Political Football

Powerlineblog link

July 30, 2007

Is the tide turning in Washington?

I’m not yet persuaded that it is, but this piece by Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post provides some grounds for optimism. They report that House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) says a strongly positive statement progress in Iraq by General Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

According to Clyburn, Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House (i.e., the less than liberal Democrats). Sadly, it’s not clear that Petraeus carries as much weight with moderate and liberal Republicans.

As significant as what Clyburn said is the way he said it. According to Clyburn, a strongly positive report by Petraeus would be “a real big problem for us.” Clyburn’s candor may be commendable, but it’s unfortunate that the Dems regard strongly positive news from Iraq as a problem.

—————

Did he really say that? What is “winning” to Democrats? Certainly not winning in Iraq. An that is a moderate Democrat talking…

—————-

Best of the Web Today - July 31, 2007

By JAMES TARANTO

United We Fall?

It seems to us that there is something to be said for the idea that when America is at war, citizens, and especially political leaders, have a patriotic duty to put differences aside in the cause of victory. We oppose government censorship but wish for more self-restraint on the part of war opponents.We realize, of course, that this idea died for at least a generation with Vietnam, and it may not return, at least until the baby boomers have passed from the scene. But one baby-boomer in Congress wants to bring it back–in reverse. The Associated Press reports:

Kansas Rep. Nancy Boyda is defending her decision to step out of a hearing room last week while a retired Army general testified about U.S. progress in Iraq. . . .

Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Topeka, said she left the House Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday for about 10 minutes during the testimony of retired Gen. Jack Keane. . . .

Keane had testified that since the troop surge began, U.S. forces “are on the offensive and we have the momentum.” He also said that security has improved in every neighborhood and district in and around Baghdad, and that “cafés, pool halls, coffee houses that I visited are full of people.”

When Boyda returned to the hearing, she ridiculed Keane’s description of Iraq “as in some way or another that it’s a place that I might take the family for a vacation–things are going so well–those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, ‘Here’s the reality of the problem.’ ”

Boyda, it seems, wants to suppress information about success in Iraq, because such information would “divide the country.”

Disclaimer: this is all the opinion of this blogspace owner and links have been provided to as much supporting documentation as practical.

As I mentioned previously, much has changed since our Founding Fathers planned on a small standing army.

A favorite Ronald Reagan quote:

Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the United States of American was too strong.

The Republican Party in at least the last 50 years has been known for a stong national defense. The phrase (with a smile) is translated by some to “peace through superior fire power”.

A common myth is that the Defense Budget overwhelms any other Budget item. As you can see by the chart above The defense budget is only a small part of the total Gross Domestic Product.

The cold war fostered the arms race in the 60’s and 70’s of the last century. “Mutually Assured Destruction “MAD” with a few Strategic Arms Limitation pacts signed over the years, kept nuclear war at bay. Some people say, “Give Peace a Chance”. Why doesn’t that work? One of my favorite columnists right now is Mark Steyn. Recently he said

(During the Cold War), only five guys had their fingers on the nuclear button - Britain, America, France, China and the Soviet Union - but because two of those fingers belonged to Ron and Maggie the Left was convinced the apocalypse was just around the corner. Now we’re at the dawn of the freelance nuke era, and the Left is positively insouciant about it.

Why do you suppose that is?

Regardless of the reasons posed for the wall separating East and West Berlin being torn down shortly after Ronald Reagan left office; it would NOT have happened if we had backed down to the Russian threat of the last century.

Now let’s talk about the military. From 1948 to 1973 men were drafted to fill vacancies in the military. Since 1974 the USA moved to an all volunteer Army.

[edit] I need to go back to this source document and write what each quartile is salary wize - I did not carry that text onto what I posted above. As I recall, the first quartile then moving to the right after that = $20,000 annual salary previous to enlistment, 2nd Quartile - $20-40,000, 3rd Quartile $40-70,000 and the 4th Quartile = more than $70,000 annual salary before enlistment. This (IMO) shows how military support for this war is not based on “need for a job” as some Democrats suggest. [end edit]

The media and Democrats would like you to think the Military is full of poor minorities who have no options for jobs and don’t want to fight. This chart shows the income level rising among recruits. The last I saw, the percentage of white soldiers KIA has been around 75% leaving 25% to various minority groups. Roughly our current ethnic split in the US.

The US Military is without question, the finest in the world. But we as a country still struggle defining the role of the military related to the War on Terror. Republicans mostly want to stay on offense and fight abroad, and Democrats aren’t sure there is a War on Terror worth fighting.

The Bush 43 administration didn’t campaign or go into its first term with a Nation Building agenda, or plans to invade Iraq - far from it. September 11, 2001 changed everything - the President’s world perspective changed in an instant and changed forever.

Like Rudy Giuliani says, “I don’t blame people for not getting it before 9/11. But I do blame people who don’t get it now.”

Republicans want to stay on offense and trust our military to do their job. Democrats are confused and don’t know what do to or say. They have a natural urge to be opposite of what Republicans are, but most were FOR the war when the opinion polls were in the 70’s in favor of invading Iraq. Comfortably, some democrats like Hillary and “it’s a bumper sticker statement, that War on Terror” - John Edwards - they were for the war before they were against the war, but it’s really Bush’s fault because he fooled them - so there.Or then we have the junior senator from Illinois say that genocide would be an acceptable outcome in Iraq, that he would never consider using nuclear weapons under any circumstances, and promised to hold meetings with the leaders of every rogue state under the sun, while threatening to invade an weakly positioned Muslim ally (and did I tell you this ally was a nuclear power?). Wow. talk about being a Cowboy! (ooops, that was Bush and this is a Democrat)

Can Democrats and Republicans ever position to present a united front to the world again?

Find personal rants here and here and other places on this blog.

Part 4 - Republicans & Democrats - Paradigm shift

Disclaimer: this is all the opinion of this blogspace owner and links have been provided to as much supporting documentation as practical.

A favorite Ronald Reagan quote:

The most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

That was never demonstrated more clearly than during Katrina. We have created a culture where people exist for generations on the public dole of some sort. Eleven Trillion dollars spent on the War on Poverty has left that war in a quagmire. Never was this explained more eloquently than by Scott Ott, the owner of the humorous, some time hysterical-not-really-the-news site ScrappleFace.  Go HERE to read the article I’m talking about.  Take your time. It’s not funny.

I’ve also spent some time reading our country’s foundational papers. You can’t help but be impressed with our Founding Fathers and how they framed our government.

Here is a great site to read and bookmark. Our Founding Fathers had quite a struggle to decide who had more power, a centralized government or the states, and how to make sure the larger industrial states did not overwhelm smaller agricultural states in decision making. In the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” is a direct concern of its writers that a centralized government would turn into a dictatorship. It is also a reflection that the Revolutionary War was fought by more than a standing army.

It is my sense that our Founding Fathers intended the central government to manage commerce issues among the states, secure the national defense (they envisioned a small Army/Navy), make treaties with other countries, and not much more. My reading of these documents leads me to think that our Founding Fathers gave us that framework, creating a model that would allow us to pursue our lives in freedom, without the encumbrance of the government.

The federal income tax was first enacted in 1862 to support the Union’s effort. It was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894, then declared unconstitutional by the the following year. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.

I’m from the government and I’m here to help…

An easy example showing the growth of the structure of government over the years would be to review the growth of government in the field of Education. There is no provision or even mention of education in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Yet today we have Presidential Cabinet appointment as the Secretary of Education (there was no provision for a Presidential Cabinet made in our founding documents). We also have the National Education Association, Private Schools, Parochial Schools, Home Schooled, Public Schools and the No Child Left Behind Act - all with federal, state and local rules and regulations. And all of that is provided by — POLITICS.  Yes, government, but really, to me - mostly Politics.

Where some standardization makes sense, typically Republicans will fall on the side of letting the parents decide how to educate their children and will not typically support government intrusion into daily life. In the 2008 election cycle, Democrats are discussing handing traditional day care over to the Government and make it mandatory. You decide if this is a wise use of your taxes.

Republicans small government, less intrusion - Democrats like large governments intruding into every part of your life - we like to call it a “nanny state”.

Part 3 - Republicans & Democrats - National Defense

Eventually, I will position this series of POSTS to PAGES as I break down my thoughts about Republican and Democrat values. As Pages; they will not roll into archives but will appear on the right side of this blog space. My plan is to try to change this blog to post more personal thoughts, but will continue to find articles for comment also.

Disclaimer: this is all the opinion of this blogspace owner and links have been provided to as much supporting documentation as practical.

Today’s political climate is hateful and vindictive and that is wrong. We have frequently seen cycles of that hatefulness through the centuries, but this current situation shows no signs of abatement.

Most politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle seem to be more focused on what I believe to be biased opinion polls and then getting re-elected, rather than talking to constituents about what we really think. (and unfortunately most of us don’t think about it what makes a better citizen or a better country)

There was a good article in the online Journal Saturday that shows how government should work. We have had some financial setbacks in the city due to recent tornado damage. The damage was bad, but didn’t cost enough to qualify the city for federal financial help. The goal in a city government (as it SHOULD be in any government) is to keep property taxes down as well as other city taxes - while supplying its residents with a solid public infrastructure.

Not mentioned in this article is that one of the founding businesses in the city that donated the land and helped start our outstanding athletic complex over 40 years ago, just donated $6,000 to pay the deductible for the city to get the insurance action it needed to repair the complex. That is a great example of businesses and government working together for a better city.

Payroll is the highest expense of many government functions (and many production oriented and seasonal businesses). The article linked above is a call to review where money can be saved in the future. There is no mention of anyone losing jobs through consolidation efforts, but government (like any well run business) needs to rethink organizational structure periodically. I believe I’m correct in stating that the basic governing structure in this city is a mixture of both parties, but the leadership (Mayor) has most often been Republican.

I’ve been studying what’s been going on in Washington DC and how it’s been reported in the National and International Media for some time - and that’s one of the major reasons I started this blog. In this fast paced world, the majority of Americans don’t vote, and the VAST majority get their news in sound bytes or through news headlines.

It has been well documented that the national media is 75-85% liberal in their personal preference, and conservatives dominate talk radio. You can read more at this link - but I will summarize one issue here by posting this quote out of the linked article:

“When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington.”

I suspect you’ve heard of the Liberal “Air America” failed attempt to capture some of the radio airwaves, but radio has not proven to be a successful conduit for liberal talk. I also suspect you’ve heard of several liberal senators threatening to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” for radio in order to force more liberal talk radio.

Can you doubt the news you hear and read is slanted in favor of Democrats?

In defense of conservative talk shows dominating the air waves; to me that’s a matter of supply and demand. If these shows were not making money they would not remain on the air.

Lies or distortion from either side of the aisle should be exposed.

Part 2 - Republicans & Democrats - National Government

Little Green Footballs link

read the link above to show continued thought process bias of Reuters headline writers.

most people just read headlines… most effective, I think.

Israelis are evil people. (not)

Link to Gonzales article at Powerlineblog

The link above is a good overview of the current AG Gonzales debacle that is keeping the Bush Administration from doing their job - and showing journalistic bias at the same time.

Democrats seem to be setting a new standard on subpoenas, hearings and finding ways to TRY to affect policies the Constitution says are none of their responsibility. (Like fighting wars and such).
————-

My point continues to be, that if the Main Stream Media would report good news with the same effort that they report suspicions of bad news - the national polls on issues would be significantly different.

(well I guess that’s assuming the poll questions would be framed and gathered in an honest and even handed way also)

If you are new to this blog please take some of the MEDIA BIAS links in the right column by scrolling down the page over there —>

Link to article

July 24, 2007, 6:00 a.m.

Late-Night Revelations
The Democratic agenda is so far out of the mainstream that votes to advance it are hard to defend with the lights on.

By Mitch McConnell

Rudy reads from a card with his 12 commitments on it

in Davenport Thursday.

Wednesday and Thursday marked a busy two day schedule in Iowa for Rudy. Many people tell me Rudy needs to be in Iowa more - and he will be. But to contrast him to Mitt isn’t fair. Mitt is running what could be described as a successful two state campaign (strategically focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire) - Rudy is running a 50 state campaign and doing well.

This is the fourth time I’ve seen Rudy in person and his message is more focused and stronger each event. I would consider anyone who wants a President who is tough on the war on terror, and understands the government should work FOR the people not the people for the government - look at Rudy. I have been telling people the 2008 election is the most important in my lifetime, and I believe that sincerely.

We met at Brandt Printing on Hickory Grove in Davenport. Shift work stopped for several hours, and Rudy was ON TIME!

His talks are focused on one of the 12 commitments. You can read more here. In Davenport he spoke about most of them, but his focus was on energy independence.

This is one of his more important commitments, as he believes it to be obscene that we are paying people who hate us for a commodity that we can replace. He compared the need for the commitment to putting a man on the moon.

Energy independence needs to be a national challenge and we are up to meeting that challenge. That challenge will be met by many substitutes for oil from the middle east.

Read this websiteQC TIMES article on the visit for more information.

or contact me at IowaForRudy@yahoo.com

(and thanks to MW for the pictures - I’m currently at a digital deficit)

“A lie told often enough becomes truth” - Vladimir Lenin.

Full article

… In Iowa to promote the presidential candidacy of his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Clinton was asked by a radio host, David Yepsen, “You had some controversial pardons during your presidency; what’s your reaction to what President Bush did?”

“Yeah, but I think the facts were different,” Mr. Clinton said. “I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”

“It’s wrong to out that C.I.A. agent and wrong to try to cover it up,” Mr. Clinton added. “And no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it.” …

——-

the C.I.A. agent was not outed by Libby or anyone at the White House, so no one should be fired from the WH for “doing it”.

For more ACCURATE information read Ben Stein’s column from this week.

… At the trial, the prosecutor had conceded that there was no underlying crime and that Libby had not “outed” anyone. But then in the sentencing phase the prosecutor completely falsified himself and claimed Libby had done serious national security damage — by naming an employee of the CIA who was not covert and not overseas, contrary to his statements at trial. …

or Christopher Hitchen’s Slate column last month:

Before savoring the full absurdity of the thing, please purge your mind of any preconceptions or confusions.

• Mr. Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
• Nobody was ever charged with breaking that law, designed to shield the names of covert agents. Indeed, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, determined that the law had not been broken in the first place.
• The identity of the person who disclosed the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak—his name is Richard Armitage, incidentally—was known to those investigating the non-illegal leak before the full-dress inquiry began to grind its way through the system, incidentally imprisoning one reporter and consuming thousands of man hours of government time (and in time of war, at that).
• The call to Russert was not about Plame in any case; it was a complaint from the vice president’s office about Chris Matthews, who was felt by some to have been overstressing the Jewish names associated with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Russert was called in his capacity as bureau chief; any chitchat about Wilson and Plame was secondary.
• The call was made after Robert Novak had put his fateful column (generated by Richard Armitage) on the wire, and after he had mentioned Plame’s identity to Karl Rove.

Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?

I will be very suprised if this verdict is not overturned on appeal.

Iowa 2007 Football schedule GO HAWKS!

This is a good time to preview the Hawkeye Football season again since scout.com has opened the premium access to their website through JULY 4.

Click here to read more yourself. (access will be limited after July 4)

Updates

I understand Shonn Greene (Running Back) has left the program. Generally understood to be failure to meat academic requirements. He’s left to attend a prep school and still has 2 years of eligibility (plans were to redshirt him in 2007 behind Sims and Young). He could come back for the 2008 season but that rarely happens once a student athlete leaves school.

Standout commits for the 2008 season are Jason Ford 4 star rating at Running Back from Belleville Illinois and 3 star (DL) Riley Reiff from South Dakota. Riley watched the Chad Greenway career at Iowa and had a 34-0 record in wrestling. At 6″ 5″ 240 as a HS Senior this guy could have a great future. James Ferentz (2 star rating, son of Coach Kirk) has also signed on for the 2008 season - he starting his senior year as a center with the Iowa City Little Hawks.

Here is a good, free, (I think) overview of the 2007 season, although they still mention Shonn as being on the roster, he is not. Amari Spievey, (CB) redshirt freshman, has also left the team - I’m assuming for academic reasons.

I usually won’t read much about Da Bears until the regular season starts.

The first Hawkeye game of the 2007 will be unusually exciting in that it will be played in Soldier Field, Chicago - home of Da Bears.