Political Football

http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26]

I’ll say some thing very politically incorrect here and ask those of you who blame ONLY President Bush for the aftermath of Katrina, to reflect on the sentence I enlarged in this document produced by the New Orleans OEP.

- ———————-

Message from Mayor C. Ray Nagin

Dear Parish Residents,

The safety and well-being of the citizens of New Orleans is my greatest priority. For this reason, our Office of Emergency Preparedness has prepared this Guide to help individuals during times of natural or man-made disaster. The information contained is designed to help everyone deal with these emergencies in an effective and successful manner. Knowledge is power and knowing what to do during an emergency can be lifesaving. Our City, due to its central gulf location, is one of the most vulnerable in America to the furies of a hurricane. Heavy rains, because of our topography, can and do cause severe flooding. Our City’s place as one of the busiest rail centers and second busiest ports exposes us to potentially numerous hazardous materials incidents. All of these factors combine to make an effective Citizen’s Guide a necessity. This, our second annual update, serves that purpose. But, like any good tool, it is useless unless read and acted upon. Its place is not on a shelf gathering dust, but in an easily accessible family emergency kit where it can be used.

The Guide’s purpose is to:

1. Inform citizens of the hazards they face.
2. Provide guidance in preparing their own individual emergency plan.
3. Advise them of the proper procedure needed to be followed in the event of an emergency.

In reviewing its contents, the reader should pay particular attention to the section on Evacuation. Knowing the routes of egress during situations such as hurricanes, can avoid needless injury and loss of life. It is my fervent hope that the information contained in the Guide will never have to be used; however, being ready for an emergency before it occurs, through adequate preparation and planning, is the first step in surviving a disaster.

Preparedness must begin with the individual and be carried over to the family, and then into the community

in order to thwart any incident or disaster that may be visited upon us. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact the Office of Emergency Preparedness (504)658-8700 located in City Hall Room 9E06, 1300 Perdido St., New Orleans, LA. 70112
Sincerely,

C. Ray Nagin
Mayor

OEP MISSION STATEMENT

The Office of Emergency Preparedness is responsible for the response and coordination of those actions needed to protect the lives and property of its citizens from natural or man-made disasters as well as emergency planning for the City of New Orleans.

Our primary responsibility is to advise the Mayor, the City Council and Chief Administrative Officer regarding emergency preparedness activities and operations. We coordinate all city departments and allied state and federal agencies which respond to city-wide disasters and emergencies through the development and constant updating of an integrated multi-hazard plan. All requests for federal disaster assistance and federal funding subsequent to disaster declarations are also made through this office.

Our authority is defined by the Louisiana Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993, Chapter 6 Section 709, Paragraph B, “Each parish shall maintain a Disaster Agency which, except as otherwise provided under this act, has jurisdiction over and serves the entire parish”.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: ERIC WOOLSON   515-681-3967 

FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, 2008           

MILLER-MEEKS: PALIN CHOICE “REFRESHING DECISION” THAT CONTRASTS OBAMA’S PLAY-IT-SAFE VP NOMINEE

OTTUMWA – Second Congressional District Republican candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks issued the following statement today regarding John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate: “John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin is a bold, refreshing decision. It is in contrast to Barack Obama’s play-it-safe choice of Joe Biden that sharply clashes with his claim that he wants to change Washington. Politics is not necessarily about doing the safe thing or what fits the status quo; it is about doing the right thing.

“It’s obvious to me that Sarah Palin is a woman that Americans are going to come to know and respect in very short order. She is a mother of five and like me, and many other professional women, has played many roles. She is a hockey mom, an outdoorswoman, and a real American, with a real passion for good government.

“She is also a leader; she has executive experience that Biden, Obama and, for that matter, Senator McCain, don’t have. She ran and was elected as a reformer with a commitment to clean government. She has strong conservative credentials with a common-sense approach to addressing our nation’s energy challenges, but is not afraid stand up to partisanship.

“Sarah Palin has proven to be very popular with her own constituents, with an 80-percent favorable opinion among Alaskans in a public opinion poll just last month. I look forward to welcoming her to Iowa soon and, most importantly, to her election as the first female vice president in our nation’s history.”

# # # #

check out remarks at Fly Over Country and Krusty 

1.) Palin has SIXTEEN years of political experience, from city council, to mayor, to governor. Barack has Nine.  
Eleven - if you consider these past 2 years of non-stop campaigning.  And it’s best not to dismiss small town politics – it can get tough especially running as a reformer.

2.) For Democrats to bring up the Down’s Syndrome child as a concern… [CNN has already mentioned it] would we have the same concern if a man were in her place?

Governor Sarah Palin has

… brought Republicans and Democrats together within her Administration and has a record of delivering on the change and reform that we need in Washington.

… has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources.

… leads a state that matters to every one of us – Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent.

… challenged a corrupt system and passed a landmark ethics reform bill.

… has used her veto and cut budgetary spending. She put a stop to the “bridge to nowhere” that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.

…  understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops.

… has the record of reform and bipartisanship that others can only speak of. Her experience in shaking up the status quo is exactly what is needed in Washington today.

Return to the Article

August 27, 2008

A Brief History of Bush’s Time

By Randall Hoven

The current narrative of the Bush Presidency is that it is a failure (believed by 107 of 109 historians surveyed) and that George W. Bush is the worst President in history (believed by 61% of those surveyed historians).  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, “The president already has the mark of the American people — he’s the worst president we ever had.”

That’s one narrative.  I have another.

Despite being handed one of the worst situations in history from President Clinton, and being fought tooth and nail by his opponents in government and the media, literally from the day of his election, President George W. Bush persevered to restore prosperity at home and to make the US and the world more free and secure.

The 2000 Election and Transition to Office
On November 7, 2000, voters went to the polls and elected George W. Bush to be President of the United States.  After initially conceding defeat in a private phone call to Bush, Al Gore decided instead to contest the outcome in Florida.  He sued for various recounts and was joined by the Florida Supreme Court, while Bush fought for counting votes per the rules in place prior to the election.

Complaints that Bush “stole” the election boiled down to two: (1) we should use a method of determining the winner other than the one in the Constitution, and (2) we should use a method of determining “voter intent” other than by counting legally cast ballots per the rules in place prior to the election.

Later recounts would show that George W. Bush would have won the election in Florida under any method considered by either Al Gore or the Florida Supreme Court.

“The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue.”

Al Gore would not concede in public until December 13, more than a month after the election.  But the Clinton administration denied the Bush team the keys to the transition office set up two blocks from the White House and waiting since November 8, until December 15.  Normally a newly-elected President is provided a transition office the day after the election.  George W. Bush was finally allowed to use his just 36 days before being sworn in as President, or less than half the transition time allowed other Presidents-elect.
The Pre-Bush Situation and His First Eight Months
A year before Bush took office, the stock market peaked and subsequently declined 8% by the end of 2000.  The last four fiscal quarters under President Clinton showed steadily declining GDP growth rates of 4.8, 3.5, 2.4, and 1.9 percent, respectively.  When Bush took office, the US Government was still operating under the fiscal budget signed by President Clinton, and would remain so for more than another eight months.  Within six weeks of Bush being sworn in, the economy was officially in recession.
On the defense front, President Bush was handed a smoldering crisis that had been brewing throughout President Clinton’s two terms.

• The World Trade Center was bombed by Islamists in 1993, killing six and injuring 1,042.
• We lost 18 US Special Ops forces in Mogadishu while fighting Islamist allies of Osama bin Laden.
• Osama bin Laden declared war against the U.S. in his fatwa of 1996.
• The Khobar Towers used to house our servicemen in Saudi Arabia were bombed by Islamists in 1996, killing 19 US servicemen.
• Our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were bombed in 1998 by bin Laden supported Islamists, killing at least 223 and injuring thousands.
• Pakistan and India both successfully tested nuclear warheads in 1998, to the surprise of our CIA.
• The USS Cole was bombed in 2000 by Islamists, killing 17 US sailors.
• In Israel, the Oslo accords had broken down, the PLO had rejected the most generous “peace for land” deal ever offered, and the intifada was back in business by the end of 2000.
• Nations pursuing nuclear weapon capability (beyond Pakistan and India, who had it by 1998) were North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya.

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had kicked out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998 and was in defiance of multiple UN resolutions from 1991 through 2000.  Saddam’s Iraq had tried to assassinate former President Bush and fired thousands of times at US and coalition forces enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations.
Throughout this time, President Clinton’s administration forbade communications between the CIA and the FBI regarding terrorists or terrorist activities.  Clinton withdrew US forces from Somalia shortly after the Mogadishu incident.  And he treated the terrorist incidents as crimes to be dealt with by our legal system.
When he did send missiles into Iraq, he made sure it was at night so no one would get hurt.  According to the Washington Post,

“Clinton ordered the attack Friday, but the raid was delayed a day so it would not fall on the Muslim sabbath… The missiles struck late at night — between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. Baghdad time — because Clinton wished to minimize possible deaths of innocent civilians.”

I’m thinking a strike at 2 am would also minimize possible deaths of guilty Baathists.
On September 11, 2001, or less than eight months after President Bush took office, Islamist terrorists perpetrated the worst attack by foreigners on US soil since the burning of Washington, DC, in 1812, killing almost 3,000 civilians.  The attackers had been planning and preparing it for five years.
That was President Bush’s welcome to office. A recession within two months.  The 9/11 attacks within eight months. And an Iraq in continual defiance of its terms of surrender, multiple UN resolutions and WMD inspectors.  And this after being given only half the transition time as usual.
The Following Seven Years
By November 2001 the recession was officially over, just one month under Bush’s own budget, weeks after 9/11 and just 10 months into a Bush Presidency.  It was an historically short and shallow recession.  From 2003 through 2006, all under President Bush and a Republican Congress, real GDP grew over 3% per year, considered a healthy and sustainable pace.  By early 2008, the real economy had grown about 20% since Bush took office.  Since President Bush took office, the economy has grown in every single fiscal quarter; there has been no quarter of negative real growth.
Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?  If you are anywhere near average, yes.  Personal, disposable, inflation-adjusted income grew 9% in the first six years under Bush.  Since Bush has been President, the unemployment rate has remained under 6.3% and averaged 5.2%  (In Clinton’s eight years it remained under 7.3% and also averaged 5.2%.)
On the foreign front, President Bush used “aggressive diplomacy” to convince Pakistan to support us in fighting against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and to allow us insight into the status of its nuclear weapons.  India, the other new member of the nuclear club, remained on good terms with us throughout.
President Bush, with Congressional support, our NATO allies and our first-rate military, freed the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban warlords, helped install a democracy there, captured or killed hundreds of al Qaida there and drove those remaining, probably including Osama bin Laden and his top commanders, to remote mountains and caves.  By also cutting off funding sources and communications channels, al Qaida appears to have been rendered ineffective as a coordinated network of terrorists under any kind of effective command and control.  It’s possible ad hoc “cells” of those sympathetic to al Qaida might still do some damage on US soil, but none have so far.
President Bush, with large and bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, support from more than 45 countries and our first-rate military, freed the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, helped install a democracy there, and captured or killed hundreds of al Qaida, radical Islamists and other terrorists there.  Saddam’s WMD capabilities, programs and remaining weapons were removed from an outlaw regime.  I have written elsewhere on the justification of the Iraq war, which was supported by both pre-war and post-war intelligence.
President Bush, with diplomacy, the example of Iraq and the assistance of foreign allies, convinced Libya to cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
President Bush, using diplomacy and working with China, Japan and South Korea, appears to have reached a breakthrough with North Korea, getting it to dismantle its plutonium creating sites and to allow intrusive inspections. While this all needs to be finalized and verified, such progress illustrates President Bush’s skill at effective diplomacy – one that has real results, not paper promises quickly broken and never verified.
Iran is still a problem, but even there President Bush is waging diplomacy in concert with our allies and the United Nations.
In short, all the new and major WMD proliferation threats were dealt with one way or another: Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya.  They are not all put to rest, but about three-and-a-half of the five biggies appear to have been dealt with sufficiently.  And terrorists, even those inside Iraq and Afghanistan at this point, seem to be kept at bay for now as well.
I think these are tremendous achievements, and ones that would not have occurred under either a President Gore or President Kerry.
But what have been the costs?  In dollars, defense spending has gone from 3% of GDP to 4%.  That’s it — a level that is still below where it was for over 50 years, from World War II through 1994.
In US lives, 4,147 servicemen lost their lives due to hostile or non-hostile action in Iraq to date.  Each lost life is a tragedy, and I am deeply grateful to our lost troops and their families.  From 2001 to 2006, the worst year for active military duty deaths was 2005, with 1,941 deaths due to all causes.  In 1980, President Carter’s last year, there were 2,392 such deaths in a larger military establishment.  Each year in which we had troops engaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan saw fewer US military deaths than any year from 1980 through 1987, all years without major conflicts.  The major conflicts of World War II, Korea and Vietnam had 405,399, 36,574, and 58,209 fatalities, respectively.
Judging A President

“However tempting it might be to some, when much trouble lies ahead, to step aside adroitly and put someone else up to take the blows, I do not intend to take that cowardly course, but, on the contrary, to stand to my post and persevere in accordance with my duty as I see it.”

If we use these words of Winston Churchill to judge our presidents, did President Bush “step aside adroitly” or did he stand his post and “persevere”?  He has surely taken the blows.

Well – tonight is the night for Obama – to accept his historic nomination (and no matter what – it is historic) and most will say fittingly, on the 45th Anniversary of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” Speech.  Too bad most do not know what -pf informed me of recently – that MLK was a Republican. (”What?” you say. I think -pf did a link but if she didn’t, she should).

Nightly News previewed the speech and said Obama would have at least 2 definite pledges.  Look forward to hearing specifics.

Last night Bill Clinton, as predicted, did give a very good and very effective speech —- first to the steadfast Democrats and secondly to the middle-of-the-roaders.  He recalled his own unexpected rise (tho he had been Governor and had executive experience) and that people called him inexperienced in foreign matters.  He did claim that his foreign policy was successful.  However I would challenge those willing to believe him to consider that 1) Clinton never retaliated against early terrorist attacks against the US that emboldened Bin Laden/others later on to 9-11  and 2) he didn’t press the UN to keep pressure on Saddam Hussein.  Except for US Kosovo involvement I don’t recall any monumental foreign policy advancements or actions.  (am I faulty in  memory?)

Regarding the economic stability of boom of Clinton’s time — it always confounds me that people don’t understand that there are cycles — booms and busts, bears and bulls in free markets.  And that Congress was more responsible than the President.  Usually Presidents have very little effect on the economy.  Perhaps I am naive but this is what I remember from Micro and Macro Economics in college and what I hear from good friends who work in high levels of NYC powerhouse firms.

[Side bar :  I am still mystified why most people are horrified about the genocide in Darfur and urge action but were not similarly so about Saddam murdering his own people indiscriminately.  And to clarify - I am also horrified about Darfur.]

Biden’s speech was also very effective – powerful in style and substance.  Mama Biden was adorable up in the balcony.  Biden came across sincere in his “friendship” with McCain but strong in his assessment that McCain was wrong.  A friend from TN pointed out to me that he was a bit confusing and I agreed.  Some of his comments seemed incongruous when talking about Iraq and Afghanistan.  And, of course, Biden couldn’t mention that McCain was right about the surge or that Biden had called for the partition of Iraq.

As of last night (and later tonight) – it does seem like it is Obama’s election to lose.  I still think tonight’s setting is over the top and I love “theatre” but in appropriate circumstances.  I thought last night that McCain can not compete in style or drama so he better deliver in substance and that he has to have legitimate answers to people’s economic concerns.  It is not enough to keep trotting out “I was a POW” (while I do admire his and countless others’ sacrifice who have and continue to serve) or to count on Anti-Obama voters.  McCain has to be the maverick he used to be and still claims to be.  The economy is the number one issue for everyone I believe.

Personally - I have been a fortunate recipient of government aid but I want to work – and my only chance is for there to be plenty of jobs available because I will not be, most likely, a companies’ first choice.  For there to be plenty of jobs, companies, hospitals and non-profits have to have money to hire.  Raising taxes probably would not aid in that effort.

If nothing else in the past few months I have realized nothing comes easy and though it is tempting to whine, I am responsible for whatever success – if any – I hope to have.

It would be easy to pull the lever or punch the chad for “change” sake but that may be just a little too easy.    LG

Argh – it happened again – wrote a decent post (I thought) and it disappeared. –pf will yell at me because I did forget to hit “save” periodically.

So I don’t think I can recreate it verbatim but will try to do the highlights.

Thought Sen. Clinton’s speech was effective – especially thought the lines starting with “were you in it ….” ending with her seemingly impassioned plea to vote Obama/Democrats. I heard commentators later and have read today some people think that she didn’t list any personal qualities of Obama that would point to him being a leader – nor did she list his accomplishments (I ask again – what are his Senate accomplishments?). What I did think though is that her hardcore supporters will once again wonder how their gal didn’t get the top spot on the ticket or at the least the VP nod.

I am not convinced however that her speech alone “united” the party as the pundits on CNN, no doubt MSNBC (can’t watch that station anymore), NBC and probably CBS and ABC (didn’t tune in to them at all) all said. Only Fox said there are probably still questions among Democrats and especially Hillary loyalists.

What I am sure about is that I am tired of these stations proclaiming it a fait accompli that Obama is the next President and worshiping at his altar. I will admit that there are some things about Obama that I do find positive. And while I have always been a fan of Sen. McCain – he does have some cons to his campaign. But – as our founding father so simply put it “We the people” get to decide – not the media and the Hollywood Elite (who smugly think Obama is the next coming as well).

Here is an excerpt of a letter I wrote to Jeff Zucker and Steve Capus of NBC Universal and NBC News respectively: If Mr. Matthews is so passionately for Sen. Obama perhaps he should go into the private sector and get himself a radio talk show where he can espouse his platitudes and biases in a forum that does not pretend to be or have to be impartial. I think of Edward R. Murrow shining a harsh light on Sen. Joe McCarthy during the 1950s. Mr. Murrow was showing the danger of a man telling Americans what to think. Please explain how the media today telling Americans what to think is not dangerous? I do believe Mr. Murrow would be disgraced by what passes as journalism in 2008.

If the media doesn’t back off – we Americans are stubborn (a good trait) and will indeed show who is still in charge – “we the people.” What the media should do is to go back to its roots and report fairly and without bias so “we the people” can make up our own discerning minds. Unquestionably Obama will give a good speech tomorrow. What I still wonder about though is if he is to show that he has the gravitas to be our United States leader why is he giving this most important speech in an open air arena where football games and concerts are held?

This is a setting more for a rock star than for a statesman in my humble opinion.

Will look forward to hearing Biden tonight and also to Clinton as his speech should be most entertaining.      LG

Well, here I am already putting in my two cents.  -pf may be sorry she invited me to blog along with her!

Watched Dem Convention 1st night with real interest to see if I could get a better handle on what Obama stands for other than “change.”  Heck – I stand for change also – change in my purse, change in employment opportunities, change in my bank account, change in access across America and the world (as in handicap access), change in attitudes toward the disabled and more change in my dresser coin jar (sense a theme here?).  So – I stand for that – how will I bring it about?  I’m getting my resume done and gearing up for job interviewing, am stop spending money on incidentals, am writing letters advocating for access and am doing presentations at schools to help kids understand people with disabilities are just people – nothing wrong with us.  These are concrete plans – whether they pan out remains to be seen but I’ve put them out there to hold myself accountable.

I believe in a better America also and so does -pf which is why she’s campaigning for a worthy congressional candidate.  Obama says he believes in a better America but how does a less than one full term Senator accomplish that?  What are his concrete plans?  Why won’t he do a Town Hall meeting to discuss his plans with his opponent?  I want to hear the concrete plans now before the election.  I want to hear plans from both candidates – concrete plans that will hold them accountable.  In my humble opinion – not enough people are held accountable anymore (well, John Edwards may actually disagree right now).  Certainly the general public isn’t holding Congress accountable except that they give it the lowest rating ever.  What is Congress’ response?  Speaker Pelosi blames the President.  Even though I majored in American Studies at Smith I knew from grade school that Congress legislates – it is the Legislature – it’s supposed to write laws.  What are Sen. Obama’s laws that he has written/sponsored?  Shouldn’t we all be very familiar with them by now since he is a Presidential candidate? 

Perhaps Michelle Obama should have let us know her husband’s accomplishments in the Senate using concrete language not flowery adjectives.  Mrs. Obama’s speech I thought started out weakly (would have liked to have fixed her opening parts in a different order) but finished more strongly although I didn’t feel any passion – I wasn’t moved.  Much to my surprise that wily James Carville (Dem Pundit) on CNN said the Dems didn’t present a coherent message all night.  For me – the night’s highlight was Sen. Teddy Kennedy.  It was clear to me he pushed himself to be heard and his shaky voice carried more conviction that Mrs. Obama’s.

Look forward to hearing Chelsea and Sen. Clinton tonight.  Do you think she will truly implore her supporters to get behind Sen. Obama?  I’m not convinced it’ll work.  Afterall women may feel that if they waited over 100 years for their right to vote – they could wait another 4 for their gal. 

Libra Girl

Ok – this is my second attempt – after having written such a nice first post with lots of nice compliments to our gracious host, -pf but the first post (argh!) disappeared into cyber oblivion.  I’ll write more again later with more of what I orginally wrote by way of background info in different posts.  But now (via telephone tutorial session) -pf is asking me to share some of my credentials (such as they are) that make me somewhat qualified to opine. 

I grew up in a politically active family – my dad was longtime chair of the Republican Party in the town I grew up in and before that was Precinct chair in the Bronx.  My mom was always president of the Women’s Republican Club.  As a young child I was trotted out to serve peanuts at many cocktail parties.  Years later as a grown up I was peripherally involved in town politics and some neighbors still say I have a keen insider’s look (thanks Mom and Dad).

Majored in American Studies (not History) at Smith College (graduated in 1989) and had always wanted to end up in DC but alas, was not to be.  I still hold on to my belief born out of a college class on Presidential Elections that the system was irrevocably broken at the dawn of the TV Presidential Primary age.  Remember – we got my adored Harry S. Truman (yes, I know he was a Democrat) because of back room party leaders calling the shots – and he turned out ok.  Nowadays I don’t think President Truman would have a chance if he were on TV.

-pf thinks I have stuff to say that makes sense so she is inviting me to post from time to time – not so much to link other stories but to opine personally on what’s going.

 Look forward to posting periodically and hopefully you’ll all think my comments - whether you agree or not – are worth reading.

Libra Girl

I think we need a new category on this blog. “Pass the Popcorn”

some good stuff here

Source of information below

On McCain:
Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”

Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who…”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”

On Obama:
Reacting to an Obama speech on counterterrorism, August 1, 2007: “‘Look, the truth is the four major things he called for, well, hell that’s what I called for,’ Biden said today on MSNBC’s Hardball, echoing comments he made earlier in the day at an event promoting his book at the National Press Club. Biden added, ‘I’m glad he’s talking about these things.’”

Also that day, the Biden campaign issued a release that began, “The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden’s long-held views on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That release mocked Obama for asking about the “stunning level of mercury in fish” and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Also from that Observer interview: “But — and the ‘but’ was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect ‘a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,’ and added: ‘I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.’”

Around that time, Biden in an interview with the Huffington Post, he assessed Obama and Hillary Clinton: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

December 11, 2007: “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate,” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. “But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

Also that night, Biden said in a campaign ad, “When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

September 26, 2007: Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said, “Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden’s critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq.

December 26, 2006: “Frankly, I think I’m more qualified than other candidates, and the issues facing the American public are all in my wheelbarrow.”

On Iraq:
Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

Biden, on Obama’s Iraq plan in August 2007: “I don’t want [my son] going [to Iraq],” Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.” Biden criticized Democratic rivals such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama who have voted against Iraq funding bills to try to pressure President Bush to end the war. “There’s no political point worth my son’s life,” Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. “There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there. None.”

Biden on Meet the Press, April 29, 2007: “The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon — not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was — every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of — after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says “We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed” or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away.”

Biden to the Brookings Institution in 2005: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”

Analyzing the surge on Meet the Press, September 9, 2007: “I mean, the truth of the matter is that, that the — America’s — this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure, and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and — long enough to give political reconciliation, there’s been no political reconciliation… The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no, no real security in Baghdad and/or in Anbar province, where I was, dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is as strong and as solid and as serious a problem as it was before the surge started.”

Biden in October of 2002: “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”

On Meet the Press, January 7, 2007, assessing the proposal of a surge of troops to Iraq: “If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there’s no way to say, ‘Mr. President, stop.’”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “Unless we fundamentally change the rotation dates and fundamentally change how many members of the National Guard we’re calling up, it’ll be virtually impossible to maintain 150,000 folks this year.” (The number of troops in Iraq peaked at 162,000 in August 2007, during the surge.)

Miller-Meeks in the Press

Iowa Independent Article

Radio Iowa Article

HawkeyeGOP Article

The Burlington Hawkeye Article

Ottumwa Courier Article 

KTVO-TV Article

Krustie Konservative article from Aug 8

Muscatine Journal MMM-joins Muscatine Bike Club for ride

and, don’t forget to bookmark…

Miller-Meeks for Congress Website

Video link – “Roles”

Bar Room Economics:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings ) The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,”exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

************************************

Welcome to the Party

I was talking to a friend’s little girl the other day. I asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she replied, “I want to be President!”

Both of her parents are liberal Democrats and were standing there.

So then I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied, “I’d give houses to all the homeless people.”

“Wow – what a worthy goal.” I told her, “You don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where this homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house.”

Since she is only 10, she thought that over for a few seconds.

While her Mom glared at me, the child looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

And I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Her folks still aren’t talking to me.

Link to article

Democrats Offer Lesson in Misleading on Taxes: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett

Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) — Last week, the Government Accountability Office released a report that revealed why Washington is so broken: Democratic politicians too often act like U.S. businesses are the enemy.

The report had the unassuming title of “Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005.” It is hard to imagine that such a dry topic could set off a firestorm, but it did.

The problem was the first chart in the report. It showed that 60 percent to 70 percent of companies in the U.S. pay no taxes. That led to an Associated Press story with the startling headline, “Most Companies in U.S. Avoid Federal Income Taxes,” and to a frenzy of business bashing by leading Democrats.

Byron Dorgan, the Democratic senator from North Dakota, said in a statement, “It’s shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi piled on, arguing that the data revealed a fundamental unfairness in the U.S. system, and called for reform.

“When two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes,” Pelosi said, “American workers are forced to pay too much in taxes even as they cope with rising prices and falling wages.”

The study seemed to play right into the Democratic us – against – them playbook. Evil corporations rake in the cash and then play dirty tricks to avoid taxes. That leaves the little guy with the bill for our government.

The problem is, the study showed no such thing.

No Profit, No Tax

First, while it is true that 60 percent to 70 percent of companies in the study paid no tax in a given year, there was a big qualification. The study focused on an Internal Revenue Service tax database that included millions and millions of companies. The vast majority of firms in the study were tiny mom- and-pop enterprises.

Why did the tiny mom-and-pop enterprises pay no taxes? Because they didn’t make any money! The study reported that was the reason about 80 percent of the firms in the sample avoided taxes in a given year. How terrible of them.

If the GAO issued a report that added together data for nine hot dog stands and General Electric Co., and found that 90 percent of companies didn’t pay any tax, it would be a harmless and silly thing to do. But if the Democrats then rush to the microphones and insinuate to the general public that 90 percent of companies are tax dodgers, the stakes change.

How can it be that so many small businesses made no money? Companies tended to have no profits because they had large deductions including wages. Hot dog vendors can pay themselves a wage, in which case they have no profits but pay wage taxes, or they can take their money in profits, in which case they pay profits tax. The data suggest they tend to do the former.

Double Taxation

Most of them do this for a simple reason: we still have double taxation of dividends. If you are a hot dog vendor in the top tax bracket and you pay yourself $100, then you pay $35 in taxes. If you keep it as profit and then pay it to yourself as a dividend, you pay a $35 corporate tax, and then a 15 percent dividend tax on top of it. Why would anyone choose the latter? To do so would be to pay more taxes voluntarily.

For big corporations, the story is different, and utterly inconsistent with the Democratic screed. The study found that about 75 percent of large companies (those with sales above $50 million) paid taxes in 2005, about typical for recent U.S. history. And those that didn’t pay taxes in 2005 did so earlier, so almost no companies went through the sample period without paying taxes. The latter is, again, typical.

News Hole

In other words, there was virtually no news in the study. But that didn’t stop the Democrats, and that’s what is so disturbing. Democratic politicians misused and misrepresented the results of this modest GAO study to bash America’s corporations and call for sweeping “reforms.” If they will do so in response to this minor document, one can only conclude that they will do so on the flimsiest of excuses.

Leaders of the Democratic Party are so eager to portray American business as villainous that they will twist and distort facts in order justify even more punitive taxes than we already have.

The truth is, of course, that we are all in it together. Workers will have better jobs if the U.S. is a more attractive climate for corporations. That means we need to reduce corporate taxes, not increase them.

And that is why Washington is so broken. You can’t split the difference when one side is so egregiously wrong.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in his bid for the 2008 presidential nomination. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org

Last Updated: August 18, 2008 00:03 EDT

update 8/17 – here is a LINK that is interesting enough to revive this post for now. And anyone who can compare Obama’s experience to JFK’s wartime experience and prosection of the mob while he was in the Senate is lacking historical perspective.

Posted below is a PDF of an article from the NYTimes that tells where inexperience can be deadly. kennedy-talked-khrushchev-triumphed.pdf

Edited from a 7/20 post

Who said this: “Ask not, what your Country can do for you”

Who said this: “If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost.”

I could end my comparison right there… but there’s more.

As Obama prepares for his coronation during his European tour this week, there is a lot of noise comparing Obama to JFK, John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States. This is absurd on the surface and even more ridiculous as we start to unlayer the facts.

In 1968 as a teenager, I started to question the Republican Party as Bobby Kennedy was running for president and he was an energy not to be ignored… But LBJ’s horrible handling of the Vietnam war was what kept me on the other side. History does show that John and Robert Kennedy were patriots and statesmen. Teddy Kennedy must not have inherited much intelligence, he inherited the roving eye gene.

Obama is young with a melodious voice. There – he’s young – that’s it. And a good speaker and he looks good. So did JFK.

Many have said that both Robert and John Kennedy would be Republicans in the current atmosphere of politics and I agree.

Both John and Robert Kennedy were students of history. Living in England just before WWII, John Kennedy wrote “While England Slept” as a college project. Today he would write “While The American Left Slept” blasting ignoring obvious facts of the day. Hmmm… wasn’t it a History exam that Teddy was caught cheating on in college? See what I mean about that Teddy boy? [nope it was a Spanish test]

Obama is not a student of history Link

Interestingly he doesn’t even remember recent history – his own! LINK LINK

Both JFK and Robert Kennedy were supporters of a strong national defense, and stood up to Khrushchev in a shrewed political gamble that almost started WWIII – Twice! (Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis) “Peace through Strength”

Obama wants to totally disarm LINK LINK

Be very afraid of an Obama Presidency.

One might wonder how one can manage “respect for the office while not always respectful of the occupant” in the course of writing “opinion columns” in her office.

Charming… 

And I love how the MSM separates itself as special by saying… “the mainstream press under perpetual siege” … ??? From whom?  For what?  Really?  Is it scary out there? Aren’t humans of all nationalities under perpetual siege of some type?  Whaaaa… Get over it. -pf

LINK to original article

Vlad, You’ve Got Mail
Presidential inbox invasion.

By Kathleen Parker

From President George W. Bush:

Dear Vlad:

Beijing is weird. First of all, you can’t breathe the air. Second, how ‘bout those drummers? Sure, they’re perfect, but that’s the point. A billion Chinese see 2,000 drummers in sync and say, “Well done, my little emperor son.” I see 2,000 drummers all moving with one motion and I’m thinking: “Whoa.” Can anybody say MIL-I-TAR-Y PRE-CI-SION?

Hey, which reminds me. What’s up with Georgia? This is not good, Vlad. You and I have had our moments. And, OK, fine, your dog’s bigger than mine. A lot bigger. Stronger and faster, too. We got it. But you can’t just go invading democratically elected countries that are U.S. allies. You can’t have everything, Vlad. If you don’t stop, I’m going to have to do something and you know I don’t want that. What I want is for you to not make me look like a fool.

Look, Vlad. Seven years ago, it was you and me in Crawford. We had a blast. You loved my truck! We bonded. I went out on a very big limb and told the whole dadgum world that we were soul mates. “I looked the man in the eye,” I said. “I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy,” I said. Oh, yeah, and, “We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

Trustworthy, Vlad. Got soul? Why not just hire the Goodyear Blimp and paint “Mission Accomplished” on the side? Here’s the deal, Vlad. I love ya, man. But you gotta stop this. If you don’t call a cease-fire and leave those Georgians alone, I’m going to have to whomp you upside the head. Just kiddin.’ But you know how this looks. Your invasion of a sovereign neighboring state is unacceptable in the 21st century — blahblahblah — and you’re hurting Russia’s standing in the world, not to mention our relationship.

Oh, and by the way. We’re talking 4 million people here. Four million, Vlad. You wanna let the big dog eat? Fine. Pick on somebody your own size. And yes, your pecs are bigger than mine. Whatever. Hey, gotta split. It’s Kobe time. Take care and give my love to that cute little gymnast of yours.

Ciao amigo,
Bushy

P.S. Did you catch the American women’s beach volleyball team?

From Sen. Barack Obama:

Dear (Former) President Putin:

I’m sorry to be writing this e-mail instead of meeting you in person, preferably in the Oval Office, where I belong. Soon, soon.

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the foregoing, I felt it imperative that I express my deep concern about Russia’s invasion of the tiny, democratically elected sovereign nation of Georgia. It would appear that you are not familiar with my platform for change and hope. War does not fit into this template and I am quite frankly at a loss for words to express my deep, deep distress.

As the chosen leader of a new generation of Americans who speak a global language of peace, hope, harmony and change, this is simply unacceptable. Quite frankly, your actions pose potentially severe, long-term consequences. I’m not sure what those might be, but they won’t be nice or fun.

Please picture me looking very serious when I say that I respectfully request you to calm down. Life is but a flicker in time and we’re but actors strutting and fretting. That is to say, we’re all on this planetary journey together and our karma is interrelated and interdependent. Thus, it would seem that our differences are best resolved through words, not bombs.

It is said that war is a failure of diplomacy. I would submit that it is also counterintuitive. If my Kenyan father and my Kansan mother and my multinational upbringing taught me anything, it is that we are all One. That said, I am The One the world has been waiting for — and you are, quite frankly, blocking my chi.

As soon as possible, I’d like to sit down and begin talking about how we can resolve these and other differences that threaten peace-loving people, which I’m sure includes you. I haven’t looked into your eyes and would never presume to know your soul, but I do know that we share a common humanity and that we can all just get along.

Yours in Global Harmony,
Acting President Barack Obama

From Sen. John McCain:

Hey, Putin.

McCain

LINK to original article

LINK to Powerlineblog article on the same subject

How Clooney offers good friend Obama advice on issues from body language to Iraq

By Caroline Graham and Sharon Churcher
Last updated at 11:39 AM on 11th August 2008

George Clooney once famously declared he could never run for public office because he’d ‘slept with too many women, done too many drugs and been to too many parties’.

But now the Hollywood heart-throb has entered the political arena at
the highest level – by becoming an unofficial adviser to US Presidential front-runner Barack Obama.

Oscar-winner Clooney, 47, is said to be helping the Democratic candidate to polish his image at home and abroad.

But he is also sharing with Obama his strong opinions on Iraq and the Middle East.

Close: Oscar-winner George Clooney is said to call Barack Obama at least twice a week

Sources say the actor has tried to hide the pair’s friendship for fear his Left-wing views and playboy image would hurt the Presidential hopeful’s bid for the White House.

But Democratic Party insiders have revealed that Clooney and Obama regularly send texts and emails to each other and speak by phone at least twice a week.

One said last night: ‘They are extremely close. A number of members of the Hollywood community, including Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, offered to help raise funds for Barack but it was with George that he struck up this amazing affinity.

‘George has been giving him advice on things such as presentation, public speaking and body language and he also emails him constantly about policy, especially the Middle East.

‘George is pushing him to be more “balanced” on issues such as US relations with Israel.

‘George is pro-Palestinian. And he is also urging Barack to withdraw unconditionally from Iraq if he wins.

‘It’s a very risky relationship. His hope of becoming America’s first black President depends heavily on winning over conservative voters and it would be suicidal for him to be perceived as a tool of a Hollywood Leftie, which is how they regard George.

‘But they text and email each other almost every day and speak on the phone at least a couple of times a week, often more.’

The Ocean’s Eleven star is among many Hollywood figures to have endorsed Obama, including Barbra Streisand, Scarlett Johansson, Warren Beatty and Steven Spielberg.

One of Clooney’s trusted acquaintances said: ‘George is a master at crafting his own image and he is helping Obama to hone his image both domestically and abroad.

‘He told me he feels Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime leader. He is doing everything he can behind the scenes to bolster support in Hollywood, not just with other celebrities but with the money men at the studios.’

The acquaintance added: ‘He has tried to keep the true extent of their involvement out of the Press because he is frightened of alienating voters.’

Clooney himself has admitted in an interview: ‘I’ve had the conversation with him saying, “Look, I’ll give you whatever support you need, including staying completely away from you.”’

The star has never tried to hide his liberal views and last week announced he is making a £15million film about the lawyer who defended Osama Bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Hamdan, on terror charges.

Clooney’s spokesman Stan Rosen-feld said last night: ‘I know they have spoken. I view it as a private conversation.’ Obama’s Press office did not comment.

wow, it’s been a week since I’ve posted anything – sorry…  probably wont be able to update much for a few days.

here’s a link to a Candidate interview – good story…   -pf   LINK 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: ERIC WOOLSON 515-681-3967

TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2008

MILLER-MEEKS: SECOND DISTRICT AWAITS LEADERSHIP AS CONGRESSIONAL RECESS COULD DELAY STATE FLOOD RESPONSE

OTTUMWA – With the top Democrat in the Iowa General Assembly expressing concern that the current congressional recess could delay state flood-relief efforts, GOP congressional candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks said today that she would carry word of Iowans’ plight “whenever and wherever necessary” to spur quicker action on Capitol Hill.

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said the congressional recess has created a “challenge” for state officials who were working toward a Sept. 2 special legislative session. He said it would be difficult for Iowa officials to know what action to take without knowing whether the state will be responsible for a 10 percent match of federal funds or a 25-percent match. He is concerned that Iowa officials may not know the level of federal funding to expect until at least mid-September when Congress is currently scheduled to return to Washington from a summer campaign break.

“I respect the point that Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is making. This is why it is so very important that we elect a leader from the Second Congressional District in November instead of someone who follows,” said Miller-Meeks, an Ottumwa Republican. “We have to have someone in there who is going to do what it takes to get congressional leaders’ attention and convince them to do the right thing, if they aren’t inclined to do it themselves. At this point, Dave Loebsack seems content to say, ‘I tried.’ Trying isn’t enough in this case. The people who have lost everything in Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Columbus Junction, Oakville and other areas need more than that.”

Miller-Meeks added, “It’s time for Congress to go back to Washington and do its job. One thing is certain, if I was representing this district today I would not stop talking about the flood whenever and wherever necessary until Iowans got some answers and we got federal aid where it needed to be.”

Miller-Meeks, an Ottumwa ophthalmologist and former University of Iowa faculty member, has more than 24 years of service in the U.S. Army and Army Reserve. The Second Congressional District includes 15 counties: Appanoose, Cedar, Davis, Des Moines, Henry, Jefferson, Johnson, Lee, Linn, Louisa, Muscatine, Van Buren, Wapello, Washington and Wayne.

# # # #

It has always bothered me that a majority of Jewish people and African Americans trend Democrat not Republican.  It really makes no sense, but politics rarely does…  This article was published in the Washington Times in 2004 and was written by the same person who runs this website LINK -pf

LINK  (to original article below)

During the Kennedy administration, the Republican minority in Congress introduced many bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, including a comprehensive new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a return by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, John Kennedy abruptly decided to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. Hastily drafted in a singleall-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what our party had introduced into Congress the month before. Over the next several months, Democratic racists in Congress geared up for a protracted filibuster against the civil-rights bill. The bill was before a committee in the House when Kennedy was assasinated in November 1963.

Invoking his slain predecessor, Lyndon Johnson made passage of the bill his top priority, and in his first speech to Congress he urged representatives and senators to do “more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined.” Though he shared Johnson’s convictions on safeguarding the constitutional rights of blacks, if Richard Nixon had been in the White House then instead, Democrats in favor of segregation and those unwilling to see a Republican achieve the victory would have blocked his legislative initiative in Congress.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Sen. Charles Sumner’s 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th Amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

Mindful of how Democratic opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House would pass the bill.

In the Senate, then-Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Sen. Hubert Humphrey led the Democratic drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democratic Sens. Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd. Mr. Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate,” filibustered against the civil rights bill for 14 straight hours before the final vote. The House passed the bill by 289-126, a vote in which 79 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73-27, with 21 Democrats and only six Republicans voting no. Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.

Overall, there was little overt resistance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The struggle was not yet over, however, as most Southern state governments remained under the control of segregationist Democrats. It was a Republican federal judge who desegregated many public facilities in the South. Appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955, Judge Frank Johnson had overturned Montgomery, Alabama’s infamous “blacks in the back of the bus” law in his very first decision. During the 1960s, Judge Johnson continued to advance civil rights, despite opposition from George Wallace, Lester Maddox and other Democratic governors.

Michael Zak is a policy analyst for the House Republican Policy Committee. This essay is adapted from “Back to Basics for the Republican Party.”

DID YOU KNOW?

The Republican Party Played a Leading Role in Securing the Right to Vote for Women.

In 1776 the Declaration of Independence declared “all men are created equal” however, some believed that because it did not use the word *women*specifically that women should not be included. Therefore half the population of the United States suffered silently for the next 72 years before the first women’s rights conference was held in Seneca, New York.

Supporters of Suffrage for Women continued the long hard-fought battle for another 72 years before women won the right to vote.

In 1896 the Republicans were the first major political party to support women’s suffrage when Republican Senator A. A. Sargent of California introduced a proposal to grant women the right to vote. Sadly the proposal was defeated four times in the Democrat-controlled senate.

When the Republicans regained control of Congress, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed (304 to 88). The  amendment was then submitted to the states for ratification and 26 of the 36 states that ratified the 19thAmendment had Republican-controlled legislatures. Of the ten states that voted *against* ratification, eight were controlled by Democrats. The 19th Amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920, upon its ratification by Tennessee, the thirty-sixth state to do so. US Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby certified the ratification on August 26, 1920.

It is interesting to note that twelve states, *ALL* with Republican-controlled legislatures, had granted women full suffrage BEFORE the amendment was finally ratified.

Damn rich people anyway…. now since this is in the papers, it has to be true, right? (just checking)

Frankly I think we should put Ed Begley, Jr in charge of Eco – improvements. I love his “living with ed” show and think he’s my kinda environment wacko. If more of us were like him, idiots like algore would melt into the atmosphere. -pf

——–

Link

Branson’s bogus eco-drive
03 August 2008 By Stephen Price
The Virgin boss’s much trumpeted pledge of €1.9bn to tackle global warming is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

In September 2006, Virgin boss Richard Branson pledged €1.9 billion towards tackling global warming. For the next ten years, he announced, the profits from his aviation and rail businesses would go towards combating the biggest, most complex problem that mankind has ever faced. The promise earned Branson headlines around the world. Media outlets carried photos of him, Bill Clinton and Al Gore at a Clinton Global Initiative press conference in New York. Adults, Branson solemnly told the assembled media, had a duty to pass a ‘‘pristine’’ planet on to the next generation. Politicians and campaigners were effusive in their praise for his imagination and generosity.

However, a look at the not-very-small print revealed that this amazing gesture would not be a matter of taking the profits from Branson’s polluting industries and using them to protect vast tracts of the Amazon.In fact, the money would go to a new division of the Virgin conglomerate, called Virgin Fuel. Branson was simply gearing himself up to make more money. But as always, the PR spin was that he’d be doing the rest of us a favour in the process.Branson has built an empire on this perception. His first two business ventures – both failed – were growing Christmas trees and selling budgerigars, so he obviously understood from an early stage that nature is there to be exploited.

His reputation as a rebel underdog took off when he was arrested in 1971 for selling records in Virgin stores that had been declared export stock. Because he also sold ‘‘cut-outs’’ (remaindered LPs at discounted prices), the perception took root that he was being persecuted by the authorities for challenging a rip-off establishment. In fact, he was doing nothing of the sort – he paid the taxes and fines owing from the case.

Branson’s anti-establishment persona was cemented in 1977 when Virgin Records signed the Sex Pistols; the band had already been dropped by two labels, EMI and A&M. He was also on board the boat the band played on when they sailed down the Thames during Queen Elizabeth’s silver jubilee celebrations. In a blaze of publicity, it was pulled in by police and a few punters were arrested.

When British Airways engaged in a ‘‘dirty tricks’’ campaign against Virgin Atlantic in the early 1990s, this was grist to Branson’s mill. Whether it’s flights, records, mobile phones, cola, radio, television, hotels, trains or holidays, sticking the word ‘‘Virgin’’ in front of something supposedly makes it cheaper yet cooler, with the bearded, grinning boss fronting many of his own ad campaigns. Because if a hippy says it’s all right, then it must be. Mustn’t it?

Since Virgin Fuel was set up in 2006, the tide has very much turned against bio-fuels with the realisation that far too much agricultural land could be eaten up by fuel crops. Palm oil, one of the major biofuels, is contributing to global warming as virgin (no pun intended) rainforests in countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia are decimated to make way for palm plantations.

Still, in February of this year Branson was on the tarmac toying with a coconut for the inevitable photocall when one of his 747s flew – empty- from London to Amsterdam on a 20 per cent bio-fuel mixture. Two years on from his ‘‘profits’’ gesture, slightly wiser green campaigners dismissed the flight as a stunt.

But onwards and upwards. While Branson has done little to save the planet and a hell of a lot to pollute it, he can arrange for you to look down upon it. This week he unveiled an aircraft for flying tourists into space. Virgin Galactic (yes, space can be branded too) has built a four-engine, twin-fuselage jet that will carrya spaceship with six passengers up to 50,000 feet to release it for sub-orbital flight.

The actual space ship is not yet complete, but apparently 2 50 punters have already paid $200,000 up front for the experience, among them Ireland’s own leading car salesman, Bill Cullen. The plane is called White Knight II, lest we forget what a favour Branson is doing for us.

Hippies are often credited with being the first to bring green issues to the fore, but the 1960s also legitimised the ascent of personal selfishness over social responsibility. Of course, Branson is no more of a hippy than I am, just a good businessman.

Spraying huge amounts of jet fuel into the atmosphere, purely to allow rich people to look down on an overheating planet, is about as stupid and hypocritical as it gets. Still, I’m sure that the earth from space is a beautiful sight – enjoy it while it lasts.

I’m bumping this MAY 08 article back to the front page – Loebsack is in town today truly – Advantage Incumbent – he robocalled the entire county on the taxpayers dime offering a one-on-one counseling session to anyone who needs help after the flood. right.

Go – Miller-Meeks!

(BTW the link is dead to this DSM Register article – probably moved to archives.) -pf

My (clears throat) Representative, Dave Loebsack, has sent out almost twice the amount of pieces of mail as the next highest national representative from Iowa. Probably over looked the several letters I sent him… He meant to reply… How saturation mailings like that can’t be considered political advertisement is beyond me; but I’m voting for Miller-Meeks in the primary to win back that seat. She’s working hard to get her name out – and I like her! http://millermeeksforcongress.com -pf

Link to original article

Washington, D.C. — The chatty, glossy postcards and newsletters from Washington that regularly land in Iowans’ mailboxes might resemble campaign ads, but they aren’t.

They’re unsolicited mass mail shipped from Iowa congressional offices courtesy of the frank, which is mail sent at taxpayer expense.

Franked mail is a perk of incumbency as old as Congress that appears to be as popular as ever for House members who face the voters every two years.

Four members of the Iowa delegation in the House distributed more than 1.1 million pieces of bulk mail in 2007, a review of House records by The Des Moines Register shows.

Rep. Dave Loebsack of Mount Vernon, a freshman Democrat who narrowly won in 2006, reported sending out 479,616 pieces of mass mail to his eastern Iowa district. That ranked him No. 1 among the Iowans.

The four members in total spent close to $238,000 in postage on mass mail in 2007. They continued to ship it out this spring prior to a cutoff tied to the June 3 primary.

The fifth Iowan, Rep. Steve King, a Kiron Republican, did not report sending out any mass mail.

The appeal is understandable, critics say. “It is an easy way to build a good image in your district without having to spend campaign funds to do it,” said Pete Sepp, communications director for the National Taxpayers Union.

“They border on campaign ads in many cases,” he said. “There are just enough facts and pieces of business in them to make them of minimal value as a communications tool.”

Aides to the congressmen say they help Iowa constituents with information on what Congress is doing and give guidance on how to obtain a flag, get D.C. tourist information or cut red tape.

“It’s part of his role as a representative to the people,” said James Carstensen, chief of staff to Rep. Tom Latham, an Ames Republican.

A look through mail sent by the Iowans this year and in 2007 found many photographs of the members themselves, as well as of children, farm scenes and small towns; bold headlines; and self-promotion.

- “A good teacher knows what it takes to help Iowa’s children succeed,” was the headline on a mailing from Loebsack, atop a page-sized photo of a child drawing on a blackboard.

“A good Congressman knows how to provide the tools students need to succeed,” it added, next to a smaller photo of Loebsack.

• “How Congressman Leonard Boswell is fighting to make our nation more energy independent and reduce global warming,” read a headline on a page-sized mailer from the Des Moines Democrat sent earlier this year.

• Rep. Bruce Braley, a Waterloo Democrat, sounded the alert on recalled toys as Christmas 2007 approached, with “Congressman Bruce Braley’s Special Report on Toy Recalls.”

Braley, in a mailing, warned Iowa constituents of the dangers of the Dizzy Ducks Music Box, Curious George Plush Dolls and Winnie-the-Pooh Spinning Top.

• Latham offered a “Tax Tips and Resource Guide for Your 2006 Tax Returns” during filing time in April 2007.

In the fine print on all, as required by law: “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

Mass mail is considered to be unsolicited mail of 500 pieces or more.

It is covered by the frank, which allows members of Congress to send out all kinds of mail — including news releases or responses to constituent inquiries — under their signatures without having to pay postage.

The postage costs, however, are deducted from their office expense allowance.

A December report from the Congressional Research Service says that overall franking costs were $34.4 million during the 2006 budget year.

Separately, a study by the Associated Press said House members spent $20.3 million on bulk mail in 2006.

The franking total was far less than the peak of $113.4 million in 1988, though still too much for some who’d like to curb mailings.

The size and number of photos of members on mailings are regulated by a bipartisan franking commission.

Members also can’t send out bulk mail within 90 days of an election, though the window opens again this summer, once the primary in Iowa is over.

Aides to Loebsack said the mass mail he sends out is part of a constituent outreach program.

“After replacing Jim Leach, who represented the 2nd District for 30 years, Congressman Loebsack feels it is imperative to make certain people in the district receive as much helpful information about his office as possible,” said press secretary Gabby Adler.

She said the office has received “overwhelmingly positive feedback” after each mailing.

In second place among the Iowan congressmen was Latham with 270,786 mailings in 2007.

Carstensen said Latham “does pieces that he feels are within his role as a representative to the federal government.” For example, said Carstensen, the “tax tips” mailer attempted to assist taxpayers with their returns.

Third was Boswell, with 214,298 pieces of mail.

“Communicating with constituents is an important part of Congressman Boswell’s job,” said his chief of staff, Susan McAvoy.

She said the mailings include information on legislation that the congressman has authored or cosponsored, and also provide updates on district events and projects.

“Newsletters also reinforce some of the congressman’s important priorities, which may not get covered in the daily press,” McAvoy said.

Braley, another freshman Democrat, was fourth among Iowans with 201,614 pieces. Jeff Giertz, his press secretary, said Braley seeks to communicate information and let constituents know about town meetings.

As use of technology has expanded, the leaders also send out e-mail newsletters and conduct “telephone town hall” meetings, where thousands of Iowans are contacted via automated phone calls and asked to question a congressman.

But Sepp said there’s still nothing like a piece of mail. “It’s very powerful,” he said.

Reporter Jane Norman can be reached at (202) 906-8137 or jnorman@dmreg.com

Go Cubs Go… Go Cubs Go, Hey Chicago what do you say, the Cubs are going to WIN TODAY! (and other happenings of the weekend)

Although my primary activity this weekend (lazy me) was to watch the Cubbies win two games and extend their divisional lead to 5 games with about 50 to go… I also had the opportunity to be reminded why I was a Republican.

There was a District Republican meeting held in Muscatine on Saturday, and it was a very nice event; and my contribution was just to show up. The event was put on with the typical precision expected by the Muscatine Republican Women with Marilyn Wedel as its leader.

By the time the District President called the meeting to order to my immense pleasure, I found myself sitting beside Phyllis Kelly our retiring Iowa National Committeewoman. She was a joy to talk to and many of us made sure she knew her 12 years representing Iowa Republicans to the RNC was appreciated, as was the time she took to drive here on Saturday. The Muscatine Journal as well as KWPC representatives were in attendance, so I hope the day got some press.

Mariannette also attended, and begged the group’s indulgence as she was the first speaker then quickly made her exit. A colleague at the University of Iowa when she taught there had lost his 20 year old son; she needed to attend the funeral. Mariannette, still, gave a rousing speech starting by talking about the rewards and tramas of raising children – and also about what qualities she possesses that will allow her to be an outstanding representative of the 2nd District of Iowa.

Charles Larsen, Sr. was the invited guest speaker. Other dignitaries besides Ms. Kelly were Shirley Jean Drake, Senator Hahn, Representative Kaufmann, Caleb Hunter (RPI) as well as Steve Rathje (speaking in behalf of McCain) and Leon Mosley.   Catching a bit of the report on the local radio station this AM, I think they confused Rathje with Reed, who for some reason was a no show.  I hope he had something much more important to do as this was a great crowd to rally the troops.

Mr. Larsen is a long time Republican activist in Iowa who was asked by President Bush to become a Justice Attaché to the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq in 2004. His role was to aid the Iraqi judicial system (mostly training) as their court system was being restructured. During his slide presentation, I continued to be impressed by the quality of those who are serving in support roles or our military in general. Time after time he brought up a slide that showed (example) “… here I am with two other U of Iowa Law School graduates who enlisted to help” … or comments about how many who served their tour and ended up volunteering to go back because they wanted to see the mission of rebuilding a free and united Iraq completed.

One of the comments that stood out to me that I thought I would bring to this blogspace is that he said that very few of the combatants killed or held were from Iraq. They were almost all from Somalia, Syria, Saudi Arabia… and many who execute suicide missions are duped into doing it – bombs are blown up by remote control.

He also spoke with great pride that his son was serving in Iraq at the same time he was there, and that they had managed to meet about once a month. Charles “Chuck” Larsen, Jr. is a Major in the US Army Reserves, as well has having served in both houses of the Iowa Legislature and in 2002 was the Chairman of the Iowa Republican Party.

I’ll write more later (hmmm I promised that on the BKO/JFK comparison piece and have yet to do that – so be patient).