The Savage Republican

Saturday, April 01, 2006

Amy on Iraq

Eric Black of the Star Tribune did an amazing interview with all three candidates for US Senator a couple of weeks ago, with follow-up questions and answers this week. (Hat tip KvM) AAA focused on a couple of specific Iraq war related questions and on Mr. Black's well conducted interview (he did not let an unanswered question go unchallenged) but I want to dig a little deeper into the exchange (emphasis added).

" Black: Okay. On your website, you say that we need a clear plan to bring our troops home safely. “We need to change course.” That 2006 should be the year that the Iraqi government decreases its dependency on the United States.
As far as I can tell, the administration agrees with that, and Rep. Kennedy agrees with that as a goal. But given the circumstances in Iraq, how do you ensure that the Iraqis decrease their dependency?
Klobuchar: There is a clear difference between me and Congressman Kennedy on this. He is saying stay the course. I am saying change the course."

OK - I must interrupt here.....All 3 say that we need to bring a majority of our troops home, but Amy says that there is a "clear difference" between her and Congressman Kennedy?

"Klobuchar: I do believe that we should listen to the commanders on the ground. However a policy decision has to be made to start bringing home some of our troops, working with them, having them tell the Congress and tell the president what’s the most responsible way to do that. But the policy decision has to be made from above. And I believe it should be made to start bringing home a significant number of our troops.
Black: So, to clarify the differences between you and let’s say the Bush position, other than saying that you favor change and they favor staying the course. They say that they expect there to be withdrawals this year, they favor it. And that it should be based on the recommendations of the commanders in the field. Is there some portion of that that you disagree with?
Klobuchar: If you look at the president’s recommendations yesterday, [the reference is to Bush’s March 13 Iraq speech] he did not say that we would bring home a significant number of troops this year. So that is a clear difference. He did not say that. He said that he thought we should begin to do that. That we should listen to the troops. I’m saying that we must begin bringing home a significant number of troops. He talked about territory.
Black: Rep. Kennedy has said in one of his MPR interviews that his understanding from his last visit over there, from talking to the military leadership, is that there is a plan that will drawdown tens of thousands of troops this year, but that the enactment of that plan should depend on the continuing recommendations of the commanders in the field. Do you disagree with any of that.
Klobuchar: I believe that the president should set the course that we should bring home a significant number of troops this year. And ask the commanders on the ground for a plan to do that.
But the difference is that we must bring home a significant number of troops this year because I believe that that is the only way that we’re going to get the message to the rest of the world that we’re serious about this, we’re bringing our troops home, and that the government of Iraq must take responsibility for their own country.
Black: Any notion of what constitutes a significant number?
Klobuchar: We need that plan. What I’ve said is that if the president isn’t going to tell us that, then we need to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, obviously they can’t demand that they come up with a plan, but that they should ask them to present a plan of how we bring home a significant number of troops and what that is.
Black: So the difference I think I’m noticing is this. They’re saying we think the situation will improve that will enable us to bring home a significant number of troops and you’re saying we should announce that we’re bringing home a certain number of troops and we’ll do it whatever the situation is, but you believe that it will spur the situation to improve?"

B-I-N-G-O!!!!! Amy has no plan other than to say that we need a plan to announce that we have a plan to bring an unplanned number of troops home from Iraq by the end of the year, regardless of what the commanders in country say. I think that about sums it up. But the most telling thing (for me) were the sheer number of questions like this:

"Black:What can you tell us about the realistic time-frame and the specific milestones and benchmarks?
Klobuchar: Again, the president hasn’t given us those. I called for that since April, for the president to give us that clear plan. He hasn’t done it. At this point we need to start bringing our troops home. Obviously benchmarks would be their police being trained, their military being trained. We basically went in there and destroyed their army and destroyed their police force. Getting a better trained army would be a piece of it.
But again, I believe that we need to start bringing our troops home to encourage them to start doing that."

Amy - let me translate for you hon. Mr. Black wants to know what YOU WOULD DO...how would you handle this if you could make all the decisions. Or as the guys at KvM ask "What Would Amy Do?" It is fine to say what the guy you are running against is doing wrong, but if you are going to say (ad nauseum) that there are big differences between you and your opponent, you had best have an answer when someone asks you "what would you do differently?" The voters (and Mr. Black's readers) can see right through your no-answer answers! Contrast her answers with Ford Bell's. When asked if we should set a "time-table" for withdrawal, Mr. Ford answered with an unequivical "YES". No tap dancing, no side-stepping, no equivicating - just a straight up answer. He also (when asked) laid out

If you are a Minnesota voter or are interested in the Minnesota Senatorial race at all, you really should take the time to read all 3 candidates positions on the issues.

That's a real stretch Howard

The conservative bloggers best friend spoke again. DNC Chairman Howard Dean spoke Friday in an Oakland (CA) union hall and accused President Bush of using Latinos as scapegoats in the immigration debate.

"This is a nonsensical proposal put out by far right-wingers in the Republican Party who have been endorsed for re-election by the president of the United States,'' Dean said. ``The president has a moral obligation to rein in the right-wing extremists in his party and stop this divisive rhetoric about immigrants.''

OK - did you get that? It is President Bush's "moral obligation" to rein in the "right wing extremists" of the Republican Party. Well then, Chairman Dean, whose moral obligation is it to rein in the left wing extremists in the Democratic Party? Oh thats right - the left wing extremists ARE the Democratic Party. How silly of me to forget that.

What Chairman Dean refuses to admit is that he and President Bush are on the same side of the immigration debate. However, if Chairman Dean admits that, then he looses HIS scapegoat. For if Chairman Dean were to agree with President Bush on any issue, then he would have to admit that the President is not as big a "right wing extremist" as the Chairman and the DNC leadership in Washington have painted him to be, negating their entire campaign strategy!

This man wants to be Senator (part 5)

Well we finally heard from Al Franken again. It has been a long time since we had an appearance by the man who would be Senator. This one comes to us courtesy of Scott at Powerline.

Senator (want-t0-be) Al was on the Today show with fellow talk show host Michael Smerconish on Friday.

Now Powerline, Expose the Left and Newsbusters are all focusing on Al's "screw-you" comment (directed toward Michael Smerconish) but the remark that I found to be stunning was this little throw-away from the very end of the interview (in response to Matt's question about what to do with the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the US).

"We have got to make the Law reflect reality and reality reflect the law."

So I guess by this logic, if reality is that people are going to drive 100mph on the Interstate highways, we should change the law (the speed limit) and make driving 100mph on the Interstate legal? Or if criminals are shooting up Block E in Minneapolis, killing innocent bystanders, we should make that activity legal? Or if TSA screeners are using racial profiling to decide which travelers to screen then that's ok too Al? Is that what you really wanted to say Senator Al? Gee I guess that I am not smart enough, good enough or savvy enough to be a Senator like you Al.

Friday, March 31, 2006

And we WILL get that dog to throw the javelin

And do we all remember from 1997 the pictures of downtown East Grand Forks on fire while the entire town was flooded? And the cry that the Feds (meaning you and me) needed to pay all those people to build AGAIN on those flat areas on either side of the Red River (and those flat areas are called, uh, FLOOD PLAINS because it's quite plain to anyone with a room temperature IQ that that's where the river plainly floods!!!).
And so, it goes again. And some of these people have rebuilt multiple times, in the same spot that flooded before.
Well, kids,may I recommend that this time they're all on their own. Build on a flood plain, expect floods.
Build your house in a area below sea level that experiences hurricanes, expect to be flooded by hurricanes and all the consequences therefrom.
I have absolutely no desire to subsidize stupidity and or foolishness.

Connecting dots

The protests and complaints of people who whine about being here in America but say they want to be here in America has finally, I hope lanced the boil. Victor Davis Hanson has written another great piece on the subject where he asks is anyone seeing the inconsistency of the protests? And another article was sent to me from a friend asking what does American citizenship really mean? However, that being said, as I listened to the firestorm this has ignited, few people are seeing the larger picture. Politicians see only leaves, never trees and certainly not the forest.
I've listened to a number of people tell how and why it's difficult to compete in the markets where manual labor is necessary. One man in particular was talking about his berry farm. To be legal, he had to file with the EEOC, EPA, INS (to name three), get a license, file with all local and state agencies and if he hired legal employees he would have to charge another 50% on to his wholesale price. And he was barely competing the way it is. Another man stated essentially the same thing when trying to open a landscaping business. That the cost of compliance meant that he was uncompetitve. Therefore, with all the laws, regulations, taxes,fees it became untenable to hire Americans. Does anyone see the parallel with American companies sending jobs overseas because it's just too expensive to hire Americans? And the stories from my friends who want to hire American and get bigger, but have chosen not to because it's just not worth the hassle and problems. And so once again, the American economy and American citizens groan and fail to prosper due the government legislating in our best interests.
And I'll let you fill in the wholesale welfare benefits open to all people who hit American paydirt.
And it gets worse. I was talking to a friend of mine who is in law enforcement. He stated how incredibly upset he was that Norm Coleman has thrown in his lot with Teddy Kennedy on the immigration issue. My friend states that the caseload for meth in his county has grown 20% in the past year. And that the large majority of those cases were illegal immigrants. Whenever I hear Kennedy and McCain agreeing on anything it's time to flee for your lives. And that Biodiesel Norm (no drilling in ANWR because he supports biodiesel...yah.Right.) has put himself with these two bookends tells me that the Republicans are in real danger.
This stance is going to cost them big in seven months. Real big.
And I'm reminded of William Buckley's quote from many years ago where he said that he would rather be governed by the first 537 people in any phone book in the United States than the current group of politicians.
And with the exponential growth of the Federal Register, why do we as Americans keep thinking that these 537 in both houses of Congress people making political decisions are wiser and more capable than millions of Americans making independent decisions on the spot, with all the facts in front of them on what's good for them and their families?

A free press versus freedom of speech (part 1 of ?)

Remember when I said here that the attempt to marginalize the blogosphere (in wake of blogs being given the "media expemption" to McCain/Feingold) had begun? Well the LA Times came out swinging this morning.

"BLOGS HAVE BEEN A POTENT force in U.S. politics since, oh, 2004, when they helped bring down a presidential candidate or two and at least one TV news anchor."

Can you feel the love? The editorial gives a brief synopsis of this weeks FEC ruling and then it jumps back into attack mode.

"That leaves amateur politicos and volunteer partisans who don't run ads free to create "Vote for Smith" websites, write blog entries and send mass e-mails without coming under the FEC's purview. "

Amateur politicos and volunteer partisans? As opposed to what? Professional politicos and the legacy media? What is wrong with the average Joe having an opinion and (God forbid) expressing it!

"More important, anyone who wants to publish his or her views online can do so. Unlike television and newspapers, there are no barriers to entry online. "

And again - what is wrong with that? Yes anyone can launch a blog easily, but (as has been shown time and time again) if the blog is posting nothing but rumor and innuendo it will not have the readership. Blogs like Powerline and Captains Quarters have the success that they have had because they DON'T publish rumor and innuendo. These bloggers put their individual reputations on the line on a daily basis. Even anonymous bloggers (like those of us here at Savage Republican) have to make sure that what we are posting is accurate - if we want to be taken seriously. Contrast that with the NY Times which was shown to have misreported a story about FISA judges that testified before Congress this week. With blogs, anyone left or right has equal access to put his/her opinion out for people to find and read. That levels the playing field - unlike the legacy media which gets to pick and choose which opinion to display and where to display them!

Also, unlike television, you have to activly search for a blog in order to read their opinions. The world wide web is a big place and if you don't know what you are looking for, it can be hard to find anything. Newspapers and television news are more "user friendly" (to borrow a computer term) than the web. That means that readers of blogs are generally more informed and more actively searching for the information that they are seeking. To me, that makes the services supplied by blogs and bloggers to be more selective and yes, more partisan. Even though it is harder to get this information (from blogs) John McCain and his friends at the Los Angeles and New York Times, would like to make that an impossibility by completely shutting down the blogs.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Shut down the 527s

This is good news for the people.

"A federal judge in Washington ruled yesterday that the Federal Election Commission acted arbitrarily in 2004 when it decided not to regulate so-called 527 political organizations, but he declined to force the commission to impose such regulations."

I say that it is good because the judge has order the FEC to either make a regulation on 527's or to better explain it's exemption of 527s - handling complaints on a case by case basis only.

The lawsuit in question was brought by President Bush's re-election campaign and Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Martin Meehan (D-MA). Both lawmakers have advocated for tighter campaign finance reform.

This is excellent news for the people of America, however I fear that the FEC will drag this out so that we will not see relief (from 527 advertising) this year. Right now these "special interest groups" are the only ones that can run campaign ads in the last 60 days of a campaign. As we saw in the last election, these ads are nothing but slime campaigns. It would be best if we could repeal McCain/Feingold and thus restore free campaign speech to all, but if we can't have that we'd be better off just letting a trained chimp choose who the next President will be. The chimp certainly can't be any less informed than a voter who relies on America Coming Together for his campaign information.

All politics are local

It is an old adage, but true none-the-less. Everything our politicians do trickles down to effect our daily lives. However, I still had to think twice about this article when I first read it for it to really sink in.

"It has become common wisdom that the Democrats mean to make the 2006 elections a referendum on President Bush and the Republican Party. Republican congressional candidates, in turn, will seek to counter this strategy by emphasizing local issues and seek to make the election about the choice between themselves and their rivals. "

The piece tells the story of a Congressional race in Iowa, but it could just as easily have been in Minnesota. Democratic candidates (like Coleen Rowley) have gone out of their way to attack anything and everything President Bush has done in the last 5 years. Meanwhile, their Republican counterparts are talking about how what is done in DC affects those of us back home in the district. Bridges to nowhere in Alaska mean no spending on airports in Minnesota. Tax cuts mean more take home pay for the average worker. Social Security Reform means that a 40something taxpayer might actually see some Social Security checks after all...the list goes on.

So I guess this election (if things play out as they are going now) is going to be a choice of 2 things....a vote against President Bush or a vote for new roads in Scott County. A vote against President Bush or a vote for more cops in Minneapolis...a vote against President Bush or a vote FOR the future. Is that really where the DNC wants to go? Apparently so, according to Corey over at dreckless.

Another liberal meme busted wide open

This week has been full of them. From the Saddam WMD/al Qaeda connections, to the NSA "wiretapping" (see the posts at Powerline for details) liberal memes have been falling rapidly by the wayside. Today's meme is an oldie, but a goodie...the meme that tax cuts cause tax revenues to drop.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported (article is subscription only) that tax revenues for the first 5 months of fiscal 2006 is up 10.3%. This article in Townhall (by Herman Cain) explains why this is not a fluke.

"Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge significantly cut tax rates in the 1920s, which caused both the national economy and federal revenues to grow. Harding repealed the World War I excess profits tax, dropped the top tax rate on individuals from 73 to 58 percent and set the capital gains tax rate at 12.5 percent. Coolidge further reduced individual tax rates and inheritance taxes. The Harding and Coolidge tax rate cuts caused income tax revenues to rise 61 percent from 1921 to 1929. At the same time, the economy grew by 59 percent. Additionally, the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans grew from just over 44 percent in 1921 to over 78 percent by 1928. "

Closer to home, the state of Minnesota went from a $4.2 billion deficit to a $337 million surplus thanks to the economic growth spurred by tax cuts on the state and federal level!

Tax cuts work - it has been proven historically time after time after time. What we now need to reign in is the out of control state and federal spending.

"The other lie liberals perpetually tell is that low tax rates cause budget deficits. History proves just the opposite – that cuts in income, capital gains and dividends tax rates increase the amount of federal revenues available for Congress to spend. The only thing that can cause a budget deficit is when Congress spends in excess of available revenues, and the president at the time signs off on that spending. Members of Congress who blame tax cuts for causing deficits might as well argue that gun manufacturers cause homicides, fast food restaurants cause obesity and cigarette makers cause lung cancer. Surely no one would agree with that flawed logic."

There I might argue with the author. I know too many people here in Minnesota who think that houses cause crime and SUVs cause accidents and guns cause murders. Such is the thought process of todays liberal Democrat.

Pre-emption

I ran across this over the weekend. I found it to be an interesting take on the "worth" of pre-emptive strikes.

"Consider the prophet Mohammed himself. According to Muslim history, God's own messenger engaged in pre-emptive action against those whom he suspected of plotting against Islam. "

Uh oh.....you mean that the founder of the religion of peace engaged in unprovoked attacks on others?

"Self-defense, my fellow Muslims will insist."

As the author of the article states, President Bush felt the same way and yet the Muslim world doesn't seem to be willing to accept that.

"Honesty demands that Muslims in the USA judge the doctrine of pre-emption by a single standard. That requires making a choice. We can accept what the prophet did as necessary and guided by God, in which case we can't be shocked when the president makes a similar case for his policy. Or we can acknowledge that the prophet Mohammed's pre-emptive assaults on Jews were morally wrong, in which case we've got credibility when slamming the Bush doctrine"

And that dear reader is wisdom that we should all remember when we are engaging in discussions with others.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Immigration Fallout

The fallout for Republicans has started. As I said last night, I have talked to lots of grass roots activists who are so disgusted with the Senate Republicans and their handling of the immigration issue that they are ready to:

A) quit voting for either major party
B) quit making donations to the RNC, RCCC and RSCC (this has already begun)
C) quit voting altogether!

First I am going to address A & C. I understand your frustration. There are days when it seems like our Republican Senator (Norm Coleman) is leaning back toward his Democrat roots (he was elected Mayor of St Paul as a Democrat and switched parties in mid-term). It is frustrating as all get out to campaign hard for a candidate/issue (like drilling in ANWAR/Immigration reform) only to have your Senator vote against it! It is frustrating to fight hard for a Republican president to be hit with things like corruption scandals, out of control spending, amnesty, Harriet Myers and Dubai Ports World. Those of us who thought "this time will be different - we learned our lessons in 1994" have seen the bitter reality that in DC it is ALL POLITICS AS USUAL! However (and I really hate to say it this way) we must not fall to the temptation of with-holding our votes, unless there is a better Republican standing up to take the incumbents place! If you think things are bad in DC now, just wait to see what happens if the Democrats regain the House and Senate. Impeachment, Hillary care, an abandonment of Iraq to the terrorists and record spending like you've never seen. You don't believe me? Take a look at the website of any of your local Dems running for Congress or the Senate. They are filled with such catch phrases as "universal or single payer health care", "making the wealthy pay their fair share", "culture of corruption" - the list goes on. Do you really want that to be in control of your taxpayer dollars?

The Dems are currently acting like petulant children, throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way (winning the White House in 2000 and 2004). To all of you disgruntled voters, take a good hard look at what is pushing the DNC and tell me....do you really want to give them running the show in DC? Is that what you want to do to this country?

For the Republicans running as "centrists"/democrats I have a couple of questions. First, why should we vote for a pseudo Democrat when we have the real thing running against you? We want a candidate that is different from the Democrat - not DFL Lite! Second, why should we "trust you" to be different, when you have already shown that you are a "politics as usual" Republican.

B is by far our best option to express our displeasure with the Senate. The RSCC is sending out fundraising letters and making fundraising calls. My suggestion would be to (nicely) tell the telemarketer that you will no longer make any donations to the RNC, the RSCC or the RCCC until such time as our Republicans start governing as Republicans! If you get a letter, send it back with a polite note stating the same thing! Nothing hurts a politician more than a loss of campaign contributions. Time to bring back the "Not one Dime" campaign!

The attempt to marginalize blogs has begun

When the FEC announced (on Monday) that they were giving blogs the same exemption from regulation that the MSM got, I said to a friend "This will not sit well with the media - watch them lash out!"

Yesterday the NYTimes printed this article.

"But now, an unusual experiment in public access is giving anyone with a computer a chance to play intelligence analyst and second-guess the government. "

Well gee....hasn't the Times (and the rest of the media) been doing that for 3 years now??? I mean come on!

"Under pressure from Congressional Republicans, the director of national intelligence has begun a yearlong process of posting on the Web 48,000 boxes of Arabic-language Iraqi documents captured by American troops. "

Congressional Republicans were not the ones pressuring to get the documents released. Journalist Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard has been the one man dervise behind the release. It was Mr. Hayes that filed the Freedom of Information Act requests to get the documents released. It was Mr. Hayes that lobbied said Congressional Republicans. It was Mr. Hayes who did all of the heavy lifting to allow us to read these documents. Oh and did I mention that Mr. Hayes was a journalist????

"Intelligence officials had serious concerns about turning loose an army of amateurs on a warehouse full of raw documents that include hearsay, disinformation and forgery. Mr. Negroponte's office attached a disclaimer to the documents, only a few of which have been translated into English, saying the government did not vouch for their authenticity. "

Now I will admit that I am an amateur when it comes to things like this. However, because I am an admitted amateur, I rely on what people in fields that do have that expertise.

"No offense, but the mainstream media tells people what they want them to know," said Mr. Robison (a blogger), who worked in Qatar for the Iraq Survey Group, which did an exhaustive search for weapons in Iraq."

Those people seem to think that there was something in those documents to indicate that the President was straight with the American people on the reasons for war - in spite of what the media would have us believe.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

The Immigration Debate

Many writers who are much more knowledgable on politics and policy have written on this issue. Many writers who are much more eloquent have written on the subject. Many who are more passionate have written on the subject. However, I would like to add a couple of minor points to the discussion.

500,000 Latino's marched in Los Angeles...some carrying signs claiming that America had somehow "stolen" California (and the rest of the "west") from Mexico:

"This is unjust. This land used to belong to us and now they're trying to kick us out," said Sandra Molina, 16, a junior from Downtown Magnet High School."

First Sandra, a little history. A) Mexico and the US fought a war and the "lands" in question were won in said war. B) Unless you are Apache, Atakapan, Bidai, Comanche, Kickapoo or another Indian tribe native to NORTH America (as opposed to Central America's ie Mexico Maya, Huicho or Aztec tribes) these are NOT your lands. C) Unless you are illegal Sandra - no one is "trying to kick you out". Also, depending on which bill we are discussing, even if you are here illegally you are still not being kicked out.

This whole discussion is based on the premis of "illegal" entry. Anyone who has immigrated here through legal channels has nothing to fear!

One thing thing I will note...this issue is threatening to fracture the Republican Party. Calls to talk radio and discussion groups are filled with Republican voters who are sick to death of their Senators and Congressmen turning their backs on the base. They are also sick to death of our government playing games with our national security in a post 9/11 world.

Surplus?

I need to expand the Lady Logician's column about the Social Security surplus: There is no surplus- by law. There is only a number of zeroes to the left of the decimal point in an accounting entry somewhere in Virginia. That shows how much of the surplus has been used to buy a very specific government bond that only the Social Security Administration can buy. That money has gone to the Treasury and has been counted as "revenue" not a liabilty. The suplus has been gone for decades. There is no lock box. All that went away over 40 years ago thanks to LBJ and the complicit Democrats and never corrected by the Republicans in the last 11 years.
I've blogged on this a number of times: here and here for example just to name two.
It ain't going away. And Medicare adds $4,000,000,000,000 to that debt each year. And 2% for a private retirement account? Paintballs at a charging RINO. Won't even slow it down.
Read this article and know AGAIN why politicians can never, ever be trusted with power or the money confiscated by its use and abuse.
"The only way to be sure government never abuses power is not to give it any."

Confusion

There is a lot of international pressure for the US to close our detention centers in Afghanistan and Cuba. Now comes this out of the Globe and Mail.

"Canada to hand over suspects to Kabul
Move could make troops complicit in future torture, legal experts fear"

OK - so we are not supposed to hold the al Quade fighters that we capture and we're not supposed to turn them over to their host country because the host country could torture them. Then just what are we supposed to do with them???? Ship them back to our country and give them welfare?

This should cement to you that we are in a no win situation (when it comes to the critics of the war). Given that we are in a no win situation with these war critics, the President needs to just do what he needs to do and quit trying to win the critics over to the cause. Just do your job Mr. President and ignore the critics!

Campaign Advise

The Democrats in DC have been long talking loud and long about Republican corruption (Tom DeLay's non-existent ties to Jack Abramoff), while totally ignoring their own (Harry Reid's very real ties to Jack Abramoff). Many in Democratic circles are talking impeachment (if they can get control of the House and Senate). Which is why I found this editorial in the NY Time curious at first. The headline seems to sound as if it is calling for restraint in the censure/impeachment process

"Be sure before you Censure"

The editorial then goes into the history of the last successful censure motion:

"While many have compared the censure proposal to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, there is a more relevant precedent: In 1834, America's most famous political orator, Henry Clay of Kentucky, arranged the Senate's only successful censure of a president, Andrew Jackson — and he never stopped paying for his accomplishment." (emphasis mine)

It then details the bad blood between Clay and Jackson which started in 1824. It talks about how the animosity came to a head in time for the 1834 midterm elections:

"Clay thought he had won a great triumph. But the 1834 midterm elections returned control of the Senate to the Democrats, as the Jacksonians were called by then. And the Democrats refused to let the censure issue rest...The Democrats celebrated Van Buren's victory by voting to expunge the censure resolution from the records of the Senate." (emphasis again mine)

but the closing paragraph makes clear the Times intentions:

"Russ Feingold is no Henry Clay, at least not yet. And if he hopes to discredit Mr. Bush, as he doubtless does, I'd suggest he find means other than censure. The last thing today's Democrats want to do is to make George W. Bush look like Old Hickory."

There you have it....go slow on censure...you don't want to make President Bush look good now do you? You don't want to loose the mid-terms do you? There you have it...the Times is giving tactical advise to the Democrats on the campaign.

Monday, March 27, 2006

Why elections are so very important

Larry Sabato's "Crystal Ball" newsletter states that the Republicans will continue to hold the House after the November elections. His take on the Senate appears to be the same - the Republicans will hold thanks to a pick up of Minnesota and possibly Maryland and holding Tennessee - 3 of the 4 open seats.

Holding the House and Senate is critical for the Administration. There are still judicial nominees being held hostage by the Senate and now there is a push to hold the nomination of the new FDA Commissioner until the FDA rules on RU486.

In what surely qualifies as the "Lie of the week" (sorry Laura I had to borrow this), the NY Times states:

"We don't generally approve of holding nominations hostage to other political objectives. "

and then it goes into all the reason why they are advising that the nominee BE held up on political objectives!

It is obvious that the Left and their willing accomplaces in the mainstream media are going to do everything that they can to ram their agenda down our throats even though time after time they are defeated at the ballot box. All we can do is to keep the pressure on our elected officials to keep doing the people's business and quit playing "gotcha" politics.

WHIPLASH!

Demetee over at KAR points out the on-going hypocracy at the Trib.

On March 22, 2006 they opined that the electoral system was not broken and that we should not try to fix something that was not broken by requiring voters to show photo ID.

On March 26, 2006 they opined that the electoral system was badly broken and we needed to fix it be dropping the Electoral College!

I tell you...a person could get whiplash trying to follow the "logic" of the Star Tribune's editorial board!

Dump the Electoral College?

There is a move afoot in certain Democratic circles to get rid of the Electoral College. This sentiment is not limited to certain radical lefty blogs. The NY Times (purchase required) calls the Electoral College "an anti-democratic relic". However, the Times forgets that the US is not a true democracy....it is a representative republic! A quick review of American history (courtesy of the FEC website) reminds of of the thinking of the Founding Fathers when they drew up the Constitution and the Electoral College. One item of note from the FEC website is this:

"A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote.
Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution
doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without
sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people
would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At
worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to
govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be
decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the
smaller ones." (emphasis added)

That is a very real concern. It is no secret that what is important to states like California is not as important to states like Minnesota and what is important to Texas is certainly not important to New York! A candidate that is attractive to New Yorkers may not be attractive to Floridians. It's really that simple.

If you really are interested in a well thought out, well researched take on the pros and cons of the Electoral College, you want to read this article in the Washington Times. The author reminds us of why the Electoral College works and why direct election of Presidents don't. It is a thoroughly enlightening read.

UPDATE AND BUMP: It appears that the Star Tribune is following the Times lead. This graced todays Opinion Pages. Captain Ed and Mitch did extremely thorough jobs handling the Trib and their take on the issue. They are both must reads!

Raiding the Social Security Surplus

In a roll call vote on March 16, 53 US Senators (including Senators Feingold, Dayton and Clinton) voted to continue to raid the Social Security surplus. This is stunning considering that the Social Security system is heading rapidly toward bankruptcy (well the speed depends on who you talk to on which side of the aisle).

The amendments co-sponsor, Senator Jim DeMint said it best:

"“Sadly, fifty-three senators turned their backs on America’s seniors,” Senator DeMint said. “There is simply no way to save Social Security if we don’t have the courage stop using the surplus as a secret slush fund. I’m thankful there were forty-six senators who stood with America’s seniors to end the raid. We will not be deterred by cynics who offer no solutions.”

The bad thing (for elected officials) is that their voting record is online for any and all to read. That is good news for us voters. We can look up these votes and then hold our elected officals accountable. The 53 Senators who voted to treat the Social Security fund as a "secret slush fund", need to be held accountable for their votes and thankfully, we have the opportunity to do so this year!

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Farmers vs. exurb dwellers

Contrary to the opinions of Twin Cities residents that they are the center of the universe, Minnesota has a dynamic agricultural community. You don't have to drive much more than 30 minutes in any direction out of downtown Minneapolis or downtown St Paul before you hit farmlands and farming communities. However, as the city spreads out into the country, family farms are coming under extreme pressure. Here are some numbers to ponder. Minnesota ranks:

1st in the nation in turkey production
3rd in the nation in pork production
5th in the nation in dairy production
11th in the nation in beef production
11th in the nation in chicken production

Family farms need to grow and thrive in order to feed our growing populations. However, as the city spreads out into the country, family farms are coming under extreme pressure. These pressures are being brought to bear by city folk who are moving out to the country (next to these family farms) and then complain about the farms attributes. Farmers need to grow in order to meet demand, but when they try to grow, they are met with the NIMBY's who throw roadblocks in their paths.

The farmers have banded together to form Minnesota Farm and Food to tell their story. You don't have to be a "farmer" to appreciate their plight. Remember, these family farms were here long before our sub-divisions were. We need to work it out so that both farmer and non-farmer can live together without stepping on each others toes.

"An unmitigated disaster"

That is what many Democratic politicians and activists called the federal government's response to Hurrican Katrina and to the federal government's conduct of the war. Yet these same politicians and activists want to turn our health care system over to the same inept government?

Remember Hillary Care? Senator Clinton is still trotting it out - and she has support among the Democrats that want to join her on Capitol Hill. Coleen Rowley supports universal health care. So does Ford Bell and Amy Klobuchar. They all say that they want to reduce drug costs to patients and that private-market competition (as proposed by President Bush and the Republicans) is not the answer.

Well, they were wrong in 1994 and they are wrong now. The NYTimes reports that competitive bidding is working for Medicare and the consumers that signed up for the new Medicare Drug Plan!

The market works, when the government stays out of it. We need to let the market work. Let's make sure that Hillary Care stays a thing of the past.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Business as usual, that is what is expected once "lobbying reform" is done in Washington DC. Oh sure, they may do away with some of the more visible "perks of power" - the trips, the dinners, the ballgames, the gifts - but the lobbyists will still have ways to "buy" influence by giving donations to a Senator's PAC or a Representative's favorite charity, or by sponsoring industry specific seminars.

"If meals are heavily restricted, we're likely to see executives from the home office picking up checks because they're not lobbyists," added J. Steven Hart of Williams & Jensen, a major lobbying firm. "And there are lots of other ways we can still get our cases before members of Congress." (emphasis mine)

Couple that with the fact that the House and the Senate have vastly different ideas as to what lobbying reform should look like. The bill currently working it's way through the House proposes putting spending limits on the 527's where the Senate bill does not.

Even the NY Times realizes that this is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, however they turn that realization into an attack on one of the most vulnerable Republican Senators, rather than tackling their own who are just as guilty of abusing the system as anyone else.

The nice thing is that this reform can't stop us - the grass roots activists. We can and should be contacting our representatives in DC and make sure that they listen to "We the people" and not the lobying community.

Regulatory Overload

I'm going to try to get caught up on a few things today - starting with this.

I work in an industry that is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. I am well aware of the regulatory burden that is put on utilities by the State of Minnesota. Apparently Mike Hatch (current Attorney General and DFL candidate for governor) now wants add another layer to that burden...approval by the Attorney General's office.

We all know that energy rates have gone up. It is evident every time we go to the gas station. These rising costs are also affecting the cost of lights and heat - especially for those of us in Minnesota! So it should come as no surprise that CenterPoint Energy (gas) and Xcel Energy (electric) want PUC approval to raise their rates in the middle of a set tariff year.

There were a couple of lines though, that should raise lots of red flags among the electorate.

"First, the PUC must set rates that encourage conservation."

I have to respectfully disagree with the esteemed Attorney General. The PUC's job is to set rates that are fair for ALL users! Here in Minnesota, gas for heat is a necessity! There is no way that someone can do without heat in Minnesota in January. People should not have to choose between food and heat. It is the PUC's job to balance the needs of the consumer with the needs of the company!

"Interestingly, while Xcel wants to collect more money from ratepayers, it plans to return more money to its shareholders."

Well no kidding! It's called showing a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders! It is what a publicly traded company is expected to do...MAKE A PROFIT!!!! If they are not making a profit, then the company is taken to court by said shareholders, because if they are not making money, then the company is either being grossly mismanaged or management is stealing from the company...and who would prosecute the case if it is theft? It couldn't be the Attorney General's office now, could it?

Now there is one thing that AG Hatch makes a good point on.

"CenterPoint also wants to charge ratepayers for the replacement of defective gas line couplings that caused two recent explosions. These couplings must be replaced. The issue is whether ratepayers should have to pay for CenterPoint's failure to investigate the natural gas line system before purchasing it. As troubling, CenterPoint hasn't calculated the exact costs of the project. CenterPoint acknowledges that some of the costs may be covered by insurance or recovered through litigation. These issues must be resolved before CenterPoint asks to pass these costs onto consumers. "

The AG is correct - CenterPoint needs to determine what costs (if any) are recoverable before they determine how much they need to pass on to the consumer. When CenterPoint Energy purchased Northern States Power approximately 3 years ago, neither company had a clue that there were problems with these couplings, or if NSP was aware of this pending problem, they should have disclosed it to CenterPoint during their purchase negotiations. If CenterPoint can prove malfeasance from the former NSP officers, then they may have a legal case and should be able to recover some of the costs of replacing those couplings.

The thing that bothers me the most about this is that the AG is using his office to campaign for Governor and the Star Tribune seems to not mind giving him this kind of unpaid advertising. The DFL has contended that Governor Pawlenty needs to give up his radio program on WCCO as it provides him with a campaign advantage. If (following the DFL's "logic") WCCO should be forced to cancel the program or provide equal time to the Governor's challengers, then shouldn't the Star Tribune be forced to offer AG Hatch's opponents equal time?