September 9-10, 2007
Sep 09 02:56 A RINO Retires, Our Nightmare Ends Sep 09 05:24 Reid: Petraeus' Testimony Is White House Spin Sep 09 11:03 Fisking Harry Reid Sep 09 11:48 MoveOn Targeting Pro-Victory Liberals Sep 09 21:42 Democrats Deeply Divided Over Iraq Sep 10 01:22 Tuesday's Must See TV Sep 10 02:16 LFR At 100 Thousand Sep 10 10:28 Come Hell or High Water
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006
A RINO Retires, Our Nightmare Ends
According to this article, anti-war Defeatocrat Chuck Hagel will announce his retirement from politics this Monday. That makes it alot simpler process in electing a real Republican to that Senate seat.
Chuck Hagel will announce Monday that he is retiring from the U.S. Senate and will not run for president next year, people close to the Nebraska Republican said Friday.Our long GOP nightmare is apparently over. We've rid ourselves of Jumping Jim Jeffords, Linc Chaffee last year. Now we're getting rid of Chuckie Hagel. Now it's time to start rebuilding our ranks.
Hagel plans to announce that "he will not run for re-election and that he does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008," said one person, who asked not to be named. Hagel has scheduled a press conference for 10 a.m. Monday at the Omaha Press Club.
We've now pretty much eliminated the anti-war RINOs from the Senate. Now it's time to rebuild with more senators like Tom Coburn, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn and Orrin Hatch.
Jeffords, Chaffee and Hagel demoralized conservatives with their anti-war positions because they weren't based in facts. In Chaffee's case, he was anti-war because he thought it was advantageous politically. In Hagel's case, I think it was more about him just not caring about winning. If he'd cared about winning, he would've suggested an alternative plan.
One thing that's certain is that this trio won't be missed. I believe in a big tent but I don't believe in a tent so big that we tolerate idiots that get the biggest national security issues of our generation wrong.
Early this year, his frustration erupted after Bush announced plans for a troop buildup to try to curb violence in Iraq. Hagel labeled it "the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam - if it's carried out."Chuck Hagel let emotions get the better of him. His decisionmaking seemed to be based more on what would get him invited onto the Sunday morning talk shows than on actually studying what was happening. Another reason why history won't be kind towards Sen. Hagel is because he always thought higher of himself than was warranted.
That and other criticism triggered a backlash from some conservatives, who viewed him as disloyal to the Republican president and potentially jeopardizing troops abroad.
Hagel didn't relish the attacks. He explained how Vietnam had a big impact on his view of this war. He recalled Congress' silence during much of Vietnam, as well as the 58,000 Americans who died. He said he didn't want that history to repeat itself.
"I'll be damned if I'm going to stand there and accept the status quo and let it all happen again," he said.
Let's compare Sen. Hagel's quote that Gen. Petraeus' surge strategy would be "the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam..." The truth is that it's working. Iraqi sheikhs have turned against al-Qa'ida in Anbar province. The Iraqi parliament is ready to start passing the oil revenue sharing reform. For all his God-like declarations, he hasn't been right that often.
Another reason why history won't be kind to Sen. Hagel is because he's held a defeatist attitude towards Iraq from the outset. It's one thing to disagree with President Bush's policy, then putting forward a winning strategy of your own. It's quite another to criticize President Bush's policy, then say we can't win so let's get out.
If Daniel Patrick Moynihan were still alive and serving in the Senate, he would've been critical of President Bush's Iraq strategy. He also would've offered his own pro victory strategy. That's what great statesmen have done throughout history.
By comparison, little men like Chuck Hagel whine about things that went wrong without offering ideas that would've solved the problems. Here's a sample of Sen. Hagel's defeatism:
We must start by understanding what's really happening in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released in February, the conflict has become a "self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis" and also includes "extensive Shia-on-Shia violence." This means that Iraq is being consumed by sectarian warfare, much of it driven by Shiite or Sunni militias, not al-Qaeda terrorists. Yes, there are admirers of Osama bin Laden in the country, including a full-blown al-Qaeda branch. But terrorists are not the core problem; Sunni-Shiite violence is. The Bush administration's rhetoric has not been nearly clear enough on this key point.Look at the terminology in Sen. Hagel's op-ed. He sounds like a rabid anti-war nutter from Daily Kos-land. In using terminology like occupation and civil war, he sounds like John Murtha. That type of talk will get you invited onto the Sunday morning political shows but it isn't anchored in reality.
American occupation cannot stop a civil war in Iraq. Our military, superb as it is, can only do so much. The only lasting answer to Iraq's anguish will come from a political resolution. There will be no military solution in Iraq.
When Gen. Petraeus testifies about violence in Iraq, he's expected to talk about a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq. Theoretically, that shouldn't be possible if Sen. Hagel was right about "the conflict has become a 'self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'" In fact, if the violence was self-sustaining, why did Ibrahim al-Douri switch to the good guys' side?
The leader of Iraq's banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party's former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat. "Al-Douri has decided to sever ties with al-Qaeda and sign up to the programme of the national resistance, which includes routing Islamist terrorists and opening up dialogue with the Baghdad government and foreign forces," al-Jashaami said.Sen. Hagel's analysis was strictly out of Beltway conventional wisdom. Any number of pundits could've made the predictions that Sen. Hagel made. In fact, multitudes of pundits did write the same thing. I've yet to hear anything out of Sen. Hagel's mouth that wasn't utterly predictable. In fact, I haven't heard any of his recent Iraq War predictions come true.
Al-Douri has decided to deal directly with US forces in Iraq, according to al-Jashaami. He figures in the 55-card deck of "most wanted" officials from the former Iraqi regime issued by the US government. In return, for cooperating in the fight against al-Qaeda, al-Douri has asked for guarantees over his men's safety and for an end to Iraqi army attacks on his militias.
Hagel is the ultimate cookie cutter politician. We've got too many of them already. That's why it's time for him to go.
Posted Sunday, September 9, 2007 2:57 AM
No comments.
Reid: Petraeus' Testimony Is White House Spin
Harry Reid isn't waiting to hear Gen. Petraeus' testimony. He's already decided that Gen. Petraeus' testimony is White House spin:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in his party's weekly radio address today that he expects the Petraeus report to be nothing more than the Bush administration's selective take on the surge.Reid is implying that Gen. Petraeus will say whatever President Bush tells him to. Sen. Reid is also implying that President Bush will order Gen. Petraeus to cherry-pick the information so that Gen. Petraeus' report won't accurately portray what's happening in Iraq. As disgusting as that Reid accusation is, it isn't the most disgusting quote. Here's the most disgusting quote from Reid:
"Before the report arrives in Congress, it will pass through the White House spin machine, where facts are often ignored or twisted, and intelligence is cherry-picked," said Reid.
"He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual," Reid said. "I have every belief that this good man will give us what he feels is the right thing to do in his report, but it's not his report anymore. It's Bush's report."The first quote just implied that Gen. Petraeus would lie for President Bush. This time, Sen. Reid says that Gen. Petraeus has a history of lying. What's disgusting about neither quote is backed up with any proof of the accusations. What proof does Reid have that Gen. Petraeus has lied? It appears that Sen. Reid hasn't learned that allegations aren't proof.
I suspect that that's because his accusations have never been challenged before. Sen. Reid is about to find out that it's a totally different world out there, that the Right Blogosphere will ask the hard questions. He's about to find out that we won't let him slip questions. We'll be persistent in demanding proof that his accusations aren't fabrications.
Sen. Reid is took the same approach that Sen. Durbin took in this speech:
Durbin: By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence is decreasing and that the surge is working. Even if the figures are right, the conclusions are wrong.The key thing to notice is that Durbin and Reid accused Gen. Petraeus of manipulating the information to fit White House spin requirements without offering proof that their statements are anything but allegations. Based on these senator's history, and the fact that they didn't offer any proof to back up their allegations, why shouldn't we conclude that they're the ones doing the spinning? It's also worth noting that both senators called Gen. Petraeus a fine man immediately after sliming him.
As disgusting as Sen. Reid's and Sen. Durbin's statements are, the most disgusting statement about Gen. Petraeus' testimony was made by Rahm Emanuel:
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., joined his Senate colleagues in claiming the Petraeus report would be little more than a work of fiction.What is Rep. Emanuel basing his spin on? Has he bothered finding out what's happened in Iraq over the past 6 months? Has he traveled to Iraq to find out what's happening firsthand?
"Instead of a new strategy for Iraq, the Bush administration is cherry-picking the data to support their political objectives and preparing a report that will offer another defense of the president's strategy," said Emanuel, the House Democratic Caucus Chair. "We don't need a report that wins the Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer for fiction."
We know that other liberals have gone over to Iraq and returned with a different attitude on the war. Brian Baird and Keith Ellison both returned thinking that conditions are improving. Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack were all but run out of the Democratic Party for their NY Times op-ed.
Are we to believe that Laird and Ellison, O'Hanlon and Pollack, men who disagreed with the Bush strategy, are now spinning for the Bush administration? Here's what Baird said in defending his new position:
Baird said he would not say this if he didn't believe two things:
- " One , I think we're making real progress."
- " Secondly , I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility,and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."
Ellison said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, "we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market." There have been fewer anti-U.S. sermons as the violence has been reduced, Ellison said, and religious leaders meet regularly with U.S. military officials.That's a direct contradiction of Sen. Schumer's claims that Anbar is safer now in spite of US military efforts.
"The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership," he said. "So they're not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they're doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives."
Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with "as-salama aleikum," meaning peace be upon you.
Here's the key portion of O'Hanlon's and Pollack's op-ed:
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.Rep. Emanuel wants us to ignore these quotes. Rep. Emanuel knows that he's in trouble. If he admits that Iraq policy has changed and that it's working, the debate is over. Rep. Emanuel has also painted himself into a corner because he's essentially said that the additional military personnel haven't had an impact. Just using the quotes I've listed before, Rep. Emanuel knows that he can't win this fight. He knows that anyone with a computer can look this stuff up and refute his spin. What must be utterly annoying is that putting this information together doesn't even take 5 minutes.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services, electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation, to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began, though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
Here's a list of questions I'd ask of Sen. Reid, Sen. Durbin and Rep. Emanuel, though I'm certain that they'd dodge them if at all possible:
If the surge isn't working, why did Ibrahim al-Douri switch to fighting al-Qa'ida?
The leader of Iraq's banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party's former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat. "Al-Douri has decided to sever ties with al-Qaeda and sign up to the programme of the national resistance, which includes routing Islamist terrorists and opening up dialogue with the Baghdad government and foreign forces," al-Jashaami said.If the surge isn't working, why are US military bases being used for local reconciliation meetings?
Al-Douri has decided to deal directly with US forces in Iraq, according to al-Jashaami. He figures in the 55-card deck of "most wanted" officials from the former Iraqi regime issued by the US government. In return, for cooperating in the fight against al-Qaeda, al-Douri has asked for guarantees over his men's safety and for an end to Iraqi army attacks on his militias.
Recent weeks have seen a first step in this direction, when Baathist fighters cooperated with Iraqi government forces in hunting down al-Qaeda operatives in the volatile Diyala province and in several districts of the capital, Baghdad.
If the surge isn't working, why did Muqtada al-Sadr abandon his militias in favor of a safe place in Tehran?
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered a six-month suspension of activities by his Mahdi Army militia in order to reorganize the force, an aide said Wednesday. The aide, Sheik Hazim al-Araji, said on Iraqi state television that the goal was to "rehabilitate" the organization, which has reportedly broken into factions, some of which the U.S. maintains are trained and supplied by Iran.Muqtada al-Sadr is finished as an influential leader in Iraq. Why didn't he make this announcement from Najaf? Why did he have a spokesman announce that the Mahdi Army needed rehabilitation? Thinking people know that that's spin for "the Mahdi Army is in shambles." People know that Sheik Hazim al-Araji's strategy is to regroup. In the Arab world, that strategy is known as hudna. Here's what Wikipedia says about hudna:
"We declare the freezing of the Mahdi Army without exception in order to rehabilitate it in a way that will safeguard its ideological image within a maximum period of six months starting from the day this statement is issued," al-Araji said, reading from a statement by al-Sadr.
Its opponents commonly argued that it would be a mere tactical maneuver enabling Palestinian groups to re-group and muster their strength in preparation for further attacks on Israelis.Based on all the firsthand information in the public record, it's impossible to argue that the surge isn't working. It's also impossible to take anything that Reid, Durbin and Emanuel say seriously. Why should we give them the benefit of the doubt when we've gathered so many quotes that contradict their allegations? Why shouldn't we ignore them, especially since they haven't even visited Iraq since the surge started?
What's galling is that they're accusing Gen. Petraeus and President Bush of spinning when they're the ones who can't back up anything they've said. They've gotten away with that in the past but they won't get away with it now.
Posted Sunday, September 9, 2007 5:25 AM
Comment 1 by ChrisB at 09-Sep-07 08:56 AM
"He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual,"
Are you sure he wasn't talking about Bush there, and not Petraeus?
Comment 2 by Qwinn at 09-Sep-07 09:06 AM
You missed the most disgusting part of it. Congress -demanded- that the report actually come from the White House, not Petraus himself. So when they complain that Bush will get to work over what Petraus actually reports, that's because -they demanded it-. That's the part that really galls me.
Qwinn
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 09-Sep-07 10:05 AM
"He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual,"
Are you sure he wasn't talking about Bush there, and not Petraeus?
Comment by ChrisB 09Sep2007
Yes, I'm positive. Here's what the ABCNews article said:
On Friday, Reid went so far as to question not only the true source of the report but also the four-star general's honesty.
"He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual," Reid said.
Comment 4 by ic at 09-Sep-07 12:46 PM
What do you expect? Binny is showing his displeasures: "...Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning."
When Binny speaks, his toadies quake.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/new-obl-tape-ir.html
Fisking Harry Reid
Saturday, Harry Reid delivered the Democrats' weekly radio address. In it, he said some things that deserve closer scrutiny. Here's the first statement worthy of scrutiny:
"But before he'd finished the job of destroying al Qaeda, President Bush chose a different path, misleading us into an ill-planned war in Iraq.It isn't a stretch to think that Sen. Reid is implying that al-Qa'ida is located only in Afghanistan. President Bush said in his speech on September 20, 2001, al-Qa'ida is located in at least 60 countries. Did Sen. Reid think that destroying al-Qa'ida would only take a few months? Or did he think that if we destroyed al-Qa'ida, the worldwide jihad movement would be destroyed? I'd really have to question Sen. Reid's policymaking abilities if he's suggesting that al-Qa'ida was the only Islamofascist threat.
That isn't the only aspect of that statement that needs closer scrutiny. Sen. Reid then repeats the age-old liberal line about President Bush lied us into war. As is his habit, he doesn't provide proof of that. He simply makes the accusation, then keeps moving a la Drive By Media style. That might work when he's dealing with the Drive Bys but it won't work here.
If you don't offer proof, then you don't have credibility. PERIOD.
Here's another inaccurate statement:
170,000 brave Americans are mired in a civil war in far-away Iraq...Sen. Reid is half right. Brave American soldiers are "in far-away Iraq"; they just aren't "mired in a civil war." In fact, the dynamic is changing, thanks to what Keith Ellison reported:
"The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership," he said. "So they're not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they're doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives."Here's another myth that's crumbling:
Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with "as-salama aleikum," meaning peace be upon you.
And international support for the United States has crumbled.Perhaps Sen. Reid can explain how "international support for the United States has crumbled" at the same time that the French are offering their full support :
Next month, Sarkozy goes back to the US, to attend the United Nations General Assembly. Not only is he eager to do anything to help Bush and "Condoleezza" in Iraq, he now goes all-out neo-con on Iran.If you couple this next statement with Reid's earlier statement that we're mired in a civil war, you'll get intellectual whiplash:
"Our military is not to blame for those setbacks. The men and women who serve us in uniform have met every challenge and surpassed every goal with remarkable courage. These are President Bush's failures, and it is long past time for him to change his flawed policies.Sen. Reid, if "the men and women who serve us in uniform have met every challenge and surpassed every goal", how can they be mired in a civil war? If they've surpassed the goals set by Gen. Petraeus, haven't they made progress that's worth continuing?
I'd ignore that sentence if it wasn't so ridiculous. That's a throw-away line. If he meant what he said, he'd have much higher praise for the troops.
"Many Republicans spent the summer saying that September would be the time to change direction. September is here. Now they must finally stand with Democrats, our troops and the American people by voting to responsibly end the war.Sen. Reid is putting words in Republicans' mouths. Perhaps a George Voinovich or a John Warner or a Chuck Hagel said that September would be a time to change direction but I don't think he can point to other Republicans who said that. In fact, I think it's likely that most GOP senators were perfectly willing to see if the Surge was the right change of direction.
Frankly, this is an accurate sample of the mindless drivel that Harry Reid serves up on a frequent basis. Because he's constantly in spin mode, I won't give him the benefit of the doubt.
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. Follow this link for a more thorough fisking of Harry Reid.
Originally posted Sunday, September 9, 2007, revised 11-Sep 10:15 AM
No comments.
MoveOn Targeting Pro-Victory Liberals
MoveOn.org is mad as hell with pro-victory Democrats and they aren't going to take it anymore. At least that's the message coming from this article:
MoveOn.org's political action committee is close to declaring war on Democrats who support the administration's policy in Iraq.Did anyone ever think that people that wanted to defeat the jihadists would be political targets? Not that it was a big secret before but this is just additional confirmation that MoveOn.org thinks that their purpose is to bully politicians into following them or risk expulsion from Congress.
The liberal group announced it is sponsoring an online poll, surveying its members on whether they would support primary challenges to Democrats who side with President Bush on the Iraq war.
If at least 66 percent of its membership supports the goal, they will begin building up a war chest to help fund anti-war candidacies.
"There are a lot of Democrats in Congress who are Democrats In Name Only. They don't represent their constituents," reads the e-mail to the group's members.. "A lot of them have been in office for years and they think that they can vote however they want. That's just wrong."
It said it would only get involved in races where the majority of MoveOn members supported the primary challenger, and where the opponent has a reasonable chance at winning.
I don't think that that's how you build a big tent party. It certainly isn't the way to foster an atmosphere of free thinking and thoughtful debate.
It's time for Democrats to stand up to this scourge before it destroys a once-great party.
The good news is that the majority of pro-victory Democrats are in swing districts. If MoveOn.org runs primary challengers against these incumbents, they'll likely lose those seats in 2008.
Posted Sunday, September 9, 2007 11:50 AM
No comments.
Democrats Deeply Divided Over Iraq
If you read this article, you'll come away with the unmistakable impression that Democrats are deeply divided on Iraq policy. I don't think that it's a stretch to say that the Surge has left them between Iraq and a hard place.
"Right now, we could write the story of this Congress as 'Profiles in Cowardice,'" Lerner said. "There's a great deal of frustration with the Democrats in the Congress, a sense almost of betrayal. The Democrats don't have, and even the people in the antiwar movement don't have a coherent alternative worldview from which to base a strategy. That's why they end up debating everything on the same terms that the Republicans do."Michael Lerner isn't just any lefty. He's a true believer in the anti-war movement. According to Wikipedia, he was a member of the executive committee of the Free Speech Movement at U Cal-Berkeley. That quote should scare Democrats because activists won't push themselves to get a bunch of cowards elected. As bad as that quote is, it isn't the only bad news in the article. Here's another blast of bad news:
The transcript quotes Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), who is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as saying: "The people that need to hear are the moderate Democrats who are holding up the whole thing. They're the ones who have to know that their people care, that they [want to] bring our troops home. They swear they don't. They swear that they'll lose their elections if they do the right thing."I'd love knowing why Rep. Woolsey thinks that needlessly losing a war is "doing the right thing." That's some of the most warped thinking I've ever heard. It's also some of the most predictable rhetoric I've ever heard. What's also predictable is their attempt to frame the issue differently:
When one peace organizer talks about "peeling away Republican support for the war," Woolsey interjects: "Maybe you folks should go after the Democrats."
During the call, Woolsey advises the activists: "Help people change the conversation from 'abandoning the troops' to funding orderly redeployment. I'm telling you, that's going to take six months to a year,Progressives know that whether we spend money on this or not is going to make the difference. That's all the House can really do, the budget part of it."Woolsey can talk all she wants about changing the conversation but it won't work. The American people know what's at stake. Tinkering with the terminology won't change the conversation. People still know that Democrats aren't willing to consider the option of winning in Iraq. All the tinkering in the world won't get the American people to turn defeatist.
One of the things that Democrats have misread is who the American people are and what they stand for. Democrats are right in believing that Americans are impatient people. Where they go wrong is in believing that they're defeatists. Studying American history should tell Democrats that Americans aren't defeatists. Any country that's accomplished as much as we have has a positive, can do attitude. That certainly isn't the attitude that Democrats have.
At one point, Woolsey, who represents Marin and Sonoma counties, is quoted as saying: "I believe that Nancy is with us, and she's counting on you guys,...and me to push from the Left in the Congress."Lerner sounds surprised that a longterm incumbent doesn't like taking political risks. Where's he been? I don't know of many career politicians that are willing to take political risks. This quote from Jim Moran explains why Democrats can't win by being defeatist:
Lerner, in the interview with Politico, was not sympathetic. "We're not that concerned about what's going on in her heart," he said. "We're trying to end the war and in that, she does not seem to be very much with us...is not willing to take any serious political risk."
The other lawmaker on the call, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), defends Pelosi. "The speaker doesn't have the votes," he said. "If you see what has happened in the Democratic Caucus, I don't think you'd be quite as critical of the speaker. She really is trying...We cobbled together a majority by winning in a lot of seats that tend to be conservative: in the South, in the rural Midwest, and so on. These members are very much afraid that if they get to far out front, they're going to lose their seat, and they're being advised to not take risks so we can sustain this majority."This is a perfect example of why Democrats can't satisfy their defeatist puppeteers. That's why I didn't think they could cobble together a majority last year. The Nutroots demand unswerving loyalty to their defeatist agenda. That's something that simply won't play well in the South and rural Midwest.
The conflict depicted in this conference call should alarm Democratic presidential hopefuls. Trying to appease the Nutroots while still sounding sane is practically impossible. They're welcome to try but I don't see how it's possible.
Check back later for more updates on this subject. I'm planning at least one more post on the Democrats' divisions.
Posted Sunday, September 9, 2007 9:43 PM
No comments.
Tuesday's Must See TV
Everyone remembers how stupid Joe Biden looked during his first round of questions for John Roberts. He rambled on and on, wasting about half his allotted time. Then he tried rushing Judge Roberts' answers, only to get cut off at the knees by Arlen Specter. Everyone who's paid a minute's worth of attention to Biden, a scary thought if ever there was one, knows that he isn't half as smart as he thinks he is.
That's why Tuesday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that day's must see TV. Sen. Biden thinks he knows what he's talking about when it comes to Iraq. I'd bet the ranch that he'll be the day's biggest loser because he'll be trying to tell Gen. Petraeus that " This president has no plan how to win and/or how to leave ", just like he opined on Meet the (De)Press(ed) Sunday.
I can't wait to see Gen. Petraeus remain calm while he meticulously and methodically demolishes the Democrats' arguments. Just like when they questioned John Roberts, Democrats will think that they're the smartest people in the room. Unfortunately for them, the smartest people in the room will be the people who swear an oath that morning to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Based on what they said yesterday on the talk shows, there should be plenty of allegations flying. Let's look at some of the silliest things Democrats said Sunday:
Senator John Kerry, (D-MA), said that while U.S. troops had scored successes in parts of Iraq, it was dangerous to think this could readily be replicated nationwide. "You can take a tactical success and misread it, as we did in Vietnam," he said on ABC.It sounds like a win isn't a win in John Kerry's world. I'd be interested in hearing how Kerry defines victory. Perhaps that, too, must pass a " global test "?
Biden, too, made a Vietnam allusion, saying he believed "absolutely, positively, unequivocally," that absent a change of course, helicopters would be evacuating Americans from the Green Zone in Baghdad within two years.I'd love hearing what Sen. Biden is basing that opinion on. A man would be foolish to make such a categorical prediction if he didn't have special inside information. Frankly, I suspect that Sen. Biden 'knows this' the same way that John Murtha knew that " there was a cover-up someplace." I suspect that Sen. Biden, much like Rep. Murtha, made his statement that way so he'd sound authoritative. That image won't last long when questioning a genuine expert like Gen. Petraeus.
This statement borders on the absurd:
Biden acknowledged the political limits on his party, even with the congressional majority it has held since November. "This is the president's war," he said on NBC. "Unless we get 67 votes to override his veto, there's nothing we can do to stop this war, but we must, we must, we must protect these troops." He was referring to the number of Senate votes required to overturn a presidential veto.Congress holds the power of the purse. If it wanted to end the deployment, they could do it by simply not acting on President Bush's next Iraq supplemental. Without that special appropriation, the funding stops. It doesn't take 67 votes in the Senate. It just takes more political 'courage' than Democrats have.
Ideologues like Sen. Biden, Sen. Kerry and Kennedy have already made up their minds. In Kennedy's case, it's because he's a true believer that the American military, under President Bush's command, isn't capable of winning. The motivation is different in Biden's case. He's a presidential candidate in need of campaign contributions. If MoveOn.org says jump and he doesn't ask how high, there goes what little chance he's got at being taken seriously.
Another reason why Tuesday's hearing should be must see TV is because of the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
Christopher Dodd, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Bill Nelson, Barack Obama, Robert Menendez, Ben Cardin, Bob Casey, Jr. and Jim Webb.With panelists like Webb, Boxer, Kerry and Feingold and presidential candidates like Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, there's sure to be lots of posturing and pretending.
I wouldn't miss it for the world.
Posted Monday, September 10, 2007 1:23 AM
No comments.
LFR At 100 Thousand
On August 20, 2006, the 50,000th visitor stopped past LFR. Yes, other blogs average that a day & more but hitting the 50,000 mark was an accomplishment I took some pride in. Barely a year later, I've broken the 100,000 mark.
Thanks for visiting LFR. I hope you've found my posts informative, irreverent, well-researched. Most of all, I hope I've given you a reason to think about issues from a different angle.
Indulge me while I recall the 'Good old days'. Here's my first post:
WOWThe first issue that I followed was the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine. I remember visiting a blog titled Le Sabot Post-Moderne, run by a Christian missionary. That's where I that another St. Cloud blogger was following the Orange Revolution. Back then, the only thing I knew about him was that he was a college professor at St. Cloud State. Now I'm privileged to call King my friend.
Well, this is my first entry in the blogosphere so I won't try & be too elaborate but it feels good to be part of the force that's changing politics by demanding that the MSM is held accountable to its readers.
All are welcome here but common sense is vital to having a genuine conversation & debate of the issues. With that said, let the blogging begin.
Along the way, I've had the good fortune to meet other bloggers who share a passion for the truth. One of those bloggers is Leo Pusateri. Leo, King & I were the charter members of the St. Cloud Bloggers' Association. Some of the other bloggers that I now consider friends are Michael Brodkorb , Drew Emmer , Andy Aplikowski , Cindy Whitehair , Gary Matthew Miller , Captain Ed , Mitch Berg and Derek Brigham.
It's been a fun ride. I just hope the next 100,000 hits will be as fun as the first 100,000.
Posted Monday, September 10, 2007 2:16 AM
Comment 1 by Aakash at 10-Sep-07 09:43 PM
Hello... I don't know if I've been to your fine weblog before, but I too have recently been going down the Blogosphere memory lane. I've remarked recently that it's depressing how so many weblogs that were there in the past are no longer current, or worse, no longer online at all.
CONGRATULATIONS on the popularity of your blog. My 5-year 'Blogiversary' will be in five days, but because of the trouble I've perpetually had (especially during this year) keeping it updated, my hit counts have been much lower than they could have been.
It is incredible how some of you are able to keep your blogs current and well-written... Keep up the great work!!
Also, I found last night [actually, this morning - since I was up very late/very early... :-( ], the short list of blogs that make up a St. Paul ring (I think it was), that were at the 'SCSU Scholars' blog's sidebar.... That's how I came over here. I don't know whether I've been here before, but I had wanted to do a blog entry, after our CR delegation returned, in April, from the YAF Midwest Conference, held in Minneapolis. I mentioned that Conference in the Facebook 'Note' I published, after we returned from from the National CR Convention... That 'Note' was recently inserted into my blog, but I put a notice on top, about how the bridge we went over, for that Conference, has tragically collapsed. (One of the CRs who came along called me that night, and told me about it.) It is horrible - and scary - how that happened... That news has faded from the national headlines recently, but how have things been going, in that regard, during the past couple of weeks?
--------------------
Maybe I will be back in your area, for the National Republican Convention, next year.
Congratulations, once again, on your fine site, and please keep up the good work.
Come Hell or High Water
According to Bill Salisbury's Pi-Press article, that's the attitude the DFL is planning on bringing to the gas tax increase debate next November:
For Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Minnesota legislators, the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge Aug. 1 was a wake-up call to stop squabbling and find a way to fix the state's long-neglected roads and bridges. But a month later, the bipartisan goodwill has evaporated, and the Republican governor and DFL lawmakers have reverted to partisan haggling.What I'd like to know is how the DFL will get the votes to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto. The House couldn't override Gov. Pawlenty's veto in the last seconds of the 2007 session. In fact, it wasn't that close, falling 7 votes short of the 90 votes needed.
That means the chances of passing a comprehensive transportation bill in a special session this fall are all but dead.
The issue, though, is still very much alive. DFL legislators are preparing to launch a campaign to drum up public support, including going directly to citizens in each of the state's 87 counties. The goal is to build momentum for transportation tax increases that can be passed during the 2008 legislative session, even if DFL leaders have to roll over Pawlenty to do it.
According to this, the DFL plans on barnstorming the state in hopes of drumming up those additional 7 votes needed in the House to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto. I suspect that the DFL leadership will find DFL freshmen from Southeastern Minnesota aren't receptive to increasing taxes.
The most astonishing quote from the article is from one of LFR's quote friends, Steve "I'm not trying to fool anyone...there's lots of taxes in this bill" Murphy . Here's Sen. Murphy's declaration:
Citing a Minnesota Department of Transportation study, Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, said the gap between what the state is spending and what it needs to meet performance standards is about $2.4 billion a year for the next six years. A 5-cent gas tax increase would raise an estimated $162 million a year.Long before the session started, the DFL said that Minnesota was underfunding the transportation budget by $1 billion per year. After Sen. Murphy proposed his gas tax bill, that figure jumped to $1.7 billion per year. Now we're supposedly underfunding Minnesota's transportation by $2.4 per year? It isn't unreasonable to ask where they come up with their figures.
"The governor is talking about a 5 percent solution to the problem," Murphy said. (Actually, a 5-cent tax would plug 6.75 percent of the gap.) "I'm not interested in negotiating for a 5 percent solution."
So, Murphy and other members of the House and Senate transportation committees, "mostly Democrats but some Republicans," he said, are preparing to take a traveling show to each of the state's county seats to tell citizens about Minnesota's transportation needs.
He said they would argue for legislation similar to the bill Pawlenty vetoed earlier this year. That measure called for a 5 cent increase in the current 20 cents-a-gallon gas tax; an additional gas tax surcharge of up to 2.5 cents a gallon to finance highway bonds; authorizing metro counties to impose a half-cent sales tax for transit, roads and bridges; and an increase in motor vehicle license renewal fees.
The public dislikes tax increases. "So what?" Murphy said. "Courage is doing what's politically unpopular when it's going to save people's lives."
I've joined King several times in stating that needs is a subjective term. Marty Seifert not-so-kiddingly has defined budget targets as "the grand total of every special interest group's wish list." I can't disagree with that definition.
The more important thing to take from these paragraphs is that Murphy isn't satisfied with a 5 cent a gallon gas tax increase. It's clear that his first priority in next February's session is to revisit the tax increases in the Transportation Bill. They'll have a steep uphill climb to pass the type of tax increase that Sen. Murphy wants considering the results of this poll:
Many politicians have called for the gas tax increase to shore up aging highways and bridges. This is really a call to action and this is a duty that we need to fulfill on behalf of the memory of people who've lost their lives," House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said.What that poll means is that the people don't want more tax increases. The other thing that comes through loud and clear in this poll is that candidates running in swing districts on the platform of gas tax increases will take a pounding in 2008. As I said then, 75 percent of the people polled either don't want a tax increase or want a minimal tax increase.
But so far, it appears most Minnesotans don't agree. Fifty-seven percent of people surveyed say the state should not increase the state gas tax. Only 38 percent say it should go up. Of those who want a gas tax increase, 47 percent would prefer an increase of less than five cents. Another 35 percent say they would pay 5 to 7 cents. But few would pay more.
Sending people like Steve Murphy and Bernie Lieder around the state won't turn public opinion around on that. Remember that Lieder saw God in the gas tax bill:
Republicans understandably want to stand by their governor, Rep. Bernie Lieder said. But this is a higher calling now," said the Crookston DFLer and top House transportation negotiator, who acknowledged supporters appear one vote short of a veto-proof majority.I'm wondering if this is the DFL version of an altar call. Are they now admitting that they worship at the altar of massive tax increases? That appears to be the case.
Don't look for their push to go unanswered. Don't expect Murphy's tax increases to become law, either.
Posted Monday, September 10, 2007 10:28 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Sep-07 01:05 PM
Somebody needs to follow them around and just ask the obvious questions: "What did you do with the last $34 Billion we gave you? Did it go to roads and bridges? If not, why not?
