October 9, 2006 Posts
00:34 Wetterling In Full Retreat 02:41 North Korea Tests Nuke 12:43 Strib Propaganda 14:46 Another 'I Told You So' Moment 18:39 Hillary Joins Whine' List on NoKo 19:32 Be Part of the Solution 20:11 KvM on Amy's Unethical Ad
Wetterling In Full Retreat
CNN's T.J. Holmes interviewed Michele Bachmann and Patty Wetterling this morning. Here's an important exchange between Holmes and St. Patty:
HOLMES: All right, Miss Wetterling. That part is getting a lot of attention. So, I'll give you a chance to clear all of that up. And please, can you name for us the congressional leaders who have admitted that they covered this thing up?This exchange is filled with liberal illogic. St. Patty says that nobody in the GOP leadership admitted to a coverup but the ad that says that "Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman" isn't misleading? That thinking is so twisted that it almost doesn't qualify as thinking.
PATTY WETTERLING, (D), MINN CONG. CANDIDATE: Well, what I read was that people were told, and they swept it under the rug. The rug is the cover help up. That to me is the reality. When you know something, I can tell you about child sexual abuse, they're counting on silence. That's the reality. If people don't talk, then it allows it to continue. And from everything I read those pages were told stay away from Congressman Foley. That means people knew he was doing inappropriate things. So --
HOLMES: But is there an actual leader who came out and publicly admitted, I intentionally covered this up, when I knew about it?
WETTERLING: Of course not. Of course, not.
HOLMES: So why use that in a campaign ad? Is it a bit misleading?
WETTERLING: I don't think it's misleading, when you are told information and you do nothing. That is an attempt to not get that information out there. If this happened in a school or in a church, the principal would be fired, the church leaders would be fired. If they did nothing and a year passed, and the community found out these people would be held accountable for that. And I believe people knew and they did nothing.
Here's proof that Wetterling knows that she's been caught: She changes the subject ASAP by saying that "if this had happened in a school or a church, church leaders would be fired." If Ms. Wetterling wants Congress to live up to the same standards as applies to church pastors, I'm positive that a bunch of Democrats would've been run out of Washington, starting with Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Gary Condit, Mel Reynolds, Henry Cisneros and a host of others.
Forgive me if I don't buy St. Patty's faux indignation.
The other portion of that exhange is when St. Patty says "what I read was that people were told, and they swept it under the rug. The rug is the cover help up. That to me is the reality."
So Ms. Wetterling thinks reality is whatever she first reads about something, even if it's later disproved? It's frightening to think that she's even a candidate for public office.
Posted Monday, October 9, 2006 12:34 AM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
North Korea Tests Nuke
That headline should scare people back to the reality that we live in a dangerous world. It should also remind everyone that the 'Clinton Plan' set this eventuality in motion. Here's what AllExperts said:
It is reported that President Clinton's officials only agreed to the plan because they thought the North Korean government would collapse before the nuclear power project was completed.Here's where AllExperts read that:
Clinton administration officials have privately said that they agreed to the plan in 1994 only because they thought the North Korean government would collapse before the project was completed.Lovely, huh? What's worse is that North Korea later admitted that it stopped honoring the treaty shortly after signing it. Needless to say, Democrats thought it was a good plan:
Speaking in the Senate on March 7, [2001], Senator Biden argued that "it would be irresponsible not to discover whether North Korea is prepared to abandon its pursuit of long-range missiles in response to a serious proposal from the United States, our friends, our allies...The United States should end our 'prevent defence' and go on the offensive to advance our national interests, particularly the dismantlement of North Korea's long-range missile programme. Now is not the time for lengthy policy reviews or foot-dragging on existing commitments. Now is the time to forge ahead and test North Korea's commitment to peace."Sen. Biden didn't take into account that they'd abandoned their treaty obligations years before, 7 years to be precise. Implicit in Biden's comment is that the current policy had failed. His statement also explicitly said that we should continue with that failed policy.
Bet the ranch that Democrats will blame President Bush for not doing more to 'contain' North Korea. Bet the ranch that they'll try ignoring the fact that their president is the one who created the mess in the first place.
Hugh is on top of this, saying:
The nuke-rattling is a strategy of a gangster regime left to its own devices throughout the '90s, and for which there is now no obvious solution. Iran will become the same problem unless confronted and obliged to abandon its nuclear ambitions.The truth is that Clinton dumped a bunch of messes in President Bush's lap by kicking the can down the road on every major foreign policy issue. The truth is that Democrats don't care that the Clinton administration did more damage in their time in office to endanger us than every president other than Jimmy Carter.
Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Murtha will find a way to blame Bush and demand hearings into Bush Adminsitration policies, even as the clock ticks down.
There isn't an easy resolution to this crisis but I'm thankful that President Bush is in office rather than Bill Clinton. People might disagree with President Bush but one thing is certain: He doesn't believe in Clinton's 'Kick the Can Down the Road' approach to foreign policy matters.
One thing that's predictable is that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean will all issue press releases by mid-morning condemning President Bush for not doing enough to avert this crisis. It's also predictable that they'll each mention that we need a "new direction" and that the new direction will be "tough and smart" if Democrats are elected. Don't believe their nonsense. Pelosi, Reid and Dean were all advocates of "opening bilarteral discussions" with North Korea and Iran. The time for that has passed.
Whenever you hear Democrats talking about "opening dialogues with Iran and North Korea", play devil's advocate and ask "what's to be gained by that approach"? I suspect that most Democrats advocating that approach will be left speachless and dumbfounded.
That should be your first proof that we can't afford a Democratically-controlled House or Senate. We need serious policymakers, not that bunch.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has the most comprehensive roundup of links and updates on the Right Blogosphere.
Posted Monday, October 9, 2006 2:44 AM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
Strib Propaganda
This article, in this morning's Strib, proves that the Strib arm of the Klobuchar campaign is deployed. Here's proof of that:
Her now extensive legal record is at once her biggest asset and fattest target.What extensive legal record? She hasn't prosecuted a case in her 2 terms as Hennepin County Attorney. THAT QUALIFIES AS EXTENSIVE?
Using two traditionally GOP issues, fighting crime and reducing the deficit, Klobuchar has tried to broaden her appeal to centrists.Klobuchar's crime-fighting record is mostly talk. And what's so moderate about reducing the deficit with a huge tax increase? That's typical liberal. Since when did raising taxes on small businesses become part of a centrist appeal?
By 2003, serious budget trouble had hit. Klobuchar had to tell her office to do more with less. The night meetings, faster pace, heavier workloads and a premium on hiring attorneys who were minorities made Klobuchar unpopular with some attorneys. Discontent bubbled over early this year, just as Klobuchar was closing in on a needed endorsement by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Union members in her own office asked that she be denied endorsement by their national office, saying she had denigrated lawyers, taken credit for their work and "created a hostile work environment."If things were going so well in reducing crime, where did the "heavier workloads" come from? Either crime is down 20 percent county-wide or there's a heavier workload, not both. Furthermore, I didn't know that Ms. Klobuchar had a problem with putting "a premium on hiring attorneys who were minorities..." If the attorneys in her office were good card-carrying liberals, they shouldn't have a problem with it either. It couldn't be that Affirmative Action isn't the popular program, could it? Finally, the peddling of the notion that affirmative action is what got under the attorney's skin is laughable. Klobuchar's grandstanding is what got under their skin. Ms. Klobuchar's 'all for Amy, all the time" is what upset them.
And this woman claims that she'll bring civility to Washington? Please!!!
Klobuchar says she is not a liberal in the Wellstone/Dayton mold, which cost her some support in the endorsement contest. She opposes the Iraq war but does not favor an immediate withdrawal. She would roll back tax cuts on the upper 1 percent of wage earners, but would use some of that money to whittle away the $900 million a day interest paid to the national debt. She advocates a return to Clinton-era pay-as-you-go budgeting.Does Ms. Lopez accept everything that the Klobuchar PR team tells them without questioning? This paragraph reads like the Klobuchar for Senate Issues Page. It's all focus-grouped, nice-sounding gobbeldygook. It sounds nice but it's 'dangerous sound goodisms'. Plainly and simply put, Klobuchar is a hardcore liberal who's spent lots of time saying nice-sounding things so that she doesn't sound like Mark Dayton or Paul Wellstone.
"I'm going to focus on my own issues, deficit, fiscal responsibility," Klobuchar said. "I don't like labels. If people believe focusing on fiscal issues makes you moderate, then I'd be more moderate. I'm my own kind of Democrat."What liberal likes labels, especially that moniker? As for Ms. Klobuchar's claim that she's a moderate because she's advocating tax increases on small businesses, give me a break. That's a liberal. PERIOD.
If the Strib is going to keep running these types of articles for Ms. Klobuchar and Keith Ellison, shouldn't they be governed by BCRA's "in-kind campaign contribution" regulations?
UDPATE: Don't miss Andy's post at KvM. He takes Ms. Lopez' article in the Strib apart as well as fisking A-Klo's 'Ashamed' ad.
Posted Monday, October 9, 2006 2:18 PM
August 2006 Posts
Comment 1 by Bronco Billy at 09-Oct-06 02:24 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-01-cops-cover_x.htm
Talk about egregious,
This article, from 2003, puts the blame for rising crime rates in Minneapolis right where it belongs: The Oval Office of the White House and the "rubber-stamp" congress of which Mark Kennedy is a part. In spite of Kennedy's claim that he supported increasing the program, a quick check of congressional voting records shows that he voted for amendments that were defeated by roll call votes before they even got to Kennedy. When the actual bill to reduce them came up to vote he lined up to vote to reduce the program.
You could say he voted for it before he voted against it. Ever hear that before?
To quote from the Minneapolis police:
In Minneapolis, $6 million in COPS grants allowed the police department to hire 81 cops and boost the city's number of officers to 938 by 1997. But officials have had to cut 140 positions since then, including 38 this year. Officers are being shifted from neighborhoods to handle emergency calls; robberies are up by 20% this year, and burglaries are up 3%.
"Our long-term, grass-roots initiatives are starting to fade," Minneapolis Police Chief Robert Olson says. "We're seeing a resurgence in gang activity. We've got gangsters showing up in hospitals with bullets in them. The real impact will be seen in a year or two."
Chief Olson says his department expanded its network of police teams that worked with neighborhood leaders and community groups to keep police informed of potential crime problems. The neighborhood "safe teams" are partnerships of officers and civilian police employees. They are the foundation of the city's community policing effort.
Before long, Minneapolis' crime rates had dropped to levels not seen since the 1960s. "I'd hate to think where we'd be right now" without the federal help, Olson says.
Today, with the department facing painful cuts in the city's budget, much of that success is at risk.
To try to make up for losing 140 positions, the department has pulled some officers off neighborhood beats to cover emergency calls. There no longer are enough detectives to investigate hit-and-runs and some car thefts. The department also cut its network of 26 "safe teams" nearly in half.
Now crime is rising in Minneapolis. In an unusual recognition of the depleted police ranks, state officials temporarily sent 12 state troopers to help investigate a spate of violent crimes last summer.
Comment 2 by Rick at 09-Oct-06 02:47 PM
Seems you know nothing about the first amendment nor campaign finance law.
I also noticed that you fail to mention Kennedy's fluff piece in the Strib that talked about his wife and love of farm animals that they ran last week.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 09-Oct-06 06:19 PM
Seems you know nothing about the first amendment nor campaign finance law.
I know everything about campaign finance law including Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's ruling that said the FEC had to regulate bloggers' speech as it pertained to their citing a candidate's website. Kollar-Kotelly said that mentioning a candidate's website constituted an "in-kind campaign contribution." This law doesn't apply to newspapers because they're part of the "exempt media."
In other words, I was being sarcastic about them being covered by campaign finance laws. It pisses me off that the NY Times, which gets things so factually incorrect so often, is exempted because BCRA says that they're real journalists but bloggers that print more in-depth analysis of the issues of the day aren't "real journalists."
BCRA is unconstitutional because it limits political speech. And yes, I know that some idiots in black robes says it isn't unconstitutional. Their saying it isn't unconstitutional doesn't mean it doesn't violate the First Amendment. If it violates the First Amendment, then it's unconstitutional.
Another 'I Told You So' Moment
Last night, I predicted responses from Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean blaming President Bush for the NoKo nuclear test. Here's proof that I was right:
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement on reports that North Korea has conducted its first nuclear test:Sen. Reid's chutzpah notwithstanding, he actually makes a point worth exploiting. He said that the Bush administration was "distracted by Iraq". Considering how important it was to remove a state sponsor of terrorism, I'd say that's a worthwhile 'distraction'. On the other hand, Sen. Reid's statement inadvertantly points out that Bill Clinton gave the NoKo's the nuclear technology in a time of supposed peace and prosperity. What's Clinton's excuse? He was 'irrationally exhuberant' over the great economy he inherited? It couldn't have been that Monica thing because that didn't happen until later.
"The reckless and counterproductive actions taken by North Korea must be condemned. The Bush Administration and the international community must ensure that North Korea understands the consequences of its actions. The first step toward ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program must be to ensure that this alleged first nuclear test is also the last.
"Unfortunately, on the Bush Administration's watch, North Korea's nuclear arsenal has grown to as many as a dozen bombs. Distracted by Iraq and paralyzed by internal divisions, the Bush Administration has for several years been in a state of denial about the growing challenge of North Korea, and has too often tried to downplay the issue or change the subject. Now the White House must rally the international community and must directly speak with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines.
"I urge the president to immediately appoint a senior official to conduct a full review of his administration's failed North Korea policy, develop recommendations to change course, and directly communicate to the North Koreans the consequences of their actions and the administration's new course. On North Korea as in other national security policies, the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have made America less secure. It is time for a new direction."
It seems to me that Clinton just messed this thing up with all the time in the world to make a simple decision. He failed us miserably, not because he was distracted but because he was a foreign policy failure relying on a pair of other Democratic foreign policy failures named Warren Christopher and Jimmy Carter.
As for Sen. Reid's call for a so-called "new direction", no thanks. I prefer having a sane man in charge of policy, not someone who ignores the world's problems. In other words, I prefer an adult in charge, not a Democrat.
UPDATE: This AP article is a decent roundup of the assinine statement made by Democrats on the North Korea nuclear test.
"We had the opportunity to stop North Korea from increasing its nuclear power, but George Bush went to sleep at the switch while he pursued his narrow agenda in Iraq," added Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat in a tough campaign in New Jersey.Sen. Menendez doesn't quite explain how "We had the opportunity to stop North Korea from increasing its nuclear power." That's because this is just Democrats' attempt to distract America from their frightful record of foreign policy failures.
Posted Monday, October 9, 2006 7:48 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
Hillary Joins Whine' List on NoKo
Hillary jumped into the Democratic 'blame Bush' campaign to hide Democrats' role in North Korea's getting the technology. It won't work. Here's what she said:
HILLARY: Some of the reason we are facing this danger is because of the failed policies of the Bush administration, and I regret deeply their failure to deal with the threat posed by North Korea, and I hope that the administration will now adopt a much more effective response than what they have up until now.Mrs. Clinton knows that the only reason we're dealing with this issue now is because her husband caved into North Korea's demands at the first meeting. Today's Democrats hold up the Agreed Framework as the model of what they'd do if they assumed power. The Agreed Framework is all carrot and no stick.
What does Mrs. Clinton think the Bush administration could've done to prevent North Korea from getting this nuclear technology, especially considering her husband gave them the technology? This is typical Democratic doublespeak.
Posted Monday, October 9, 2006 6:39 PM
August 2006 Posts
Comment 1 by Rick Gaber at 10-Oct-06 02:34 PM
I quoted you on my page at http://freedomkeys.com
Be Part of the Solution
Captain Ed is all over the rumors that the president planned on doing a pocket veto on the Secure Fence Act. Here's what Ed found out:
I took a few minutes at my lunch break to contact a senior staffer on the Hill who has worked the immigration issue. He told me that, as some CQ commenters had speculated, Congress has not formally sent the bill to the President. That means the clock has not started for his signature. The 10-day period starts only after Congress formally prints and delivers the bill for the President to sign into law.Earlier today, I stopped past MichelleMalkin.com earlier today. She's quoted early in the day as saying "Well, I hate to say I told you so. But I told you so."
Why has Congress waited? The Secure Fence Act, which requires that the border barrier be constructed, is a very high priority for Republican leadership in both chambers. They and the White House want to schedule the signing for what they see as the maximum impact to the midterm elections. This means waiting for other stories to fall off the front pages. My source told me that the terrorist detention and interrogation bill will be signed on October 17th, and they want this to come after that.
Expect to see this get signed somewhere between October 24th and November 1st. The White House considers this bill a front-and-center accomplishment and wants the boost to last all the way through Election Day. Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress (especially Bill Frist, I'm told) want this to get as much coverage as possible. After the signing ceremony, expect to see this bill get trumpeted in the final advertising push for all Republican incumbents running for re-election.
No one on the Hill or in the White House has missed the message from the base. Everyone understands the importance of signing this legislation for the midterms. My impression is that they didn't realize that people expected the bill to get signed at the same time as the Homeland Security appropriation, and now they understand the confusion. Bottom line: the Secure Fence Act will get signed into law.
Michelle, I didn't say I told you so but you're still wrong according to Captain Ed's investigating. Frankly, given Ms. Malkin's whining on this, I don't think that I'll be visiting her site anytime soon, especially if immigration is in the news.
Earlier today, I tried emailing her about her quote. The email didn't get through for some reason. I told her that I'm strongly in favor of a border fence but I wasn't just going to complain about it. I suggested that a Ronald Reagan Republican wouldn't whine about this; they'd start a movement to make our views the dominant view in the GOP. I further added that a Ronald Reagan Republican would get the politicians in Washington to realize that their careers were on the line on that vote.
To date, she hasn't taken those courses of action. Forgive me if I see Ms. Malkin as not being part of the solution.
Posted Monday, October 9, 2006 7:32 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
KvM on Amy's Unethical Ad
KVM says that Amy Klobuchar's ad titled "Ashamed" is actually unethical. Here's their explanation:
The advertisement is a direct violation of the ethical standards Amy Klobuchar swore to uphold when she was admitted to the Minnesota Bar.
As an attorney, I do not level such accusations lightly. After reading Andy's earlier post, though, and the recent Minnesota Court of Appeals case involving one of the defendants in the Tyesha Edwards case, I can come to no other conclusion.
There is a specific and clear rule in Minnesota regulating statements by attorneys in pending criminal trials. Rule 3.6 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct states:
It goes on:(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a criminal matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement about the matter that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a jury trial in a pending criminal matter.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
(c) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a).
5) Amy Klobuchar knows that the ad "will be disseminated by means of public communication." Her political campaign is paying for it to be disseminated.That makes sense. The only conclusions we are to make is that (a) Amy Klobuchar puts her campaign needs ahead of the ethical requirements of her current office or (b) that she's that ignorant of her ethical obligations. Neither conclusion is particularly flatter towards Ms. Klobuchar.
Posted Monday, October 9, 2006 8:11 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
