October 6-9, 2007
Oct 06 02:05 Is Media Matters Breaking the Law? Oct 06 10:05 Media Matters & the Clinton/Senate War Room Oct 06 15:08 Reporter Guzzles the Kool Aid Oct 07 01:09 Which Is It, Mr. Tinklenberg? Oct 07 19:25 Tom Cole Gets It!!! Oct 08 15:26 Do They Really Support the Troops? Oct 08 22:09 DFL Demagoguing Molnau Oct 09 10:10 Oberstar Still Pushing Gas Tax
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006
Is Media Matters Breaking the Law?
Based on what I've found out thus far, it's my opinion that Media Matters is breaking the law. Here's what Media Matters says about itself:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.Here's what the regulations says about exempt purposes for IRC 501(c)(3)'s:
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation, news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda, every day, in real time.
Exempt purposes are described in IRC 501(c)(3) and the applicable regulations. Exempt purposes described in IRC 501(c)(3) are:
- Charitable
- Religious
- Educational
- Scientific
- Literary
- Testing for public safety
- Fostering national or international amateur sports competition
- Preventing cruelty to children or animals.
The exempt purposes described in 501(c)(3) regulations encompass the general legal definition of the term "charitable." The regulations list the following specific charitable purposes:
- Relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged;
- Advancement of religion
- Advancement of education or science
- Erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works
- Lessening the burdens of government
- Lessening neighborhood tensions
- Eliminating prejudice and discrimination
- Defending human and civil rights secured by law
- Combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency
Q1. Must an organization's creating document contain a provision expresslyI haven't seen the creating document for Media Matters so I can't know what's contained in it. That said, Media Matters website tells us what they're about. This picture tells us what they're about:
limiting its purposes to one or more exempt purposes ?
A1. Yes. The creating document must refer to purposes that come within those described in IRC 501(c)(3). This may be accomplished by a statement that it is formed for charitable, religious, educational, scientific, or other purposes referred to in IRC 501(c) (3) or the applicable regulations. The purposes do not have to expressly refer to IRC 501(c)(3). See Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(b)(1)(ii).
This picture is worth a thousand words because it tells us about the action alerts that are a significant function of Media Matters. This isn't just an information center. They're operating a political advocacy group. That runs contrary to what the IRS allows 501(c)(3)'s to do.
This picture won't help Media Matters win any sympathy with the IRS:
Media Matters website says that their purpose is to "systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation, news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda, every day, in real time." In other words, they're essentially the Clinton War Room on steroids.
The first Clinton War Room was all about the Clintons. This organization isn't exclusive to the Clintons. Instead, it's about smearing anyone that stands in the way of the Clintons or the Democratic Party. The next logical set of questions focuses on how much they coordinate their smear campaigns with the Democrats in general and with Hillary specifically. Another question I'd want answered is whether there's coordination between Media Matters and organizations like the Center for American Progress (CAP). I ask because I noticed a few familiar names on their list of advisors .
Here are a few of the familiar names:
Oliver WillisInterestingly, Karl Frisch and Eric Burns, two other members of the staff advisors to Media Matters, are former staffers to Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) on the House Rules Committee.
Eric Alterman
Duncan Black, aka Atrios
David Brock
David Brock has a long and indistinguished career as a political hack. he first gained notoriety for breaking Bill Clinton's Troopergate scandal. Democrats loathed him for a long time. Then came his epiphany. Suddenly Democrats loved him, hung on his every word because he 'confessed' that the things that he'd written about the Clintons were lies.
The notion that Duncan Black, David Brock and Oliver Willis are suddenly interested in doing legitimate research seems a bit stretched to me. In the last 5 years, I'd be hard to convince that that trio hadn't met a hit piece on Republicans that they didn't like.
Based on this information, I don't see why Media Matters' 501(c)(3) status shouldn't be revoked. Isn't it time that we learned what affiliations they have with Hillary and/or the Democratic Party? Isn't it time that this Democratic 'PR firm' got shut down?
Posted Saturday, October 6, 2007 2:07 AM
No comments.
Media Matters & the Clinton/Senate War Room
Alot of pieces of the Hillary/Harry Reid/Senate Democrats puzzle fell into place after I read th is article . The article tells about the comunications Hillary had with David Brock when he was putting Media Matters together. It talks about Hillary's advising Harry Reid about putting a Senate Democrat War Room. Before we get started with the heart of the article, here's a little background on who's involved:
The first decision Hillary faced as she took over the [Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee] in early 2003 was whether to keep the staff director, Jodi Sakol. Sakol, in her early thirties, was already a communications veteran, having worked the beat for Al Gore when he was vice president and during his 2000 presidential campaign,Ms. Sakol eventually got involved with this:
Concurrently, and on her own time, Sakol was involved in discussions about the formation of another nonprofit, left-leaning group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which focused on government corruption. It was Hillary's "proactive" efforts in this area and her desire to "beat the GOP at their own game" that prompted CREW's founder, Melanie Sloan, a former prosecutor, to invite Sakol to the initial brainstorming sessions in 2003 where CREW was born. CREW was organized as a tax-exempt nonpartisan group, and on occasion, it has taken on Democratic targets. But since the Congress and the executive branch were in Republican hands at the time of its founding, its investigations were bound to focus on Republicans.CREW was touted as a nonpartisan watchdog group to the Lapdog Press, who bought it hook, line and sinker. That's what the Lapdog Press would dutifully report whenever there was a news story involving CREW. CREW is Soros-funded hit squad whose goal is to smear Republicans. That's only a bit of what I found on this alliance. Here's another tidbit of information that needs to be told:
Sakol alerted Hillary and her staff about the newly forming group and its need for "Democratic progressive money." The hope was that CREW would prove to be a perfect counterbalance to Judicial Watch, the corruption watchdog that had tormented the Clintons with lawsuits and press conferences throughout the 1990s. Hillary's pollster and strategist Mark Penn became a director and vice president of CREW. "CREW could do things the senators couldn't do," Sakol said. And once CREW's charges "were out in the press," Sakol noted, other people could cite the
findings of the group, which was usually portrayed as nonpartisan in news accounts.
Brock's nonprofit, a Washington-based media-monitoring venture called Media Matters for America, found a temporary home in early 2004 at the Center for American Progress. Already providing its daily news summary to Hillary, the center helped Sakol get the daily media analysis prepared by Media Matters in order to help shape the Senate war-room activities.Media Matters is another liberal hit squad that touts itself as a watchdog group. As we can clearly see, that's insulting to anyone who knows anything about the organization. Let's show what a genuine watchdog group does, then compare that with Media Matters does.
CGAW is a legitimate citizen's watchdog group. Their Waste Watch report rates how each representative did in terms of wasteful spending. For instance, Robert Wexler, (D-FL) had a 2 percent rating in 2006. Rep. Wexler has a lifetime 8 percent rating from CAGW. According to CAGW's rating system, that puts him in the hostile to citizens category, meaning he's a wastemonger.
Let's now look at what Media Matters is noted for:
Although it was independent, Media Matters had among its earliest supporters and advisers long-standing allies of Hillary and the Democratic Party. One of them, Kelly Craighead, who planned Hillary's trips for eight years when she was First Lady, advised Media Matters "on all aspects" of its launch. And the new group wasted no time becoming an aggressive protector of Hillary's reputation and boasting about its role as truth police, forcefully going after journalists for what the group deems to be leaving out key information or cherry-picking material. In three years, the group has cited more than seven thousand examples of "conservative misinformation," Brock said.TRANSLATION: Hillary advised terminally unethical David Brock, a former enemy of the Clinton's. In return, "Media Matters often rushed to Hillary's defense,"
Hillary, though not a close friend of Brock's, advised him and "quietly nurtured" his nonprofit empire. The watchdogs at Media Matters often rushed to Hillary's defense ,
Some watchdog.
This week, Media Matters used their time-tested method of funneling misinformation into the Senate War Room, where senators got their talking points. Harry Reid picked up on Media Matters' misinformation about what Rush said. Reid threw a hissy fit with the misinformation when he reached the Senate floor.
Here's a simple question worth asking: Do watchdog groups work hand-in-hand with one political party while attacking the other? That's what Media Matters is doing. In fact, that's what they proudly state in their About Us page:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.A large part of Media Matters' funding comes from a liberal umbrella group titled the Democracy Alliance :
Media Matters for America is funded in part by the Democracy Alliance.Stripped to its essentials, Media Matters is nothing if not an important organization in the Clinton media network. I'd bet that most people would agree with me that that isn't what watchdog groups do.
Here's more information on the Democracy Alliance:
Some alliance members are close to Hillary; by 2007, the alliance was run by Kelly Craighead, a longtime member of Hillaryland. The alliance has some firm rules: Members must donate at least $250,000 per year to approved causes, and the groups seeking their backing must submit proposals to the alliance for screening and agree to keep secret the source of their donations.Since when do watchdog groups get a significant portion of their funding from organizations who "agree to keep secret the source of their donations"? The watchdog groups I've heard of make a big issue out of transparency. This is the first time I've ever heard of a supposed watchdog group accept financing from an organization sworn to keeping their funding secret.
As Republican activists, we'll need to take on this network of liberal misinformation. there's no denying that this is a daunting task. The good news is that one man armed with the truth is totally capable of slaying that misinformation network. The better news is that an Army of Davids , armed with the truth, is even more capable of refuting the misinformation coming from the Clinton War Room.
If we make those sacrifices, we'll win. It's that simple.
Posted Saturday, October 6, 2007 10:14 AM
No comments.
Reporter Guzzles the Kool Aid
Simply put, Kenneth Bunting guzzled too much liberal Kool Aid . Here's what he said that confirms that:
No matter how many politicians stand before a microphone to say so, the ad did not call Petraeus a traitor. No matter how many pandering politicians say so, it does not attack our troops in Iraq or question Petraeus' long record of distinguished military service.What would you call it when the advertisement opens with this missive?
General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts.Forgive me but that sounds like someone questioning "Petraeus' long record or distinguished military service." Here's another sign that MoveOn.org questioned "Petraeus' long record or distinguished military service.":
Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.Doesn't everyone think that those allegations are a way to question "Petraeus' long record or distinguished military service"? I can't find a thinking human being who doesn't think that.
Technonrati: MoveOn.org , David Petraeus
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Saturday, October 6, 2007 8:03 PM
No comments.
Which Is It, Mr. Tinklenberg?
When Elwyn Tinklenberg announced his candidacy for the Sixth district House seat currently held by Michele Bachmann, he declined to endorse Jim Oberstar's nickel a gallon federal gas tax increase . That's a rather odd position to take after making his quote in the Blotter just a month ago:
He points to a recent MNDOT assessment, which concludes that the state is underfunding transportation maintenance by a billion dollars a year. "That is not sustainable," Tinklenberg says. "We can't afford to do that and expect our system to continue to perform safely."Here's what Larry Schumacher said in his St. Cloud Times article:
So, what to do? Tinklenberg calls for a gasoline tax hike. The last time the state raised the gas tax, which stands at 20 cents a gallon and is a key component of the state's transportation budget, was in 1988.
He [Tinklenberg] declined to endorse a proposal from U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, DFL-Minn., to raise the federal gas tax by 5 cents a gallon, with the proceeds to be dedicated to bridge and infrastructure repair.These contradictory bits of information beg these questions: Did Mr. Tinklenberg say he wasn't endorsing Rep. Oberstar's federal gas tax increase to avoid being labeled a tax increaser? Or did he say that he's for a state gas tax so he could curry favor with the activists he'll need to get the endorsement? Either way, I think it's clear that Elwyn Tinklenberg doesn't have a problem raising taxes. I'd further suggest that he'll vote for other tax increases if he got elected.
After all, are we to believe that a Democrat will turn down a chance to increase taxes? The last time a Democrat said that he wouldn't raise taxes, Mike Hatch saying that we could make the proper investments without raising taxes . Six months later, Maggie Kelliher's gang of moderates were embarking on the biggest tax increasing binge of our generation.
Why should we believe any liberal will refuse to increase taxes? The only time I'd trust them to do what they said on taxes is if they promised to increase taxes. I'd trust them then because they'd be doing what comes naturally to them.
What hassn't come natural to Mr. Tinkenberg is spending money to keep roads and bridges maintained. That's because he's been a transit advocate for a very long time:
Former House Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Kuisle had this to say about Tinklenberg:Now he's forced to defend his record and statements as Gov. Ventura's Transportation Commissioner and as president of the Minnesota Transportation Alliance. Defending poor choices when you're running against Michele Bachmann is the last position you'd want to be in.
"It was a given that Tinklenberg was more concerned about transit than about roads and bridges."
Kuisle said that, to the best of his recollection, Tinklenberg never gave more than a token warning about existing transportation infrastructure.
Originally posted Sunday, October 7, 2007, revised 08-Oct 10:48 AM
No comments.
Tom Cole Gets It!!!
After GOP activists watched incumbents campaign from the fetal position, and with some GOP activists thinking like 2008 will be a repeat of 2006, it's good to know that Tom Cole has noticed something promising :
Cole, who admits Republicans hurt themselves in 2006 with scandals and out-of-control spending, said the poll confirmed for him a comment he heard this week from a Republican colleague. Speaking of the Democrats, he said, "My God, they're dragging themselves down to our level."He's right in saying that the mood isn't strictly anti-GOP. Cole's right in saying that the prevailing attitude has turned into anti-Washington. Democrats have shot themselves in the foot by mouthing the words that their Nutroots' puppetmasters tell them to say. That's a huge mistake, especially following MoveOn.org's Gen. Betray Us ad and Harry Reid's weeklong contrived anti-Rush diatribe.
It all adds up, Cole said, to a political environment reminiscent of 1992, a tough year for entrenched incumbents of both parties who suddenly saw their margins shrink or disappear. "The American people are rising up in disgust," Cole said, "and incumbents will pay. It's not anti-Republican anymore. It's anti-Washington."
What Democrats did was say that Gen. Petraeus was a traitor and a liar. They followed up that electoral disaster by claiming that Rush suddenly loathed the military. By making these wild accusations, they've stripped away their credibility on national security issues, especially on Iraq.
Let's not forget the role that John Murtha has played in this. Murtha accused the Haditha Marines of cold-blooded murder in the hopes of reaping a short term political gain. Now that Lt. Col. Paul Ware has recommended that murder charges be dropped against SSgt. Wuterich, it's looking inevitable that the investigation will almost totally refute Rep. Murtha's accusations.
Another thing that'll help Republicans go on the offensive is Hillary herself. Everyone talked about how cleverly she responded to Tim Russert's ticking time bomb question. Frankly, people in the heartland didn't think it was clever for her to say that she wouldn't use torture to prevent a terrorist attack. They thought that Hillary's response was irresponsible.
Rest assured that Republicans will repeatedly use that reply to beat up on Democratic congressional candidates. That gives Democrats two options, one of which is bad; the other option awful: either they publicly agree with the Nutroots, thereby alienating the sane majority of voters or they distance themselves from the Nutroots, which dries up their campaign cash and diminishes their intensity.
"She is not going to carry Georgia or Kansas or Texas, and we have good candidates running against shaky Democrats in every one of those states. There are Democrats sitting in 61 districts that Bush carried; 47 that he carried twice. We are on the offensive in those districts," he said.Why shouldn't Republican candidates be on the offensive in those 47 districts? Voters in those districts didn't wake up in 2006 and say I'm fed up with government that keeps taxes low, sets sensible spending priorities and prevents terrorist attacks . They woke up and said that Republicans tried to out-Democrat the Democrats.
That may seem implausible, but Cole has history on his side. In 1992, as he notes, incumbents were hammered, 24 of them losing in November, 17 others failing in their primaries. The Republicans achieved a net gain of 10 House seats that year, a feather in the cap of the executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Tom Cole. Now, no longer a hired staff man but the chairman, Cole faces a familiar challenge. In 1992, the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton for president, and he won. But his party, nonetheless, lost House seats. Cole is out to make history repeat itself.
Here's what I said last Sunday:
If we campaign on the blueprint of low taxes, setting sensible spending priorities and protecting Americans from terrorist attacks from neighborhood to neighborhood, from city to city, one state to the next, election victories will be plentiful for the GOP in 2008. You can take that to the bank.I still firmly believe that fiscal conservatism mixed with a healthy libertarian streak is the dominant political force in American politics. It sounds like Tom Cole has figured that out, too. If that's how Republicans campaign in 2008, people will notice. Most importantly, voters will respond by putting Ms. Pelosi and her band of status quo corruption chairmen back into minority status.
They'll do that because they'll have a choice of voting for politicians who believe in fiscal sanity and keeping taxes low and stable. They won't be forced into picking between one fiscal lunatic and another.
The thing that I like most about this plan is that, in staking out these immensely defensible positions, we largely render Democrats immaterial. The best they can do is say "Me too." That won't sell because they've staked out polar opposite positions since regaining the majority. They can't change, either. Nobody in their right mind would associate John Murtha, John Dingell, Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi with the word change.
Going on offense in the 47 districts that President Bush carried twice will help with recruiting and fundraising, too. If Cole and his candidates can go on the offensive, that'll serve to motivate GOP activists. This might effect Hillary, too. It isn't like she can campaign as a change agent who's coming to Washington with lots of fresh ideas. By the time Election Day 2008 arrives, she will have spent the last 16 years in Washington as a traditional-thinking insider.
Posted Sunday, October 7, 2007 7:26 PM
No comments.
Do They Really Support the Troops?
That's the question I'm pondering after reading Bill Wineke's column . The column starts off talking about legislation co-sponsored by David Obey, John Murtha and James McGovern that would impose a tax to supposedly pay for the war. Here's what he said that's got me thinking:
But Democrats were no more enthusiastic. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., responded by castigating President Bush for asking "no sacrifice from the American people except from our men and women in uniform and their families "and then went on to reassure us she doesn 't think a tax hike would be a sufficient "sacrifice."First of all, that's twisted logic. According to Mr. Wineke's line of thinking, we aren't supporting the troops if we aren't willing to support tax increases. Forgive me if I don't buy that logic.
In other words, all of us, Democrat and Republican alike, "support the troops" but few of us support them so much we're willing to give up even one thin dime to pay for their service.
Secondly, the notion that Democrats "support the troops" isn't supported by the facts. Were Democrats supporting the troops when John Murtha tried railroading the Haditha Marines? Were Democrats supporting the troops when Murtha's Democratic colleagues sat silent instead of censuring him? Was Media Matters, aka the Clinton/Senate War Room , supporting the troops when they lied about what Rush said?
It's time that we started calling Democrats when they demagogue issues. It's time that we pointed out how morally bankrupt men like John Murtha are. It's time we tied John Murtha's lies and David Obey's initial willingness to ignore House rules about earmarks because he was "too busy" to read through all the earmarks.
Murtha first made his accusations about the Haditha Marines before he'd even gotten briefed on what happened. As I've said here many times, Murtha didn't afford these Marines the presumption of innocence. For the life of me, I can't think why that's supporting the troops.
Posted Monday, October 8, 2007 3:27 PM
No comments.
DFL Demagoguing Molnau
Last winter, Leo & I attended a townhall meeting sponsored by the legislators representing SD-15. After the meeting, Tarryl Clark approached us so we asked her about whether they'd hold oversight hearings into identifying wasteful government spending.
Tarryl quickly said that they'd be holding oversight hearings into Carol Molnau's department. This wasn't surprising because there'd been articles reporting that the DFL had her in their sights. Based on this article , it's apparent that the DFL is attempting to intimidate the Pawlenty administration into dropping her as Transportation Commissioner. Thus far, it isn't working. Here's a significant statement in the Bemidji article:
Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, said he will put Molnau up for a confirmation vote shortly after the Legislature reconvenes Feb. 12. With DFL lawmakers overwhelmingly controlling the Senate, Murphy said he has the votes to boot Molnau from her MnDOT post.My question for Sen. Murphy is simple: If there's something substantive wrong with Carol Molnau, as House Speaker Maggie Kelliher suggests, why didn't sen. Murphy hold confirmation hearings for Carol Molnau last January or February? After all, Tarryl was telling us that they had concerns about Ms. Molnau's management back in January. It isn't like the legislature did anything the first two months of the session.
Posted Monday, October 8, 2007 10:09 PM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 09-Oct-07 08:18 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who works at MNDOT. She said that they were in a COMMERCE
Comment 2 by The Lady Logician at 09-Oct-07 08:19 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who works at MNDOT. She said that they were in a COMMERCE committee meeting when the DFL Chair lit into the MNDOT representatives there accusing them of LYING to the committee. No reasons why they suspected it....just because they are on a rampage attacking MNDOT.
LL
Oberstar Still Pushing Gas Tax
The Bemidji Pioneer reports that Jim Oberstar is still pushing his gas tax increase. They're also saying that "a change in public opinion is needed":
From rural highways used to haul grain to the heavily traveled interstate system, the country must invest more to maintain and expand its infrastructure to remain competitive in a global economy, said U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn.Bud Shuster was the House Transportation Committee Chairman that passed a pork-laden Highway Bill in 2005. To have him say that "the problem is money" is appalling. The problem isn't money; the problem is politicians like Rep. Shuster and Rep. Oberstar whose waste of taxpayers' money is robbing legislatures of the money needed to maintain roads and bridges.
Also, officials said, a change in public opinion is needed because people tend only to care about infrastructure issues when they are affected by a transportation problem, such as the recent Minneapolis bridge collapse.
"We're not making the investments we need, in neither the public sector nor the private sector, to keep up with the demand on our system that our economy is creating," Oberstar said during a Monday forum sponsored by the University of Minnesota's Center for Transportation Studies.
Oberstar, who is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said without constant investment, the country will see a deterioration of its roadways, even as they become more important to the economy.
"We're going to need more revenue. There's no question about it," he said.
The task facing transportation officials mainly is to find new revenue sources, said Bud Shuster, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania and House transportation committee chairman. He said a variety of options must be considered, including a gasoline tax increase and toll road systems in which the proceeds are used to maintain and expand highways.
"The problem is money," Shuster said.
I've said before that the earmarks that the Shusters and Oberstars of the world need to dramatically reduce the amount of money spent on earmarks. It's galling to hear them say that We The People need to change. That's wrong-headed thinking. They need to change. They need to stop piling $24 billion worth of earmarks into Highway Bills. They need to stop funding Bridges to Nowhere with those earmarks. They need to stop using the Highway Trust Fund to build bike trails and interpretive centers.
They shouldn't even talk about a federal gas tax increase until they've changed their wasteful habits. It isn't likely that they'll change until We The People make it known loudly, consistently and persistently that we won't tolerate their wasteful ways. We The People need to start making noise about that change in Washington mentality ASAP.
Communicating with the public is important to building support for costly highway projects, said Tim Martin, a former Illinois transportation secretary.Mr. Martin isn't aware that the Heartland definition of success is dramatically different than the Washington definition of success. The Washington definition of success is usually measured in whether it helped them win re-election. The Heartland definition of success is always measured in whether our roads and bridges are properly maintained.
"Find out what the public wants. Give the public what they want. Tell the public that you're giving it to them. Remind them that you gave it to them," Martin said. "And, celebrate your successes."
Our definition is the definition that matters because Congress works for us.
I'd bet that Martin doesn't realize what he said. Think about the implications to his saying "Find out what the public wants. Give the public what they want. Tell the public that you're giving it to them."
My friend King doesn't mince words when he hears transportation advocates talking about needs. King's said numerous times that advocates use very subjective criteria to define needs. Martin doesn't even pretend to worry about needs. Leaders don't give "the public what they want." They tell them what needs fixing, then they fix the things that need fixing.
I wonder what would happen if we started a campaign that asked every congressman nationwide to sign a pledge saying that they wouldn't propose earmarks? I'd bet that John Murtha and Jim Oberstar would have eruptions. That alone makes it worthwhile.
Another thing we should do is get Derek Brigham to design "It's the Spending Stupid" bumper stickers, then have organizations like the Taxpayers League and the Chamber of Commerce buy and distribute them to anyone that wants these bumper stickers.
On the big picture, Oberstar's and Shuster's statements are additional proof that Washington is totally out of touch with real people. That makes it all the more important that we flood their email inboxes with 'doses of reality' that tells them that wasting our money isn't acceptable.
My question to you is simple: Are you willing to join me in this fight? All it takes is for all of us to step forward and send a clear, unambiguous message to Washington.
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2007 10:11 AM
No comments.
