Mark Levin taking on his bosses
I am listening to the Great One on the radio. He seems to be upset with his bosses at ABC radio are giving him flack for slamming Brian Ross and ABC News for its X-rated coverage of this scandal.
Btw, why isn't ABC printing this stuff on the internet considered child porn? You don't think every freak in America is not logging on and printing them so they can read them while they squeeze one out before bed? I digress...
To get back at his bosses, he proceeded to read the sick IMs on the air. I think he is really going to piss them off!
Posted by Aaron at 06:23 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Where is Karl?
Democrats always shoot their wad too early.
But we're now down to a little over a month to election day.
Where is the "architect?"
Posted by Aaron at 11:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Broken Glass
Let's gauge how the Foley Scandal is playing for the Democrats.
After the coordinated attack by the Dems and the Drive By Media, with calls from Democrats for GOP leadership to resign, with Nancy Pelosi saying Republicans don't care about children, are you more or less likely to crawl across broken glass to vote for a Republican?
Posted by Aaron at 10:30 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Mixed Emotions
I am mad as HECK at the Republicans. The way they just let Foley slide until it was made public makes me sick. I'm also mad at the Republicans for a bunch of other stuff (like passing tax cuts and a line-item veto when Clinton was President, but being unable to make tax cuts permanent for President Bush or give him a scaled-down line-item veto that would be constitutional, and their excessive spending, and their inability to pass a simple bill that let's people shop for health care in all 50 states, and the earmarking, and all the other CRAP - pardon my language).
I do NOT want to hear about Democrats that did similar things. I don't CARE. That someone else is a bigger slimeball doesn't make your case better.
I do NOT want to hear some bozo try to explain that "how old are you now" and "can I get an email pic" is not red flag material. I don't care that the IMs had the worst of it, the emails that they knew about should have spurred them to do SOMETHING.
I don't care that the kid was of age of consent in D.C., this is the guy he works for.
I want the Republicans to fall, and fall hard, and realize that they can't act this way and expect our support.
On the other hand...
The Democrats WILL cut and run from Iraq, embolden the terrorists, go back to treating terrorism like it's a law-enforcement issue (yeah, like liberals and law-enforcement go together), and in general emasculate our national security and place their faith into the socialist dictators at the UN. Plus they'll raise our taxes.
I am not happy with my choices. Of course I live in one of the safest blue Conrgessional districts anyway, gerrymandered for someone's continued pension.
I'm in a bad mood about this today, does it show?
Posted by Charles at 12:57 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Now They're Finished
Until this morning, I had not bought into the media hype that the Republicans would lose the House or Senate. In 2002 I thought the media was overblowing the Dem's chances and I was right. In 2004, as soon as Kerry got the Super Tuesday pick-up I told a friend "George W. Bush just got re-elected" and I was right. For months I've been telling people to ignore the media spin and propaganda, because the Democrats are running on nothing (except to cut-and-run from Iraq), and you don't win with nothing.
Republican scandals came and went, and Republicans picked up the same district seats that incumbents were forced out of (proving my optimism has a strong basis in gerrymandering). And as soon as the House and Senate began to move on illegal immigration, the conservative base returned in the polls. And even when Foley the pedophile showed up, I figured it was one more "bump him off and get another Republican in."
Wel, I was wrong.
They knew.
The bastards knew.
THIS will cost them. And that's a good thing.
Posted by Charles at 11:06 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
The Twelve Tribes of American Politics
I found an interesting article on politics over at Beliefnet.
The article is titled The Twelve Tribes of American Politics.
Click here to read it.
Posted by Dodo David at 05:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
If You Believe In It, Why Not Say It?
I've met and debated or discussed politics with three types of liberals in my life. The first two I understand. One isn't very forward with their opinions, if you want to discuss it, fine, if not, also fine. The other is very forthright about what they think, to the point of always bringing it up whenever the opening presents itself. As I said, I understand both personalities, it is simply a matter of how fervent one is, or perhaps how evangelical one is.
The third type, I don't get at all. This is the time that gets mad when you dare publicize what they think.
I recently made an entry here, remarking how much fun it would be to help the 73 Democrats in the House who want us out of Iraq to get their message out. Well, LifeLike Pundits has attracted a brand-new troll, who immediately launched into (false) ad hominem attacks in the comment section of that post, and seemed to want to split hairs about whether or not these 73 individuals wanted to defund the war, or simply get out (which they could only accomplish by defunding it - hey, it was his difference, not mine).
What didn't he do? He didn't deny that these 73 people wanted OUT. But he got angry that I dared mention it.
What spawned this? What made him produce his bile? I don't know, but he is not the first liberal I have noticed that has done this. They believe they are right, but get furious when you mention what they actually stand for.
Sounds like insecurity to me.
Posted by Charles at 01:51 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Al Qaeda and the October Surprise
I just had a thought that popped into my head regarding a possible October surprise.
We've captured a LOT of documents from al Qaeda in the last 5 years.
What if some of those documents actually mention "American Democrats" in their language?
What if these documents actually discuss al Qaeda's fortunes as rising if the "American Democrats" return to power?
What if these documents actually discussed al Qaeda's propaganda campaign and analyze how the "American Democrats" would use this to hamper the war effort?
A learned terrorist would know of Stalin's "Useful Idiots."
Just a thought.
Posted by Aaron at 12:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Wanted: Voters who didn’t flunk “Civics”
It never fails.
Every election year, political ignorance shows up in political campaigns. Political candidates and their supporters often display a lack of education in regards to how governments function.
Take for example the current political campaign of Ernest Istook, a Republican member of Congress who is running to become Oklahoma's governor.
One of Istook's campaign fliers claims that Oklahoma's current Democrat governor increased state spending by 30.6 percent in the last two years.
Well, here is a reality check for Mr. Istook and his supporters.
In the state of Oklahoma, spending bills originate in the state legislature, not in the governor's office, and no spending bill reaches the governor's desk until it is passed by both houses of the legislature. Furthermore, for the past two years, the House-half of Oklahoma's legislature has been under Republican control.
So, Oklahoma's legislature is responsible for any growth in state spending, just as Congress is responsible for any growth in federal spending.
Furthermore, the state legislature, not the Governor, is the party responsible for how state tax dollars are spent.
Sadly, this little fact of life escapes the attention of some people.
For example, in response to one of my posts at Dodo World, an Istook supporter wrote the following about Oklahoma's current governor: "Brad Henry is a joke. He will not give us money for prisons, even though they are full and we are forced to release offenders way ahead of schedule. He gives all the money to his constituency (the Oklahoma Education Association) and none to law enforcement."
How is the above claim about Oklahoma's current governor a bunch of excrement? Let me count the ways.
Section IV-1 of the Oklahoma Constitution says the following (emphasis mine): "The powers of the government of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three separate departments: The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; and except as provided in this Constitution, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments of government shall be separate and distinct, and neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others."
As I indicated earlier, the state legislature has the power to dictate how state tax dollars are spent, not the Governor. To claim that Oklahoma's governor gives out tax dollars is to reveal ignorance about how Oklahoma's government works.
As I see it, the mischaracterization of Oklahoma's current governor is the work of people whom Bill O'Reilly calls hyper-partisans.
Unfortunately, such hyper-partisanship isn't limited to Oklahoma, and it isn't limited to any particular political party. Throughout the USA, politicians are unconsciously hoping that voters will either turn off critical thinking or will have flunked whatever civics classes that they took while they were in school.
Sadly, some politicians will get what they are hoping for.
For the record, I am a registered Republican, and four years ago, I did not vote for Oklahoma's current Democrat governor. I write in defense of Oklahoma's current governor because I am opposed to any elected official being mischaracterized, even if an elected official is a Democrat.
Cross-posted at Dodo World.
Posted by Dodo David at 12:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
REDSTATE Accuses Democrat of "Homicide"
I just don't know how to read this.
I sure hope these folks have all their facts together because if this is just conjecture, then it is utterly disgusting politics.
If not, then what do you think? Should the fact that someone committed homicide in the distant past be relevant now?
Didn't Laura Bush negligently kill someone with her car when she was 17 years old?
Posted by Aaron at 07:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Upon What Will It Turn?
This isn’t so much of a post as it is a request for your thoughts. I postulate that mid-term elections have fewer true swing voters than presidential elections, and that due to this factor (and the absence of a nationwide contrast of two individuals) mid-term elections tend to be more about ideology than elections during presidential races.
Assuming my postulate is true, that means that mid-term elections are about getting your own base out to vote more than the other side’s base. Each side tries to find a handful of issues to increase voter turnout, but each side is often thwarted in their attempts to pick which issue is predominant by the news cycle. (For example, the DC sniper in 2002 doubtless focused voters on the security issue.)
What I want to know, is what issue do you think will affect voter turnout the most? Will it be the response to hurricane Katrina? Will it be immigration (and depress Republican turnout)? Stem cell research? Iraq? General security? Government spending?
All ideas are appreciated, but please keep the rants to yourself. You can answer this with one or two sentences.
Posted by Charles at 08:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Ann Richards Dies at 73
Funny, being in Texas, she was on my mind this afternoon so I was saddened to hear about her passing. She, by far, had one of the funnier lines from a DNC Convention...
"He was born with a silver foot in his mouth!"
Posted by Aaron at 11:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
It's called politics; get over it
This article is a little ridiculous and its headline is misleading: In Pivotal Year, GOP Plans to Get Personal.
I am really tired of people trying to label truly political arguments and pretend they are "personal attacks." This headline wants you to believe that the GOP is going to get all nasty and start campaigning on people's extra-marital affairs, closeted gay children, past drug use, mentally impaired spouses, etc. THAT is a personal attack. So when reading the article, this is what we find:
- Attack on a candidate for suing 80 people
- Attack on candidate's votes on border security and immigration issues
WOW! How outrageous! And check this stunning admission by the heir apparent to chair he NRCC::
In a memo released last week, Cole, who is running to succeed Reynolds at the NRCC, expanded on that strategy. The memo recommended that vulnerable incumbents spend $20,000 on a research "package" to find damaging material about challengers and urged that they "define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly."
So I guess, its appalling for a candidate to research their opponent. And its stunning (well, not really for the WaPo) that there was no discussion of the DSCC, and they could possibly be doing anything similar...perhaps, like illegally obtaining credit reports of the Lt. Governor of Maryland perhaps? The GOP should just lay down and lose?
"When all [Republicans] do is launch potshots, they look like they're trying to cover up the fact that they have no solutions" said Phil Singer, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Again, the challenger needs to state what their alternative solution is and it is perfectly acceptable for an incumbent to point out that they are not an alternative to him/her.
Posted by Aaron at 10:11 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
I love these ads
Do any of you remember that great ad from the 2004 election called Ashley's Story? It was by far, the BEST ad of that election.
Progress for America has done spectacular ads before and they are at it again.
Watch this one for this years congressional election.
Posted by Aaron at 05:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Lamont vs. Lieberman: Parade-Style
Who was more popular during a Labor Day parade in Connecticut today? I have the details at Blogmeister USA.
Posted by Pam at 07:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
GOOGLE JUST KEEPS GETTING BETTER AND BETTER!?
Subject: was this a mistake on Google’s part?
1- Go to www.Google.com
2- Type in Failure
3- Look at it the first listing and see what comes up first
4- Who is going to get in touch with Google and tell them it’s a despicable political statement that has no place on their search engine. Bad enough they censor their Chinese Google customers.
Posted by Savko Babe at 09:27 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Homo say what?
I am not a fan of polls, because I believe the only polls that matter are elections.
But the left and their accomplices in the media live and die by these polls. Remember all that breathless hysteria for three weeks about president Bush's plummeting poll numbers? Everyday, there was a new poll showing Bush EVEN LOWER.
Well, let's see how much this poll gets played:
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, support for an unnamed Democratic congressional candidate over a Republican one narrowed to 2 percentage points, 47%-45%, among registered voters. Over the past year, Democrats have led by wider margins that ranged up to 16 points.
We might need to reestablish a suicide watch at Huffbollah.
Posted by Aaron at 08:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
How Things Change in just 24 Hours!
GOP's Financial Edge Shrinks, yesterday.
GOP Fundraising Outpaces Democrats, today.
Posted by Aaron at 05:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
IaintBacchus Drives Down Memory Lane
In an earlier comments discussion, IB pointed out some articles regarding "push polling" and some dispicable political attacks in the 2000 primary race.
I wanted to present them to everyone; here are the links:
The Anatomy of a Smear Campaign
I've never been interviewed or polled on political matters for anything so I cannot confirm or deny some of this stuff. But if it is true, it is horrible. If you know of any campaign doing these things, please report it.
Politics must be self-policing. Since politicians control government, the government is only going to make laws that help them and not us when it comes to the political process.
Posted by Aaron at 12:54 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Political Party Worship
U.S. Congressman Ernest Istook (R-Oklahoma) is running for the office of Oklahoma's governor.
The way that he is campaigning is tempting me to eliminate my affiliation with the Republican Party.
Simply put, Istook is making false statements about his Democrat opponent.
His opponent is incumbent Governor Brad Henry, who has done a good job as Oklahoma's governor.
According to a survey conducted by SurveyUSA (Link), Governor Henry has a 67% over-all approval rating among Oklahomans, with a 62% approval rating among Oklahoma Republicans.
One reason that Gov. Henry has such a high approval rating is because he gets along well with Oklahoma's Republican Speaker of the House. For example, earlier this year the Governor and the Speaker worked together to get Oklahoma's income tax lowered.
If Gov. Henry were a Republican instead of a Democrat, then Istook would be running for re-election to Congress, because there are no serious complaints against Gov. Henry.
However, since the Governor is a Democrat, Istook is trying to create political mud to throw.
There is something wrong with a Republican politician who acts as if a good Democrat politician were a myth.
Such a Republican politician isn't serving his constituents. Instead, he is worshipping at the alter of his political party.
Cross-posted at Dodo World.
Posted by Dodo David at 02:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Bad, Bad, Bad Idea
I was born and went to high school in Arizona and half of my family lives there. This is a BAD idea:
There's going to be a new reason for Arizonans to go to the polls this year: They could win $1 million.
The Secretary of State's Office certified Thursday that backers of the voter lottery plan had submitted more than enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
But the measure is worded in a way to actually encourage people to vote both in the primary this September as well as two months later when the actual initiative will be on the ballot. If it is approved in November, it will be retroactive: One lucky person who voted in this year's primary and another who cast a ballot in the general election each will get $1 million.
This is no different than handing out crack to people who register to vote. Not only is it unethical to buy votes, but it is unethical to buy voting.
Voting is voluntary in this country and we do well with people who don't care staying home. If they don't care enough to vote because they live in a democracy and want to better their country, then we should not entice such people to the polls with money.
The money would be better spend on civics education in the state. This is absurd and something I think both parties should reject.
Posted by Aaron at 07:48 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
U.S. Senator Says Block Grant Program Misused
Posted by Dodo David at 08:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Things We'd Rather Not Know About
Is he trying to be young and hip?
Because he was the first Democrat to step up and say publicly last year that he’s exploring running for president, we can assume that Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) is plenty interested in the office.
But like most other men, apparently there are things that interest him more.
Speaking to a group of 130 twenty- and thirty-something supporters of his leadership PAC last Thursday, Biden indicated that while he thinks he could be an effective chief executive, as far as the job itself goes, he could take it or leave it.
“I’d rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep,” he said.
What, because he's talking to a bunch of horny younger guys he figures they want to know about how much he enjoys bedroom activities with the wife? Sorry, but thinking about 64-year-old Joe Biden doing the nasty is pretty much the last thing I'd like to do (although it's not as horrible to think of as Jimmy Carter and Rosalynn). Is nothing sacred anymore?
And as for him "taking or leaving" the presidency in favor of sex, I rather doubt it. Of course, he could take Bill Clinton's lead and combine the two. Clinton was a real multi-tasker...he probably invented the phrase.
Joe Biden: Studmuffin?
Posted by Pam at 02:44 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Happy Flag Day
one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Posted by Aaron at 06:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Happy Birthday, President Bush
That's President George H.W. Bush:
Wiki: George Herbert Walker Bush, Hon GCB (born June 12, 1924) was the 41st President of the United States of America (1989–1993).
Prior to being President, Bush had served as a U.S. congressman from Texas (1967–1971), ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973), Republican National Committee chairman (1973–1974), Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China (1974–1976), Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1976–1977), Chairman of the First International Bank in Houston (1977–1980), and the 43rd Vice President of the United States under President Ronald Reagan (1981–1989). A decorated naval aviator, Bush is the last World War II veteran to date to have served as President.
President Bush pursued moderate policies in both domestic and foreign policy. During the final days of the Cold War, he was responsible for managing US foreign policy during the delicate transition of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe from being communist states to being liberal democracies. He championed the concept of a New World Order where international law and global consensus would replace military and strategic confrontation as a means of accomplishing diplomatic objectives. This idea was exemplified during the Gulf War, when the US rallied a global coalition to reverse the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In domestic policy, Bush's most notable initiative was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, a controversial compromise with congressional Democrats that traded spending controls for tax increases, to balance the federal budget.
The Bush political "dynasty" has been compared to that of the Adams and the Kennedy families. Bush is the father of the 43rd and current president, George Walker Bush, and the 43rd and current Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. His father, Prescott Bush, was a United States Senator from Connecticut.
After graduating from Phillips Academy in June, 1942, he joined the U.S. Navy on his 18th birthday to become an aviator. After completing the 10-month course, he was commissioned as an ensign in the U.S. Naval Reserve on June 9, 1943, several days before his nineteenth birthday, which made him the youngest naval aviator to that date.
After finishing flight training, he was assigned to Torpedo squadron (VT-51) as photographic officer in September 1943. As part of Air Group 51, his squadron was based on U.S.S. San Jacinto in the spring of 1944. San Jacinto was part of Task Force 58 that participated in operations against Marcus and Wake Islands in May, and then in the Marianas during June. On June 19 the task force triumphed in one of the largest air battles of the war. On his return from the mission Bush's aircraft made a forced water landing. A submarine rescued the young pilot, although the plane was lost as well as the life of his navigator. On July 25 Bush and another pilot received credit for sinking a small cargo ship off Palau.
George H. W. Bush flying TBM Avenger off the carrier USS San Jacinto (CVL-30) in 1944After Bush's promotion to Lieutenant Junior Grade on August 1, San Jacinto commenced operations against the Japanese in the Bonin Islands. On September 2, 1944, Bush piloted one of four aircraft from VT-51 that attacked the Japanese installations on Chichi Jima. For this mission his crew included Radioman Second Class John Delaney and Lieutenant Junior Grade William White, who substituted for Bush's regular gunner. During their attack four TBM Avengers from VT-51 encountered intense antiaircraft fire.
While starting the attack, Bush's aircraft was hit and his engine caught on fire. He completed his attack and released the bombs over his target, scoring several damaging hits. With his engine on fire, Bush flew several miles from the island, where he and one other crew member on the TBM Avenger bailed out of the aircraft. However, the other man's parachute did not open, and he fell to his death. It was never determined which man bailed out with Bush. Both Delaney and White were killed in action. While Bush waited four hours in his inflated raft, several fighters circled protectively overhead until he was rescued by the lifeguard submarine U.S.S. Finback. For this action Bush received the Distinguished Flying Cross. During the month he remained on Finback, Bush helped rescue other pilots.
Bush subsequently returned to the San Jacinto in November 1944. He participated in operations in the Philippines. When San Jacinto returned to Guam, the squadron, which had suffered 300 percent casualties of its pilots, was replaced and sent to the United States. Through 1944 he had flown 58 combat missions for which he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation awarded aboard the San Jacinto.
After this valuable combat experience, Bush was reassigned to Norfolk Navy Base and put in a training wing for new torpedo pilots. He was later assigned as a naval aviator in a new torpedo squadron, VT-153. With the surrender of Japan, he was honorably discharged in September 1945 and then entered Yale University. In 2003 construction began on the USS George H. W. Bush, the tenth Nimitz-class supercarrier of the United States Navy. Its motto is "Strength in the Pursuit of Peace". It is scheduled for completion in 2009.
Posted by Aaron at 08:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Quote of the Day
This is a good one from Peggy Noonan about losing faith in politicians from both sides of the aisle altogether:
The oddest thing about Republicans and Democrats in power is that they always know the technical facts, always know about fund raising, always know what the national committee is saying about getting turnout. But so often they don't know the message or even have a message. Which is funny, because they're in the message business. They're like shoemakers who make pretty shoeboxes but forget to make the shoes.
Posted by Aaron at 11:14 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Confirmation Hearings?
I had big hopes that Porter Goss would clean house at the CIA. And I think he's accomplished a lot.
WaPo reports that his likely succesor will be General Hayden. I found this paragraph rather interesting in the article:
Members of Congress privately predicted that Hayden, who once enjoyed tremendous support on the Hill, would face a contentious confirmation process over the Bush administration's domestic spying program. Other sensitive issues, such as the existence of secret prisons abroad for terrorism suspects, also are likely to arise.
Honestly, Bush should not waste any time with cabinet level confirmation hearings other than judges--unless he is absolutely sure that the nominee will run rings around and severely embarrass the likes of Senator's Rockefeller and Durbin.
Bush has only 3.5 years in office...he should be looking at recess appointments for all possible positions without life tenure. The Democrats will block every nominee because they believe they will take back the Congress--and they might.
Our administrator is leaving at the SBA and I suspect he may do the same for his position as well, because the Dems will turn it into another Katrina episode.
I'd also like to say something about Federal government careerists (I am one). It is really disappointing to see the political subversion in agencies like the State Department, military and CIA. Washington, DC, is some 75% Democrat and 25% Republican--and it is noticeable in watercooler discussion (Bush hating). But when it comes to work, most people work hard and understand that the President is their boss and they must work towards his goals.
I have never been in civilian service under a Democratic president, but I know that I would not do anything that would undermine his/her authority, let alone lead a political insurrection. It must be some sense of self-importance that infects people in the CIA and State Department.
Posted by Aaron at 06:52 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Tulsa Politics 2006: Tulsans - 1. Special Interest Groups - 0.
Imagine that a group of people circulated a petition to have the governor of your state recalled from office (Californians don't have to imagine; they only have to remember).
Imagine that this group gathered the required number of signatures on the petition and that a recall election was scheduled.
Now, imagine that this group of people lived outside of your state, and imagine that the majority of people who signed the petition also lived outside of your state.
Wouldn't you be a bit angry because a group of outsiders were trying to dictate who fills a public office within your state?
Well, such a scenario actually took place in Oklahoma, but at a city level.
Last year, a special interest group tried to remove two members of the Tulsa city council via a recall petition. The group obtained the required number of signatures, and a recall election was held . . . but nobody was recalled.
As it turns out, the organizers of the recall effort didn't live in the council districts affected by the recall effort, and neither did most of the people who signed the recall petition.
The recall effort was legal, but it upset the people who lived in the affected districts. It was outrageous that a group of outsiders would try to overturn the will of the people who elected the targeted councilors.
Well, residents of Tulsa's other council districts also thought that the recall effort was outrageous, and they didn't want such a thing happening to them.
Thus, last Tuesday (04-04-06) Tulsa residents voted to amend Tulsa's charter to alter the requirements for a recall election. Now, in order to recall a city counselor, the people who sign a recall petition have to actually live in that councilor's district. Plus, the recall petition has to state what the councilor allegedly did wrong.
So, now the only special interest group that can recall a Tulsa city counselor is that counselor's constituency. Imagine that!
Oh, and the reason for last year's attempted recall of two Tulsa counselors?
The counselors didn't vote according to the desires of the special interest group. Instead, the counselors voted according to the desires of their constituents.
One would hope that members of Congress would do the same thing.
Posted by Dodo David at 09:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Republican politician voted out of office . . . and the Dodo is glad
It is not often that I am thrilled about a Republican politician being voted out of public office, but I am thrilled about the result of the mayoral election that took place in Tulsa, OK this past Tuesday (04-04-06).
As I reported in a previous post, Tulsa's mayoral race featured Republican incumbent Mayor Bill LaFortune and Democrat challenger Kathy Taylor.
I reported that LaFortune was out of touch with reality because he claimed, in essence, that a Republican could be a good mayor for Tulsa but not a Democrat.
Well, that claim was pure bu[Censored]. Obviously, enough Tulsa voters knew that LaFortune's claim was [Censored] because La Fortune was voted out of office.
I don't know about the other 49 states in the USA, but here in Oklahoma we Okies elect people to public offices, not political parties, and we will choose a good Democrat over a bad Republican any day.
Posted by Dodo David at 08:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Tradesports Sees Republicans Winning in 2006, 2008
Tradesports is an online futures gambling site, where people can bet on anything from sports to politics to who's getting voted off on American Idol tonight. All contracts are based on a fraction of a dollar, with the winner of any particular proposition getting the whole dollar.
Right now, the Republicans are favored to maintain control of both the House and the Senate. As I write this, Republican control of the Senate is at 75.2 cents bid, while Republican control of the House is at 56.2 cents bid. There is no corresponding contract for Democratic control, but it's not hard to figure out that the comparable figures for the Donks would be 24.8 cents and 43.8 cents.
In 2008, the Republicans are seen as slight favorites to retain the White House. Their contract is priced at 50.2 cents with the Democrats at 47.4 cents and an independent at 2.1 cents.
Nominees? Hillary is still the favorite to win the Democrats nomination, at 44.2 cents to Mark Warner's 25.9 cents. On the Republican side, McCain is still favored at 38.5 cents while George Allen's at 22.2 cents.
Note: All links are to dynamic pages so the numbers cited above will change over time.
Posted by pat at 06:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
What Hysteria Hath Wrought
I can't say I don't blame the UAE for retaliating against the US congress:
Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.
It is not clear how much of Dubai’s behind-the-scenes anger would be followed up by action, but Boeing has been made aware of the threat and is already reportedly lobbying to save the ports deal.
The Emirates Group airline will decide later this year whether it will buy Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner or its competitor, Airbus A350. The airline last fall placed an order worth $9.7 billion for 42 Boeing 777 aircraft, making Dubai Boeing’s largest 777 customer.
Dubai in mid-February also established the Dubai Aerospace Enterprise, a $15 billion investment to create a company that will lease planes, develop airports and make aircraft parts to tap into growing demand for air travel in the Middle East and Asia.
The family-ruled sheikhdom may buy as many as 50 wide-body aircraft from Boeing and Airbus during the next four years, according to Aerospace Enterprise officials.
The UAE military also bought Boeing’s Apache helicopters. Meanwhile, Boeing has been in talks with the emirates to try to sell its AWACS planes.
I don't want to hear a peep from people wanting to "kill" this deal when tons of jobs are lost in our aerospace industry because of this.
Posted by Aaron at 04:11 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Doug Marlette on the Cheney hunting accident
Earlier this year, the Tulsa World newspaper hired political cartoonist Doug Marlette to be that newspaper's in-house political cartoonist.
Below is Marlette's reaction to the media fuss pertaining to the hunting accident that the V.P. was involved in.
In case you can't read it, the car's license plate reads "CHAPPAQUIDDICK".
I regret that the on-line version of the cartoon doesn't have color like the print version does. With color added, the letters on the license plate stand out better. The print version appeared in the Tulsa World on 02/16/06.
On a related note, at the same time that the Tulsa World published the above cartoon, the newspaper also published an editorial titled "Enough!". Its subtitle is "It was an accident; Let it go".
Here is the last paragraph of that editorial:
Now we are to be treated to endless analysis. Who's responsible? What's proper hunting etiquette? Should the victim have "announced" himself? Did the Veep have the proper paperwork? What happens if the victim dies? (It's still a hunting accident; no need to speculate about criminal charges.) Pretty soon, we'll be interviewing the bird dogs, who, by the way, must be laughing a bit.
I believe that the many hunters who read the Tulsa World would agree with that last sentence.
Posted by Dodo David at 07:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The SOTU I Missed
I fell asleep before the SOTU (why is it on at 11pm??)
Things I like so far (that I am finding out--I will continually update):
1. The democrats clapping for being obstructionists against social security reform. Bush should have paused, looked in the camera and asked the American people to "sear" this moment in their minds so that in 20 years when the whole system is in the red, they know who to blame.
2. Cindy Sheehan getting arrested. What a joke she is.
Posted by Aaron at 10:23 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
A Hitch in the Conversion?
Christopher Hitchens, who has become known as perhaps the most vocal Leftist in support of the Iraq War, has signed onto a lawsuit seeking a ban on the "domestic" spying authorized by President Bush.
This has come as something of a surprise to many conservatives who thought that Hitch had finally "got it", and that it was only a matter of time before he registered Republican and started writing for the National Review.
There is an argument that all children are born conservative. They instinctively fear change and embrace order. One of the reasons children love to have the same book read to them over and over again is that the story never changes. Their embracing of order makes sense; when you are learning something new (and everything is new to children), the last thing you want is for it to be rapidly changing at the same time.
Many become more liberal in their teens; I certainly did. Liberalism appealing to the idealism of youth; the notion that we can cure lots of social evils is seductive. And we want our children to boldly embrace challenges and try different approaches. As conservatives we may feel that some problems are intractable, but we certainly don't want our kids to feel that their individual problems are similarly incapable of being solved.
Going back to conservatism after being liberal is fairly common, but it can be a difficult process. There's an old saying that conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil, and if you read the lefty blogs you'll quickly find that the second part of that formulation is true.
A big part of the conversion process is trust. I became a conservative in the early 1980s because after hearing what a monstrous disaster Ronald Reagan's presidency was going to be, I saw instead a strong, almost booming economy result.
I began to trust Reagan more than I did the liberals. Not on everything, mind you; I was still fairly socially liberal, so I clucked my tongue when he went on about abortion, or when Ed Meese decided to tackle pornography. I didn't particularly care for his confrontational policy with the Soviet Union, or "Star Wars". But you know how it is, you trust somebody on one thing, inevitably you will trust them on another when they are proven right. Reagan said, "Mr Gorbachev, tead down that wall!" and a few years later the wall came down.
And over time, you begin to worry less and less about the issues where you disagree with your party's consensus. You begin to see that while your position on that issue remains your position, it matters less and less. Why? Because you trust your side not to go to the extreme opposite end of that position.
That to me is why the Democrats have reacted with horror to the NSA spying program, and why Republicans are yawning. It's not so much the specifics of the program as it is trust or lack thereof. Democrats have zero trust for President Bush, and so they immediately assume that he's spying on his enemies for political reasons, not terrorists and terrorist contacts for national security reasons.
Hitchens? He's at the beginning of the road. He trusts Bush on Iraq, but that's about it.
Posted by pat at 12:33 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Hillary's Plantation Remarks
The fact that Hillary Clinton used the word "plantation" to describe how the House of Representatives is run is not offensive. The conservatives/Republicans who are up in arms of the TERM are being hypocritical. I use the term all the time to describe how as a minority I've "left the Democratic Plantation."
But what offends me more is that Hillary Clinton used the MLK holiday, not to discuss his movement, leadership and vision, but to bash her political opponents. That is what is offensive.
Republicans use the term "Democratic Plantation" all the time, so they need to pipe down about the use of the word "plantation." What they need to be outraged about is the use of Dr. King's holiday as a political soapbox instead of respecting the day and offering the reverence it deserves.
Posted by Aaron at 07:20 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Terrific Analysis of the Senate Situation
I can't recommend this analysis of the Democrats' chances of winning back the US Senate enough. Richard Baehr takes a close look at the tough contests and concludes it is very unlikely that Searchlight Harry Reid is going to be moving into the Senate Majority Leader's seat.
Posted by pat at 01:19 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Specter vs. Kennedy
As I write, Michelle Malkin is the only major blogger who has written about Arlen Specter's slap down of Ted Kennedy. I saw a videoclip of it while watching Special Report with Brit Hume. Yahoo! News has already run a story about it.
Here is the text of the exchange between the two senators.
Kennedy: ". . . If I'm going to be denied that, I'd want to give notice to the chair that you're going to hear it again and again and again and we're going to have votes of this committee again and again and again until we have a resolution."
Specter: "Well, Senator Kennedy, I'm not concerned about your threats to have votes again, again and again. And I'm the chairman of this committee. ... And I'm not going to have you run this committee."
Go to Michelle's website to obtain more info.
Posted by Dodo David at 07:38 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Culture of Corruption: Part XVII
I cannot link to this, so I will post it in full (you need a subscription to the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal):
Dean's Latest Scream
Howard Dean was even more excited than usual on CNN's "Late Edition" last Sunday as he insisted the Abramoff lobbying scandal had nothing to do with his party. "Every person named in this scandal is a Republican," the Democratic Party chairman insisted. "Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal."
Hmmm. "Let's go to the videotape," as the sportscaster Warner Wolf used to say to contradict a player's spin.
Investigators confirm that they are examining the interactions between lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Senators Conrad Burns, a Montana Republican; Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Also in their sights are two GOP House members, Reps. Bob Ney of Ohio and J.D. Hayworth of Arizona. Mr. Ney has already been identified in court documents as a potential indictment target. The Washington Times further reports that at least two top staffers for members of Congress as well as several lobbyists are also under the microscope.
Prosecutors are said to be especially interested in members whose offices performed actions that favored Abramoff clients and then saw staff leave Congressional employment and join the Abramoff lobbying shop -- possible evidence of a quid pro quo between Abramoff and at least the staffers. Such offices include those of Rep. Ney, Senator Burns and Senator Reid. All three lawmakers deny any wrongdoing and say any actions they took were consistent with their previous policy positions or, in the case of Mr. Ney, that he was duped.
It's certainly true that the Abramoff scandal will hurt Republicans more than Democrats. Republicans control Congress and 62% of Abramoff-linked campaign contributions went to the GOP. But Democrats have their own worries about the scandal. "Jack as a Republican would often direct contributions to Republicans because he liked them, they were friends or he agreed with their positions that had nothing to do with his clients," says one Abramoff friend. "But if Jack steered campaign cash to a Democrat you can bet that he wanted something in return for it."
All that explains why many Democrats are hesitating to fully exploit the Abramoff scandal and wish Mr. Dean, their talkative chairman, would declare a self-imposed moratorium on his television appearances.
-- John Fund
So what does this show? One, that Dean is a pathalogical liar as I've previously stated. It shows that a majority of scandal falls on Republicans by 62 to 38 percent. But I also remember Harry Reid chastizing Chris Wallace for even mentioning Senator Reid's name in the same sentence as Abramoff:
In a little-noticed story in November, The Associated Press revealed that Reid had accepted tens of thousands of dollars from an Abramoff client, the Coushatta Indian tribe, after interceding with Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton over a casino dispute with a rival tribe.
Reid "sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002," reported the AP. "The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004."
Questioned about the donations last month by "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace, Reid immediately turned testy.
"Don't try to say I received money from Abramoff. I've never met the man, don't know anything," he insisted.
When Wallace protested: "But you've received money from [one of his Indian tribe clients]," the top Democrat shot back: "Make sure that all your viewers understand - not a penny from Abramoff. I've been on the Indian Affairs Committee my whole time in the Senate."
And Senator Reid refuses to give the money back. Gravy.
Posted by Aaron at 07:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Jack Abramoff Corruption
I think anyone who received money from Jack Abramoff should give it to charity and participate fully in a congressional investigation into how this guy got away with this kind of dirty fundraising.
What I will not allow is for Democrats to act like this is a Republican only scandal. If Jack Abramoff was dastardly bribing Republicans then he is just as dastardly when he bribed Democrats (if he bribed anyone at all).
The National Republican Senatorial Committee said Wednesday that 40 of 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his associates and Indian tribe clients.
Abramoff pled guilty Tuesday to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion. He also plans to implicate a number of U.S. lawmakers and congressional staffers in a bribery scandal.
Among those named by the NRSC as the worst examples of "Democrat hypocrisy" for taking money from Abramoff and his associates are: Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D-N.D.) who received at least $79,300; Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who received at least $45,750; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who received at least $68,941 and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who received at least $6,250.
Dorgan is among the lawmakers who have already returned campaign donations or given those donations to charity.
Read the rest here.
Posted by Aaron at 02:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Funniest NRO predictions for 2006
In Manhattan, the New York Times will do a fashion item on the faux Western sheep-cowboy look and "Why can't I quit you?" will be discussed at Columbia as a serious philosophical question and distributed as a Podcast. - Denis Boyles
Chelsea Clinton gets engaged. Howard Dean gets enraged. Cindy Sheehan fades. - Kellyanne Conway
Hillary Clinton is seen reading Kate O'Beirne's best-selling Women Who Make the World Worse. While reading, a lamp is thrown. - K-Lo
The feminists will hold another "Equal Pay Day" event to complain about the so-called "wage gap" on April 25, 2006 and no one will care. - Carrie Lukas
Brokeback Mountain becomes the first winner of a new Academy Award category, "Gayest Movie." Winners note that it's fabulous just to be nominated, girlfriend.
George and Laura Bush file their 2005 income-tax returns, listing Cindy Sheehan as a dependent. - Ned Rice
Posted by Aaron at 10:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
A Tale of Two Leaks
Columnist Linda Chavez poses an interesting question:
Within days of the leak of former CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, Sen. Chuck Schumer was demanding a full-scale investigation into the incident, and others soon followed suit. So where are Sen. Schumer and his fellow Democrats in demanding a similar investigation and prosecution of a far more egregious leak of classified material involving the National Security Agency? Instead of demanding to know who leaked information that could jeopardize both sources and methods for intelligence gathering that will protect American lives, Democrats -- and some Republicans -- are busy accusing the president of wrongdoing. Response to the two leaks reveals a stark double standard.
Posted by Pam at 09:21 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
I Am Sure Aaron Would Disagree with the Washington Post
Well, this isn't good:
THERE ARE many competitors for the title. But after viewing the video (available here) of a hearing held Nov. 8 by the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, we'd like to nominate Hector V. Barreto, chief of the Small Business Administration, as "the next Michael Brown." The committee chairwoman, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), began the session by pointing out that the Small Business Administration had, at that time, processed only 10 percent of 28,540 applications for disaster loans from small businesses in the Gulf Coast area and had approved only 3 percent of them. Mr. Barreto responded with a long and self-pitying description of how difficult things remain in the Gulf, how emergencies are not really his responsibility and how much his agency's performance had improved lately.
Posted by kitty at 12:45 PM | Comments (0)
Margaret Thatcher Admitted to Hospital
Please pray for this historical woman. She had the balls to tell Bush 41 [thanks Kitty] not to go all wobly. She deserves our respect, reverence and prayers. Please include her in your prayers today. Just fifteen seconds to thank the Lord for her and her leadership.
My fav'rite quote from Margaret Thatcher is, "concensus is the absence of leadership."
I read her latest book, Statecraft, and it was brilliant. And who could forget that she had the forsight to record a wonderful statement for Ronald Reagan.
She is a model for women and I hope that in 2008, America gets our own version in Sec'y Rice.
Posted by Aaron at 07:09 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Al Sharpton Shills for Questionable Loan Company
Al Sharpton has a new gig: promoting a loan company that gives loans to those with little or bad credit.
“When I’m out fighting for the little guy and I need quick cash I find comfort in knowing that LoanMax is here for me,” the Rev. Al says in a new commercial.
It’s Sharpton's latest gig. Doing car title loan ads in Virginia and New Mexico. LoanMax has 200 offices in 20 states.
Asked by CBS 2 about the ad, Sharpton said: “I don’t understand why it’s wrong for the little guy with no credit not to be able to get money.”
It's a noble ideal, but is it a good deal for the "little guy"?
Keith Corbett, senior vice president of the Center For Responsible Lending in Washington, said, “They charge triple-digit interest rates and the terms are so that the person can't really pay the loans back without doing harm to themselves."
When CBS 2 called the company we were told we could get a loan “in 10 to 15 minutes.”
But to get the loan the company would need title to the car and an extra set of keys.
The interest rate? Try a whopping 372 percent per year.
Say you borrowed $400. After two and a half months you would have paid $374 dollars. And still owe $300.
Miss one payment?
“If you miss one payment your car could be repossessed,” Corbett said.
Sharpton has made his career on fighting for the "little guy." However, LoanMax seems like it's more concerned with taking advantage of the little guy. Sharpton says if he finds out anyone has been taken to the cleaners via LoanMax he'll cancel the contract.
One wonders why he didn't research the company better before signing the dotted line. Wonder how big the check was?
h/t: Lucky Dawg News
Posted by Pam at 11:54 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Poll Positions
I am not a huge fan of "polls" when I don't know the exact order of questions, the phraseology, and who is interviewed.
Of course, most polls that scream that Bush is at an "all-time low" do not sample "likely voters" or even "registered voters" but "adults."
CNN also doesn't describe the different samples and what the questions were of its past presidential polls, but I would like to offer LLP's readers the spread of recent presidents.
Also, they do not say that Bush's current poll numbers are tied with Bill Clinton who, honestly, struggled with nothing earth shattering (factoid: Clinton, in the 8 years in office never dealt with a category 5 hurricane).
But here are the stats
...comment on what you think this bodes; do you think Bush can increase his poll numbers over the next three years and what would you like to see Bush do (liberal or conservative) that would HONESTLY change how you would answer to a pollster.
PRESIDENTS' LOW MARKS
-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952
-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960
-Kennedy: 56% mid-September, 1963
-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968
-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974
-Ford: 37% early January, 1975, and late March, 1975
-Carter: 28% late June, 1979
-Reagan: 35% late January, 1983
-George H.W. Bush: 29% late July, 1992
-Clinton: 37% early June, 1993
-George W. Bush: 37%* mid-November, 2005
* to date
Source: Gallup polls, 1952-1991; CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls, 1992-present.
Posted by Aaron at 07:25 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Practical Susan
Susan Estrich can stray off the Democrat's talking points sometimes. She chooses to seldomly, but when she does, her predictions are generally good and judgement fair.
Unlike many of our liberal readers who argued these elections last week meant something (I felt the VA governor's race was a blow, but that's just one race), Susan calls it for what it was: a wash.
Posted by Aaron at 12:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack