Like Fish In A Barrel

It just doesn't get easier.....just as rmwarnick goes on a rant talking about "malicious" Republicans who "pretend" to care about the working poor we get treated to this from the Senate floor today.




Please tell me how$10.00 gallon gas isn't anything BUT malicious.

Then, in following his talking points, rmwarnick pulls out the tired old "Exxon-Mobil record profits" trope (more on that tomorrow). Thanks to my friend The Admiral at Anti-Strib we find out that THIS is nothing more than a tired old saw.

Let's get back to the "greedy" oil companies. 11.68 billion dollars by Exxon-Mobil, Wow! 11.68 on a 138 billion dollar industry. That's less than 10% Yup, I can see the greed. They paid 32.36 billion dollars in taxes. So, for every one dollar of profit Exxon-Mobil makes, it pays 3 dollars in taxes. Seems that big, bloated government is what's greedy, not Exxon-Mobil.

Emphasis mine. So now tell me WHO is making excessive profits on the sale of a barrel of oil????

On a side note let me ask this...oil profits are up because the value of their product has gone up. The value of their product went up because demand has gone up and there is no commiserate increase of supply. America is sitting on huge reserves of supply, that the Democrats will not allow the oil companies to access. These reserves will ensure that the price of the product in question goes down. The question is who again is responsible for the record high profits of "big oil"? It's not the "oil man" in the White House blocking access to new supply.....

Polling Analysis

A friend sent me their copy of the Evans Novak Political Report. Now before some of you more liberal readers scoff, realize that Robert Novak is considered to be the consummate pro by everyone in DC and by those who seriously follow politics. That said I found their insights on the most recent polling to be extremely interesting.

1. The seven-charge indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), highlights two themes of this year: Republican losses in Congress will range from bad to catastrophic, and the anti-reform wing of the GOP seems to be steeped in corruption.
   
   
2. The good news for Democrats is that the indictment could lead to another Senate seat pickup. The good news for conservatives is that the continued march into scandal or even into jail of pro-pork, old-school GOP lawmakers could help the conservative reform wing of the party.

The anti-reform wing of the Republican Party does indeed seem to be steeped in corruption. Whether it is true or not matters not - in this biz, perception IS reality and the sooner that the RNC, the state party officials and the incumbents themselves realize this, the sooner the GOP can start regaining seats. This analysis also bodes quite well for candidates like Jason Chaffetz. As he said in a recent interview with Tammy Bruce, issues like fiscal discipline and integrity ARE resonating with the voters.

What also struck me was the analysis of the Presidential race. I want to break it down into a couple of pieces.

National Polls: The complete lack of movement in the national polls is good news for Sen. John McCain and bad news for Sen. Barack Obama, even as the Democrat continues to hold a modest lead.

First, a word of caution: National polls are generally given undue attention in the press. There is no national election, but rather 51 state elections. On that score, our Electoral College count shows a razor-thin Obama lead (273 to 265).

I have to agree 100% with this statement. While polls are a good snapshot of the national mood they don't mean a thing - especially this far out.

1. The usefulness in national polls is in getting rough ideas of a candidate's popularity, and more importantly as a judge of momentum. It is on this latter score that Obama needs to worry. On June 4, Rasmussen Reports released its first daily tracking poll of the general election (3,000 likely voters over three nights, with a margin of error of +/-2%), and it showed Obama 47%, McCain 45%. Fifty-seven days later, the Wednesday, July 30 poll showed Obama at 48% to McCain's 46%—virtually no movement. In the interim, neither candidate has shown movement outside the margin of error.
   
   
2. The first observation to draw is that voters aren't paying close attention, and so minimal movement is to be expected. This is important: It's still too early to foresee the outcome of the race.

If you remember, July polling in 2004 had John Kerry up on President George W. Bush and we all know how that turned out, don't we.

4. But the deeper significance of these national poll numbers is the way in which Obama lags his party and has failed to break 50% nationally, even while all the breaks go his way.

5. In all corners of the country, it's good to be a Democrat and bad to be a Republican. Democrats are guaranteed double-digit gains in the U.S. House (with pickups possible even in places like Alabama and Idaho) and significant gains in the Senate (with no seriously vulnerable incumbents or open seats). On generic ballots, Democrats post 15% leads.

6. Why does Obama lag his party? His unprecedented combination of youth, race, and inexperience makes many voters wary. Playing basketball well and often appeals to many voters, but it may come across to others as unpresidential, especially in combination with his thin résumé and younger-than-his-age looks.

7. Even more worrisome is the complete lack of a poll bump from Obama's overseas visit. He conducted himself well, and scored a coup with the "Maliki endorsement" (the statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in favor of an Obama-like timetable for withdrawal from Iraq). The trip was specifically aimed at making him "look presidential."

The "Maliki endorsement" was followed by a high ranking Iraqi official saying this.

TERMED a "learning" trip, Sen. Barack Obama's eight- day tour of eight nations in the Middle East and Europe turned out to be little more than a series of photo ops to enhance his international credentials.

"He looked like a man in a hurry," a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. "He was not interested in what we had to say."

That does not sound like a ringing endorsement.

8. His world tour had two downsides: his utter refusal to accept that the surge was successful or to offer a credible counter-argument makes him look more like a demagogue than a pragmatist. Showing up in London, Paris, and Berlin could make him look more like jet-setter or Euro-rail-hopping student than a world leader. Declaring himself a "fellow citizen of the world," further feeds that perception.

A sentiment that was echoed by the above mentioned senior Iraqi official.

In private, though, Iraqi officials admit that Obama's analysis is "way off the mark." Without the surge, the Sunni tribes wouldn't have switched sides to help flush out al Qaeda. And the strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad.

Lastly...

9. Regarding state-by-state polls, closer examination reveals more troubles for Obama than a surface examination would suggest. In many states where Obama is "ahead" in the polls, such as Nevada, there remain nearly 20% undecided or third-party voters. Almost all of these voters will eventually choose Obama or McCain. Obama's appeal has been so clearly on display, and Republicans are so unpopular already, that it's hard to imagine what Obama could do to win over the voters who are still undecided, especially in the states where Obama already campaigned hard in the primaries.

What is, I think most concerning (or it should be anyway) is in blue purple states like Minnesota where Senator Obama is only up by a couple of points. In this current toxic atmosphere (for Republicans anyway), he should be way up in Minnesota.

Is this all written in stone - of course not. We still have over three months until Election Day and a lot can happen in this short period of time. However, these are trends that, going into the DNC Convention, have to be troubling the brain trust at the DNC Headquarters.

Independent No More

The Independence Party of Minnesota burst onto the scene with the victory of Jesse Ventura over Skip Humphrey and Norm Coleman in the Governors race of 1998. It was hailed as an opportunity for 3rd Party candidates everywhere and was seen as a blow to the two party system that most voters are sick of. Many conservatives claimed that the Independence Party was just another branch of the DFL (Democrat Farmer Labor) Party - a claim that both DFL and Independence Parties roundly denied. Well they can no longer deny the obvious.

The Independence Party has endorsed Steve Sarvi, the DFL-endorsed candidate for Congress in the 2nd Congressional District, according to a joint announcement from Sarvi and the IP.

This comes on the heels of the IP endorsing DFL candidate El Tinklenberg in the 6th Congressional District.

Many have said that the IP is a place where DFL wanna-be's, has-been's and never-were's go to run for office. This election cycle they confirmed it.

Taxing Horse Carts Is Next

One of the many reasons that green advocates have long used as a "reason" why high gas prices were a good thing is that it would get individuals out of their cars, lessening traffic and pollution and the whole host of other ills that they associate with cars. Well there is one very bad thing about that plan, as today's SL Tribune points out.

Burned by high gasoline prices, Americans are cutting back their driving. In several ways, that's a good thing - less air pollution, less consumption of oil, fewer traffic deaths. But in one way it's a problem. There is less tax money available for the federal and state governments to build new roads and repair existing ones.
That might not be a concern if U.S. highways were mostly new, but they're not. The Interstate Highway System was built half a century ago, and as we are seeing in Utah, much of it is worn out and in need of expansion. Think of I-15 in Utah County.
The federal government reported Monday that Americans drove 3.7 percent fewer miles in May than they did in the same month a year ago. Utahns cut their driving 4.4 percent.
As a result, there will be an estimated $5 billion deficit in the Federal Highway Trust Fund next year. Here's the reason: The federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. As motorists drive fewer miles and switch to vehicles that get better gas mileage, they burn fewer gallons of gasoline, which means less federal revenue for building and repairing highways.

I wonder how that is working out for my friends in Minnesota - remember we had a bridge fall down last year (more on that tomorrow) that was caused (according to local Democrat legislators) by a lack of money for road repairs....

The Minnesota Legislature this year increased the state gas tax by 8.5 cents, which is still being phased in.

Even with the rate increase, Gray said state transportation officials are predicting a drop in gas-tax collection, with a 0.6 percent drop forecasted each year in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

That can't beeeee....they promised us that this would bring more money into the fund....

OK - all snark aside, conservatives warned them this was coming. We said adding to the cost of driving would make people drive less. "That's a good thing" the legislature said. "No it's not" we relied - "gas tax revenues will fall" we said. Well what do you know....they raised taxes and we STILL don't have enough to fix our crumbling infrastructure.

Friday is the 1 year anniversary of the 35W bridge collapse. It is a warning to the rest of the country. However, in order to get more money from the gas tax, you are going to have to encourage MORE driving not less. Which means that you are going to have to tell one of your special interest groups to compromise. Either the environmentalists are going to have to give ground or the road construction unions are going to have to give.

We have to start demanding that our legislatures (state and federal) do what is best for the PEOPLE and not what is best for their special interest groups. It's that simple. Will they do so? Only if "we the people" demand it.

Risky Business

Last week, I commented that it appeared that the bloom was coming off of the Obama Rose. Jason (from the Utah Amicus) left a comment that he felt my analysis was "off" to which I replied, let's wait and see what the July and August polling and fund raising numbers start to say before we go there. Well if this weekends polling is any indication, it looks like my analysis was vindicated. What is telling is the disparity of results between registered voters and likely voters.

Obama was ahead 47%-44% among registered voters, down from a 6-percentage point lead he had last month. McCain led 49%-45% among likely voters, reversing a 5-point Obama lead among that group. In both cases, the margin of error is +/—4 points.

That wild swing can be explained, as Brian Faughnan of RedState shows (HTAllahpundit at HA)

There's no question that enthusiasm for Obama has come down since it became clear over the last few months that he's just a man. But the drop in enthusiasm among young voters and Democrats is startling. If you then contrast it with the steadiness of the number for Republican voters -- who are supposed to be dispirited about their candidate and their prospects -- Democrats have real reason to be worried.

Take a look at the graph above. The percentage of 18-29's that are "certain to vote" has dropped off 18% since March. The Democrats "certain to vote" has dropped off by 16% while the percentage of Republicans "certain to vote" has stayed the same. That is indeed startling and it is also not surprising. The Senator's "race to the center" started as soon as he locked up the nomination in late May and since then he has shown those idealistic 18-29's that he is just another Chicago politician who will say anything in order to get what he wants.

Which again leads us back to judgment. Senator Obama says that we should elect him based on his judgment. Since June 1st we have seen time after time, that his judgment is not all that it was cracked up to be. His 20 year relationship with his "spiritual mentor" was thrown aside when it became politically expedient. Ditto other long term relationships. He used his "judgment" to allow "Access Hollywood" to interview his daughters - a judgment he regretted the minute the interview aired. With the last 60 days worth of "judgment" behind us and in print, we have to wonder what other decisions the Senator will make that he will "regret" within days, hours or even minutes of him making them. Is it any wonder that more Americans think that Senator Obama would be a "riskier choice" for President?

I Wonder...

Al Franken released his "energy "plan" today and surprise, surprise it sounds so familiar.....

Franken said the United States should sell 50 million barrels of crude oil from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve between now and Election Day -- a move that he said would lower gas prices, generate revenue and deflate the speculator bubble that has helped send oil prices skyward.

I have one small question for Al, his supporters and the supporters of any other Democrat out there. If you think releasing 50 million barrels will lower gas prices, what do you think will happen when 90 BILLION barrels hit the market?

The area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of technically recoverable natural gas liquids in 25 geologically defined areas thought to have potential for petroleum.

What do you think will happen when 800 billion barrels in shale oil crude hit the market?

I'm just curious....

Stepford Democrats

Those of us who are of a certain age (and yes I know that I am dating myself here) remember the 1972 novel "The Stepford Wives" by Ira Levin. Some of you may have seen the 2004 remake (starring Nicole Kidman) of the 1975 movie based on the book. If you did, you know where I am about to go here.

Today's St. Cloud (MN) Times ran a op-ed from Susan Gaertner - the Ramsey County Attorney and announced candidate for the DFL (for my Utah readers Democrat Farmer Labor party aka Democrats) endorsement for Governor in 2010. In her Op-Ed Susan writes:

I filled up my Saturn recently and the cost per gallon was $3.78, down about 20 cents from the week before. Michele Bachmann’s plan to get the cost of gasoline back down to $2 a gallon must be working.

The congresswomen’s plan, announced a couple weeks ago, was simple: Drill. Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, drill in the Atlantic, the Pacific, the inner shelf, the outer shelf, the Gulf of Mexico, and in Lake Mille Lacs. (Just kidding about that last one.)

In addition, Bachmann suggests there is great potential in oil from shale that could be mined in the Rocky Mountains. Another part of the Bachmann plan is to “fast track” permitting for new drilling rights, and presumably because all this drilling will cause a need for increased refining of the crude oil, a “fast track” permitting process for the building of additional refineries.

To be fair to Ms. Gaertner, the plan in question is not just Rep. Bachmann's plan, although Michelle has become one of the most vocal proponents of this plan. However, what Ms. Gaertner misses is that Rep. Bachmann's plan also includes things increased nuclear, increased clean coal, increased alternative fuels research, increased conservation, increased..... you can find the plan here. If you follow the link, you will see a video of the announcement of the program and trust me, Michelle is not the ONLY Republican standing on the House steps behind the microphone.

Ms. Gaertner is not the only one to make the claim that the Republican's only solution (to high energy prices) is to drill, drill, drill. Just about every Democratic candidate for the House, including Bennion Spencer (UT 3), Rep. Tim Walz (MN 1), Steve Sarvi (MN2) and El Tinklenberg (MN 6) have all said the same thing about their respective opponents. As I mentioned last month, it does not matter where you are on the ticket, there is only one answer to the current high price of gas - drilling is off of the table. No straying is allowed from the pre-approved Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi/DNC talking points. No matter which of the Democratic candidate websites you go to you see the same thing (when talking about energy policy) - conservation and alternative fuels. That's it. No deviation (except Ben Spencer who goes out on a limb and briefly mentions clean coal technology) is allowed from these pre-prescribed talking points. No mention about how shale oil development (a very red hot topic in Utah) might work for Utah (and Utah candidates).

That is where the "Stepford Wives" reference comes in. What the Democratic Party is giving voters is a class of "Stepford Democrats"...candidates that can be taken from one district (MN 2 for example) and plugged into another (Utah 3 for example). No free thinking is allowed here, just strict adherence to what party leadership says.

Now before my liberal friends in Minnesota and Utah start jumping in with the "Yeah, but Republicans...." realize that there IS debate between Republican candidates (and office holders) on this issue. You have Governor Pawlenty (R-MN) who is a huge grain ethanol advocate, Governor Schwarzenegger (R-CA) is against drilling on the OCS where Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL). Governor Sarah Pallin (R-AK is leading the charge for expanding drilling in Area 10-02 of ANWR while Senator John McCain (presumptive Republican Presidential nominee) is still not sold on the idea. We are allowing our candidates to stray from the "talking points". Meanwhile, the majority leaders in the House and the Senate are refusing to allow votes on expanded drilling and all of the candidates are on the campaign trail saying the same thing - we can't drill!

What's the matter with these candidates? Don't they have thoughts of their own? Or are these candidates afraid that they will end up like Joe Mullery and Willie Dominguez - who paid the ultimate price for daring to break from leadership's demands for fealty to leadership - as opposed to loyalty to the voters back home.

Is The Press Actually HURTING Obama?

Logical Lady Carol Platt Liebau raised this very question in her Townhall.com column today. I cut to the closing paragraphs.

Certainly, conventional wisdom assumes that when conditions are presented as almost uniformly negative, voters are more likely to take a gamble on the candidate who best personifies “change.” But is it in fact possible that this year, by creating a crisis atmosphere, the press is actually hurting Obama, rather than helping him?

After all, it’s a delicate task to stoke the desire for “change” by amplifying voters’ concerns, without frightening the same voters so much that they decide to stick with a tried-and-true leader. In 1992, the economy was in a trough, but overall, things were good; in particular, no foreign threat lurked in the forefront of voters’ minds. It was an acceptable risk to roll the dice on a relatively untried Arkansas governor, who was largely able to pass the Commander-in-Chief test simply by playing down foreign policy issues. This year, that technique simply won’t work, as Obama himself implicitly acknowledged by taking a foreign tour last week.

In 2008, Americans know soldiers are confronting terrorists abroad and – if they take at face value the often-overheated coverage of economic and environmental news – it seems that their well-being is profoundly threatened at home, as well. At such times, qualities like leadership, experience, character and principle are at a premium. And perhaps that’s why the Obama campaign has reason to be nervous about the results of an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted just last week.

Sure, it found that people preferred Obama over McCain when it came to "improving America's standing in the world," "being compassionate," "offering hope" and "being likable, easygoing." But on qualities like “being knowledgeable, experienced” and “being Commander-in-Chief,” McCain beat Obama decisively. And by a 20-point margin, Americans consider Obama the “riskier choice” for President.

There’s no doubt that Americans are willing to take risks like electing Barack Obama – but only when it’s prudent to do so. If America is in crisis, as press coverage these days so often suggests, will voters really decide that it’s the time to gamble on an inexperienced President, who will inevitably require on-the-job training? How ironic would it be if – in its zeal to fan the flames of “change” for its golden candidate – the press is actually making his job more difficult?

Emphasis mine. In an atmosphere where almost 50% of the electorate say that the media is biased toward Senator Obama - where even media insiders are admitting that the coverage "smelled of a coronation" and ask why journalists are giving one candidate "twice the coverage" of another and warn of a "backlash" against the media that is certainly a valid question to ask. The blatant bias that has been shown, especially during Senator Obama's trip to Europe and the Middle East, has certainly gotten people talking - and that can not be a bad thing.

For even further discussion, read this op-ed from the LA Times.

Should a federal shield law be limited to "professionals," or ought it reflect a broader view of journalism in the Internet Age? Consider some tough cases.

Josh Wolf, a self-described independent journalist and filmmaker, spent 226 days in jail for refusing to hand over a video recording of a June 2005 riot to federal prosecutors, who sought it for their investigation of damage to a San Francisco city police car. Should Wolf and others like him be protected by any federal shield law?

How about Mayhill Fowler, in her own words "an over-educated 60-year-old woman with politics in her blood," who has followed Barack Obama across the country? It was Fowler who recorded Obama's remarks about "bitter" citizens who "cling to guns or religion" and then posted it on the Huffington Post's Off the Bus blog, sending a charge through the Democratic primaries. Should her audiotapes and notes be available to prosecutors or parties to some civil suit?

There may be defensible reasons for limiting a federal shield law to those "regularly" engaged in journalism and to those who do it for "substantial" financial gain -- terms that are (purposefully) vague and would have to be interpreted and defined by the courts. After all, anyone can create a blog, and Congress surely doesn't want to make available a journalists' privilege to anyone with a laptop and an Internet connection. But the reality is that people working outside traditional news organizations -- including some bloggers and citizen journalists -- have become a force in breaking news and analyzing it.

As campaigns reach out more and more to blogs and bloggers, this is a discussion that needs to be had. There is really no reason why bloggers and the media can't work together to make each other better. The technologies that allow people like Mayhill Flower and Josh Wolf to get into venues that the traditional media can not access give the traditional media the content they need to feed the 24/7 news beast. If the press (and my fellow bloggers) was smart, they will figure out a way where we can both work together in a manner to make sure that the voters are more educated on the issues in order to make this country even better than it is today.

Change You Can Believe In

Fresh off of his highly successful pre-inaugural European and Middle Eastern tour, President-elect (in his mind anyway) Barack Obama sat down for a friendly chat with Tom Brokaw on "Meet the Press" today.

MR. TOM BROKAW: And we are here with Senator Obama late Saturday afternoon in London, the last stop of his nine-day overseas trip.

You head back to the United States in a few hours. For purposes of this program, we'll say good morning. By my judgment, at least, the only television appearances that you've missed this week have been the Home Shopping Network and "Morning Devotional." We're going to take...

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Right. But those are scheduled when I get back.

Only the chat was not quite as friendly as Senator Obama may have wanted. The interview immediately turned to Iraq and once there Brokaw pressed Obama on the differences between what Senator Obama said on the Senate floor and what Candidate Obama said in front of anti-war groups when he was running neck and neck with Senator Clinton AND the what Candidate Obama has said since he secured the nomination.

MR. BROKAW: Let's begin there in Iraq, and that judgment of yours that violence has lessened and that there is a possibility now that Prime Minister Maliki can take on more responsibility. You engaged in some verbal kung fu with reporters and others as well this week about the surge. You opposed the surge, the addition of other American troops in there. Many analysts believe that the reason that violence has decreased is because the American troops were deployed in a more effective manner...And it allowed President Maliki to stabilize his government somewhat. But you would not apologize, and you said you did not regret your opposition this surge. That prompted this radio ad from your opponent John McCain, which is running today. So let's listen to that and then respond.

(Videotape)

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: (From political ad) Now that it's clear that the surge has succeeded and brought victory in Iraq within sight, Senator Obama can't quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Instead, he commits the even greater error of insisting that, even in hindsight, he would still oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory. That's not exactly my idea of the judgment we seek in a commander-in-chief.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: That's a radio speech from Senator John McCain that is running on this Sunday in America. He's referring to what you had to say on January 10th, 2007...and repeated several times. Let's listen to you now and your immediate reaction to the idea of the surge back in the beginning of 2007.

(Videotape)

SEN. OBAMA: I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it'll do the reverse.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: We're not talking about angels on the head of a pin here, but let me ask you a direct question...Do you believe that President Maliki would be in a position to more or less endorse your timetable of getting troops out within 16 months if it had not been for the surge?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, we don't know, because in my earlier statements--I mean, I know that there's that little snippet that you ran, but there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there's no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence. But unless we saw an underlying change in the politics of the country, unless Sunni, Shia, Kurd made different decisions, then we were going to have a civil war and we could not stop a civil war simply with more troops. Now, I, I...

MR. BROKAW: But couldn't they make that political decision because troops were there to help them make it.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, the--well, the--look, there's no doubt, and I've said this repeatedly, that our troops make a difference. If--you know, they do extraordinary work. The troops that I met, they were proud of their work, they had made enormous sacrifices, they had fought, they had helped to construct schools and, and rebuilt the countryside. But, for example, in Anbar Province, where we went to visit, the Sunni awakening took place before the surge started, and tribal leaders made a decision that, instead of fighting the Americans, we're going to work with the Americans against al-Qaeda. That was a political decision that was made that has made a huge difference in this entire process.

So the, the point I want to make is this, Tom, I mean, you know, if we want to look at the question of judgment which is the one that John McCain raised, John McCain's essential focus has been on the tactical issue of sending more troops, and he's, he's made his entire approach to foreign policy rest on that support of Bush's decision to send more troops in. But we can have a whole range of arguments about past decisions--the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, and whether that was a good strategic decision, where we've spent a trillion dollars at least by the time this thing is over, lost thousands of lives in pursuit of goals John McCain supported that turned out to be false. We can make decisions about does it make sense for us to set a time frame for withdrawal to encourage the kind of political reconciliation that needs to take place to stabilize Iraq. We can talk about the distractions from hunting down al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, where there is no doubt that we would be further along had we not engaged in some of these actions, and...

MR. BROKAW: But we have to talk about the reality of what's going on in Iraq right now.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, but, but, but, let me...

MR. BROKAW: And the Anbar awakening, most people believe, was successful in large part because the American troops did come in and make it possible for them to have the kind of political reconciliation...

SEN. OBAMA: Tom, look--Tom, I'm, I'm--the fact that--the...

MR. BROKAW: Do you disagree with that?

SEN. OBAMA: As I said before, our troops made an enormous contribution, but to try to single out one factor in a very messy situation is just not accurate, and it doesn't, it doesn't take into account the larger strategic issues that have been at stake throughout this process. Look, we've got a finite amount of resources. We've got a finite number of troops. Our military is stretched extraordinarily because of trying to fight two wars at the same time. And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it? And I think that we should have been focused on Afghanistan from the start. We should have finished that job. We have not, but we now have the opportunity, moving forward, to begin a phased redeployment and to make sure that we're finishing the job in Afghanistan.

As you can tell, Brokaw had Sen. Obama quite tongue tied at times. It especially got good when Brokaw brought up the USA Today editorial that took Sen. Obama to task for his "stubbornness" in failing to admit that he was wrong on the surge. Given that the charge of stubbornness is one that the Dems have leveled at President Bush on a number of occassions, that charge really had Sen. Obama spinning for dear life!

SEN. OBAMA: Well, listen. I, I actually think that there's no doubt that the violence has gone down more than any of us anticipated, including President Bush and John McCain. If you, if you would--if you had talked to them and, and said, "You know what? We're going to bring down violence to the levels that we have," I think--I, I, I suspect USA Today's own editorial board wouldn't have anticipated that. That's not a, that's not a hard thing to acknowledge, that the situations have improved more rapidly than we had anticipated.

Then Brokaw brought up the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll which showed (among other things) that people think that Sen McCain has more experience to be President and he would be a better commander in chief (by a 2-1 margin in both cases!) and that Sen. Obama would actually be (again by a 2-1 margin) a riskier choice for President. That brought about this reply.

SEN. OBAMA: No, because, let's say we had reversed--or rephrased the question. Let's say the question had been, "Who's more likely to bring about change in the country?" I suspect I would beat Senator McCain handily. Or another way we could have phrased it was, "Who's more likely to maintain the status quo?" Well, John McCain would have won that poll handily. The fact is is that our campaign has been based on the idea that we need to fundamentally change how we do business, both domestically and internationally;...

Well, if you are strictly going by who will bring change, then yes, Senator Obama is your man. But remember this - the end of the world is change - but is it really the kind of change that we want or is the best thing for the nation? While I am certainly not saying that Sen. Obama will bring about the end of the world, I am simply saying that not all change is good. We need to ask ourselves what "change" is really the best for the country. After all, in 2006, the voters supposed voted for change and instead of the changes we wanted (lower gas prices, more transparent government, lower property taxes) we saw the price of gas almost double, no earmark reform and almost $10 billion in new state taxes! Is that really the kind of change that the voters wanted or want now?

The Real ANWR

Since Politically Active Mama liked my previous post on ANWR so much I figured that my very first post here should carry on the discussion. During my research on said post, I found this website to be a great source of information about Area 10-02. The site is the product of Alaskans who would be most adversely effected if drilling at ANWR was going to harm their state. They are the ones responsible for cleanup and all things related to when "it" hits the fan. They are also the ones closest to this "pristine wilderness". They are certainly closer to it than we are here in Utah or anyone in DC has ever come (with very few exceptions). This is what they have to say about ANWR as a whole (all 19.6 million acres of it) and the 2000 acre section of Area 10-02.

Most people don't really understand where the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is located and the relatively tiny amount of space within ANWR, (the Coastal Plain), that's been set aside for potential oil and gas development.

ANWR lies in the top northeast corner of Alaska. The entire refuge lies north of the Arctic Circle and 1,300 miles south of the North Pole. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was originally formed on Dec. 6, 1960 with an original size of 8.9 million acres. In 1980 and 1983 ANWR was added to for a current size of 19.6 million acres comprising of three distinct legal areas of use within its borders. Despite its name ANWR is NOT entirely “refuge”. The southern part of ANWR taking 9.16 million acres is classified as officially “Refuge”. The central 8 million acres of ANWR is classified as “Wilderness”. The uses and definitions of these terms was legally stated in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, 78 Stat. 890 -- Public Law 88-577).

Lastly at the top of ANWR, there is a special area of 1.5 million acres on the Arctic Coastal Plain called the “10-02” Area. The 10-02 Area takes its name from the section of the Congressional bill, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), that expanded ANWR in 1980. In Section 10-02 Congress set aside 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain specifically for “oil and gas exploration”. This 10-02 Area is classified legally neither as “refuge” nor as “wilderness”, rather defined and separated by Congress for oil and gas exploration due to its well-known geological evidence of potential large hydrocarbon deposits. The 10-02 area, is bordered on the north by the Beaufort Sea, on the east by ANWR “wilderness” area and the U.S. Canadian border, and on the west by the Canning River and ANWR outer border. It is completely flat and barren with no trees, hills, or mountains. Nine months of the year is covered with snow and ice and practically void of life. Three of those months are in total 24 hour darkness. In the 6 weeks of summer the coastal plain is dotted with thousands of lakes and is covered by boggy tundra on permafrost (permanently frozen ground).

Emphasis and link mine. They also get to the heart of the fallacy that the opponents of drilling in Area 10-02 keep propagating - that we are drilling in protected lands.

To say or suggest then that “the Refuge” (meaning ANWR’s entire area) would be opened for oil and gas exploration is completely false. The Congressional definitions of “refuge” and “wilderness”, which comprises over 92% of the ANWR area, forbids any development of any kind.

Utah (in the comments to Politically Active Mama's post) posts a link to Truth or Fiction that talks about the email that Rapid Response wrote about in his post. It talks about the truth and the political commentary in the email. What needs to be noted though is that there are not falsehoods in the email about Area 10-02. That is important. For once we start having a truthful discussion on the nature of Area 10-02, the people will start seeing that drilling here is not what the Democrats and their environmentalist supporters say it is. We are not proposing drilling in environmentally sensitive or protected areas. This land was set aside by the environmentalist hero Jimmy Carter specifically for drilling for oil - something that is already happening there TODAY.

Sigh.....

So I get a link to a post in my daily media alerts. It contains the usual snarky rhetoric displayed by those who deny the realities of Econ 101...supply and demand...

Jason Chaffetz recently visited Alaska, looked solemnly at the beauty that surrounded him, and declared we could end the $4.00 a gallon prices at the pump by drilling away into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To his credit, he mentions our need to pursue alternative energy sources, including the renewable source of wind power.

Sigh.....here is the pristine wilderness that is 10-02 area of the ANWR.

and here...


Now, let's take a look at a map of the area where the drilling is proposed to take place.


Click the map in order to see a large detail of the drilling area. Do you see that little red square? In the northwest portion of the green "coastal plain" area? THAT little red square marks the 2,000 acres (3.13 sq miles) where the proposed new drilling will take place. Now, do you see the red arrows? The ones pointing to various other spots along the coastal plain? Those areas represent areas of this so called "pristine wilderness" that have already been opened up for drilling! This tiny portion of the 19.6 MILLION ACRES of land is what we are talking about "despoiling" here. This tiny portion of the larger refuge contains enough oil for 436.8 BILLION gallons of gasoline - enough for roughly 12.6 BILLION TANKS (at 16 gallons per tank) of gasoline!

Lastly, the coastal plain is not part of the "refuge". It is in an area that was set aside FOR FUTURE OIL DRILLING by President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

The facts of the matter are that the DEMOCRATS in Congress and the DEMOCRATS in the Senate are doing everything in their power today to block votes on additional domestic drilling. The DEMOCRATS are more than happy to send $70 million a year to the Middle East. The facts are that the 10-02 area is not part of the Arctic REFUGE - it is outside of the area.

Can you honestly and truly say that 436.8 billion gallons will not make a difference in the price of a gallon of gasoline? If so, then you really need to take a refresher course in Economics because every theory of economics acknowledges that very basic fact.

Of COURSE We Heart The Troops

Ed Morrissey brings us the latest from Senator Obama's campaign trip to Germany.

I guess this is a question of priorities. Barack Obama apparently ran short on time in his visit to Germany today, and travelers know how schedules can slip during long tours, even without all of the events Obama had planned. Those circumstances force people to prioritize their time, and eliminate less-useful stops.

So what did Obama cut today? Der Spiegel’s blog reports on Obama’s priorities:

++ Visit to US Military Bases Cancelled ++
1:42 p.m.: SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. “Barack Obama will not be coming to us,” a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. “I don’t know why.” Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.

So the Senator's schedule was so full that he had to cut out a planned visit to our wounded warriors in Landstuhl? They weren't a priority? That seems to match up with the contents of an email that I got yesterday. While I am not at liberty to share the details of the email (I do not want to get the soldier in question in trouble with his/her brass but the events that were told to me were verified as actually having taken place) I will just say that the Senator was given ample opportunities to talk to soldiers when he was in Afghanistan and he did not take advantage of those opportunities - unless the cameras were on hand to document it (the famed basketball shot).

We have (sadly) seen this kind of support for our troops out of Democratic nominees for President before. Yet they tell us that we should not question their respect and devotion to the troops. I'm sorry - but if you do respect the troops, you stop and shake their hand when the opportunity is presented. If you are devoted to the troops, you cancel a campaign appearance before a foreign nation in order to spend time with those who were wounded in the line of duty. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!

UPDATE: BlackFive has confirmed and has further witness testimony that Candidate Obama snubbed the troops in Afghanistan.

I had a first hand view of Barrack Obama's "fact finding" mission, when he passed through this base.

While I can't name it, it's one of the largest air bases in the region, with up to 8000 troops (depending on influxes and transients in mobilization/demobilization status), mostly Airmen and Soldiers, but some Marines, Sailors, Koreans, Japanese, Aussies, Brits, US Civil Service, contractors including KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, among others in the news. The overwhelming majority of all of these are professional, courteous and disciplined. Problems are rare.

Casualties are also rare. This base has a large hospital for evacuation—twenty plus beds. I have yet to see a casualty in one, though I am told there are about three evacuations a week through this region, of which two on average are things like sports injuries, vehicle accidents or duty related falls and such. You can tell from the news that the war is going well. The ghouls are now focusing on Afghanistan, since there is no blood to type with here.

This oped is of course subjective and limited, but I will try to present the facts as I saw them. I wasn't able to see much, which makes a point all by itself.

When his plane arrived (also containing Senators Reed and Hagel, but the news has hardly mentioned them), there was a "ramp freeze." This means if you are on the flight line, and not directly involved with the event in question, you stay where you are and don't move. For a combat flight arriving or departing, this takes about ten minutes, and involves the active runway and crossing taxiways only. For Obama's flight, this took 90 minutes, during which time a variety of military missions came grinding to a halt. Obviously, this visit was important, right?

95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress. Even when the rumors were publicly admitted, almost no one left their duty sections to try to see him, unless they were officers whose presence was officially required.

Mister Obama's motorcade drove up from the flight line and entered the dining hall toward the end of lunch time. Diners were chased out and told to make other arrangements for food, in the middle of the duty day.

But don't question his devotion to the troops!

Piling It On

On Monday, I wrote about the spate of bad news that Team Franken started the week with. Today it got worse. The Rassmussen Reports Daily update came out with these two polls.

Minnesota: Obama Leads by Twelve

Minnesota Senate Race Still a Toss-Up

Even worse came from MinnPost who reported on the latest Quinnipiac poll that showed Senator Coleman up be 15%.

In the same poll showing Barack Obama's margin over John McCain slipping to 2 percentage points, Quinnipiac University pegs Norm Coleman's U.S. Senate lead at 15 points over Al Franken, 53 percent to 38 percent.

The next paragraph has the money quote.

If you go by the 1,261-likely-voter survey, Franken's problems are manifest. He only splits union households 47-44; loses women 41-48, and is getting clocked among independents 32-55. Fully 19 percent of DFLers back Coleman; meanwhile Republicans support their nominee 94-3.

Emphasis mine. Minnesota gains it's purple reputation due to the high number of self-described "independents" in the state. Therefore, that demographic is still a key demographic to win over. However, when nearly 1/5th of your own party backs your rival, there are serious problems to be had...and Team Franken appears to have them in spades.

Kline Conference Call

As I mentioned earlier, I participated in a conference call with Congressman John Kline (MN-2 and my former Congressman). The purpose of this call today was to launch a new microsite Stop The Pork (www.stopthepork.com) . On the call with me were Rob Neppell of Porkbusters and my dear friends and fellow True North contributors Gary Gross from Let Freedom Ring (who live blogged the call), Janet Beihoffer from SCSU Scholars, Leo Pusateri from the Ice Palace and Derek Brigham and J.Ewing from Freedom Dogs.

Congressman Kline started off by talking about his conversion to the "no more pork" fold.

When I got to Congress I thought that this was the way things got done. I have since learned that this (the process of deciding which project gets funded) is not based on the merit of the project but by who you are, what party you are in and what committees you are on...

He then went on to note that last year, 12 members signed the no pork pledge - a number that has moved up to 50 this year and it does include a couple of Democrats (Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Henry Waxman of California).

The Congressman kept his remarks brief to allow questions from the bloggers on the call. Jerry lead us off by asking if there was a difference between earmarks and pork. He wanted to make sure that legit projects didn't get a short shrift in the march toward reform. Congressman Kline said that legit road funding projects are the ones where the money goes to the DOT and the state decides which projects are a priority - as opposed to those where the Congressman (or woman) goes in and dictates which projects are more worthy. Congressman Kline reiterated that the projects do not compete on merit - just on who the requesting party is.

Derek asked if Senator McCain was on board with the Project. Congressman Kline replied that while Senator McCain is on board with stopping pork, he has not "signed on" to this project specifically.

Rob asked what the long term goal of this project was - was it to stop pork altogether? Congressman Kline replied that a short term goal was a moratorium on all pork spending. He reminded us that Congress is granted the Constitutional authority to spend money, but that the process for doing so was broken. The long term goal is to reform the system into a rational merit based system.


Janet asked if we need to get more "seats" before we can make any progress on the "no pork" front. Congressman Kline mentioned that the movement has momentum - right now Congressional leaders are not putting spending issues on the floor to vote on because they know that the public sentiment is against irresponsible spending. He said that they are "afraid" to put these issues on the floor where they can be held to their voting record. He said that they are "playing on the calendar" - waiting to see what the outcome of the election is before they do their job. This will be an issue during the campaign.

Carrying forward on the momentum question I asked if there was a mechanism to get non-incumbents (like UT 3 candidate Jason Chaffetz) on board - candidates who have made pork a central issue to their own campaigns. Congressman Kline answered that there wasn't really anything yet but that he would look into it. He mentioned that Brian Davis (challenger to MN1 Democrat incumbent Tim Walz) has also campaigned on earmark reform so he would try to find a way (other than signing the petition on the site) to get these challengers involved.

Mine was the last question and we ended the call. Those of you who want to know more about earmark reform can go to Congressman Kline's site (for the petition), Porkbusters OR Reagan21 which is a bi-cameral coalition of conservative legislators who are standing up for a 21st century Reagan Revolution of government reform.

Slackling Off

Sorry for being such a slacker yesterday. I was working on a couple stories and preparing for a conference call with Congressman John Kline (which takes place in 20 minutes). Regular posting shall resume starting with a post on the call later this morning.

A Tale Of Two Very Different States

It really is eye opening to get into a new state for a long period of time so that you can see the difference between the way the state you live in (or in my case lived in for 14 years) and the one you are in now. Case in point is how the current economic downturn is being handled by the State of Utah versus how it's hitting the State of Minnesota. First Minnesota....thanks to a slowing economy, state revenues are down $530 million, the reserves (rainy day fund) is down $33 million and spending is up $64 million, leaving the state in the hole $935 million - a far cry from the $2.2 BILLION surplus that the state had at the end of FY 2006. That led some legislators to come flat out and say "I Told You So".

One year ago the economy was doing well and the Legislature was overflowing with ideas on how to spend the $2.2 billion state budget surplus. It was the first time in several years that we weren't facing a large deficit. A new cast of leaders was eager to validate its sweeping victory in the 2006 election by turning their campaign promises into promises kept.

In the midst of the spending frenzy, I wrote to constituents my belief that "we need to be prudent with spending and not leave ourselves in a tough situation if the economy takes a sudden downturn." There was at the time plenty of historical evidence to suggest such a downturn could take place.

Utah, on the other hand, took many of the steps that Rep. Beard laid out in his legislative update. I know Rep. Beard will not be surprised at the results of such prudence.

On Friday, the Utah State Tax Commission released preliminary year-end revenue numbers.

When you look at the numbers, you will notice we're collecting less revenue than originally projected. That is not a surprise (we're actually pleased it's not worse). We're still within the range we predicted last month.

No one wants to be right about bad news but legislative dinosaurs like me have been through enough economic cycles that we felt the downturn coming and planned ahead for it. We have some carry-forward money, a healthy Rainy Day fund and we socked away an additional $100 M for the Uniform School Fund. In addition, we crafted a FY 2009 budget that is significantly lower than the FY 2008 budget.

From the article in the Salt Lake Tribune:

"We intentionally reserved a large carry-forward because we anticipated a slowdown," Valentine said. "Utah is very well poised to weather any kind of economic downturn."

Some states are having to cut services because of dwindling tax revenues, said State Tax Commission spokesman Charlie Roberts. "We're in a lot better fiscal shape than most," Roberts said, pointing to Utah's fiscally conservative bent and efforts to foster a favorable business climate as contributing factors.

So, we need to pay attention, spend carefully, and act wisely - but we don't need to be afraid. In keeping with being the best managed state in the nation we have already asked state agencies to plan ahead on where and how they can cut, should that become a necessity. I'm hoping it won't.

The Minnesota Legislature can and should take a lesson from their bretheren in Utah. Economic cycles are the norm. A little prudent planning, forethought and a lot of self-discipline can (in the long run) save your state from being blown around by the inevitable economic storms of life. Just as a wise worker sets aside money (and spends wisely) in case of a loss of income, the state should be setting aside money and wisely spending their money - in case of a loss of income. That is supposedly what we pay the Legislature to do.

Welcome!

Welcome Utah Bloghive readers. For those of you who are here for the first time, let me introduce myself.

I am a new resident to your fair state - having transferred here from the very purple blue state of Minnesota. Because I left Minnesota in the middle of a couple of very hotly contested elections, I will be posting about the elections back in Minnesota. However, I am already starting to follow a couple of elections out here and will be commenting on those as well. PLUS, you will get insights from the Republican National Convention as I had applied for Special Media Credentials to the convention prior to finding out about the Logical Husband's transfer to Utah.

Prior to my move, I started to get to know a couple of local Utah bloggers and I hope to get to know many of you quite well in the coming months.

Thanks to Bradley and the rest of the Bloghive managers for adding me to your daily reading list. I hope you all enjoy what you see here.

Shocking!

I know we are all surprised to read this.

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

Considering this new Rasmussen poll...

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Even CNN's Howard Kurtz realizes that the media is in the bag for an Obama victory.

KURTZ: Sometimes the big, sprawling, undisciplined beast we cal the media have an impact just by showing up, the cameras magnifying everything in their view. Now, Barack Obama's overseas trip was always going to be a journalistic sensation, but the Illinois senator's campaign wasn't taking any chances.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COURIC: By the way, I'll be reporting next week from the Middle East. We'll have the first one-on-one interview with Senator Obama.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Actually CBS' Lara Logan getting the first one-on-one interview today. But by dangling the offer of exclusive interviews with the candidate, exclusive for one night a piece, that is, the Obama team persuaded Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams to trek halfway around the world to cover this trip. What that means, of course, is that the "CBS Evening News," "NBC Nightly News" and ABC's "World News" will be broadcast from Europe and the Middle East this week, throwing an even brighter spotlight on Barack's excellent adventure.

John McCain, meanwhile, was accompanied by zero anchors on his three foreign trips since wrapping up the Republican nomination in March. And that has the pundits debating whether the sheer volume of airtime and ink is tilting rather dramatically in Obama's direction.

Is it any wonder why newspapers and television news are losing their readers/viewers. If you are going to get opinion anyway - why not go to a blog or to Rush Limbaugh? After all - the only difference between Rush and the NY Times is the fact that Rush ADMITS his bias.

Bad News Gets Worse

Team Franken got a dose of bad news as the new week starts.

Just a few months ago, Al Franken had plenty of reasons to smile about his chances of unseating Minnesota’s Republican Sen. Norm Coleman .

Minnesotans oppose the war — and the president — that Coleman supported. Franken was doing his homework: he had entered the race early and was running a strong grass-roots campaign focused on local organizing and smaller-venue events.

And, in early June, he secured the DFL nomination at the state convention on the first ballot.

But costly mistakes in the campaign of former Saturday Night Live writer are now imperiling his chances of winning.

Poll trends in the past several weeks indicate that Coleman has increased his lead over Franken. Although the numbers have fluctuated, four of the last five polls show Coleman ahead of Franken - three by more than nine points. So now, CQ Politics is changing the rating on the race to Leans Republican from No Clear Favorite.

Part of the reason for change is that the reasonable voters of Minnesota are starting to see the candidate for who he really is. No small amount of credit for this goes to Michael Brodkorb - he has done a yeoman's work on exposing the candidate for the petty, mean individual that he is. However, there are a few Democrats who are coming to the realization that Team Franken is not the brightest bulb (or bulbs) in the bunch.

I’ve always felt that it’s hypocritical to only criticize candidates you oppose for positions that appall you while turning a blind eye to the missteps of those candidates you support.

That brings me to a current TV commercial for the DFL-endorsed candidate for U.S. Senate, Al Franken. Let me preface this by saying that although I am not committed in this race, my politics are much closer to Franken’s than they are to those of his opponent, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman.

Franken’s 30-second spot points out that the U.S. has built hundreds of schools, more than a thousand roads and thousands of sewer and water projects in Iraq. He goes on to say that instead, we should spend that money on education, health care, jobs and infrastructure in the U.S. He closes with, “We need to invest in America again” (emphasis his).

That’s what I call pandering. It verges on xenophobia-this statement more than implies that the choice is between spending money on Iraqi infrastructure or American needs. It is Us versus Them-they are the Other, we are Americans. This sort of message seems designed to appeal to Minnesotans who are bitter about the financial costs of the war and/or foreign aid in general. It says that once we stop spending money on them, we’ll have more for us.

The writer then goes on to tell about her interaction with Team Franken about this ad and the exercise did not leave the author with warm fuzzies.....to put it nicely.

When Team Franken starts loosing leaners like the author above, you know things are not going well. When things are not going as well as planned, it leads to desperation measures like we are seeing in the latest round of Franken ads. His latest round of ads claim that he was always against the war (unlike his opponent) but it has been widely reported that it was not always the case.

It is clear that the DFL's gamble on Franken is not paying off as well as they had hoped. They went with the comedien because of the name recognition. What the DFL failed to recognize is that name recognition and the ability to raise money outside of the state are not good reasons to nominate a candidate. The candidate has to have ideas and ideals that he can and will stick by. Al Franken was never that man and now the DFL has no other option. It seems that they have given up on regaining the "Wellstone seat".

Free Speech And The House Of Representatives

I recently began subscribing to a newsletter that is a daily reflection of the Founding Fathers thoughts and beliefs. I got one late last week that really hit home with this blogger.

"Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech."

-- Benjamin Franklin (writing as Silence Dogood, No. 8, 9 July1722)

Reference: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, Labaree, ed., vol. 1(27)

Freedom of thought and speech is the lifes blood of bloggers. Which is why so many of us are up in arms about this.

Talk radio’s suspicions of a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine were confirmed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Tuesday June 24 during her comments at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. When John Gizzi, an editor for Human Events asked Speaker Pelosi whether she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine, she told him an unhesitating “yes,” reports Gizzi.

Moreover, when Gizzi asked if she supports the Broadcaster Freedom Act, “She added that ‘the interest in my caucus is the reverse’ and that New York Democratic Rep. ‘Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now,’ he writes.

Representative Slaughter (D-NY) introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.

Don't kid yourselves my friends...this will not stop with the Broadcast Media. Once implimented, the "Fairness" Act will eventually come to apply to blogs. Congress has no faith in anything that they can not control. They will eventually mandate that there be an even number of blogs on the left, center and right in every state. That means that the center right blogosphere in Minnesota will have to be cut and the center/left blogosphere in Utah will suffer the same fate!

Ben Franklin knew what he was saying when he said that there was no "public liberty without freedom of speech". Regardless of where that speech appears or whom it apparently favors today, a free society must encourage the free exchange of ideas. It is the foundation of our country and we can not allow Rep. Pelosi and her ilk to take it away from us all.

The Bloom Is Off Of the Obama Rose

Others have written about the Charles Krauthamer column that took Senator Barack Obama to task for his out of control ego, you expect a column like this out of Krauthamer. Where you don't expect it is out of Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe, but get it we did and boy is it a barn burner.

JUST LIKE the Obama girl, Obama has a crush on Obama.

Barack Obama always was a larger-than-life candidate with a healthy ego. Now he's turning into the A-Rod of politics. It's all about him.

He's giving his opponent something other than issues to attack him on: narcissism.

A convention hall isn't good enough for the presumptive Democratic nominee. He plans to deliver his acceptance speech in the 75,000 seat stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Before a vote is cast, he's embarking on a foreign policy tour that will use cheering Europeans - and America's top news anchors - as extras in his campaign. What do you expect from a candidate who already auditioned a quasi-presidential seal with the Latin inscription, "Vero possumus" - "Yes, we can"?

Obama finds criticism of his wife "infuriating" and doesn't want either of them to be the target of satire. Tell that to the Carters, the Reagans, the Clintons, and the Bushes, father and son.

There's no such thing as a humble politician. But when Obama looks into the mirror, he doesn't just see a president; he sees JFK.

Vennochi brings up a lot of the same criticisms that the conservative punditry has brought up in recent weeks which leads one to wonder if this horribly long campaign season hasn't done more to defeat Barack Obama than anything the Republicans could have done. It certainly seems that way.

Sweet Home Chicago

It's a pity I didn't get this until after my last post on Senator Obama.


I guess I'll have to just settle for this as a stand alone post along with this link to another look at Senator Obama's Chicago ties. As Mark H remarked in the comments to my last post - do we really want Chicago politicians doing for the country what they have done for Chicago and Cook County?

A House Divided

I imagine that this story will be of cold comfort to my friends in the MNGOP.

The House is on fire, and Republican factions are busy dousing each other in gasoline.

Long-running feuds and tension in the Utah House of Representatives have erupted recently in name-calling, ethical charges and countercharges, and claims of retribution and character assassination.

I say cold comfort because it shows that the infighting that we have been seeing for the last couple of years in Minnesota are not an anomoly. Sadly though, this infighting does not show any sign of abating any time soon. Especially when you have people like Chris Cannon saying things like this about the party and party leadership.

Rep. Chris Cannon is angry.

Not at the voters who tossed him from his 12-year perch, but at the Republican leaders and those vocal few hammering on about earmarks and lobbing stinging criticism at their own party members. While he says he's not bitter, Cannon argues that some Republicans are tearing apart the Grand Old Party.

"I'm angry at Republican leadership and I'm angry at the people who have demeaned the political process by claiming corruption," Cannon said during an interview this week.

Sound familiar Minnesota? It should...

Again, the people speaking out, whether it be the voters themselves or the grassroots volunteers in the county and state organizations, who felt that the politicians have quit representing them are the ones at fault....not the politician! It is frustrating to no end for the grass roots workers to be this roundly ignored day in and day out and we are the ones at fault for daring to speak out against it Rep. Abeler and Rep. Cannon. You don't get it do you....you serve at the pleasure of the voters - we don't serve you. That is the lesson that you need to take to heart here!

Here is a radical thought for everyone....let's get back to doing what is right for the COUNTRY and the STATE. I mean that is what we elect you to do...not line your pockets or spend other peoples money. Do what is best for the state and the country and we will all get along a little better. If we don't agree about "what is best" you should be able (with all of your years in the Legislature) to articulate your position better than just saying "you're not from my district go away!". We can and should be able to discuss that with our legislators - shouldn't we?

What do you say? Can ya do it?

Holiday Road

A lot has been said in previous weeks about Senator Obama's serial gaffes. Many have started to wonder what has happened to change Obama from a bright and shining Democratic rock star to Spinal Tap - a shallow parody of reality. Rick Moran thinks he has the answer.

It’s not making news because after all, reporting on the messiah’s mixed race upbringing and sterling oratory makes for so much better copy.

But someone, someday in the major media is going to wake up and take a good long look at Barack Obama’s campaign and notice something very strange; it is staffed from top to bottom with Chicagoans who have mostly made their bones working for Mayor Richard Daley and the Chicago Machine.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Barack Obama’s campaign is being run out of Chicago. He recently moved most of the Democratic National Committee functions to the Windy City and his campaign headquarters is there as well.

The question the press might want to ask would be is there anything being “run” in Chicago that doesn’t have Mayor Daley’s fingerprints all over it?

Is Barack Obama Daley’s man?

As someone who grew up in Chicago, during the original Mayor Daley days, nurtured (politically) and immersed in Chicago politics, I am not as much surprised that someone came up with this thought as much as I was surprised that I didn't think of it first. I suspect that my time away from Chicago has dulled my political cynicism somewhat.

One of the things that has become most apparent is that Barack Obama will say and do ANYTHING to move up into higher office. I pointed out (in a previous post) how the Senator's career has been nothing more than a constant run for higher office. That can be the only reason that can explain gaffes like this.

After receiving a hailstorm of criticism for considering Brandenburg Gate for a public speech, as well as official German dissuasion, Barack Obama moved the venue to the Siegessäule monument. Obama will speak about “historic” US-German relations, but once again, Obama’s own grasp of history has been proven deficient. Not only does the site contain a monument to Prussian victories over other American allies in Europe, its placement was decided by Adolf Hitler — in order to impress crowds in his idealized version of Berlin called Germania:

Still, even as the issue of his speech’s location has now been settled, a number of politicians in Berlin are still dissatisfied with the site. The Siegessäule — or Victory Column — was erected in memory of Prussia’s victories over Denmark (1864), Austria (1866) and France (1870/71). The column originally stood in front of the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament building, but was moved by Adolf Hitler to its current location in 1939 to make way for his planned transformation of Berlin into the Nazi capital “Germania.”

“The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France,” the deputy leader of the Free Democrats, Rainer Brüderle, told Bild am Sonntag. He raised the question as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.”

Andreas Schockenhoff of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats said, “the Siegessäule in Berlin is dedicated to a victory over neighbors who are today our European friends and allies. It is a problematic symbol.”

The German people know their history - something that the Obama Camp doesn't. As Ed pointed out in his post...

Obama could be excused for his gaffe, except for two reasons. His team certainly understood the historical weight that the Brandenburg Gate would have lent his event, so why didn’t they bother to ask the Germans about the Siegessäule? Quite obviously, the Germans understand the meaning and subtext of the monument, and most of them wonder why Obama does not. Maybe this is a better example of clueless Americans traveling abroad than those who can only say Merci, beaucoup.

Oh snap - that stings! Ed brings out an even bigger question though...on that I think I have the answer for. Ed asks...

The more basic question is why Obama feels the need to conduct a campaign event among Germans. Meeting with foreign leaders makes sense for a man with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, but that doesn’t require massive rallies among people who aren’t voting in this election. In his rush to look impressive for no one’s purposes but his own, Obama has made himself look ignorant and arrogant all over again.

Why indeed does Sen. Obama feel the need to campaign in Germany. The answer, I believe has to do with the fact that the Senator knows that he will not get the 24/7 scrutiny that he has been getting here at home. There is a natural lag, thanks to time zones, that will keep the reporting of the Senators activities pigeon-holed into the morning and evening news time slots. Anything that happens outside of those times will get minimal coverage.

I think it also has to do with ego....Barack Obama needs to feel the adoration that was so prevalent during the early days of the campaign. Since he has started his much documented tack to the center, he has felt the loss of "love" from the press and the voters. This European "vacation" with the accompanying MSM puff pieces (see the video "Obama Nails A 3-Pointer) from Katie, Charlie and Brian, will no doubt be just the balm that the battered candidate's ego needs to help him get his campaign "mojo" back - just in time for his coronation in Denver next month.