...coming to you from the deep pockets of George Soros.
Paul Mirengoff writing at Powerline on the J-Street Deception:
“J Street” is the name of a new lobbying group and political action committee that says it will represent the interests of liberal American Jews. Its premise is that sensible mainstream of pro-Israel American Jews have been ill-served by the main pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. -- the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). J Street regards AIPAC as pushing a right-wing agenda. By contrast, J Street’s “sensible mainstream” agenda includes having the U.S. negotiate with Hamas.
As James Kirchick demonstrates, however, AIPAC is not out of step with mainstream (i.e., liberal) American Jewish sentiment. Rather, AIPAC’s skepticism about a negotiated Middle East settlement in the near future is consistent with American Jewish thinking. Thus, nearly three-quarters of American Jews do not believe that Israel can "achieve peace with a Hamas-led, Palestinian government." Indeed, 55 percent believe that even negotiations between Olmert and Abbas "cannot lead to peace in the foreseeable future." And 82 percent agree that "the goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel."
Moreover, AIPAC is not dominated by political conservatives. Steve Grossman, AIPAC's president from 1992 to 1996 and later the chairman of Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, told Kirchick that the notion that AIPAC is a right-wing organization strikes him as ridiculous.
In reality, it is J Street, not AIPAC, that’s out of step, to the point that it can fairly be characterized as a fringe group (the fact that even Barack Obama won’t advocate negotiating with Hamas is a give-away). Kirchick notes that one of the most prominent Israelis involved with the group, Avrum Burg former speaker of the Knesset, has said that "to define the State of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end." He has also compared contemporary Israel to pre-Nazi Germany. Another key J Street member, Henry Siegman, has compared Israel to apartheid South Africa, accused Israeli leaders of having the U.S. government "in their pockets," and claimed that the 2000 intifada "was not planned by Arafat, but a spontaneous eruption of Palestinian anger." It’s enough to make you wonder whether the “J” in “J Street” stands for Jimmy Carter.
There’s nothing wrong, of course, with Carteresque Jews forming a lobbying group. But it would be nice to see a little bit of truth in their advertising.
Time magazine picks up on the Carter-Obama narrative:
Of the two likely nominees this year, Obama is closest to Carter in background and policy leanings. The parallels between his campaign so far and the one Carter ran in 1976 are striking. Like Carter, Obama had little national experience when he started to run. Neither was given much chance of winning the nomination. Instead of running on a detailed platform, Carter told crowds that what Washington needed was “a government as good as its people”—just as Obama promises “change we can believe in.” Carter’s message sold well after Richard Nixon’s disgrace, and press accounts from the time suggest that people found the born-again Carter to be charismatic. That parallel is a promising one for Obama.
The sad and pathetic thing is that it's probably going to work.
There is something terribly wrong with a nation who finds it acceptable that a candidate for it's highest elective office is a 20-year member of a church that spouts a line of BS like that coming from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ.
When you lose 62% of the white vote, that’s a blowout. When you lose 70% of the Catholic vote, that is a blowout. When you lose 57% of the Jewish vote, that’s a blowout. When you lose 58% of churchgoers, that is a blowout. When you lose 54% of workers making less than $50,000 a year (and win only those making less than $15,000 and more than $150,000), that’s a blowout. When you lose 63% of seniors, that’s a blowout. When you out spend your opponent by 3-1 and still lose states rich in electoral votes by 10 points, that’s a blowout.
Obama was thoroughly and completely trounced, being saved only by his dominance with young voters and African Americans. Otherwise, Clinton would have gotten her 20 point win in every state and we would probably be looking at an entirely different campaign today.
Obama spent $15 million and got the stoner vote, the Limousine Liberal vote, the celebrity watchers vote, the elitist egghead vote, the atheists, anti-gun nuts, and open borders vote (the “Anti-Bittergate crowd), the perpetual student vote, and hundreds of thousands of rightly proud African Americans.
With a coalition like that, I predict that ex-President McGovern will be the first one to call with his congratulations on election night.
There can be no reasonable challenge to the idea that people like Wright and Pfleger spread hate. It is not only in their sermons but in the bulletins published by their churchs as well. Black “Liberation” Theology or not. Good works in the community notwithstanding. Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger encourage their respective flocks to hate rich white people, hate Jews, hate the government of the United States, hate our ancestors, hate everything about America – including “middle classness" – of which they seemingly don't approve.
No amount of spinning can alter the fact that Wright and Pfleger are a troupe of conspiracy mongering, hate spewing preachers. If the same tired rhetoric that's spewed from the pulpit in Chicago emanated from a pulpit of a predominately white church in Omaha, or the bima of a shul in Boca, AND one of their members just happened to be running for the highest elective office in the land, they would have zero chance of being elected to the office they seek.
But since there is no forgiveness (nor, one suspects, any redemption) for the imagined architects of black oppression, the only possible conclusion to be drawn is that African Americans should hate those who Wright and Pfleger say are their oppressors. Wright urges God to damn America and Americans for our past and present sins, a theme picked up with aplomb by Father Pfleger. And if you can spin that any other way than promoting hatred, you should be a PR flack for the devil.
“Why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.”
Scott McClellan in 2008: (exclusively for J.P!)
McClellan definitely has that "I'll tumble 4 ya" attitude. From what I've heard of his book it doesn't really contain anything that's not already out there in the public record. The only reason it's being promoted the way it has been is that it was written by the former White House Press Secretary. Scott McClellan's been away from the White House since 2006, he doesn't have a job. Most people who leave the White House have all kinds of private sector job offers. They're considered skilled communicators and usually turn up as talking heads or pundits if nothing else.
In McClellan's case he's got nothing, so it's no surprise he turned to a ghost writer and Peter Osnos as a publisher. Osnos' publishing house is affiliated with the reprobates at The Nation toilet paper magazine and 6 of Osnos's books have been bankrolled by none other than George Soros.
Imagine that.
Think that doesn't matter? Then don't give me any shit about Richard Mellon Scaife's bankrolling of Regnery back in the day.
There seems to be quite a dissonance among the electorate this year. If the pundits and other members of the chattering class are to be believed, it's going to be a bloodbath for Republicans come November. While I'm all in favor of a little blood letting if it helps us get our house in order, it would seem there is at least a glimmer of light at the end of this dark tunnel.
The latest Rasmussen national survey “found that 62% of voters would prefer fewer government services with lower taxes. Nearly a third (29%) disagrees and would rather have a bigger government with higher taxes. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.”
Still, no matter how well-informed the public becomes, Congress poses a barrier to reform. The magic of Congress is its ability to consistently transmogrify the long-standing public preference for smaller government into ever larger budgets. Part of the trick is that members always claim that they support budget restraint in general, while arguing at the same time that each particular program, when it is up for a vote, desperately needs to be expanded.
How then can we realign congressional procedures to better reflect the 62 percent support for government downsizing? Part of the answer is to impose a cap on growth in the overall federal budget, allowing it to grow no more than the average family budget each year.
If anything, perhaps the Rasmussen numbers indicate that should a potential Democrat president or filibuster-proof Democrat senate overreach with left of mainstream policies that there will be a price to be paid in 2010.
As usual, Heritage is front a center in providing the background and research into the economic costs of climate change legislation. With a profound lack of deep-thinking Montana representation in either the House or Senate it's refreshing that there are at least a hand full of organizations out there that provide the big picture.
Workers and families in the state of Montana may be wondering how climate change legislation before Congress will affect their income, their jobs, and the cost of energy. Members of Congress are considering a number of bills designed to address climate change. Chief among them is S. 2191, America's Climate Security Act of 2007, introduced by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).
The Lieberman–Warner legislation promises extraordinary perils for the American economy, should it become law, all for very little change in global temperature…perhaps even smaller than the .07 of a degree Celsius drop in temperature that many scientists expected from worldwide compliance with the Kyoto climate change accords. S. 2191 imposes strict upper limits on the emission of six greenhouse gases (GHG) with the primary emphasis on carbon dioxide (CO2). The mechanism for capping these emissions requires emitters to acquire federally created permits (called allowances) for each ton emitted.
Arbitrary restrictions predicated on multiple untested and undeveloped technologies will lead to severe restrictions on energy use and large increases in energy costs. In addition to the direct impact on consumers' budgets, these higher energy costs will spread through the economy, injecting unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production and consumption.
Implementing S. 2191 will be very costly in Montana, even given the most generous assumptions. Notable costs are listed below in Table 1:
Consumers will be hard hit. Table 2 shows the expected increases in retail energy prices (adjusted to 2006 dollars to eliminate the impact of inflation) in 2025 for Montana. Between 2012, when the restrictions first apply, and 2025, the prices of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline could rise by nearly 20 percent nationally when compared to prices in a world without S. 2191.
In addition to taking a bite out of consumers' pocketbooks, the high energy prices throw a monkey wrench into the production side of the economy. Contrary to the claims of an economic boost from "green" investment and "green-collar" job creation, S. 2191 reduces economic growth, gross domestic product (GDP), and employment.
I've spent a considerable amount of time in recent months asking myself, “What is first, my loyalty to the party or my loyalty to my values as a conservative?” That was an easy question to answer in the end. I can’t allow myself to step away from what really matters because of a false illusion that it is for the “greater good.”
Here's a confession: I am a weak Republican. I'm a strong conservative, at least I like to think so. Maybe that makes me less beholden to the idea that every Republican victory is a conservative one as well, or that every Democratic success is automatically a conservative defeat. I get all of this email from people screaming that I'm some sort of RINO because of a column where I floated a strategic idea for how the Republican could win and the conservative movement might live to fight another day. But the idea that the fate of conservatism and the fate of the Republican Party are not merely intertwined but synonymous is what led us to the rhetorical abomination of compassionate conservatism and nurtured the crapulence of the congressional GOP lo these last 10 years.
Maybe it's time for the national Republican establishment to start taking some cues from Montana. Look, I realize it's early in the cycle and that opinions and attitudes can change overnight. It does appear increasingly likely, however, that many voters seem to be indicating that they'll vote to re-elect Governor Schweitzer but allow the legislature to return to it's roots, so to speak, and increase the balance of power for the Republicans.
The percentage of Montanans who say they'll vote for a Republican over a Democrat for the state Legislature has risen to its highest point in more than three years, a new Gazette State Poll shows.
Forty-three percent of those polled said they were more likely to vote for a Republican for the statehouse, while only 37 percent said they were more likely to vote for a Democrat. Twenty percent said they weren't sure.
Montanans have not reported such a strong preference for statehouse Republicans since October of 2004.
Somewhere along the line, the Montana GOP establishment seems to have stumbled onto something that works. Whether they can make it work come November remains to be seen. If the margins widen it seems to indicate that Montana voters feel strongly in the idea of checks and balances.
It's also not good news if you're supposedly a "non-partisan" advocacy group blowing a wad of someone else's cash ;-)
A comment thread from the indomitable Carol over at Missoulapolis leads us here, you know, just to clear the air of the typical lieshalf-truths misconception that 5 companies control 60% of the oil market.
Congressional ignorance of basic laws of supply and demand is at once bizarre, breathtaking and frightening. For example, in a speech delivered by New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer on May 13, he urged the U.S. to force Saudi Arabia to pump a million barrels a day more of oil — which Schumer claimed would slash the price of crude by $25 a barrel.
What Schumer didn't say was that 1 million barrels is exactly the amount of extra oil the U.S. would today be pumping if President Clinton hadn't vetoed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1995. Despite this, Schumer still opposes drilling in ANWR.
One of the oil business's dirty secrets is that only 6% of all reserves are controlled by investor-owned oil companies such as those demonized by Congress. The rest are controlled by governments, one way or another. And 11 of the 15 largest oil companies are government-owned. Government is the problem, not "Big Oil."
That's why this ridiculous blaming of oil companies must stop, and why the companies must be allowed to get back into the business of pumping oil. Once this happens, we'll find that the markets that ignorant and demagogic politicians called "failed" will once again turn out plentiful energy at prices people can afford.
But why stop trying to fool people into blaming "big oil" rather than "big government?" It couldn't be election-year economic grandstanding could it? From the Democrats? It's not like the oil companies have subpoena power over fools like Schumer and others, who desperately want to provide a boogeyman to the masses rather than face up to their collective responsibility for the mess they created.
I've long been calling on some of the GOP "young guns" in the House to step up to the plate and take the party back from those, who in recent years, seem incapable of of doing anything other than offering us stale solutions and flaccid leadership.
I've already highlighted how superlative I consider the efforts of Kevin McCarthy, Eric Cantor, Jeff Flake, Adam Putnam, and Paul Ryan. It looks like it's time to time to add another fresh face to the list.
Thaddeus McCotter represents Michigan's 11th District. In his capacity as Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee McCotter took a stand that, sadly, few in the House are willing to take. To that end Representative McCotter advanced a set of policy proposals to fellow House Republicans on "Waging and Winning a “Change” Election." Agree with them either in whole or part (or not), at least someone has the cajones to put a blueprint out there and advance the debate.
Let's face it, if we as a party continue to depend on what passes for leadership by Tom Cole at the NRCC, well let's just say...
Memo
To: Honorable U.S. House Republicans
From: Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Republican House Policy Chair
Date: May 19, 2008
Subj: Waging and Winning a “Change” Election:
Make It a Choice Not a Referendum
Situation
We’ve a tiger by the tail and he’s dumping on us. U.S. House Republicans are a legislative minority tied to an unpopular, departing President during a “change” election. Thus, we must stop feeding the kitty by waging a public “referendum” on ourselves as Republicans; instead, we must wage and win a “choice” election against Democrats.
Challenges
To do so, we must surmount several challenges, some of them self-inflicted.
1. Rifles vs. Shotguns: House Republicans are not a President, a parliamentary party, or sane people’s paramount interest. In the larger electoral environment, we cannot attempt to “re-brand” the entire party in Americans’ minds. We must focus our goals and energies; play to our strengths; and win.
2. Computers vs. Chisels: For over two election cycles the Left has pummeled us with millions of dollars of negative attacks through their 527s and other outside groups (including the biased media). Also, the Left has improved their technological weaponry, notably fundraising and advertising on the internet. While legally we can only hope our activists someday match the Left’s external political infrastructure, we can improve our internal technological infrastructure and stop waging campaigns armed with the modern equivalents of stone tablets and chisels.
3. Symptoms vs. Diseases: Spending was a symptom of a deeper disease – it did not cause the Katrina fiasco, a failed Iraqi reconstruction, or the Foley scandal. We must frankly diagnose and eradicate the deeper lapse of principles that spurred all of our problems; rectify this disease; and redeem ourselves by offering a broader, more purposeful vision for America. If we do not, we will continue to lose within the Democrats’ narrow, undefined political prism of “change”.
4. Homicide vs. Suicide: The Democrats want to kill us off. We must not help them by committing suicide. Following their successful 2006 “rubber stamp for Bush” election, the Democrats again seek a national referendum on us. Thus, we must stop running public referendums upon ourselves, because it abets the Democrats’ goal. Remember: a self-obsessed quest for an illusory ideological purity will put our conservative philosophy into a permanent minority.
Opportunities
Opportunities exist which we must seize to win.
1. Character vs. Chameleons: Our core principles are still shared by the majority of Americans. (See the RHPC’s American Empowerment Agenda.) This was proven in the special elections, where the Democrats ran “chameleon candidates.” Running with the courage of our convictions, we can unmask and defeat these impostors.
2. Tomorrow vs. Yesterday: Though they have destroyed public trust in Congress, it’s too early to for a flat-out referendum on the Democrats. We must make it too late for another referendum on our lame duck President. Let Democrats whine about yesterday while we focus on tomorrow. Americans know a party of change doesn’t dwell on the past.
3. Direction vs. Detour: The Democrats’ Presidential primary is our road map to victory. Culturally conservative Democrats – especially blue-collar, ethnic Catholics – have already voted against the Leftist Obama. Ironically, the ultra-liberal Clinton showed us who they are and where they live. These voters are in play and, though we once took them for granted, we can and must win them back.
4. Mavericks vs. Hacks: Each member must be able to augment their core principles with issues that maximize their in-district appeal. Our Conference must not impose an arbitrary ideological litmus test or label upon any member, for it will harm every member’s personal ability to appeal to their constituency and win.
Solution
Wage and win a choice campaign.
1. Principled: Reaffirm and differentiate our core principles against the Democrats’ chameleon conservatives and unmask them before the electorate.
2. Purposeful: Challenge Americans to higher purposes than mere self-interest and promote the policies that will accomplish these goals. (Reference materials include the Leader’s Reasons to Believe, the RHPC’s American Empowerment Agenda, the House Republican Conference’s continuing series of issue roll outs, etc…)
3. Strategic: Each member must identify and capture Republicans and culturally conservative swing voters by articulating core principles and personalizing district-specific policies that appeal to voter’s higher aspirations and immediate concerns.
4. Tactical: To maximize the voters’ choice in this election, members must fairly tie Democratic candidates to their Presidential candidate; Senate and House “leadership”; and insane Left-wing organizations. There is a reason the radical Left is supporting “conservative” Democrats. We must let the voters know it.
5. Victorious: If you believe in you, others will believe in you. And you will win.
Conclusion
The first step toward winning a change election is for House Republicans to choose to run a choice election. If we do, House Republicans will commence what Rep. Randy Forbes has rightfully cited as the most critical change in this election: We will make our supporters proud of us. If we do, they will rally to our shared cause and America will win.
Addendum: A GOP Candidate Defining the Choice
Theme: We can’t afford the Democrats’ dangerous change. I’ll fight for the change our families deserve. (To the tune of “Rice-a-Roni”): Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Threat.
Gas Prices and Energy: The Democrats’ Energy Deficit is a dangerous change that spikes our gas prices. I’ll fight for the American energy production and independence our families deserve. Pelosi’s bad gas is asphyxiating our economy.
Economy: Our family budgets can’t afford the Democrats’ dangerous change of higher taxes and bigger government. I’ll fight for the lower taxes and better government our families deserve. Democrats want to fix a broken government by making it bigger.
Health Care: The Democrats’ want a dangerous change to government dictated rationing of medicine. I’ll fight for the patient-centered health care our families deserve. Democrats want a government that can’t process tax rebates to perform heart transplants.
Security: The Democrats’ dangerous change dropped America’s guard against our enemies and threatens our families’ security. I’ll fight for the national security our families deserve. If Iraq made us less safe, why did Democrats make it harder to catch terrorists?
Bonus Track: It is the People’s House not Pelosi’s House!
I'm not sure if it's Operation Chaos at work, or if mainstream people have finally caught onto the "be careful what you wish for" meme, but it looks like the girl has still got some fight left in her.
Lost in the excitement of Barack Obama's coronation this week was an inconvenient fact of Tuesday's results: Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter.
Partisan voters almost always come home after their candidate loses. The problem arises when a candidate's supporters believe that their guy (or gal) didn't lose. Expect the chorus calling for Clinton's withdrawal to grow louder over the next week, with people insisting that she has no "path to victory."
Clinton's path is both obvious and simple: Win the popular vote and force Barack Obama and his cheerleaders to explain why that doesn't matter.
As Barack Obama inches closer to formally wrapping up the Democratic Presidential Nomination, the number of Democrats who want Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race has declined. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 32% of Democrats now think Clinton should withdraw from the race. That’s down from 38% who wanted her to exit the race just ten days ago.
While collecting half a million dollar from donors in Palm Beach the other night Obama continues the racist meme:
“A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There’s a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year,” Obama said. “If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it’s not surprising that would happen.”
While just one hate crime is one too many where does he get this information? The FBI has not released its official hate crimes report for 2007. If Obama is referring to the 2006 report, it actually showed a drop in hate crimes against hispanics, from 819 (62.8%) to 722 (58.8%). And really - 722 out of the millions of hispanics living in the U.S.?
What evidence does Obama have linking people like Dobbs and Limbaugh to hate crimes? Are there any actual statistics on this? With no actual data this is nothing but speculation.
This is not the first time Obama has been hiking down the trail of tall tales:
Non-truth: During campaign speeches, Obama frequently makes the contention that "I'm the only candidate who doesn't take money from corporate PACs and lobbyists."
Truth: Obama has raised nearly $14 million from lawyers and lobbyists. In October, Obama raised about $125,000 at a fundraising event in the Washington offices of Greenberg Traurig, the law firm that once employed convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Sources: “Full Text of Obama’s Speech to the Alliance for American Manufacturing,” Time.com, April 14, 2008; “Obama Draws Fine Line Between Lobbyists, Lawyer Donors,” Newsday, April 12, 2008.
Non-truth: He wrote [in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father"] that when he was 9 years old, living in Indonesia, he flipped through Life magazine and read an article about a black man who had scarred and ruined his skin applying chemicals that promised to make his skin white. "I imagine other black children, then and now, undergoing similar moments of revelation," he wrote.
Truth: No article or pictures exist of any such story, according to Life historians.
Source: “The Not-So-Simple Story of Barack Obama’s Youth,” Chicago Tribune, March 25, 2007.
Gratuitous link to the boys from Culture Club...during an era when music was still fun ;-)
A few posts ago I posited that environmentalism was a religion of sorts to many secular Americans. A thoughtful reader sent me a link to an article I missed on NRO entitled "Church of Green" by the ever erudite Jonah Goldberg.
I've long held that one of the reasons that so many big government types are so keen on the environmentalist agenda is the way that it can allow the nanny state to intervene in areas that, even a few years ago, would have been unimaginable. It’s about control; it’s not about the planet.
At its core, environmentalism is a kind of nature worship. It’s a holistic ideology, shot through with religious sentiment. “If you look carefully,” author Michael Crichton observed, “you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths...”
Environmentalism’s most renewable resources are fear, guilt, and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past...
I heard Gore on NPR recently. He was asked about evangelical pastor Joseph Hagee’s absurd comment that Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath for New Orleans’s sexual depravity. Naturally, Gore chuckled at such backwardness. But then the Nobel laureate went on to blame Katrina on man’s energy sinfulness. It struck me that the two men are not so different. If only canoodling Big Easy residents had adhered to The Greenpeace Guide to Environmentally Friendly Sex...
Whether or not it’s adopted the trappings of religion, my biggest beef with environmentalism is how comfortably irrational it is. It touts ritual over reality, symbolism over substance, while claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts.
"Comfortably irrational" for the comfortably numb?
The U.S. government just put polar bears on the threatened species list because climate change is shrinking the Arctic ice where they live. Never mind that polar bears are in fact thriving — their numbers have quadrupled in the last 50 years. Never mind that full implementation of the Kyoto protocols on greenhouse gases would save exactly one polar bear, according to Danish social scientist Bjørn Lomborg, author of the book Cool It!
Yet 300 to 500 polar bears could be saved every year, Lomborg says, if there were a ban on hunting them. What’s cheaper — trillions to trim carbon emissions, or a push for a ban on polar bear hunting?
In the broadest sense, the environmental movement has won. Americans are “green” in that they are willing to spend a lot to keep their country ecologically healthy, which it is. But now it’s time to save the environment from the environmentalists...
Read the entire article before it goes behind the NRO subscriber firewall.
Dear Smegged-out dry-dicked bookstore clerkin' ass giblets, suck it!
Yeah, I'm the tool allright.
"I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the envelope, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."
The man in the video is not "Joe Public," but a sitting U.S. Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA). Unfortunately altering reality to make you feel better exceeds my meager talents. Maybe you have a friend or a parent who can make you right, or access to a cocktail of potent psychotropics for which you are in acute need because it's obvious that the "self-help" section in your place of employment was of no "help," either real or imagined.
Fresh on the heels of the debacle concerning Real ID and other CONgressional measures aimed at the pernicious debates about privacy and freedom comes the following measure from the usual suspects...this time aimed at the mortgage and lending industry.
The Senate housing bill approved by a committee this week was already drawing fire from fiscal conservatives and financially responsible homeowners opposed to bailing out housing speculators.
Now it may be time to add privacy advocates to the chorus of voices urging President Bush to veto the bill, which could put taxpayers on the hook for billions of bailout dollars in new taxes or deficit spending.
Buried in the text of the revised legislation, approved by the Senate Banking Committee by a 19-2 vote this week, is a plan to create a new national fingerprint registry. It covers just about everyone involved in the mortgage business, including lenders, "loan originators," and some real estate agents.
I can't find how individual members of the Senate Banking Committee voted on this matter but one can assume that Montana's junior Senator, Jon Tester, as a member of this committee, voted with the majority. It's odd that Tester would (assuming he did) support this measure since he claimed such fundamental issues with the REAL ID proposal back in April:
...calling it an expensive "Washington boondoggle" that invades privacy. "I'm still waiting for a good answer about how REAL ID will make our country safer," said Tester, a member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. "But right now it's an expensive, underfunded, poorly planned mess that invades our privacy.
"I imagine that, yes, a fingerprint registry might stop an ex-con from handling loans, but I doubt it will make even a dent in the lending problems the bill aims to stop," saysJohn Berlau, director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute. "And I would venture to guess that the vast majority of the problem mortgages were handled by employees with no criminal record. Rather, this seem like another thoughtless idea that lets politicians brag that they are 'getting tough' about a particular problem."
So, Tester wants to get tough on the national boogeyman du jour, the mortgage and lending industry, but considers the pernicious erosion of our privacy rights vis a vis REAL ID a "Washington boondoggle that invades privacy."
It amazes me. We have wrenching debates about privacy and freedom vs. national security when it comes to proposed anti-terrorist programs. But then a smililar scheme is done in response to an economic problem, and it almost escapes without notice. A similar thing has happened with anti-money laundering requirements that mandate that banks effectively spy on their customers for possible violations of everything from drug laws to the tax code.
Or perhaps it's time to buy Tester a pair of these:
A new federal political action committee chaired by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney made its debut today with the mission of helping to elect conservative Republicans around the country.
Free and Strong America PAC will support officeholders and candidates who are dedicated to advancing social, fiscal and foreign policies that will strengthen America at this critical time in the nation’s history. The guiding focus will be on the core principles that have built and nurtured America since its founding – uncompromised military strength, a belief in the power of free markets and that a competitive America is one where taxes are low and government is small, an emphasis on strong families and a federalist approach to government that leaves decision-making as close to the people as possible.
“America is at a crossroads. If we are to remain a leader in the world, we must be prepared to tackle the numerous challenges ahead of us with the same innovation and spirit that has made us the envy of the world. Together with the candidates we support, and the help of the American people, we can embrace solutions that will create a strong economy, strong families and a strong military,” Romney said.
The PAC will support candidates running for all levels of office in the current 2008 cycle, starting at the top of the ticket with Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Targeted races will be added to the PAC website at www.FreeStrongAmerica.com on an ongoing basis. In the first week, featured congressional candidates include U.S. Rep. Dean F. Andal of California, Keith Fimian of Virginia, U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, U.S. Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, U.S. Rep. Connie Mack of Florida and U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg of Michigan.
Headquartered in Boston, Free and Strong America PAC will be led by executive director Peter Flaherty, a former deputy chief of staff to Governor Romney and a deputy campaign manager in the Romney presidential campaign.
$531,471. That's the per-household share owed by all of us for federal entitlement liabilities. And that's before a potential President Obama or President McCain increases our share exponentially with all of their facockda promises.
At least someone is paying attention. Remember Congressman Paul Ryan, author of the Roadmap for America's Future? Ryan wrote a letter to the non-partisan and objective Congressional Budget Office asking them to detail the grave fiscal situation our country will be in should Congress fail to reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Under current law, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to rise substantially as a share of the economy....In response to your letter of May 15, 2008, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has prepared the attached analysis of the potential economic effects of...using higher income tax rates alone to finance the increases in spending....
With no economic feedbacks taken into account and under an assumption that raising marginal tax rates was the only mechanism used to balance the budget, tax rates would have to more than double. The tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have to be increased from 10 percent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent.
Such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion.
We're not going to be able to smoke or tax ourselves out of this coming crisis, but when I listen to the non-sense concerning the demise of conservatism I'm reminded that it's forward thinking conservatives who seem to be the only ones who even recognize the problem. Perhaps they'll join me in the Cayman Islands or Liechtenstein as the road to serfdom continues to be paved with the professed misplaced "good intentions" of others.
In what I guess could only be called a sin of omission by many on the sinestra side concerning Congressman Rehberg's alleged mistreatment of veterans comes word that Denny and Congressman Mike Thompson(D-CA) have introduced a new bill to help the veterans used in chemical and other toxic experiment tests from 1963 thru 1973 in Operation SHAD/112.
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide veterans for presumptions of service connection for purposes of benefits under laws administered by Secretary of Veterans Affairs for diseases associated with service in the Armed Forces and exposure to biological, chemical, or other toxic agents as part of Project 112, and for other purposes.
It's amazing to note what can happen when a politician reaches across party lines to do what's right for veterans, and that's just what Denny does in Washington, despite the meme from the left handed keyboard klatch that Rehberg serves as only a tool for administration policies.
Rehberg said part of the problem is no one knows just how many people were affected.
”It seemed like the Department of Defense had dropped the ball and hadn't even tried to identify those who had fallen ill,” Rehberg said.
...Thompson and Rehberg also said during the teleconference that there is too much blame in this issue to simply place at the feet of one administration.
”It's not just this administration, it's the one before and the one before that,” Rehberg said. ”It's been 40 years of administrations,” Thompson interjected.
After its introduction Thursday, the bill will head to a veterans committee before coming to back to the House floor for a vote before heading to the Senate, where a similar bill stalled in 2006.
HR 5954 currently enjoys the bipartisan support of 24 members of the House. It's no small wonder that our senatorial paragon of virtue (and junior member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee) Jon Tester has not yet agreed to step across the aisle and assist Rehberg and Thompson in introducing a companion bill in the Senate.
For many liberals progressives environmentalism and statism seems to have become a religion of sorts, not open to debate and a matter of "faith" for those who possess the "truth" as they see it. Different strokes for different folks. That's cool.
These are the same people who view the Constitution as a living document open to the interpretation of succeeding generations, who find it perfectly acceptable for a judge to legislate from the bench by deciding a case based upon their personal preferences, and who seek to require those who don't agree with their brand of cultural Marxism to be destroyed personally and politically. In every other manner of public life "the rules" are considered flexible enough to meet the demands of the time we live in....save one.
The voters of Florida and Michigan "broke the rules" by challenging the supremacy of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary and should therefore "get over it." This coming from the same group who would collectively declare that if waterboarding was somehow a sexual preference it be taught in the public schools.
Now I'm perfectly comfortable with the DNC disenfranchising the people of Florida and Michigan for what Markos "screw them" Moulitsas calls their "fake primary," but someone has yet to explain to me how the same party who only 8 years ago fought a post-election battle to 'count every vote' in Florida seems now content to disenfranchise millions of people because they didn't vote for the modern version of who they view as their secular prophet. In this case Joseph Smith yields to Barack Obama.
The fact is that no political party has rules that are absolutely set in stone. If nothing else, the nomination of John McCain as the standard bearer for the Republican party should prove that to my sinestra friends. What both major political parties have are customs and at the foundation of those customs should be the idea that every vote counts.
There's been a lot of talk in recent days concerning an article appearing in The New Yorker by George Packer: The Fall of Conservatism, Have the Republicans run out of ideas? As you know, I've been no big fan or supporter of this cycle's standard-bearer John McCain. It should be noted, however, that the Republican party is simply not the sum of only one candidate.
I'm not deluded enough to proclaim to anyone that this is going to be a good year for Republicans at the national level, and in many ways it shouldn't be. The national Republican party has lost it's way and in my opinion deserves remain out of power in Congress until we get our own house in order. The one exception to this idea on the "local" level will of course be the re-election of Denny Rehberg to the House. If those on the sinestra side don't agree, well, I have an almost limitless ability to make any side bets if you're interested. Pony up...I love a sucka!
It seems to be pretty universally recognized that something needs to change for Republicans to avoid another significant loss in November. Opinions vary on precisely what must be done, but many conservatives have argued that the party needs to return to its fiscal conservative roots, while at the same time offering practical solutions to genuine problems.
Along precisely those lines, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, has introduced the Road Map for America's Future:
Currently, we are on a path of unsustainable Federal spending. The main problem is the looming crisis of entitlement spending. The well-intentioned social insurance strategies of the past century – particularly Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – are headed toward financial collapse.
Not only will these programs grow themselves into extinction, they will immensely burden our economy and budget – piling massive amounts of debt on future generations, crippling our ability to compete in the international marketplace, and dramatically reducing Americans’ standards of living.
We can and must set a different course. But the time for talk has passed. We need a plan.
Ryan's plan ensures universal access to affordable health care, sets federal spending at sustainable levels, addresses the problem of outstanding federal debt, and promotes sustained economic and job growth over time. The ambitious plan is extremely broad -- too broad to fit into a 30 second sound bite. But it is the core of a plan that fiscal conservatives can coalesce around.
Think of the Road Map as a 'Kemp-Roth Tax Cut' for the 21st century. Before President Reagan adopted the tax cut plan that became the signature economic achievement of his presidency, the legwork was done in Congress by energetic Republicans like Jack Kemp, Bill Roth, and even by then-Democrats like Phil Gramm. The Kemp-Roth tax cuts were the economic message of the Reagan campaign, and their passage was largely ensured when he won a resounding victory in 1980.
Some of the central elements in the Ryan plan -- tax reform, health care choice, retirement accounts, etc. -- may become the key elements of the GOP economic message in this election, and potentially beyond. Visit the site that Ryan has set up to see what the Road Map includes.
Though we conservatives have little to be hopeful for in the coming months, it's people like Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Eric Cantor, Jeff Flake, Adam Putnam, and Kevin McCarthy among others, who seem to have the power to collectively pull this Grand Old Party into the modern era of ideas.
It seems the Democrats left it to Maxine Waters to roll out their long awaited energy policy. If it's good enough for healthcare it's good enough for "big oil," right? Who needs "change™" when all you have to do is translate Hugo Chavez's pequeño libro from it's original Spanish.
You know, I've found it difficult to write about the kerfuffle surrounding ethanol and biofuel subsidies because in recent years I have 1) invested a significant amount of money in the industry, 2) sit on the board of an ethanol plant in South Dakota, and 3) devote a majority of my employees towards increasing yield specifically for corn and soybean growers who contract their land towards this industry. I'm certainly not a bystander in the debate but there's so much mis and disinformation out there sometimes it's difficult to know where to start.
A little closer to home, you won't find anyone writing about the subject with more clarity and interest than Sarpy Sam, and I'd like to think that if I wasn't so involved in the industry, Sam and I would probably agree on some major points. Still, though, Sarpy Sam is a rancher who depends on corn for feedstock (and hates sitting in the cab of a tractor), and I'm a farmer who depends on corn and beans to make my living(or part of it)... and I hate sitting on the back of a horse. It's just the ying and yang of the age old battle debate between ranchers and farmers on a much smaller scale.
Yesterday, Iowa Senator and friend, Charles Grassley took the floor of the Senate to try to shed some light on the matter, especially as it involves behind-the-scenes machinations against the industry:
It seems there is a “group-think” mentality when it comes to scapegoating ethanol for everything from high gas prices, global food shortages, global warming and deforestation.
But, as was recently reported, this anti-ethanol campaign is not a coincidence. It turns out that a $300,000, six-month retainer of a beltway public relations firm is behind the smear campaign, hired by the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
They’ve outlined their strategy of using environmental, hunger and food aid groups to demonstrate their contrived “crisis.”
I think it’s important for policy-makers and the American people to know who’s behind this effort.
According to reports, downtown D.C. lobbyists, the Glover Park Group and Dutko Worldwide, are leading the effort to undermine and denigrate the patriotic achievement of America’s farmers to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while also providing safe and affordable food.
The principle leaders behind the Glover Park Group’s 21-page proposal read like a “who’s who” of Democratic operatives.
The effort is led by former President Clinton’s press secretary, Joe Lockhart. Another is 8-year veteran of the Clinton-Gore White House, Michael Feldman.
Other leaders of this misinformation campaign include Carter Eskew, Mike Donilon, Joel Johnson, and Susan Brophy – all of which proudly display their ties to the Clinton/Gore White House and their credentials of helping to elect Democratic candidates.
I think Democrats here in the Senate who claim to support our nation’s drive toward energy independence should be alarmed by this group’s tactics and smear campaign.
There are a lot of intelligent people who have been misled by this campaign and are just simply wrong. They’re using a lot of rhetoric.
Leave it to the former Clinton-Gore team to be doing everything within their power to prove that their idea of social and environmental justice is the stubborn application of unworkable "solutions" to imaginary "problems."
Like it or not, ethanol is here to stay, at least in the immediate future. No realistic discussion about energy independence can take place when the envirofascists require ethanol AND clean coal technology AND nuclear energy be taken off the agenda. As a recent WSJ report indicated, the difference in subsidies between wind and gas are $23.37 and $25.00 per unit of energy respectively. The report concludes:
All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That's a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of "green jobs." Those jobs won't come cheap, and you'll be paying for them.
Indeed we will.
Finally, Cliff May sums it up, writing in The Corner on NRO:
Herbert Meyer, who served during the Reagan administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council, agrees here with what I wrote here, and what Bud McFarlane wrote here.
A few excerpts:
[E]thanol and other biofuels are being blamed for everything from global warming, to increased pollution, to the sharp rise in food prices that have triggered riots in parts of Asia and Africa. …
[T]he notion that ethanol production is the driving cause of rising food prices simply isn't true. The underlying cause is the emergence of this global middle class and the inevitable glitches in supply and demand that happen along the way. …
There are two additional reasons why food prices are soaring: First, the cost of oil has been skyrocketing, and as the price of oil rises, so too does the price of everything else — including food. Second, there's a lot of market speculation going on right now. If you were wondering what those greedy imbeciles who wrecked the housing market with their sub-prime mortgage gimmicks and funds are up to these days — well, they're speculating in commodities futures including wheat and corn. …
In any case, has everyone in Washington completely forgotten what launched the biofuels industry in the first place? Apparently they have, so let's remind ourselves what all this is really about: We import a lot of our oil, and some of the countries we buy it from don't like us. Indeed, several of them would like to see us dead. (Killing your customers makes no sense as a business plan, but that's the Mideast for you.) So we want to become energy independent, or at the very least we want to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. There's a major role here for biofuels, as there are roles for nuclear power, solar power, wind power, and whatever new kind of power some American genius might invent in the coming years. It was our national, bipartisan decision to reach for energy independence that gave rise to the biofuels industry.
In fact, ethanol is already reducing our dependence on foreign oil. For instance, in most states now when you stop for gas you're pumping E-10 fuel into your tank. That's gas comprised of 10 percent ethanol — which means we've already reduced our dependence on foreign oil for driving our cars by that amount. Not bad at all, for starters. …
In the modern world, oil is to an economy what blood is to a body. A child's body contains just three to four quarts of blood. An adult's body contains five to six quarts of blood. As the world economy grows — as those tens of millions of people emerge from poverty — it requires a larger flow of energy to make their emergence from poverty possible. …
Achieving energy independence is too important to let become entangled in politics or ideology.
One would think that the former Democrat operatives behind the smear campaign against ethanol would have a greater interest in celebrating the emergence of a middle class throughout the third-world, in much the same way they use the American middle class to project their ideals of a utopian quasi-socialist state here at home. More's the pity that they still don't understand the fundamentals of giants like Friedman and others. Free markets do indeed breed free people and while transient increases in the price of food here may cause some temporary hardship, food is still relatively cheap and affordable when spending on food is measured as a share of disposable income.
So, next time you pump a gallon of gas (E10) in your car, rather than curse the oil company remember that the government takes over 40 cents a gallon in taxes for gasoline, far more than the profit per gallon made by oil refiners like Exxon. And the government doesn’t make any gas for you. Instead it might be just be more appropriate to thank a farmer for requiring 10% less dependence on foreign sources of oil while we await something approaching an honest and realistic approach to harvesting a bounty of domestic energy sources.
While it still comes as a bit of a shock that Senator Tester has a voting record that is more liberal than even New York's Chuck Schumer, it should come as no surprise that such a milieu often serves as an incubator for others to move up the left runged ladder.
It seems that Minnesota's own Al Franken has tapped Tester's Chief of Staff, Stephanie Schriock, as his new campaign manager.
Al Franken for U.S. Senate is thrilled to announce that Stephanie Schriock will be joining the campaign as Campaign Manager in early June.
Schriock most recently served as Montana Senator Jon Tester’s Chief of Staff after managing his successful campaign to defeat three-term incumbent Conrad Burns.
Stephanie Schriock said, “Al Franken’s passion and dedication for delivering positive change across the board - from energy independence to health care - is what our country needs. I am honored to join Franken’s campaign for change - working with all Minnesotans to send another great progressive Senator we can be proud of to Washington this November.”
If only Ms. Schriock could have been there earlier to, you know, encourage Stuart Al to pay his taxes on time.
Franken went on to say of Schriock, "You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people will like you."
It seems to have not taken long for at least a few of the more batshitliberal progressive bloggers to take time away from their usual pursuit of getting drunk on Listerine followed by dry humping their pillows to notice that President Bush gave a speech to the Israeli Knesset yesterday. It is alleged by some that President Bush entered the fray of an election cycle he is not part of when he mentioned to those assembled that talking and negotiating with terrorist nations is equal to the same folly the late British PM, Neville "Peace In Our Time" Chamberlain experienced, following his talks with Adolf Hitler in September of 1938.
One candidate in particular seemed to take umbrage at the President's remarks. Through his feigned outrage Communications Director Robert Gibbs, Obama claimed...“Obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil." This guy's a little defensive, huh?
First off there's this, directly from the messiah man himself:
And this, from the CNN/You Tube debate:
Watching the left's reaction to this controversy only highlights for me that you'd have to go overseas to find a more disturbing major political personality in my adult life time. There's a difference in kind here from the long-ago adolescent middle class radical posing of the Clinton's and their gross but pathetic little crimes, corruptions and political compromises. Obama is a true cradle to manhood radical with a racist and Marxist understanding of the world, literally schooled in the art of producing radical results (Google: Obama & Saul Alinsky) -- and in it for the long haul and the big score.
Before this kid and his harpy wife think they're eligible for residence at 1600 he needs to quit making rookie mistakes.
Prior to WWII, Neville Chamberlain got Hitler to sign a piece of paper, then announced that he had achieved "peace in our time." History 101 showed all of us, regardless if we have a D or an R after our name, that appeasement doesn't work.
Unsurprisingly, Barack Obama freaked out.
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
Uh, dude? If you are not an appeaser, why on earth do you take it personally when Bush criticizes appeasers?
I've done plenty of PR work in my time, senator. Although you shouldn't have released a statement at all, here's how you should have handled a press question about Bush's comments:
"One thing all Americans agree on is that appeasement doesn't work. As president, I will engage in tough, principled, and direct diplomacy just like Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan before me. And of course, no American president will engage with terrorists, least of all those who seek to destroy our stalwart ally, Israel. I look forward to celebrating the 65th anniversary of Israel's independence." That was easy, wasn't it? If Bush gave a speech about drug dealers, would you release a statement saying, "how DARE you insult me!"? Of course not; you're aren't a drug dealer. So if you really aren't an appeaser, you shouldn't have willingly identified yourself with that group.
You'll be headed for McGovern territory if you keep this up, kid.
Obama really reminds me of the most earnest, humorless student government bozo who thinks sanctimony and feigned outrage is the hallmark of a statesman and future lion of the 21st century when in reality the kid's nothing more than a prattling sophomore. At least that explains why he's the nutroots favorite.
In the 2006 midterm elections, Sen. Chuck Schumer and erstwhile ballerina Rep. Rahm Emanuel (now there's a couple of raw-boned Americans for you!) famously rounded up yokels from the local square dance contests to run as "macho Dems" -- as the Times admiringly called them. Schumer and the ballerina were hailed for their brilliant strategy to fool the hayseeds.
The phony blue-collar Democrats won their elections by driving around in pickup trucks and shooting guns, then moved to Washington and began voting against war in Iraq and in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions.
One of the Democrats' paragons of regular guy-ness that year was Jon Tester of Montana, who wore cowboy boots and had a buzz cut. The crew cut absolutely transfixed liberals in places like Manhattan. Search "Jon Tester and crew cut" on Google, and you'll get more than 200,000 hits. Even this tonsorial affectation was a liberal fake-out, inasmuch as Tester has no military service.
After campaigning throughout Montana in a pickup truck, Tester got to Washington and compiled a voting record more liberal than Chuck Schumer's, according to the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (Tester: 95 percent; Schumer: 90 percent). Tester also has a 100 percent rating from the pro-abortion group NARAL. There's your truck driving, gun-totin' Democrat.
It might provide some solace to learn that Baucus' ADA rating is a mere 80%. OTOH, at least we have Denny Rehberg, whom I'm sure would be proud to report his ADA rating as a paltry 20%.
...This year’s farm bill contains a special-interest provision you’ve probably never heard of — the Qualified Forestry Bonds program. This provides federally funded tax-credit bonds for forest purchases that meet the following four criteria:
*The forest must be adjacent to U.S. Forest Service Land;
*Half of the parcel must be turned over to the U.S. Forest Service;
*It must include at least 40,000 total acres; and
*It must be subject to a “native fish habitat conservation plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.”
Your initial reaction might be, “What’s so bad about that?” The government does far more damaging things than forest-land preservation, after all. But this farm-bill provision offers a lesson on how things are sometimes done in Washington. Only one parcel of land in the entire United States meets the criteria set for the Qualified Forestry Bonds program. You see, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has approved exactly one “Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan,” covering a 1.6-million-acre parcel that reaches from western Montana into eastern Washington State. And that parcel is owned by the Plum Creek Timber Company, the single largest private landowner in the United States.
Plum Creek spent some $220,000 lobbying Congress in the first quarter of this year. Its PAC has spread $400,000 in campaign contributions between the parties in the last decade. PCL Employees have given $16,600 this cycle to Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance committee and the author of the bond provision.Baucus, whose staff did not answer inquiries, was enthusiastic enough about the forestry bonds that he put them into the Farm Bill (H.R. 2419), though they have nothing to do with agriculture. The bonds also didn’t have anything to do with energy when Baucus put them in last year’s energy bill.
The Joint Economic Committee estimates that the Qualified Forestry Bonds provision could cost the government $257 million over the course of ten years — a plum deal for Plum Creek. Now it’s possible that more “fish habitats” will be created, so that more landholders might benefit from this taxpayer largesse. (They’d better hurry: the fine print states that they must be established within two years to get a bond issue.) But if the farm bill passes as is, then there certainly will be plenty of money available to buy Plum Creek’s land, at least.
That's our Max. The only contribution Max Baucus stands to make to American public life is the removal of himself from it.
From Doug Ross comes a capital idea whose time has come...and not a moment too soon.
I believe that it's time for citizens to rise up and demand a new Republican Party! I'm calling it GOP 2.0. And I'm perfectly willing to throw out those "Republicans" who are stuck on stupid -- and are stuck in the GOP 1.0 world.
The tenets:
STRENGTHEN NATIONAL DEFENSE - increase the size, capability and efficiency of our Armed Forces, bringing back our defense spending to historical levels as percentage of GDP.
GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - open up ANWR and the OCS to exploration; aggressively pursue nuclear energy and green technologies; and incentivize private industry to aggressively pursue clean, renewable energy sources.
SECURE THE BORDERS - build physical barriers immediately as a precursor to an overarching, sensible immigration policy. If the boat's sinking, you plug the holes first.
DEATH TO EARMARKS - zero tolerance for earmarks.
DEATH TO CORRUPTION - zero tolerance for corruption.
ENGLISH AS NATIONAL LANGUAGE - national unity requires a national language. That language is English.
IMPLEMENT FLAT TAX OR FAIR TAX - simplify the tax system by eradicating a tax code gone mad.
REDUCE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT - provide "whistleblower-style" awards for reducing the size of government and task the IRS (which will no longer have to worry about enforcing the tax code) with achieving the reduction goals on an annual basis
SPUR HEALTHCARE COMPETITION - Address health-care deficiencies - with competitive, free-market solutions, not Government largesse.
ADDRESS ENTITLEMENTS - engage a bipartisan consortium to create a multi-million dollar competition to incentivize teams from private industry and academia to create solutions for our social security and Medicare liabilities.
This should not be a platform. It should be a promise -- an ironclad commitment -- to voters.
It's been a mournful week and a half around these parts. In the last 2 weeks we've buried both Rachel's mother and my mother's sister, Frances. Though not an overtly superstitious person I've always thought that in some ways these kind of events always seem to come in three's (my father, his mother, and our child being the last example).
In keeping with the "theme of three's" I can't think of another organization more deserving of a quick and public death, followed by a phoenix-like rising, than what's become of the modern GOP. To be perfectly frank, the entire leadership needs to submit their resignation sooner rather than later.
Republican House leaders are scrambling to contain the damage after a third straight special election loss, with NRCC Chairman Tom Cole putting the blame on the party’s public image and former NRCC Chairman Tom Davis warning of a bloodbath in November if members can’t divorce themselves from the “brand” put on their party by President Bush.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner told reporters Wednesday morning that he expected a Republican leadership meeting later in the day would focus on “changes that may be necessary in order to adapt to the environment that we are dealing with.”
If you want change, Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cole, I suggest looking in the mirror. Not a single week passes where I fail to receive another letter pleading for money. After that fateful first letter, when I thought I would be a good member and send you a grand because I thought it might help the larger effort, you've proved time and time again that the only thing that surpasses your collective ability of asking for my money is squandering my money...and isn't that what the Democrat party is there for? Needless to say, all subsequent requests from the NRCC have been filed away in the shredder for safe keeping.
In the last few weeks the GOP has gone 0-3 in special election races. These were races, I might add, that should have been won by Republicans in Republican districts. Put that together with what looks increasingly likely to be a McCain-Huckabee ticket in the fall and you have the recipe for what appears to be a massive electoral defeat. A conservative with a lot less baggage would be better than a Huckabee whose shameless pandering to the religious right would not sit well in states where McCain has a chance for a breakthrough, but I'll be damn if I would even support a McCain-Romney ticket.
McCain’s dilemma is simple; does he choose a running mate who can help him in the south but hurts him elsewhere? Or does he choose a candidate whose impact on the south is unknown but will almost certainly aid him in blue states? As for Boehner, Cole, and others, the dilemma is also as simple. Will you bring the party back from the edge of the abyss by actually acting and governing like Republicans?
One of the latest meme's going around liberal progressive circles is that a vote for McCain simply represents a vote for a third term for President Bush. Though McCain certainly won't win the election with my help I could certainly stomach a mythical third-term for Bush before I ever would a second term for Jimmy Carter.
Get your acts together or your asses out of the way fellas.
I've long been fascinated by the conservative meme that accompanies much of the talk surrounding "Operation Chaos" both locally and nationally. On the national level most operatives seem to think it's a good idea, that to create utter and complete chaos on the Democratic side is a good thing, and I agree. It's not as if at least a third (or more) of conservatives are enthusiastic supporters of the McCain candidacy, and I've long held that perhaps, at least on the national level, it might not be a bad thing if Republicans suffered defeat in November if for no other reason than to get our house back in order.
That brings is closer to home where we're typically left with two competing lines of reasoning. One line coming from Dextra Montana's prolific anonymous blogging contingent holds that we we should be concerned with down-ticket races and should thus abandon the notion of supporting Op Chaos and worry more about our own house. The other tack typically concerns what is popularly known as the "11th Commandment" of Ronald Reagan: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."
While both ideas have at least some merit they're both rooted firmly in the past. In Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, David Frum adroitly posits that, "Ronald Reagan was a good man and a great president. What made him great was his ability to respond to the demands of his times. We must respond to the demands of ours." More recently Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, while speaking to the Fund for American Studies, proclaimed that it is "time to let Ronald Reagan go."
Indeed it is!
Perhaps one of the reasons Republicans and conservatives find themselves in the predicament we're in is that, following the void left by Reagan and other conservative leaders, we started acting more like members of the Democrat party when it came to our collective attitudes on spending, earmarks, and the size and role that government should play in the daily lives of its citizens. Today, Americans worry less about their society than about the competence and effectiveness of their government. Conservative and Republican failure have fed those worries.
Despite that what you hear from the guttersnipes on the Left this nation remains center-right oriented politically. So why, then, should it be taken for granted that electing a Republican just because they have an "R" behind their name on the ballot means anything anymore? As we've seen time and time again in recent history, it's not about principle and priorities for many of our elected officials under the shade of the Republican umbrella, it's about what cost Democrats control of Congress and the White House in what can only be described as too many years for some to remember...greed, power, and control. Are our collective memories so short that we forgot how we can win, and win big when it matters?
Writing in today's WSJ, Pat Toomey, the president of the Club for Growth echoes some of the same thoughts that have been on my mind for a while.
Winning for the sake of winning is an excellent short-term tactic, but a lousy long-term strategy. Just look at the consequences of the 2006 congressional elections, when the GOP lost control of both houses of Congress.
A Republican majority is only as useful as the policies that majority produces. When those policies look a lot like Democratic ones, the base rightly questions why it should keep Republicans in power. As the party gears up for elections in the fall, it ought to look closely at the losses suffered under a political strategy devoid of principle. Otherwise, it can look forward to a bad case of déjà vu.
I, for one, refuse to be fed the tripe that I should use my vote, the sacred and only means of expression that I have in the governance of my country, a vote that many men far braver than I have fought and given their lives to support and defend, and waste it for the sake of advancing the avarice of a party more interested in winning for the sake of it, than governing and advancing a time tested and proven set of principals. We are hardly in the twilight of conservatism in this country, but we only and truly deserve to win when we remember that our conservative principles trump their liberal progressive inanition every time.
