of obliviousness to the law. He clearly doesn't think that the laws apply to him. His lawlessness shows that he's openly and brazenly on the side of lawbreakers.
Voting for someone that thinks that gangbangers are misunderstood victims of society isn't my idea of "a vote for hope."
What we do find offensive is any suggestion that there could possibly be something wrong with a man like Ellison helping to organize the Million Man March and speaking out boldly in defense of Black people. That's ignorance at best and bigotry at worst.I'll give the person who wrote the Spokesman-Recorder's endorsement this much: That's some of the smoothest spin I've read in ages. He turns a decade of activism in Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam into "Ellison helping to organize the Million Man March..." He turns Ellison's lifetime of pro-gang activism into "speaking out boldly in defense of Black people." That's spin at its finest, spin that Baghdad Bob would be proud of.
We likewise find offensive any suggestion that Keith Ellison is a terrorist or would ever support a terrorist organization. That is hateful nonsense at best and a vicious smear at worst.Let's lay the facts out and dispatch with the namecalling. Nihad Awad was the keynote speaker at an Ellison fundraiser. The dirty little secret is that Awad once said that he's "a supporter of Hamas."
Let's next examine Ahmed Bedier. Here's what a Strib article said about Mr. Bedier:
The ad campaign, which is intended to counter what the group says is anti-Muslim stereotyping, also is being coordinated by a CAIR official in Florida, Ahmed Bedier. "The focus is not on the election," Bedier said, "but to send the message that American Muslims do not condone terrorism."It's laughable to hear Bedier say that "American Muslims do not condone terrorism." After all, Bedier was Sami Al-Arian's spokesman. Here's what Wikipedia says about al-Arian:
Sami Amin Al-Arian (born January 14, 1958 in Kuwait) is a Palestinian-American computer engineer who was convicted of helping Palestinian Islamic Jihad and sentenced to four years in prison. Al-Arian, a former university professor, was arrested by the United States government in 2003 on charges of funding terrorists. He was acquitted on eight of the 17 charges against him last December after a six month trial with three co-defendants. On April 14, 2006 al-Arian pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and agreed to be deported. In return, federal prosecutors agreed to drop the remaining eight charges against him.Of course, this isn't proof that Ellison is a terrorist but it raises suspicions about him. Any investigator who's worth his wages would dig further into someone that's talked about violent gang members and copkillers as misunderstood victims. That investigator would be even more curious if he learned that this person rationalizing cop-killing also associates himself with known terrorist-supporting groups.
At the day's end, it's impossible for me to think of a vote for Keith Ellison as a "vote for hope." Instead, I'd see it as a vote for injustice and lawlessness.
Posted Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:31 AM
Comment 1 by Ahmed Bedier at 29-Oct-06 04:22 PM
WHAT A BUNCH OF LIES. This hateful post is recycling information from know anti-Muslim bloggers. As for the false claim that Bedier was spokesman for Al-Arian that is A FLAT OUT LIE. Read below post.
The anti-Muslim bashers are at it again, every chance they have to spew hatred at American Muslim leaders they maximize it by resorting to lies, defamation and fabrication. Today Florida's leading Islamaphobe blogger Joe Kaufman fabricated a story Campaign Cash from Al-Arian's Mouthpiece in FrontpageMag.com (a known extremist online publication) naming Ahmed Bedier, Dr. Sami Al-Arian's Spokesperson (also mouthpiece). For more about Sami Al-Arian click here. Kaufman could not be further from the truth.
What Kaufman fails to mention is that Ahmed Bedier has NEVER met Dr. Sami Al-Arian, NEVER spoke with Al-Arian on the phone and NEVER corresponded with Al-Arian via email/mail. So how can Kaufman claim that Bedier is a spokesperson of someone he has NEVER been in contact with??
Bedier is a community leader in Tampa and is the director of American Muslim civil rights group (CAIR) in that city. The Al-Arian trial was the biggest case in Tampa's Federal Judicial history, Bedier spoke a great deal to the media about the case, but so did everyone else. It was top news for several years. Bedier does NOT regret any of the comments he made surrounding the case. As a civil rights leader, Bedier speaks up on behalf of CAIR and its members calling for justice and due process. If Kaufman is upset that individuals are calling for the implementation of the U.S. constitution, than it is Kaufman who should answer whom does he speak for?
Kaufman's hatred for Muslims blinded him from looking at the true facts of the case. An American Jury of 12 who listened to all the evidence for six months overwhelmingly chose not to convict Al-Arian on a single count. Perhaps that's what Kaufman is so angry about, that a Palestinian Professor would get any justice in America. Kaufman is known for his extreme pro-Zionist sentiments which explains his hatred for Palestinians.
Joe Kaufman is recognized in the State of Florida for his hatred towards American Muslims and Arab Americans, just this year alone Americans United awarded him their infamous "Onion Award" recognizing his hatred and bigotry. If one is to review Kaufman's writings he would find that he has accused every Muslim he knows with terror ties, and has never written anything positive about a single Muslim. In his poor writing style, Kaufman attempts to link all Muslims to each other and labels them guilty by association (even if it does not exist, the mere fact that two people share the same religion is association in Kaufman's eyes).
In the same article Kaufman repeats an allegation he made last year that Bedier defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad on a TV show. A flat out lie which Bedier answered last year, for details read the posting Responding to the distortion: Bedier says "Nothing Immoral" About Islamic Jihad.
Finally, Kaufman recycles a FALSE claim that CAIR has some sort of terror ties. CAIR is a legitimate mainstream American organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C. and 33 offices nationwide with a combined staff of over 75. CAIR and Bedier have a positive working relationship with all levels of government and law enforcement including the FBI. If Kaufman believes his lies he should report them to the appropriate authorities so they can take appropriate action (or laugh at him).
If anyone is not familiar with the great work of CAIR or has concerns about the organization, feel free to visit http://www.cair.com/ and read What Public Officials Say About CAIR.
Ad Watch
I just saw St. Patty's ad that accuses Michele Bachmann of wanting to raise taxes 23% on TV for the first time. I've viewed it on the internet before but I noticed something new this time. That something is a caption in fine print that says St. Cloud Voters Forum 9/18/06 . That caption appears as the narrator says "Michele Bachmann wants to raise your taxes 23%."
I knew St. Patty was lying through her teeth when she made that statement but this fine print caption cast it in a different light. I attended that voters forum as did King Banaian. Here's King's notes on the taxes discussion:
What's your position on the Bush tax cuts? Make permanent or repeal?Here's what I said:
Bi: Tax cut as foolish as a tax hike. The Bush tax cut helps created capital gains, doesn't help as much as fair tax. Need fundamental reform of the tax code.
W; Proposed incentives for middle class tax cuts. Production is up, people making more are not doing better, people no better off than in 1949.
Ba: Repeal capital gains and estate tax. Fair tax means every purchase you make you pay additional 23 cents per dollar.
Q4. Bush tax cuts:It's perfectly obvious that King and I didn't hear Sen. Bachmann advocate increasing taxes 23%. Considering King's attention to tax policy, coupled with his integrity, isn't it obvious that Wetterling's ad is a bald-face lie?
Binkowski: Making Bush tax cuts permanent is as insane as making tax increases permanent. Odd answer. He's trying to triangulate too much. Advocates making the Fair Tax the law of the land and abolishing the IRS.
Wetterling: Wouldn't make tax cuts permanent but she would repeal tax cuts on anyone making $337,000/yr. Touted her middle class tax cut plan. Either way, it's still a tax increase.
Sen. Bachmann: would make Bush tax cuts permanent, eliminate the estate tax & the AMT, then saying that the economy is in great shape, citing the fact that not raising the state tax is the reason for Minnesota creating 10% of all new U.S. jobs in the past 2 months. Sen. Bachmann also cited Minnesota 3.7% unemployment rate. Very, upbeat positive answer, though the Wetterling crowd booed her saying she'd make Bush tax cuts permanent.
I also saw a Klobuchar ad that talked about a wide range of issues, then mentions Iraq as an afterthought at the end. On Iraq, Klobuchar asks "don't our brave forces fighting in Iraq deserve" to come home within a reasonable timeframe?
The emphatic answer to that is "NO!!!" Let's turn that question around to include the consequences of "bringing our brave troops home" within a reasonable timeframe. If we leave before Iraqi troops can defend themselves from Iranian-funded militias, like Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, aren't we really saying that we're ok with an Iranian puppet regime in Iraq?
- Ms. Klobuchar, why do you want to bring the troops home before we achieve victory?
- Ms. Klobuchar, isn't winning in Iraq the only consideration in determining U.S. troop levels?
- Ms. Klobuchar, can't you be a bit more specific in telling us what "a reasonable timetable" for withdrawal is?
- What specific benchmarks would trigger U.S. troop withdrawals?
The dirty little secret that's getting exposed is that Ms. Klobuchar's answers are all provided by Chuck Schumer because Ms. Klobuchar is Schumer's Shill. She's shown no ability to think on her feet or to explain her policies. That's because they aren't her policies in any real sense. They're the DNC's and the DSCC's 'policies'. That's if you can consider them serious policies.
Posted Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:46 AM
No comments.
The 'Tradesports Primary'
Powerline has an interesting post about what Tradesports is 'predicting' about this year's election. To be honest, I was more interested in what they said about various individual races than about anything else. Here's what I'm refering to:
What about individual races? From the perspective of the GOP candidate, I'll divide them into Favorites, Underdogs and Long Shots. As of this moment, here's what the money says (per the last traded futures contract) in the Senate races that have attracted most attention (ours and others'):I'll respectfully disagree with Scott's interpretation of what this is saying, especially with regards to Gov. Pawlenty. To me, this isn't an indication of "how strongly the headwinds are blowing against Republicans this year." It says more about how many people have bought into the Agenda Media's storyline.Favorites:The Tradesports betting line also places our favorite governor, Minnesota's extremely successful Tim Pawlenty, in my Underdog category (33), trailing Democratic challenger Mike Hatch. It is a line that indicates to me how strongly the headwinds are blowing against Republicans this year.
George Allen, Virginia (72)
Bob Corker, Tennessee (65)
Jim Talent, Missouri (59)
Underdogs:
Tom Kean, New Jersey (37)
Michael Steele, Maryland (30)
Conrad Burns, Montana (25)
Long Shots
Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania (12.7)
Mike DeWine, Ohio (8.5)
Mark Kennedy, Minnesota (7)
Based on real events on the ground, it's impossible for me to put Michael Steele in the underdog role. He's on his way to victory. PERIOD. Dean Barnett's saying that Steele mopped the floor with Ben Cardin's backside on MTP this morning, only slipping up on the Roe v. Wade question.
Putting Gov. Pawlenty in the underdog category is another joke. Hatch imploded when he ran the ad about illegal aliens in the trailer park. The RPM has jumped all over that ad. They've been going after Hatch on this for several days now yet Tradesports doesn't reflect that implosion. At this rate, they won't catch onto this trend until after the votes are counted.
Based on what Chairman Mehlman told us last week, there's alot of positive activity happening in Pennsylvania. Little Bobbie Casey's only two chances are (a) if the Rendell election fraud campaign manufactures enough votes for Casey and (b) if Casey goes into seclusion until his acceptance speech.
As I've been telling friends, it's one thing to hide a candidate's weaknesses; its' another to hide that candidate's stupidity. Bob Casey's stupidity has been on display for awhile now. A prime example of his stupidity is something that I noted here:
This is the best Democrats could do? They would've been better off with anyone other that this idiot.In the first of a two-day series of speeches on national security, Mr. Santorum said Mr. Casey fails to recognize the danger of a threat that encompasses both "Islamic fascism" and leaders of countries who are "fully committed to our destruction. From everything I see, my opponent, Mr. Casey, is unready, unqualified for the office that he seeks at a very critical time in our nation's future," Mr. Santorum said in a speech at PRL Industries, a metal-castings supplier that counts the military among its customers.Little Bobbie Casey's response isn't exactly reassuring. Citing his time as a number-cruncher isn't the way to tell voters about his foreign policy bona fides. Only an idiot who can't think on his feet would try telling voters he's qualified to vote on foreign policy issues because he's a numbers-cruncher. This is just more proof that Casey is an intellectual lightweight.
In an interview with The AP, Mr. Casey called Mr. Santorum's charge a "ridiculous assertion," citing his current job as state treasurer and eight years as auditor general. "I've been a statewide public official in Pennsylvania for a decade," Mr. Casey said.
How they categorize Conrad Burns as an underdog is beyond me. He's pulled into a dead heat with uberliberal Jon Tester. Coupling that with a strong GOP GOTV operation and momentum clearly on his side and I'd put Tester as having an uphill fight.
I would state that Mark Kennedy faces an uphill fight but he's closing fast, characteristic of Mark's campaigns, and he's got Ms. Klobuchar stumbling all over herself on the issues of national security and Iraq. To rate him a long shot isn't supported by facts on the ground.
At the end of the day, Tradesports' 'predictions' will take a pounding. The people 'voting' in the 'Tradesports primary' are voting based on the information disseminated by the Agenda Media, not by facts on the ground.
Posted Sunday, October 29, 2006 6:14 PM
No comments.
Schumer Confident of Democratic Majority; I'm Confident He's Lying
Simply put, Sen. Schumer has to say outrageous crap like that even though he knows it isn't true. Why am I confident that he's lying? Simple. Momentum has shifted onto the GOP's sideline. BIGTIME. Menendez is faltering as Kean presses him on the attack. Ford's 'Memphis Meltdown' revealed him to be a spoiled brat with a temper. McCaskill's hopes died when the Democratic voter fraud scheme was uncovered.
That's before we get to Michigan's Mike Bouchard ridiculing Dangerously Incompetent Debbie Stabenow or Michael Steele beating Bland Ben Cardin like a drum.
Ford even had the audacity to tell FNS's Chris Wallace this:
One of the reasons we believe and feel so confident about our chances here -- and don't get me wrong, we can't let up these last 10 days -- we feel confident because you can feel and sense the momentum all across the state. The sizes of our crows, wherever we may go -- our internal numbers show a small lead, and although there's a fund- raising disadvantage in other parts of the country, we've been very blessed here."We feel the momentum"??? After his series of meltdowns, starting with the Memphis Meltdown, then continuing with him calling Australia a nuclear threat to his outrageous statement that Republicans fear the Lord; Democrats fear AND love the Lord, it's amazing that he's within low double digits of winning.
The bottom line on Sen. Schumer is that he's now recruited candidates that have positioned the Democratic Party for losing seats in the Senate.
The only way that Sen. Schumer should see reason for optimism with the Senate is through rose colored glasses or if he's been on a Ted Kennedyesque bender.
Posted Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment 1 by Falcon at 30-Oct-06 08:56 AM
Excellent points, Gary. I really your blog. Thanks for viditing ours.
BTW, where are you based?
Comment 2 by Falcon at 30-Oct-06 08:59 AM
Oops! What I meant to say was, I really LIKE your blog. Thanks for visiting ours.
You'd think I could spell better than that, huh? :)
Comment 3 by Kathy at 30-Oct-06 09:12 AM
Yep Schumer (are you sure you spelled his name right, I thought it was spelled schemer) is going to deliver up the Senate like he defeated Samuel Alito. That would be Justice Samuel Alito. He fought hard and ridded us of John Roberts, too - you know - Chief Justice John Roberts...
How do you tell when a democrat is lying? His lips are moving.
Comment 4 by joe at 30-Oct-06 09:38 AM
What is he "lying" about exactly? He's stating his opinion. Dole is saying otherwise. It's called "disagreement", not lying.
Comment 5 by Fred at 30-Oct-06 09:45 AM
Well Joe, when you disagree with the Right, it is called lying, when you present facts to bolster your arguement, it's called smearing. But let's not focus on yesterday. All I know is when either party is assured of their sides victory, the people who lose are Americans.
Comment 6 by GARepub at 30-Oct-06 09:58 AM
Also, since we count the votes, we've got to get these stories out about how the "tide has turned" so people still think elections are real.
The democrats have been great patsies in all of this... letting us sweep the rug out from under them everytime, and never getting it. They think they need to have positions people agree with, and campaign and stuff. Silly democrats, we count the votes!
Comment 7 by Devil\'s Advocate at 30-Oct-06 11:49 AM
Schumer is lying? Maybe he learned it from Karl Rove, Commander Codpiece, Darth Vader, Dumbsfeld, and Condosleaza.
Rose-colored glasses? This coming from the Kool-Aid crowd? This is laughable.
See you November 8, darling. You'll be weeping.
Comment 8 by MDH in NY at 30-Oct-06 12:12 PM
The only LIE being told is that "Momentum has shifted onto the GOP's sideline. BIGTIME"...
Just like Iraq, maybe the 06 election will go "remarkably well" for the GOP though...
Comment 9 by peter from New York at 30-Oct-06 04:53 PM
Lying? If you call "bluster" lies, then Rove is "lying" when he says he knows he will keep the House. They're both spinning, and they both have to. One thing for sure, however. Democrats aren't going to LOSE Senate seats this time around, like you state. I'm afraid Ohio and Pennsylvania alone will ensure that. The question is not whether the Democratic Party will lose seat but whether it will gain 4, 5 or 6 seats. Regardless, it means that much stronger an ability to fight the Administration's agenda while still socking the Republicans with responsibility for it all. I'll take that "loss".
Comment 10 by gil at 30-Oct-06 08:09 PM
Interesting Blog...
This is a forecast by your friendly Right Wing Republican "Prognosticators-Are- Us" think tank.
1) We will be greeted as liberators in Iraq.
2) Our forces will be out of Iraq for the most part in a few months.
3) America will pay for the Iraq war with Iraq's oil.
4) We do not need a 200,000 soldier force in Iraq.
5) We are turning the corner (2 years ago)
6) The terrorists are a bunch of dead enders in Iraq.
And OH yes!! The GOP is going to win in November.
Good thing about the Right is that they never get discouraged about their "forecasting" record....
"We need to stay the Course" ...
Dear Right Wingers the only course you have staid on for years now, is being consistently wrong.
Comment 11 by William Wallace at 30-Oct-06 09:59 PM
"positioned the Democratic Party for losing seats in the Senate."
LOL!!!! What the hell are you smoking? Sure the chances that the Dems will take the Senate are pretty slim, but LOSING seats? You've got to be kidding. Forget about what you're smoking, must be the kool-aid you're drinking.
The dems will take three Senate seats easily, four is not out of the question. Beyond that is doubtful. But there's no doubt about the fact that you're insanely optimistic, or just insane.
Comment 12 by William Wallace at 30-Oct-06 10:00 PM
The dems will LOSE senate seats?
Are you a cultists, or just an idiot?
Comment 13 by William Wallace at 30-Oct-06 10:53 PM
Gallup for CNN. 10/26-29. Likely voters. MoE 4% (9/27-10/1 results)
Allen (R) 46 (48)
Webb (D) 50 (45)
Rasmussen. 10/25. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (10/25 results)
Allen (R) 46 (50)
Webb (D) 51 (48)
Garin Hart Yang (D) for the DSCC. 10/26-29. Likely voters. MoE 3.5% (No trend lines)
Allen (R) 38
with leaners: 43
Webb (D) 43
with leaners: 47
-------------------------
TENNESSEE (Senate, open)
Benenson (D) for Harold Ford. 10/26-28. Likely voters. MoE 4.1%
Now 10/14 9/21
Corker (R) 43 45 41
Ford (D) 48 46 48
----------------------
"McCaskill's hopes died?"
Looks pretty competetive to me:
Research 2000 for St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 10/23-26. Likely voters. MoE 3.5% (8/28-31 results)
Talent (R) 47 (46)
McCaskill (D) 47 (47)
------------------------------
Research 2000 for the Bergen Record. 10/23-25. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)
Menendez (D) 48
Kean (R) 42
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/nj/new_jersey_senate_race-10.html
Comment 14 by Gary Gross at 31-Oct-06 09:20 PM
Joe asks "What is he "lying" about exactly?"
About the elections. He's seeing the same reports as Republicans are getting, reports showing Talent defeating 'Election Fraud' McCaskill & Corker defeating Ford. That mathematically eliminates their chances of winning.
That's knowing what you're saying isn't factually accurate, which makes it a lie.
Comment 15 by Lori at 01-Nov-06 01:04 AM
You ought to know the meaning of the word "lie" as opposed to the word "projection."
What's so outragous about a guy predicting his party will win in an upcoming election?
Be fair, or you're losing credibility.
Comment 16 by Freealonzo at 09-Nov-06 08:21 AM
Guess it wasn't a lie after all.
I'll look forward to the post where you admit you were lying.
Kennedy Clobbers Klobuchar in Tonight's Debate
Simply put, that's how I see it. No, I didn't take notes but what I saw was a candidate that had perfectly rehearsed her mindless lines vs. a candidate with a clue.
One of Ms. Klobuchar's rehearsed lines was "asking tough questions and holding this administration accountable." Mark clobbered her by asking where the accountability is for Minneapolis crime rates being higher than NYC. He also asked where the accountability is in not turning over public documents about Minneapolis crime statistics. The net effect was to say "Amy believes in accountability for others, not for herself." I'd doubt that that will play well with voters.
When Ms. Klobuchar said that "this administration has turned $250 billion surpluses into $250 billion deficits", you could see Mark was gonna clobber that one like Justin Morneau jumps on a hanging breaking pitch down the heart of the plate. He didn't disappoint, saying "What my opponent doesn't take into account is telling you that it wasn't the President's tax cuts that gave us this deficit. It was the effect that 9/11 had on our economy." He then listed corporate scandals, paying for the war on terror and paying for Katrina as other reasons for the deficits.
Mark also turned the tables on Ms. Klobuchar when she asked how we would pay for Bush's tax cuts, saying that that's a major philosophical difference between himself and Ms. Klobuchar. Mark said that Democrats think of tax cuts as a cost to the government while Republicans simply look at them as letting people keep more of the money that they earn.
Mark came across well in answering the Iraq questions too. He said that he didn't always tell people what they wanted to hear because leadership sometimes means telling people the truth, not what they wanted to hear. He closed one answer strong by saying that Iraq policy should be seen through how this would affect Iran's power in the region.
While Ms. Klobuchar talks about supporting our troops by thinking of 2007 as a time of transition, she doesn't talk about winning. Why fight if our goal isn't winning? What good are "times of transition" if they aren't predicated on making us safer?
As I've told you all along, Ms. Klobuchar is the candidate with the nicely rehearsed empty-sounding soundbites. Mark Kennedy is the candidate with a clue. Ms. Klobuchar embarassed herself by sticking to a script even after Mark Kennedy ridiculed her for the mindlessness of her scripted answers.
On the question of judges, Ms. Klobuchar said that "I would look at the judge's qualifications as a whole. I will look at each judge on an individual basis." Does anyone believe that, especially considering how much campaign cash she's gotten from NARAL and EMILY'S List?
By comparison, Mark said that he'd base his decision on ethics, competence and their adherence to the Constitution. I loved his line about justices being there to "call balls and strikes, not to take swings at the pitches."
One last thing about tonight. Ms. Klobuchar tried playing the 'he's offering nothing but attacks' card tonight. Mark Kennedy was undetered in exposing Ms. Klobuchar for the mindless politician she is.
Follow this link to view the MNGOP fact sheet on tonight's debate.
Posted Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 30-Oct-06 08:38 AM
I'm surprised no one has picked up on this yet...
During the debate, Ms. Klobuchar, in talking about negotiated phased withdrawals, lost a lot of the hard core anti-war votes to Peter Fitzgerald who demanded immediate withdrawal.
Not good for A-Klo.....
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 30-Oct-06 09:10 AM
LL, That's a great point.
Comment 3 by tom at 30-Oct-06 11:08 PM
I guess any partisan hack with some extra time can start a blog. If you're concerned about freedom, the Republican party is not your friend.
First of all, it's only fair to say all canidates rehearse their lines. So right out of the gate you lose credibility and show your partisan colors. And then, according to your lame sports analogy, Kennedy "hits one out of the park" by responding to Klobuchar's observation that this Administration burned through 1/2 trillion dollars in six years. Kennedy responds by trotting out the tried-and-true (rehearsed?) "9/11" excuse, then follows up with the real problems: Corporate Scandals (caused by Republicans lax, laizes faire attitude to corporate governance), WOT costs (Iraq War is not helping the so-called WOT according to a majority of Americans), Katrina costs (waste and fraud contributing.)
