About Me

Name: Gary Gross
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

McCaskill is Toast

The McCaskill for Senate campaign was in trouble from last week for saying "George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black." That problem got bigger when Rush Limbaugh took her to task over that statement yesterday. Now she's got much bigger problems.

Speaking at a public event last Thursday in St. Louis sponsored by Environmentalists for Claire, McCaskill revealed a plan to use publicly-financed employees for partisan political purposes in violation of the civil service rules of St. Louis City, St. Louis County, Kansas City and Jackson County which bars employees from participating in political campaigns and specifically prohibits ‘coercion’ of any taxpayer funded employees to participate in partisan political activities.
"…here (St. Louis) and in Kansas City the mayor and the county executive have donated 150 employees to work on the election on Election Day," McCaskill said. The audio of McCaskill’s comments can be heard here.

As I said, McCaskill was already in trouble for her racist comments. This problem, though, is potentially much bigger because of the corruption. The Missouri Republican Party memo also includes this:

Using public employees to aid her political ambitions is nothing new for McCaskill. The federal Office of Special Counsel is probing charges that Jackson County law enforcement employees were improperly directed by the sheriff, a McCaskill political ally, to appear in McCaskill campaign ads in uniform, on public time during her failed 2004 campaign for governor. McCaskill also has come under fire by faxing campaign materials to state offices during state time in her current campaign. At least three such faxes have been received by the Missouri Department of Economic Development even after McCaskill’s campaign said the issue would be dealt with following revelations of the first faxes to state offices during the workday.

It's a little bit of a stretch to say that McCaskill hasn't met a campaign statute that wasn't worth breaking but it isn't an big stretch. Don't expect this race to stay in the toss-up category much longer.

Technorati: Claire McCaskill, Election 2006, Rush Limbaugh, Culture of Corruption
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

US Force For Good In Iraq

That isn't just my opinion. It's also Fred Kaplan's opinion expressed in this column. Here's part of Kaplan's argument:

This heartlessness of the withdrawal argument responds to multiple needs that are largely unrelated to Iraq. It comforts the sensibilities of opinion-makers who have a distaste for this administration's foreign policy and so don't seem to feel much stake in its human consequences. It testifies to the consistency of those who, having opposed sending U.S. forces to Iraq in the first place, see nothing problematic about pulling them out today. And it offers assurance that, but for the bungled U.S. occupation, Iraq can only be better off. No one has espoused this last view more vigorously than Democratic Representative John Murtha. His summary of the situation in Iraq amounts to this: We are the problem.
Facts on the ground suggest Murtha has things exactly backward. (Beware of congressmen who boast of special insights gleaned during trips to Iraq. They seldom venture outside the constellation of U.S. bases, and, even then, their visits can last no longer than 48 hours.)

Murtha has been a virtual one-man doom-and-gloom parade, seeing nothing positive in winning. In fact, as far as I can tell, I don't know that he's recently thought that this war was winnable. Actually, history tells us that Mr. Murtha has been willing to spend money on the military but has been unwilling to see missions through to completion.

This heartlessness of the withdrawal argument responds to multiple needs that are largely unrelated to Iraq. It comforts the sensibilities of opinion-makers who have a distaste for this administration's foreign policy and so don't seem to feel much stake in its human consequences. It testifies to the consistency of those who, having opposed sending U.S. forces to Iraq in the first place, see nothing problematic about pulling them out today. And it offers assurance that, but for the bungled U.S. occupation, Iraq can only be better off. No one has espoused this last view more vigorously than Democratic Representative John Murtha. His summary of the situation in Iraq amounts to this: We are the problem.
Facts on the ground suggest Murtha has things exactly backward. (Beware of congressmen who boast of special insights gleaned during trips to Iraq. They seldom venture outside the constellation of U.S. bases, and, even then, their visits can last no longer than 48 hours.)

Murtha has been a virtual one-man doom-and-gloom parade, seeing nothing positive in winning. In fact, as far as I can tell, I don't know that he's recently thought that this war was winnable. Actually, history tells us that Mr. Murtha has been willing to spend money on the military but has been unwilling to see missions through to completion.

Murtha advised Clinton that "There's no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."  Now he's saying that "Our military has done everything that has been asked of them. The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily."

Murtha's doom-and-gloom attitude has gotten annoying. Worse, it's dangerous because leaving Iraq before we finish the job most likely means that Iran shovels a ton of money into Muqtada al-Sadr's direction to foment sectarian violence. Reasonable people can disagree on how to fight the Iraq war. Reasonable people can't agree that toppling Saddam's regime wasn't worthwhile.

Earlier this year at his home near the Syrian border, Abdullah Al Yawar, a Sunni sheik in Nineveh province, warned me that "if the Americans leave, there will be rivers of blood." Hundreds of miles to the east in Baghdad, Sheikh Humam Hamoudi, one of Iraq's most powerful Shia, echoed the fear of his Sunni counterpart: Without the Americans, he said, Baghdad will become another Beirut.

Murtha is famous for citing the poll that says sixty percent of Iraqis want us out. That seems more like propaganda than polling based on al-Yawar's and Hamoudi's quotes. Unfortunately, that's what we've come to expect from Murtha. He doesn't seem to understand that the blogosphere will cite him when he says something absurd. He seems to think that the Beltway press is the only game in town. That will be his undoing.

Murtha, Iraq War, Anti-War Democrats
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pushing Democrats in an Antiwar Direction

Democrats didn't need much help in going totally anti-war but the Nation's John Nichols says that there's enough candidates out there pushing the rest closer to an anti-war position in this column. In his column, he cites reitring Maryland Senator Paul Sarbanes' son John as the one who most eloquently states the anti-war position. Here's what the younger Sarbanes said:

"The Democratic leadership in Congress must take action immediately, that means today, by petitioning the President to deliver to the appropriate committees in Congress within thirty days two proposed disengagement plans for Iraq: one that would bring our troops home within six months; the other that would bring them home within twelve months," says Sarbanes, a lawyer who is the son of retiring U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes. "In making this request, Democrats should make it clear that they will use all substantive and procedural leverage available to them to force delivery of the plans, including resisting the President's budget priorities. As long as the Pentagon and the Defense Department resist providing concrete scenarios for disengaging our troops, it is impossible to evaluate the risks and benefits of any particular course of action. The Bush Administration must get its head out of the Iraqi sand and offer the American people a meaningful plan for bringing our troops home."
Bluntly rejecting the charge that supporters of a withdrawal timeline want to "cut-and-run," Sarbanes argues that a timeline is essential to getting the Iraqis to stand up so that Americans can stand down. "Setting a timetable for disengagement of our troops will send a clear message to the members of the Iraqi parliament, and will force them to make the compromises necessary to govern, and that they must do so quickly," argues Sarbanes.
"That requirement is inherent in our request that the Bush Administration deliver a six-month and twelve-month disengagement proposal," he adds. "In the past three years, there have been three elections in Iraq. Despite this fact, the Iraqis have yet to create a functional government. Although the Iraqis elected a parliament in January, the various ethnic groups within the parliament will have to make many difficult compromises in order to establish a stable government that is responsive to the needs of the Iraqi people. Their recent selection of a prime minister is a positive development, although we cannot overlook the fact that it took the parliament over four months to accomplish this task. The Iraqi parliament must exhibit a greater sense of urgency in standing up an effective government. Iraqi officials are less likely to do so if they believe that U.S. troops are going to remain in Iraq in large numbers for the foreseeable future."

It isn't startling to think that someone from The Nation magazine thinks that being anti-war is a respectable progressive position. What's startling to think is that anyone could think that it's a majority opinion for a political party. Obviously, there are House districts where a candidate can get away with that position but it's foolish to think that that's a winner for a political party.

Personally, I wish Democrats would more openly espouse Mr. Sarbanes' position this fall so that Mssrs. Rove and Mehlman can beat them bloody with it. It'd get pretty ugly pretty fast.

Sarbanes is not the only anti-war contender in the race to replace U.S. Representative Ben Cardin, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for Maryland's open Senate seat. For instance, another leading contender, state Senator Paula Hollinger calls the war "a catastrophic failure" and promises to "hold the Bush administration accountable for its actions." Complaining that, "in spite of the incompetence of the Bush administration, Congress continues to defer to the White House on the war," Hollinger pledges to call "for hearings to investigate the abuses of power perpetrated by the Bush administration and for the firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

Ms. Hollinger should be specific about the supposed "abuses of power perpetrated by the Bush administration" that she perceives. Is she critical of the SWIFT program? The NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program? The Patriot Act? I'll guarantee that if Democrats run against these programs nationwide that we'll see the GOP clean Democrats' clocks this November.

Technorati: Anti-War Democrats, Iraq War, Patriot Act, NSA
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCaskill In Full Retreat

The Washington Times is reporting that Claire McKaskill, the Democratic Missouri candidate for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Jim Talent, is in full retreat mode  for her comments last week. Here's what she originally said:

"George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black," she told a group of Democratic state legislators last week.

Now let's offer proof that she's in full retreat mode:

But Mrs. McCaskill told KMOX radio in Missouri the statement's context as reported by Pub Def Weekly is "not exactly correct." She said she was acknowledging the sentiment of many Americans, and national tragedies are the time when people need government the most. She characterized the Bush response to Katrina as "gross incompetence that turned tragic because so many of the people in New Orleans didn't have the resources to help themselves."

Mrs. McCaskill didn't explain what context would put her comments into a favorable light, probably because there isn't any context in which they'd be viewed in a favorable light. To say that she was just "acknowledging the sentiment of many Americans" is a total copout. That's one dog that won't hunt in them thar woods.

Rush said today that he doesn't take her candidacy seriously and that he'd be surprised if it were a tight race. Considering his political instincts and his ties to Missouri, his statements carry alot of credibility with me.

Technorati: Claire McCaskill, Katrina, Election 2006, Racism
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Whine About President's Speech

It was predictable, maybe even inevitable. You knew that Democrats would start whining about the president's speech. This AP article catalogs some of the Democrats' whining:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Tuesday that Bush was "more consumed by staying the course in Iraq and playing election-year politics." "The American people deserved better last night," Reid said in a statement. "They deserved a chance to reclaim that sense of unity, purpose and patriotism that swept through our country five years ago."

Sen. Reid would have you believe that Democrats are united in the war on jidadists with global ambitions. Nothing is further from the truth. The only thing that they're united on is that President Bush is wrong. After that, they're all over the map, from the original Kerry position, the Murtha position, the second Kerry position. Unfortunately, they're ignoring the only sane Democratic position, the position espoused by Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

"The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had nothing to do with 9/11," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, (D-MA), said in a statement. "There will be time to debate this president's policies in Iraq. September 11th is not that time."

Shame on Sen. Kennedy. Why doesn't Kennedy think that Saddam posed a serious risk to the U.S.? Does he think that Saddam's support of terrorists was something to be ignored? Whether Sen. Kennedy admits it or not, the truth is that Iraq is part of the President's plan in fighting Islamic extremists. Here's what the PResident said about it in last night's speech:

Osama bin Laden calls this fight "the Third World War", and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's "defeat and disgrace forever." If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen. America will stay in the fight. Iraq will be a free nation, and a strong ally in the war on terror.

What specifically makes Sen. Kennedy think that President Bush's Iraq policy is wrong? It seems to me that 9/11 is the perfect time to remind the nation of who we're facing. Why does Sen. Kennedy think that the President shouldn't remind us of the benefits of President Bush's policies? Is it because Kennedy thinks that Democrats will suffer in the comparison? That's my guess.

Technorati: Kennedy, Harry Reid, Iraq, War on Terror
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Isn't It Curious?

I just read a press release  by New Jersey Sens. Lautenberg and Menendez and NY Sen. Schumer calling for a "new direction to give the American people the real security they deserve." Here's one of the specifics of the Democrats' plan:

The Real Security Act of 2006, as well as the Menendez amendment to the Port Security bill under debate in U.S. Senate, will require 100 percent screening of cargo at our nation's ports, and will change course in Iraq to allow America to finally win the war on terror.

Isn't it curious that Sen. Clinton wasn't part of this? You'd think that they'd accomodate her so that she'd bring more media coverage to this, wouldn't you? there's only two reasons I can think of why she wasn't there; either she didn't want to be associated with this legislation or they didn't want alot of coverage on this. I'd seriously doubt that they didn't want some coverage of this.

Screening 100 percent of the cargo coming into America's ports simply isn't feasible because it'd tie up our ports while providing little real benefit. This has been a Democratic carping point for ages. I haven't seen proof that screening 100 percent of the cargo will make us safer than screening 5 percent. I'd bet that that proof doesn't exist.

"It would be unacceptable to screen only five percent of White House tourists, so why is it acceptable to scan only five percent of cargo entering our country," Menendez said. "Scanning anything less than 100 percent of cargo that enters our ports is irresponsible and downright negligent. The Bush administration needs to provide a tangible plan, in writing, that describes how they will move America closer to 100 percent scanning."

Comparing scanning people entering the White House to scanning cargo coming into U.S. ports is comparing apples to cars. This is what Democrats think passes for serious debate about terrorist prevention. They know that they can't win this fall without putting forth something resembling an agenda to deal with preventing terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, they put this out instead.

Technorati: Schumer, Ports, Election 2006, Hillary, Homeland Security
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cleland Defends Murtha on Olbermann Show

Max Cleland has made more outrageous comments about the Iraq War while defending John Murtha. Here's what Cleland said:

Cleland, a triple amputee veteran of the Vietnam War, appearing on the "Countdown with Keith Olbermann Show," on MSNBC said that Iraq is "George Bush's Vietnam." He predicted, "History will look back on the invasion of Iraq after 9/11 as one of the greatest elements of folly in our history." He added, "Five years later, Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cadre are still on the loose." He criticized government officials for being stupid in losing their focus on capturing and killing bin Laden.

Shame on Sen. Cleland for suggesting that Iraq wasn't a worthwhile war to fight, especially considering the fact that he voted for the AUMF. Is he now willing to admit that he's complicit in this "folly"?

"And when someone like Jack Murtha says that, what do they (the administration) do? Do they go after Osama bin Laden? No, they go after Jack Murtha. And they're trying to slime him in his own hometown of Johnstown, PA," Cleland said, referring to a rally scheduled next month by an anti-Murtha veterans' group.

Speaking for the MMG crew, I can tell you that we jumped all over John Murtha for his playing judge, jury and executioner to soldiers for doing their job. Did he do it because he'd gotten a detailed briefing of the Haditha incident? No, As Leo pointed out, Gen. Hagee briefed Murtha almost a week after Murtha made his public accusations. In fact, based on what we know now, I'd be surprised if the Haditha Marines could be convicted if they're even tried.

What Sen. Cleland wants us to ignore is that Murtha threw out the Constitution, specifically its guarantees of the right to a fair trial and to due process. He'd also want us to forget that Murtha's accusations came without seeing a piece of incriminating evidence. That's why we're rallying against Murtha.

It's time to redeploy the forces from Iraq and bring home our guard and reserve to guard our borders and focus on killing or capturing Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cadre.

Speaking for myself, I'm not convinced that bin Laden isn't already dead. Why else haven't we seen anything that proves he's alive? Why didn't he appear in the video marking the 5 year anniversary of 9/11 instead of al-Zawahiri? Secondly, why should we think that killing bin Laden is still a significant step in ending the war on Islamofascism?

In response to a question from Olbermann on what Murtha would do differently in the new Congress if Democrats win a majority and Murtha heads the Defense Appropriation sub-committee, Cleland said Murtha would do three things.
"First, he'd lead an effort that I think is growing in this nation and in the Congress and hopefully in the new Congress that we've had it in Iraq. And it's time for the Iraqi citizens to take charge of their own country. It's time to withdraw our forces out of harm's way and eliminate the possibility of the veterans that are getting killed and maimed there and adding to that number. Secondly, to focus our guard and reserve on our border. "And third, to really focus on the military necessity and political necessity to put together our allies who we've dissed for five years and really focus on the center of terrorism in the world. And that's Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cadre. And kill or capture him and kill or capture them. That, you can expect from Jack Murtha."

Thank God we won't have to worry about a Murtha-led Defense Appropriation sub-committee. Thank God we won't have to deal with any of his wrong-headed policies.

Technorati: Murtha, Cleland, Swiftboating, Haditha
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dems' Claims Laughable

According to this AP article, Saddam tried killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi but failed:

According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime." It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

The notion that Saddam couldn't find Zarqawi in Baghdad isn't just laughable; it's insulting. Remember that we're talking about one of the most tightly controlled police states in modern history. We aren't talking about a place with an open borders mentality. This is a country whose secret police knew everything about every square inch of Baghdad, especially the special hospital in downtown Baghdad where Zarqawi was treated.

If ever you needed proof that this report was a political sham, look no further than this. We were told that Democrats were going to play politics with this report. Now we know how they're planning on doing it. Common sense tells us one thing and Democrats are telling us the exact opposite. Shame on them. They need to be called on this shameless demagoguery, especially since it's on the topics of intelligence and national security.

"The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaida," said Sen. Carl Levin, (D-MI), a member of the committee. Levin and Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel, said Tenet told the committee last July that in 2002 he had complied with an administration request "to say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said" about the Saddam-terrorist link.

Here's a section from the report itself:

The CIA has not published a "fully researched, coordinated and approved position" on the postwar reporting on the former regime’s links to al-Qa’ida, but has published such a paper on the postwar reporting on Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi and the former Iraqi regime. The CIA told the Committee that regarding Iraq’s links to terrorism, "the research the Counterterrorist Center has done on this issue has called into question some of the reports of contacts and training…revealed other contacts of which we were unaware, and shed new light on some contacts that appeared in prewar reporting. On balance, this research suggests that the prewar judgment remains valid."

If the CIA's judgments were deemed valid, then why is it necessary for the CIA to make a statement whose only purpose would be to lend validity to the President's false statements? It seems highly unlikely that DCI Tenet would make a statement that would provide the President political cover when political cover wasn't needed.

Based on the illogic of their accusations, it's difficult for me to think that Sens. Levin and Rockefeller aren't playing politics with this report. Nothing I've read from them makes sense.

Technorati: Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, Carl Levin, Zarqawi, Saddam
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Maryland Turning Into Steele Country? Part II

This AP article certainly isn't throwing cold water on the idea:

Often when the dust settles on a Democratic Senate primary in Maryland, the hard work is done and the winner can expect to roll over the Republican in the fall. Not this time. The two main candidates in Tuesday's primary, bookish congressman Ben Cardin and flamboyant civil rights figure Kweisi Mfume, are fighting over who will take on a rising Republican star with the distinction of being the first black to win statewide office in Maryland. Despite the embarrassment of criticizing Republicans, then calling President Bush his "homeboy," GOP Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is considered a strong contender in a state that is two-thirds Democratic and almost one-third black.

As I wrote here, the Steele campaign is gaining momentum, partially because of Russell Simmons' endorsement. I'm thinking that he'll gain more momentum if Ben Cardin wins this Tuesday's primary because it'll mark the second straight time that Maryland's Democrats will have taken the black community for granted. That's a stark contrast to how Republicans will have chosen the charismatic Steele to appear on the statewide ballot.

It's also worth noting that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman has spent a ton of time in Pennsylvania and Maryland with his "Conversations With the Community" outreach programs. One thing that conservatives haven't shown their appreciation over is how the Bush/Rove/Mehlman team opened doors into the minority communities that conservatives ignored entirely. President Bush deserves alot of credit on this front because he's spent alot of time reaching out to pastors of black evangelical churches, especially in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

That can't do anything but help candidates like Michael Steele. Showing up and listening is a great way to connect to people and to earn their trust. This should be required studying for Republican legislative candidates nationwide.

With Democrats holding such a sizeable registration advantage, Steele still faces an uphill fight but at least he's got a fighting chance of winning. If Cardin or Mfume doesn't run a smart campaign, they'll lose. Even if they run a smart campaign, they still might lose.

Let's hope that Maryland turns into Steele country this November.

Technorati: Michael Steele, Kweisi Mfume, Ben Cardin, Election 2006
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will Murtha Lead?

Or will he just continue whining about the Bush administration? That's essentially the question Diana Irey is asking in this press release:

"Jack Murtha says he's all for fighting the war on terror, he just doesn't think the President is doing it the right way. Well, in the coming days, Jack Murtha will have an opportunity to prove himself, he can offer his leadership, and cast his vote, in favor of giving the President the tools he needs to better prosecute that war.
"Yesterday and today, the President has taken two giant strides forward in the prosecution of the war on terror: yesterday he announced the transfer of 14 suspected terrorists from overseas CIA prisons to the U.S. Naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, and asked Congress for legislation specifically authorizing military tribunals so they can be tried properly and brought to justice; today, he asked Congress for new legislation that would specifically authorize the National Security Agency to surveil suspected terrorists abroad who are calling contacts inside the United States.
"In both cases, the President is doing the right thing to enhance American security in the face of the Islamofascist terrorist threat we face, and putting the ball squarely in the court of Congress. The only question now is, will Congress step up to the plate? Jack Murtha has already made his views known: on December 21, 2005, in an interview on CNN, he had this to say about NSA wiretapping:
"They're violating the Constitution and the laws. All they had to do is come to Congress."
"So now the President is taking Jack Murtha at his word, going to the Congress, and it's up to Jack Murtha to prove that he can live up to his promises."

It's put up or shut up time for Murtha and the Democrats. Are they just carping about President Bush's prosecution of the war for political gain? Or are they serious about fighting the terrorists with a multi-leveled, complex strategy? The next 18 legislative days will give us a clear answer.

If Murtha, Pelosi and other Democrats don't provide leadership in moving this vital legislation forward, then I hope that that would be uppermost in the minds of voters, whether they're in PA-12 or wherever they are in the U.S. We can't afford to not use everything in our arsenal in fighting global jihadists.

If Murtha votes against military tribunals and against warrantless intercepts of terrorist communications, then one thing will be obvious: Murtha MUST Go.

Technorati: Election 2006, Murtha, Gitmo, NSA, Pelosi
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democratic Culture of Corruption Update

WNBC in NYC is reporting that Sen. Bob Menendez is the subject of a federal investigation. Here's what they're reporting:

A federal investigation has been launched into the financial dealings of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez and a nonprofit agency he has helped over the years, sources said.
The U.S. attorney's office has subpoenaed the agency's records pertaining to a house once owned by then-congressman Menendez, sources told NewsChannel 4's Brian Thompson.
Menendez, a Democrat, has denied there was anything wrong with his renting the house to the North Hudson Community Action Corp. for more than $3,000 a month, even as he was working to obtain millions of dollars in federal grant money while he was a congressman.

Menendez wasn't just trying to profit from this organization. He was attempting to increase his profits by securing funding through the federal government. I don't know if that's illegal but I can't imagine that this is the type of thing that most Americans would condone.

Then again, we're talking about New Jersey, which is nothing if not the sleaze factory of the East Coast. This is the state that's brought us such ethically pure politicians as Robert 'The Torch' Torricelli, Jon Corzine and Jim McGreevey. And that's just since I started blogging.

Does this mean that Democrats will officially abandon their 'Culture of Corruption' Campaign? Of course it doesn't. They'll just pretend like this investigation isn't real while talking about Republicans' corruption. The flaw in that is the Right Blogosphere, which daily tells 'the rest of the story'. The flaw is that liberals don't think the Right Blogosphere is impacting elections and perceptions, a fatal flaw.

Technorati: Culture of Corruption, Robert Menendez, Jim McGreevey, Jon Corzine, Election 2006
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is the Tide Turning?

Two weeks ago, I challenged Eleanor Clift's statement that "Anyone who thinks that Joe Lieberman" will help Republicans in Connecticut "is whistling past the grave." The good people at RealclearPolitics have posted this poll, showing Christopher Shays with a 7 point lead over his challenger, Nancy Farrell.

Shays was considered the most vulnerable of the Nancy Johnson/Rob Simmons/Christoper Shays trio. If that's the case, this would be good news for Republicans because it would seemingly take three more seats out of the loss column for them. If you've been watching my blog this week, you'll note a number of posts signalling a change in the GOP's election chances.

It seems to me that all the Democrats' huffing and puffing isn't blowing the GOP's house down. In fact, I'd suggest that the more Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid, Richard Durbin and Howard Dean talk, the more likely it is that they're blowing their own electoral house down. I don't think it's dawned on them that their policies just aren't selling with serious-minded Americans. Every time that Democrats use the phrase "tough and smart", they're asking people to believe that the President's policies, which have thwarted numerous terrorist attacks, aren't smart. They don't agree with President Bush on every point but it's foolish to think that they don't know that he's done a pretty good job protecting us.

At least partl of Democrats' confidence can be attributed to believing the Agenda Media's polling, which is wildly exaggerated this year. The over-hyping of the generic ballot and right track/wrong track polling has led many Democrats to think that victory is inevitable. Far from it.

I'll re-iterate what I've said before: When Republicans gain seats in the House and Senate this November, the Democratic hate sites like Kos, DU and MoveOn will be filled with more conspiracy theories than you thought imaginable because they didn't see it coming that their views simply don't sell.

Technorati: Eleanor Clift, Election 2006, Netroots
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Livid Over "The Path to 9/11"

I couldn't believe all the Democratic outrage over ABC's upcoming miniseries "The Path to 9/11" when I visited USNewswire. Here's a sampling of their outrage:

Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of "The Path to 9/11" mini-series on Sept. 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well-respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney's plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

Funny but I don't recall Democrats' outrage over Fahrenheit 9/11. In fact, I recall some rather positive reactions to it. Here's what LGF's Charles Johnson wrote about Dem's reactions:

The chairman of the DNC, Terry McAuliffe, pronounced the film "very powerful, much more powerful than I thought it would be." Then, when asked by CNN whether he thought "the movie was essentially fair and factually based," McAuliffe answered, "I do...Clearly the movie makes it clear that George Bush is not fit to be President of this country."

Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa seconded McAuliffe and urged all Americans to see the film: "It’s important for the American people to understand what has gone on before, what led us to this point, and to see it sort of in this unvarnished presentation by Michael Moore."

Remember that Fahrenheit 9/11 was called a documentary. "The Path to 9/11" is called a docudrama. Michael Moore claimed that his movie contained an accurate portrayal of conditions on the ground in Baghdad, a supposedly 'backroom deal' to get bin Laden's family out of the U.S. and back to Saudi Arabia and numerous other inaccuracies.

Here's Christopher Hitchens' take on Fahrenheit 9/11:

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Democrats were quick to praise Fahrenheit 9/11 because they hated President Bush that deeply. They thought the film would be just one of the stepping stones to regain their places of power. Therefore, the ends justified the means in their eyes. Terry McAuliffe, then still the DNC Chairman, hailed it as "very powerful, much more powerful than I thought it would be" and "essentially fair and factually based." I can't imagine how anyone could say that after seeing that movie. That he could say that with a straight face tells me I should be thankful I don't play poker against him.

Compare that reaction to a movie that lies about Bush, Saddam's Iraq and numerous other things to a docudrama where their ox is getting gored. The vitriol comes spewing forth. They haven't threatened a lawsuit yet but you can bet that their legal eagles are working on that if they can't get ABC to cave and edit out the parts that cast the Clinton Administration in a bad light.

Isn't it interesting how Democrats weren't interested in the truth when President Bush was getting lied about but they're sticklers right down to the tiniest minutiae when it's Clinton?

Whatever happened to the notion that people stood up for the truth no matter what?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shifting Winds For GOP?

According to this article, the Washington Times' Donald Lambro seems to think that GOP chances are brightening.

Two months before Election Day, some things were happening in the political environment that showed how quickly the tide can turn in the rough and tumble of American elections.
Earlier this week, Chevron's announcement of major new oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, perhaps the biggest in a generation, which could yield 400,000 barrels per day, had a positive impact on the oil markets. Oil and gas prices were already falling significantly as we entered Labor Day weekend, the combined result of reduced fears of supply interruptions in global markets, especially in the Gulf, and a fall-off in U.S. gasoline demand as the summer vacation driving season came to a close.
As this is written, the national average price of gas at the pump was $2.70 a gallon and falling, while oil had dropped from $77 a barrel to $69 or less. Further price reductions will likely ease the squeeze on consumer budgets at a time when Republicans need all the good news they can get.

In other words, as I said here, events drive elections as much as policies. Dropping oil prices will take away one of the Democrats' favorite whipping boys. Amy Klobuchar has made a big deal of attacking "Big Oil and the Big Pharmaceuticals". With gas prices already having dropped .50 cents this month here in Minnesota, and with prices being forecast to drop even further, it's sure to take the sting out of the Democrats' rants.

Usually cautious elections tracker Charlie Cook summed up the GOP's future this way over Labor Day weekend: If "the political climate remains as it is today, a very big 'if', Republicans will likely lose the House and their dominance of the nation's governorships but hang on to the Senate by a thread."
But interviews with key Democrats advising all levels of their party's campaign apparatus and with Republican officials suggest the "big if" Mr. Cook worries about is the wild card in all this that could give the GOP a winning hand. Maybe not enough to avoid losses in the House and Senate and among the governorships, but possibly enough to keep both chambers in Republican control.

Mr. Cook is a dilligent political forecaster but he isn't paying enough attention to the Right Blogosphere. If he were, he'd know that the GOP base is fired up in keeping  the levers of power out of Democrats' hands. He'd also know that Republicans are talking about national security and enforecement first immigration whenever possible. In other words, he hasn't noticed that "the political climate" has already changed from the climate he perceives.

Republican campaign officials tell me if Democrats are leading in the generic polls by 6 points or so, they feel confident they can repel the assault on the House. "We look at the individual races and we find in our polling data that the Republicans are in very good positions," said Carl Forti, chief spokesman for the NRCC. "Republicans will be in the majority in the next Congress," he told me.

Forecasters like Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg are basing their predictions on 2004 results and immediately assume that these incumbents are in trouble because they think this is a difficult year for Republicans based on President Bush's low poll ratings. The other thing that's worth noting is that the generic ballot is useless. PERIOD.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Maryland Turning Into Steele Country?

It's too early to tell what the effect is but Steele's getting hip-hop artist Russell Simmons
to appear in a Steele commercial can't hurt Steele's chances. The ads will air in Baltimore.

The 60-second TV commercial features footage from a recent fundraiser that Mr. Simmons hosted in Baltimore for Mr. Steele. It shows Mr. Simmons onstage in a T-shirt and blue jeans, saying: "The lieutenant governor is clear on his mission. He said he wants to fight poverty and ignorance…Now I'm here to endorse him."

The fact that this advertisement is airing in Baltimore should scare the daylights out of Maryland Democrats, especially if Ben Cardin wins Tuesday's Democratic primary. What this advertisement does is put pressure on Maryland Democrats to elect Kweisi Mfume or else risk losing a significant amount of black support. Cardin is thought to be the stronger candidate based on polling in a head-to-head matchup with Steele. In my opinion, this changes the dynamic of this race because Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend didn't pick a black for her running mate in 2002. If they ignore a black liberal with high name recognition for another white guy, you can count on Maryland's minorities noticing that their votes are welcome but that they don't get a seat at the Democrats' 'power table'.

Mr. Steele called Mr. Simmons' appearance in the spot, which began airing in the Washington and Baltimore markets yesterday, "an enormous boost." Mr. Steele also said he plans to spend most of the next two months on a tour bus, traveling to events and meeting voters. The bus tour will begin Tuesday night. "He will aggressively barnstorm the state," Steele spokesman Doug Heye said. "Voters who meet Michael Steele react positively to Michael Steele. We want to make sure the lieutenant governor talks to as many Marylanders as possible."

In short, Steele's strategy is to get outside the Agenda Media's filter so that people can get to know him and his policies instead of letting him fall prey to their mischaracterizations.
Mr. Simmons surprised many in the black community last month when he endorsed Mr. Steele and headlined the Baltimore fundraiser. Mr. Mfume is on the board of directors of Mr. Simmons' political action group, the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network. Mr. Simmons said he supports Mr. Steele because of his commitment to help the black community build wealth. Mr. Simmons said, "Some of the things [Mr. Steele] is doing are inspiring, and maybe moving Democrats to pay attention."
TRANSLATION: Simmons thinks that Steele's commitment commitment to helping "the black community build wealth" through "inspiring" policies will move black Democrats into the Republican column.

That thought scares the daylights out of Democrats. That is if they aren't in denial.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive