I just hit me that we are almost in July. Independence day is next week, the date I have always considered the half way mark for the year. Talk about time flying fast, it feels like Thanksgiving was just last week. To mark this, here is a countdown for the various big election dates for this cycle via MSNBC's First Read blog:
Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 43 days
Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 65 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 113 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 130 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 141 days
Countdown to Iowa: 209 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 220 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 494 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 571 days
-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Couple of Pieces on Iraq
David Kilcullen at SmallWarsJournal has a good post today about the surge in Iraq, and offers one of most well written explanations of our goals there that I have seen:
He then goes on to list the various facts. Kilcullen is a smart guy, as this bio at wikipedia shows.
There is a good article by Jim Michaels at USA Today about what is happening with the surge. Michaels outlines both what is going well and not well. The combat post that Michaels writes about was established in January when the area was finding 15 bodies a day. "Now," said the commander, Cpt Kevin Joyce, "we have a bad day (when we) find one." Residents come out at night to eat ice cream at a local shop, and vendors are also out selling food. US troops drive down the streets handing out food to citizens, and Michaels quote a soldier saying "If we were doing this (last) February, we'd be getting shot at." US troops are taking census data to keep people out of the area who shouldn't be there. While there are still complaints about the Iraqi army, both from US forces and citizens, US presence has bolstered their confidence and are learning from the interactions.
The downside though, is that US causalities have increased, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the #2 guy in Iraq, confirmed that while attacks on civilians are down, attacks on US forces have increased. Odierno also said that it will ultimately come down to "political and diplomatic progress." There are still sectarian fighting and squabbles to be taken care of, but US forces are doing their best to get Sunnis and Shiites to talk things out.
Finally, Mario Loyola at NRO has a piece up about the positive things occurring in Iraq. While eventually every surge must recede, he thinks, based on a report from the Pentagon on stability and security in the country, that the Iraqis are more capable of standing on their own than some people may lead you to believe. Thanks to the actions of Prime Minister Maliki and Iraqi forces, the recent bombing that brought down the twin minarets at the mosque in Samarra didn't revive the violence that occurred when the site was first bombed two years ago. Provincial recovery teams are located throughout the country to provide help when and where needed and US advisers are located throughout the government preparing officials for supporting themselves. The government has been able to eliminate a $2.6 billion program to import refined fuel for the country, and the current budget has $10 billion to continue projects previously funded by the US. Security has improved as well, with US forces and Iraqi army and police forces banding together to go after Al-Qaeda forces and then remain in the area to provide security for the residents. The improved security has in turn helped improve and increase information as residents no longer fear Al-Qaeda revenge.
Of course, as Loyola also points out, there is work to be done, primarily politically. Seven of the 18 benchmarks recently set by Congress are political and have yet to be met. This includes energy resources, de-Bathification, provincial elections, and so on. Advances will have to be made on these issues by September, when Congress will revisit the funding issue.
There is talk that the administration is planning on drawing down troops later this year. Whether that will happen or what it will look like will depend on what happens between now and then.
--------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don't get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that's OK. The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain – as has happened in Al Anbar Province and can happen elsewhere in Iraq as well.
The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on. This is why claims that “80% of AQ leadership have fled” don’t overly disturb us: the aim is not to kill every last AQ leader, but rather to drive them off the population and keep them off, so that we can work with the community to prevent their return.
This is not some sort of kind-hearted, soft approach, as some fire-breathing polemicists have claimed (funnily enough, those who urge us to “just kill more bad guys” usually do so from a safe distance). It is not about being “nice” to the population and hoping they will somehow see us as the “good guys” and stop supporting insurgents. On the contrary, it is based on a hard-headed recognition of certain basic facts,
He then goes on to list the various facts. Kilcullen is a smart guy, as this bio at wikipedia shows.
There is a good article by Jim Michaels at USA Today about what is happening with the surge. Michaels outlines both what is going well and not well. The combat post that Michaels writes about was established in January when the area was finding 15 bodies a day. "Now," said the commander, Cpt Kevin Joyce, "we have a bad day (when we) find one." Residents come out at night to eat ice cream at a local shop, and vendors are also out selling food. US troops drive down the streets handing out food to citizens, and Michaels quote a soldier saying "If we were doing this (last) February, we'd be getting shot at." US troops are taking census data to keep people out of the area who shouldn't be there. While there are still complaints about the Iraqi army, both from US forces and citizens, US presence has bolstered their confidence and are learning from the interactions.
The downside though, is that US causalities have increased, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the #2 guy in Iraq, confirmed that while attacks on civilians are down, attacks on US forces have increased. Odierno also said that it will ultimately come down to "political and diplomatic progress." There are still sectarian fighting and squabbles to be taken care of, but US forces are doing their best to get Sunnis and Shiites to talk things out.
Finally, Mario Loyola at NRO has a piece up about the positive things occurring in Iraq. While eventually every surge must recede, he thinks, based on a report from the Pentagon on stability and security in the country, that the Iraqis are more capable of standing on their own than some people may lead you to believe. Thanks to the actions of Prime Minister Maliki and Iraqi forces, the recent bombing that brought down the twin minarets at the mosque in Samarra didn't revive the violence that occurred when the site was first bombed two years ago. Provincial recovery teams are located throughout the country to provide help when and where needed and US advisers are located throughout the government preparing officials for supporting themselves. The government has been able to eliminate a $2.6 billion program to import refined fuel for the country, and the current budget has $10 billion to continue projects previously funded by the US. Security has improved as well, with US forces and Iraqi army and police forces banding together to go after Al-Qaeda forces and then remain in the area to provide security for the residents. The improved security has in turn helped improve and increase information as residents no longer fear Al-Qaeda revenge.
Of course, as Loyola also points out, there is work to be done, primarily politically. Seven of the 18 benchmarks recently set by Congress are political and have yet to be met. This includes energy resources, de-Bathification, provincial elections, and so on. Advances will have to be made on these issues by September, when Congress will revisit the funding issue.
There is talk that the administration is planning on drawing down troops later this year. Whether that will happen or what it will look like will depend on what happens between now and then.
--------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Operation Arrowhead Ripper
If you didn't know, US and Iraqi troops are conducting a major operation in the Diyala province northeast of Baghdad. It's called Operation Arrowhead Ripper, and is featuring 8,000 US and 2,000 Iraqi troops figting to root out al-Qaeda insurgents in the area. Michael Yon has posts here, here, and here.
Not only is this the largest operation we've conducted during the Iraq war, it's also noticeable in the use of Sunni tribes and insurgents who have fought against US troops in the past, but now are turning on al-Qaeda and helping us.
From all accounts, we are winning this battle. Road blocks are in place capturing or killing any insurgents trying to escape Diyala province. The Sunni tribes and insurgents now on our side are providing our forces crucial intelligence on where enemy strong holds are at and pointing out insurgents passing off as civilians.
Jack Kelly has a piece today saying that if things continue to go as well as they are, the MSM will never make light of the operation.
And why should we expect anything different? Even though unfortunately there are still car bombings, overall killings and attacks are down. Civilians feel safer with the added security, and are more willing to supply information and intelligence about insurgent activity in their areas. We've found countless numbers of bomb making factories and arsenals with this info. We encounter more evidence of Iranian involvement with insurgent groups. But if you hear about this in the MSM, it is only a passing reference, or brief note on one of the back pages. Any news you do hear about are bombings or how US casualties are on the rise. Jack Kelly correctly points out that it was Grant's bloody assaults on Lee in Virginia in the spring and summer of 1864, along with Sherman's successes in the West, that brought about victory for the North. It was the failure of the German offensive in the spring of 1918 that opened the way for allied victory several months later. During World War 2, our GIs had to endure the violent Battle of the Bulge before Hitler's army folded in defeat. When one or both sides in a war sense that the end is near, the fighting tends to grow more desperate, particularly on the side loosing. That could very well be the case now.
Meanwhile, back in DC, politicians argue about bringing the troops home. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has called the war lost, and referred to the man leading our efforts in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, as incompetent. Several prominent Democrats are pushing, or at least leaning, for a total defunding of the war. Some Democrats are more concerned with scoring political points against the administration by harping on the US attorney "scandal" or threatening to defund Vice President Cheney's office for not turning over documents.
As September rolls around and Petraeus reports to Congress on the surge, expect the MSM to focus on every car bomb, every suicide attack, every bit of bad news, to discredit anything positive brought about with the surge. To be sure, there is still a lot that needs to be done. The Iraqi government needs to get to work and get some action done on issues such as the distribution of oil revenues. There is more recruiting and training to be done with the Iraqi police and army. Some of these things are hard enough by themselves. It gets even more difficult without the security that we can provide for them in the meantime.
UPDATE: Pete Hegseth takes Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to task for his article last week invoking Lincoln's name in forcing time lines on Iraq. Hegseth served in Iraq, and reinforces a couple of points made in this post, such as this:
and this:
and this:
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Not only is this the largest operation we've conducted during the Iraq war, it's also noticeable in the use of Sunni tribes and insurgents who have fought against US troops in the past, but now are turning on al-Qaeda and helping us.
From all accounts, we are winning this battle. Road blocks are in place capturing or killing any insurgents trying to escape Diyala province. The Sunni tribes and insurgents now on our side are providing our forces crucial intelligence on where enemy strong holds are at and pointing out insurgents passing off as civilians.
Jack Kelly has a piece today saying that if things continue to go as well as they are, the MSM will never make light of the operation.
And why should we expect anything different? Even though unfortunately there are still car bombings, overall killings and attacks are down. Civilians feel safer with the added security, and are more willing to supply information and intelligence about insurgent activity in their areas. We've found countless numbers of bomb making factories and arsenals with this info. We encounter more evidence of Iranian involvement with insurgent groups. But if you hear about this in the MSM, it is only a passing reference, or brief note on one of the back pages. Any news you do hear about are bombings or how US casualties are on the rise. Jack Kelly correctly points out that it was Grant's bloody assaults on Lee in Virginia in the spring and summer of 1864, along with Sherman's successes in the West, that brought about victory for the North. It was the failure of the German offensive in the spring of 1918 that opened the way for allied victory several months later. During World War 2, our GIs had to endure the violent Battle of the Bulge before Hitler's army folded in defeat. When one or both sides in a war sense that the end is near, the fighting tends to grow more desperate, particularly on the side loosing. That could very well be the case now.
Meanwhile, back in DC, politicians argue about bringing the troops home. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has called the war lost, and referred to the man leading our efforts in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, as incompetent. Several prominent Democrats are pushing, or at least leaning, for a total defunding of the war. Some Democrats are more concerned with scoring political points against the administration by harping on the US attorney "scandal" or threatening to defund Vice President Cheney's office for not turning over documents.
As September rolls around and Petraeus reports to Congress on the surge, expect the MSM to focus on every car bomb, every suicide attack, every bit of bad news, to discredit anything positive brought about with the surge. To be sure, there is still a lot that needs to be done. The Iraqi government needs to get to work and get some action done on issues such as the distribution of oil revenues. There is more recruiting and training to be done with the Iraqi police and army. Some of these things are hard enough by themselves. It gets even more difficult without the security that we can provide for them in the meantime.
UPDATE: Pete Hegseth takes Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to task for his article last week invoking Lincoln's name in forcing time lines on Iraq. Hegseth served in Iraq, and reinforces a couple of points made in this post, such as this:
My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council -- built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation -- did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.
and this:
Levin says that "our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them." He explains his vote to fund and "support" the troops while simultaneously trying to legislate the war's end. But what kind of "support" and "unequivocal message" do the troops hear from leaders in Congress who call their commanders "incompetent" or declare the war "lost"?
and this:
-----------------------------------In his op-ed, Sen. Levin invoked the example of Abraham Lincoln, who endured years of challenges before finding the right generals and strategy to win the Civil War. After four years of uncertainty in Iraq, America finally has both the general and the strategy to turn the tide. The question is whether 2007 will unfold like 1865 or 1969.
President Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. He was right. And to me, that sounds more than a bit like the situation our country faces today. What path will we choose?
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Novak Talks Iowa
Robert Novak's weekend piece includes two stories involving Iowa.
The first story is whether Jim Nussle's nomination to replace Rob Portman as the White House Budget Chief means Rudy won't play in Iowa. This is a thought that crossed my mind when I first heard the news last week about the nomination. Rudy hasn't been in Iowa too often and doesn't appear to have the organization you would expect of a front-runner campaign serious about playing. Plus, as Novak points out, Nussle is the biggest name Rudy has in Iowa. Even though a lot of people were rubbed raw when Nussle called the Iowa Straw Poll a "circus," one would think that the campaign would fight tooth and nail to keep that big name if they were truly serious about playing.
Now for the "on the other hand." I've heard that the campaign has started hiring more staffers and field reps in the state. Rudy returned to Iowa the other day, even though he made a major no-no in being 50 minutes late, and the campaign says he will be in the state more and more. You also have to consider the basic fact that Nussle was asked to work for the President of the United States. I've read a lot of people who say it's almost impossible to say no when the President asks you go come work for him. If Tony Snow would leave the good gig he had at Fox News to work at the White House, I can understand why Nussle would do the same.
The other story is about Grassley's latest bill to tax private equity partnerships. You might remember that this was covered here not to long ago. Novak reports that Republican fund raisers have "scolded" the financial services industry for giving so much to Democrat candidates who then turn around and tax business. Grassley, who has little love for hedge funds, thus damages this argument with this bill. Novak is pretty harsh on Grassley, calling it undermining.
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
The first story is whether Jim Nussle's nomination to replace Rob Portman as the White House Budget Chief means Rudy won't play in Iowa. This is a thought that crossed my mind when I first heard the news last week about the nomination. Rudy hasn't been in Iowa too often and doesn't appear to have the organization you would expect of a front-runner campaign serious about playing. Plus, as Novak points out, Nussle is the biggest name Rudy has in Iowa. Even though a lot of people were rubbed raw when Nussle called the Iowa Straw Poll a "circus," one would think that the campaign would fight tooth and nail to keep that big name if they were truly serious about playing.
Now for the "on the other hand." I've heard that the campaign has started hiring more staffers and field reps in the state. Rudy returned to Iowa the other day, even though he made a major no-no in being 50 minutes late, and the campaign says he will be in the state more and more. You also have to consider the basic fact that Nussle was asked to work for the President of the United States. I've read a lot of people who say it's almost impossible to say no when the President asks you go come work for him. If Tony Snow would leave the good gig he had at Fox News to work at the White House, I can understand why Nussle would do the same.
The other story is about Grassley's latest bill to tax private equity partnerships. You might remember that this was covered here not to long ago. Novak reports that Republican fund raisers have "scolded" the financial services industry for giving so much to Democrat candidates who then turn around and tax business. Grassley, who has little love for hedge funds, thus damages this argument with this bill. Novak is pretty harsh on Grassley, calling it undermining.
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Michael Yon and Another Must Read
Michael Yon has a new post up that is a must read, titled "Be Not Afraid." Yon, remember, is a reporter in Iraq not financed by any news service (meaning--his own dime and private donations) who has been compared to Ernie Pyle for his facing danger in regularly accompanying US military units on combat patrols.
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Uh-Oh for Grassley
Ed Morrissey at Captains Quarters has a here about a new Baucus-Grassley bill in the Senate that would raise taxes on publicly traded partnerships. The Wall Street Journal has a piece about it here, and the American Conservative Union has come out against it. The WSJ piece reports that Mitt Romney has said he opposed the bill.
A second link to Captains Quarters discusses another bill that Baucus and Grassley has introduced that would increase taxes on oil companies by $29 billion and use that money on more clean energy and energy conservation. He links to a Houston Chronicle piece on the bill. It wouldn't surprise me it the costs of these new taxes will be passed on to the consumer. The Heritage Foundation has a page up highlighting what gas prices are projected to be under this bill in 2016 (Iowa--$6.50 a gallon). The Houston Chronicle piece quotes Grassley:
and also saying:
----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
A second link to Captains Quarters discusses another bill that Baucus and Grassley has introduced that would increase taxes on oil companies by $29 billion and use that money on more clean energy and energy conservation. He links to a Houston Chronicle piece on the bill. It wouldn't surprise me it the costs of these new taxes will be passed on to the consumer. The Heritage Foundation has a page up highlighting what gas prices are projected to be under this bill in 2016 (Iowa--$6.50 a gallon). The Houston Chronicle piece quotes Grassley:
But Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Finance Committee's top Republican, said, "We have entered a new era in energy markets ... (that) requires a dramatic shift away from tax incentives for oil and gas production" and toward support for other energy sources and efficiency.
and also saying:
Grassley said the "narrow change" in tax policy "seems likely to have little if any effect on domestic production" or the price of gasoline at the pump.This will be something to keep an eye on and see what happens.
----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Hillary is Tony Soprano
Hillary announces her campaign's theme song with a spoof of the final scene from "The Sopranos." I will say, the acting is better than you get from most politicians, but it still leaves you kind of queasy.
My problem with the video though, is that the Clintons always went after anyone who crossed them. Blaming conservative talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for going after Bill's lying about his affairs, etc. In the video though, they only shake their heads at the guy who give them a dirty look. That's not very Clintonesqe.
-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
My problem with the video though, is that the Clintons always went after anyone who crossed them. Blaming conservative talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for going after Bill's lying about his affairs, etc. In the video though, they only shake their heads at the guy who give them a dirty look. That's not very Clintonesqe.
-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Nussle to White House Budget Director
Jim Nussle is going to replace Rob Portman as White House Budget Director. More here from FoxNews.
----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Are Republians the Depressed Party?
A couple of pieces on the web today point out where exactly the Democrats stand with the public.
E.J. Dionne is a liberal columnist. In his piece today, he basically blames high expectations and Republicans for not allowing Democrats to make a more favorable impression with the American people.
Both of these pieces tell me that liberals aren't exactly optimistic about the future. They proclaimed about how the American people decided that Democrats spoke for them, and how they were going to do all of these things that the people demanded from government. Now, six months into their tenure, Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush, Harry Reid has an approval of only 19%, and Speaker Pelosi has a lower approval rating than Newt Gingrich at the same time during his tenure as Speaker. Polls have shown that people prefer a generic Democrat over a generic Republican for president, but when presented with candidate names, the people prefer the Republican candidate over the Democrat.
You hear so much about how Democrats were elected to get the US out of Iraq, and how the Democrat presidential candidates want to do so. But when you look at what the candidates say, at least with the front runners, they support leaving troops in the area in case things go south. This piece by Karen Hanretty at NRO today talks about this in relation to John Edwards.
So Republicans, buck up. We hear the pundits saying that we are down and out, depressed, hate all of our presidential candidates, blah blah blah. Even if that is correct, apparently we aren't alone.
------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
E.J. Dionne is a liberal columnist. In his piece today, he basically blames high expectations and Republicans for not allowing Democrats to make a more favorable impression with the American people.
Expectations are part of the Democrats' problem. Over the past month or so, congressional Democrats have hemorrhaged support from both ends of the electoral coalition that backed them last November. And both ends had high hopes.and
Middle-of-the-road voters who backed the Democrats don't much like the war, but they also looked to the party of Reid and Pelosi to get things done on political reform, health care, energy, the environment and the economy. Yet the ways of Congress are slow, especially when Republicans have no interest in Democratic success and when President Bush -- with the exception of an immigration bill -- mostly opposes what Democrats would put on his desk. The Democrats can brag about a minimum wage increase. They also passed budget measures on time, a real achievement, but not one that most voters notice.and
Given how tarnished the Republican brand is, the GOP's best strategy is to bring Democrats down with them into the murky depths of public disapproval. This might build support for a third-party candidate in 2008 -- which could help Republicans win by splitting the anti-Bush, anti-system vote. It's still early, but not too early for Democrats to worry about this prospect and to brace themselves for some ugly politics for the rest of the year.Froma Harrop is another liberal columnist. In her piece today, she focuses on the "culture of corruption" in Washington. It's apparent that she wanted to write a hit piece on Republicans. To do so, she has to go back to the last congress and Alaskan Rep. Don Young, the author of the famous "Bridge to Nowhere." Sure, she finishes the piece by mentioning that Sen. Stevens, also of Alaska, is under an FBI probe over bribery of state officials and that his seat is now vulnerable, but still. Perhaps she momentarily forgot that Republicans no longer control congress? Perhaps she forgot about the pork Democrats have included in several bills. Perhaps she forgot about Rep. Jack Murtha's threat to a Republican Congressman on the house floor to cut all his earmarks if he didn't support Murtha's earmarks---a violation of House rules. Perhaps she forgot about the shady dealings that Harry Reid and Barak Obama have been implicated in? Who knows.
Both of these pieces tell me that liberals aren't exactly optimistic about the future. They proclaimed about how the American people decided that Democrats spoke for them, and how they were going to do all of these things that the people demanded from government. Now, six months into their tenure, Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush, Harry Reid has an approval of only 19%, and Speaker Pelosi has a lower approval rating than Newt Gingrich at the same time during his tenure as Speaker. Polls have shown that people prefer a generic Democrat over a generic Republican for president, but when presented with candidate names, the people prefer the Republican candidate over the Democrat.
You hear so much about how Democrats were elected to get the US out of Iraq, and how the Democrat presidential candidates want to do so. But when you look at what the candidates say, at least with the front runners, they support leaving troops in the area in case things go south. This piece by Karen Hanretty at NRO today talks about this in relation to John Edwards.
So Republicans, buck up. We hear the pundits saying that we are down and out, depressed, hate all of our presidential candidates, blah blah blah. Even if that is correct, apparently we aren't alone.
------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Paycheck Protection Act
You might remember the debate over fair share during the latest legislative session. James Bopp Jr. has a piece up at NRO discussing much of the same thing. He focuses on the Paycheck Protection Act and how states need to focus on the issue of "requiring employees to pay fees to unions that they refuse to join." Its a good piece that should be printed and used next time fair share comes up.
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Monday, June 18, 2007
Open Field Politics
Michael Barone has an interesting piece at National Journal about the state of politics today. He argues that we are in an "open-field politics" after coming out of a "trench warfare" style of politics during the 1990s. It's a bit lengthy, but a good read.
-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Muslim, Arab, American
The Baltimore Sun features an interesting op-ed today by Mohammad Ali Salih. He discusses about how being an American, an Arab and a Muslim rate in his life. The first part of the piece had me wondering what I was reading. Then I came to this passage, which I'll just leave you to ponder:
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
To me, America inspires love first, allegiance second. My love for America started long before I came to here, when I was reading, writing, thinking and dreaming about America - in Arabic. My religion was never an obstacle; it was, rather, an incentive: dreaming of worshiping God in America the way I wanted, with no restrictions from the oppressive Islamic governments and medieval Shariah scholars.
When I speak the words of the Pledge of Allegiance - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God" - I say to myself, "God is paramount here, too."
For a long time, I wondered why America attracts people from all over the world. It took me many years to learn that Christianity and Western civilization are the core of what makes America tick. I, a Muslim and Arab, had to "submit" to this. I also found that the spirit of Christianity - but not necessarily organized religion - is the spirit of America. Now, in addition to the mosque, I almost regularly pray in a Methodist church not far from where I live. My favorite hymn is: "Spirit of the living God, fall afresh on me. Melt me, mold me, fill me, use me. Spirit of the Living God."
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Crocs With Socks???
Manolo's Shoe Blog calls for President Bush to be impeached.
Seriously though, black presidential anklets?
Seriously though, black presidential anklets?
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Striaght From the Horse's Mouth
Gov. Culver was recently in Fort Dodge on his "Capitol for a Day" tour. The Messenger covered the event here. The article has a couple of interesting quotes from Culver that should be highlighted.
One portion of the article covered the raise in tobacco taxes (the tax increase covered all tobacco, not just cigarettes, so lets call it what it really is):
On another subject, a few days ago you read a post here about what topics would be big next year in the legislature. One of those topics was highway construction and upkeep. The largest contributer to our highway fund is the gas tax. Here is what Culver had to say:
The way I'm reading this is that gas taxes here in Iowa are going to increase. I understand the importance of our highway system, of the need to upkeep roads and finish the 4-lane Highway 20. I understand that the state highway fund is short on cash and that revenue will have to come from somewhere. But the price of gas is high enough the way it is already. When Culver says "right now," I'd like to see at what price he thinks gas should be in order to increase the fuel tax. I'm expecting the idea to start floating around in the near future.
-----------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
One portion of the article covered the raise in tobacco taxes (the tax increase covered all tobacco, not just cigarettes, so lets call it what it really is):
‘‘I actually said it’s got to be a dollar, so you can blame me entirely,’’ Culver said.You can't get any more blunt than that. For those of you angry at the tobacco tax increase, you can remember this in 2010 when Culver is up for reelection. Culver goes on with this quote:
He noted that people can argue for ‘‘sin taxes’’ on things like beer, but added that there was only consensus to raise the cigarette tax.The tobacco tax was increased, according to Culver, to make it so expensive to force smokers to quit and new smokers from even starting. Alcohol has negative, and possibly long-term, effects on the human body, and alcoholism can destroy people's lives. A lot of domestic abuse incidents come after the abuser has been drinking. Go to any college town and you hear about alcohol problems and the amount of drinking going on. Iowa City has been trying for years to make bars 21 only to try to cut down on underage drinking. So, Gov. Culver, if you increase the tobacco tax to cut down on smoking.....wouldn't it be irresponsible to not increase taxes on alcohol? Don't try to pull the consensus argument either. There are a lot of people angry at the tobacco tax increase...nothing I would call a supporting consensus.
On another subject, a few days ago you read a post here about what topics would be big next year in the legislature. One of those topics was highway construction and upkeep. The largest contributer to our highway fund is the gas tax. Here is what Culver had to say:
While he championed the cigarette tax, the governor isn’t eager to move on raising the levy on a gallon of gasoline.
‘‘I don’t think the majority of Iowans want to raise the gas tax right now because of the skyrocketing cost of gas,’’ he said.
He said the state should ‘‘go very slowly’’ on raising that tax.
The way I'm reading this is that gas taxes here in Iowa are going to increase. I understand the importance of our highway system, of the need to upkeep roads and finish the 4-lane Highway 20. I understand that the state highway fund is short on cash and that revenue will have to come from somewhere. But the price of gas is high enough the way it is already. When Culver says "right now," I'd like to see at what price he thinks gas should be in order to increase the fuel tax. I'm expecting the idea to start floating around in the near future.
-----------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Culver's Approval Rating
I was looking through the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier website trying to find a story, when I found this one. Apparently, last month KCCI did a poll on Culver's approval rating after the end of the session. I had never heard of this, maybe because I don't watch KCCI, maybe because it was never reported--I'm not sure. I'm guessing the later because of the findings. I can't find anything about this on the KCCI website. The only other story I found is by Todd Dorman at the Quad-Cities Times blog, which is much better and not as much of a spin job.
Last November, Culver won by 100,000 votes. Today, only 46% of Iowans approve of the job Culver is doing. Not too good for how much some media outlets has propped him up. 32% disapproved, and 22% were not sure.
Here is another kicker---only 66% of Democrats approve of the job he is doing. While I thought it would be higher, I'm not too surprised though. Talking with a couple Democrat friends of mine who are at least somewhat involved in politics, I've been hearing that Culver was angering many in his base, particularly with the tobacco tax increase. Among independents, Culver has an approval rating of 44%, and among Republicans, only 28%
Reading through the opinion piece in the Courier, you can tell that the author in the, Charlette Eby, is trying to spin this. Such as this:
And this:
I'm sure the reason why this poll hasn't been seen much is because of the dismal numbers. Dormann goes though how Culver alienated a lot of people with the tobacco tax increase, fair share, the bully bill, the stem-cell bill, and doing nothing on property tax, hog confinement issues or local smoking ordinances. Apparently, Culver also proclaims other cities in Iowa as "Capital for a Day" then is late in showing up (here and here.)
Of course, Culver campaigned on all of this. Nobody who was paying attention can say that they were surprised. Another example of why elections matter.
-------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Last November, Culver won by 100,000 votes. Today, only 46% of Iowans approve of the job Culver is doing. Not too good for how much some media outlets has propped him up. 32% disapproved, and 22% were not sure.
Here is another kicker---only 66% of Democrats approve of the job he is doing. While I thought it would be higher, I'm not too surprised though. Talking with a couple Democrat friends of mine who are at least somewhat involved in politics, I've been hearing that Culver was angering many in his base, particularly with the tobacco tax increase. Among independents, Culver has an approval rating of 44%, and among Republicans, only 28%
Reading through the opinion piece in the Courier, you can tell that the author in the, Charlette Eby, is trying to spin this. Such as this:
To be fair, those approval ratings could climb as more Iowans become familiar with Culver as governor and as he grows into the job.
Many of Culver's attributes remain unknowns. We haven't seen how his administration deals with a major scandal or controversy yet, other than relatively minor flaps over some of his appointments to state boards.
We do know he sticks up for teachers, isn't afraid to raise taxes and wants to make Iowa the "Silicon Valley of the Midwest" by developing the renewable energy industry.
And this:
To his credit, Culver kept a number of promises made on the campaign trail.
The former high school government teacher was able to deliver a big pay increase to public school teachers. And he nudged lawmakers from both parties into approving the $100 million Iowa Power Fund to develop renewable energy.
With those accomplishments on his list, it's fair to say the poll numbers likely came as a disappointment to Iowa's new chief executive.
I'm sure the reason why this poll hasn't been seen much is because of the dismal numbers. Dormann goes though how Culver alienated a lot of people with the tobacco tax increase, fair share, the bully bill, the stem-cell bill, and doing nothing on property tax, hog confinement issues or local smoking ordinances. Apparently, Culver also proclaims other cities in Iowa as "Capital for a Day" then is late in showing up (here and here.)
Of course, Culver campaigned on all of this. Nobody who was paying attention can say that they were surprised. Another example of why elections matter.
-------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
The Future and Spending
Two stories in the news today in regards to the Iowa government and what we can expect in the future.
An AP story by Mike Glover covers the priorities that the legislature will have next year. Number one appears to be health care. Citing that steps were already taken with the tobacco tax, it's only natural to broaden coverage "to most, it not all" Iowans. We can't be too surprised at this. Gov. Culver attacked Mitt Romney last week for not presenting a federal health care plan.
Besides health care, Iowa's prison system will be looked at. There is talk about building a new facility to replace Ft. Madison, and moving the 100 beds for Women at Mount Pleasant to Mitchellville, and use the former space for drug offenders. Nothing too surprising here either, as this has been a big point of discussion for several years, especially after those two inmates escaped from Ft. Madison.
Roads will be a big issue too, and this part of the article features our very own Dave Tjepkes. It appears that this will be the toughest issue to deal with. There are many roads out there that need attention, and completion of a 4-lane Highway 20 is a ways off. The highway fund is facing a $200 million shortfall. With gas prices as high as they are, I think you can pretty much toss out any ideas about raising the gas tax (though considering who is in charge down there, maybe you shouldn't.) So we could see discussion about raising fees or transferring funds from other areas.
In another article, Chris Rants goes after Gov. Culver for not vetoing more spending this year. Culver's office says that the low number of vetoes shows how well the Governor and legislator worked together. But that wasn't what Rants was talking about. Spending increased from 9-10% this year, depending on who you talk to. Rants says 10%, the Legislative Services Agency says "only" 9%. Next year, Rants is expecting spending to go up another 10-12%.
Here is the administration's responce:
Meanwhile, in the past couple of weeks a couple of manufacturing plants around the state have announced they are shutting their doors, and talk about "right to work" is keeping several out-of-state businesses from moving forward with plans, or at least looking at, to move to Iowa. This won't help our tax base, or the people who have been employed at these plants.
Elections have consequences---this is one of them.
-------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
An AP story by Mike Glover covers the priorities that the legislature will have next year. Number one appears to be health care. Citing that steps were already taken with the tobacco tax, it's only natural to broaden coverage "to most, it not all" Iowans. We can't be too surprised at this. Gov. Culver attacked Mitt Romney last week for not presenting a federal health care plan.
Besides health care, Iowa's prison system will be looked at. There is talk about building a new facility to replace Ft. Madison, and moving the 100 beds for Women at Mount Pleasant to Mitchellville, and use the former space for drug offenders. Nothing too surprising here either, as this has been a big point of discussion for several years, especially after those two inmates escaped from Ft. Madison.
Roads will be a big issue too, and this part of the article features our very own Dave Tjepkes. It appears that this will be the toughest issue to deal with. There are many roads out there that need attention, and completion of a 4-lane Highway 20 is a ways off. The highway fund is facing a $200 million shortfall. With gas prices as high as they are, I think you can pretty much toss out any ideas about raising the gas tax (though considering who is in charge down there, maybe you shouldn't.) So we could see discussion about raising fees or transferring funds from other areas.
In another article, Chris Rants goes after Gov. Culver for not vetoing more spending this year. Culver's office says that the low number of vetoes shows how well the Governor and legislator worked together. But that wasn't what Rants was talking about. Spending increased from 9-10% this year, depending on who you talk to. Rants says 10%, the Legislative Services Agency says "only" 9%. Next year, Rants is expecting spending to go up another 10-12%.
Here is the administration's responce:
Culver spokesman Brad Anderson said the governor believed he struck the appropriate balance in approving a fiscally responsible budget because he heard complaints from both sides over the level of fiscal 2008 spending. He noted that much of the increased spending went into areas like raising teacher salaries to the national average, expanding access to preschool, launching a multi-year Power Fund to encourage energy independence, and funding health initiatives.Yes, there were a lot of expensive items that were passed this year. But look at the items proposed for next year mentioned in the first story. Do you think that expending health coverage to "most if not all" Iowans will be cheap? Or building a new facility at Fort Madison? The road fund is already $200 Million short. I'm sure that will increase by next year. Where is this money going to come from? Is the state going to cut spending from somewhere, or will they raise taxes? Culver says he "plans to focus on finding savings and efficiencies within state government." But I remember candidate Culver criticizing Jim Nussle for saying the same thing.
"There was a lot of pent-up demand for big-ticket items like that," Anderson said. "There were a lot of expensive pieces of legislation this session but they were all critically important to the growth of the state."
Anderson added that the governor - who took office in January when the fiscal 2008 budget process was in mid-stream -- will have the advantage of building a new budget plan from the ground up in the coming months. Culver plans to focus on finding savings and efficiencies within state government to help balance new spending commitments, he added.
Meanwhile, in the past couple of weeks a couple of manufacturing plants around the state have announced they are shutting their doors, and talk about "right to work" is keeping several out-of-state businesses from moving forward with plans, or at least looking at, to move to Iowa. This won't help our tax base, or the people who have been employed at these plants.
Elections have consequences---this is one of them.
-------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
The Real "Two Americas"
The Two Americas is not between rich and poor, but between those who recognize the threat of radical Islam and those who do not. So says Jack Kelly today. It's a good piece that I hope you read. Anyone who saw the Democrat debate on Sunday, and then the Republican debate last night, clearly saw this.
John Edwards claims this as a "bumper sticker" war; there is not such thing as a "war on terror." Barak Obama says that we need to leave Iraq to concentrate on Al-Qaeda, even though Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Joe Biden says we don't have to worry about Iran because they are 10 years away from launching a nuke on a rocket. The problem though, is that a nuke can be used just as easily from the back of a truck, and some analysts have Iran only a year or two away from a nuclear weapon. (On a similar note, it's almost accepted as fact that North Korea has the bomb, and that they continued to research it after their promise to stop in 1994.) Everyone on that state-- except for Joe Biden-- supports defunding the war without considering the consequences.
The Republican candidates, though, by and large accept the struggle we are in. They accept the danger that radical Islam poses to our country, and to our way of life. They understand the consequences of of our prematurely leaving Iraq without making sure that Iraq can hold up by itself.
This is not even going into other national security issues such as the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance, and so forth.
As Jack Kelly points out, the struggle we are currently in did not start with our going into Iraq. It did not even start with 9/11. Before then, we had our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed in 1998, the USS Cole was bombed in 2000. The World Trade Center was first attacked way back in 1993. In was in 1983 when our Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed, the operation most likely backed directly by Iran. If Democrats cannot understand this, how can we trust them with our national security?
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
John Edwards claims this as a "bumper sticker" war; there is not such thing as a "war on terror." Barak Obama says that we need to leave Iraq to concentrate on Al-Qaeda, even though Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Joe Biden says we don't have to worry about Iran because they are 10 years away from launching a nuke on a rocket. The problem though, is that a nuke can be used just as easily from the back of a truck, and some analysts have Iran only a year or two away from a nuclear weapon. (On a similar note, it's almost accepted as fact that North Korea has the bomb, and that they continued to research it after their promise to stop in 1994.) Everyone on that state-- except for Joe Biden-- supports defunding the war without considering the consequences.
The Republican candidates, though, by and large accept the struggle we are in. They accept the danger that radical Islam poses to our country, and to our way of life. They understand the consequences of of our prematurely leaving Iraq without making sure that Iraq can hold up by itself.
This is not even going into other national security issues such as the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance, and so forth.
As Jack Kelly points out, the struggle we are currently in did not start with our going into Iraq. It did not even start with 9/11. Before then, we had our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed in 1998, the USS Cole was bombed in 2000. The World Trade Center was first attacked way back in 1993. In was in 1983 when our Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed, the operation most likely backed directly by Iran. If Democrats cannot understand this, how can we trust them with our national security?
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Friday, June 1, 2007
We Need Better Communication Control In This War
Ralph Peters is a former military intelligence officer who is now a columnist on military affairs with the New York Post. He has a piece today that is worth reading because it outlines one of the primary hardships we have in the War on Terror: communication and the media. This is something I've been thinking of and talking about for quite a while. Here is the relevant portion:
We hear so often about how the news needs to be objective. Several of the major news organizations will not use US Military press releases or videos in their news reports. However, they will use press releases and videos from terrorists. CNN won't use footage of a US fighter going after a group of terrorists, but they will use footage of terrorist snipers killing US troops in Iraq. Is this objective? This is not to say that the NY Times or CNN or NBC are mouthpieces of Al-Qaeda, but it certainly seems that they question facts they get from the US more than they do the "facts" they get from terrorist groups and apologists.
Every time the news shows the damage from a car bomb or reports how many US troops have been killed, the enemy gets a boost. It doesn't matter how many good things our troops do, if all the public sees in the news are car bombs and how many US troops were killed, the public will loose support. When the public looses support, the enemy wins. In any country, but particularly in a democracy (okay, representative government) like ours, if you don't have support of the public, you don't have anything. It becomes very hard to do what needs to be done.
On a simliar note, here is a piece by Kevin Farris on Gen. Barry McCaffrey's analysis of what is happening in Iraq and what the future will and can hold.
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
The advent of military aircraft changed warfare, expanding the battlefield into a third dimension while dramatically deepening the area that could be attacked. Air power alone was rarely decisive (despite the claims of its advocates), but control of the skies became vital.
What's the postmodern equivalent of air power, the new revolutionary development? It's the proliferation of the 24/7 media in all its formats. And the terrorists realize it. They learned to trump air power and all the detritus of the last revolution by refusing to mass together and by submerging themselves in urban seas. Then they went one better by grasping the power of irresistible weapons that came free of charge: the media.
Yes, the media were able to influence a war's outcome back in the Vietnam days. But the Cronkite-era media were the equivalent of World War I biplanes. Today's media are a sky full of B-52s, cruise missiles and stealth fighters - with unlimited ordnance.
The terrorists know they can't beat our forces on the battlefield. Their purpose in engaging our troops is to generate a body count, graphic images and alarmist headlines. They've created a new paradigm of warfare that's cheap, effective and defiantly hard to defeat.
Meanwhile, our own military isn't even allowed to slip stories to the bribe-driven Arab press. And the global media credit every perfunctory claim by the terrorists that the target we just hit was another wedding party.
Communication is important. One of the best weapons we had in the Cold War was Radio Free Europe, which broadcast into the Communist held areas of Eastern Europe. Ayatollah Khomeini smuggled cassette tapes of his speeches into Iran to gain and inspire supporters in Iran before the revolution in 1979. We need to do the same in the War on Terror. Not just radio, but also the internet. Terrorist are already doing it. They effectively use chat rooms and websites to spread anti-western religious speeches and tracts, training manuals, suicide videos and videos of attacks, and so on.
The field of people we can reach is large. Iran is repeatedly taking down satellite dishes to prevent people from watching western TV, but the dishes keep going back up. We can easily use radio and TV stations to reach audiences in such repressive areas, and smuggle in CDs and cassettes, video tapes and DVDs. Though there can be severe restrictions and access to the internet, audio and video files and documents can easily be spread through the region through this medium. New websites can easily be set up as existing ones are blocked by repressive governments. We also need to make sure we are supporting dissidents and other people who are speaking out against their government. Not too long ago, an Egyptian blogger was sentenced to 6 years in jail because he wrote something about the Egyptian government that they didn't like. Practically overnight, the blogging community in Egypt shut itself down because they feared the same thing happening to them.
We hear so often about how the news needs to be objective. Several of the major news organizations will not use US Military press releases or videos in their news reports. However, they will use press releases and videos from terrorists. CNN won't use footage of a US fighter going after a group of terrorists, but they will use footage of terrorist snipers killing US troops in Iraq. Is this objective? This is not to say that the NY Times or CNN or NBC are mouthpieces of Al-Qaeda, but it certainly seems that they question facts they get from the US more than they do the "facts" they get from terrorist groups and apologists.
Every time the news shows the damage from a car bomb or reports how many US troops have been killed, the enemy gets a boost. It doesn't matter how many good things our troops do, if all the public sees in the news are car bombs and how many US troops were killed, the public will loose support. When the public looses support, the enemy wins. In any country, but particularly in a democracy (okay, representative government) like ours, if you don't have support of the public, you don't have anything. It becomes very hard to do what needs to be done.
On a simliar note, here is a piece by Kevin Farris on Gen. Barry McCaffrey's analysis of what is happening in Iraq and what the future will and can hold.
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Prison Ministries and Evangelicals
The Des Moines Register has an article today about how a prison ministries program at the Newton Correctional Facility had it's $310,000 a year funding cut by the legislature. This is the program that came under fire in the past few years by critics claiming that the program is unconstitutional--the whole "separation of church and state" issue.
The program is voluntary, and has 132 participating inmates. Program officials are trying to work with prison officials to find a way to privately fund the program, but I doubt that will please the critics. Rev. Barry Lynn, from Americans United For Separation of Church and State was quoted in the article, "Private funding, though, does not address some of the issues the judge found unconstitutional, including the preferential treatment of prisoners in the program, the delegation of authority to a religious group, the exclusive use of certain prison property by this program."
Never mind that successful programs that help people turn their lives around makes a belief in God as one of the primary steps. You would think that the state would have an interest in programs that keep inmates from coming back for another stay. It was a voluntary program, and prison officials weren't forcing inmates to join.
There is another important part of this article. It was a quote from Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who said he has had concerns that InnerChange is anti-Catholic and a "right-wing Christian conversion program" that promotes the idea of wives being subservient to their husbands. Two paragraphs later, the paper says McCarthy is open to private funding, which I'll give him credit for. But the above quote is irresponsible, and he should be called to account for it.
Before this post end, one point. The fallacy of the argument from the "separation of church and state" crowd is that the Constitution says no such thing. The Establishment Clause says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means no national "Church of America" and no forcing people to practice a certain religion or denomination. The founders didn't want to practice religion like in England, where you joined the official church, or else you could be punished. The famous "wall" we hear so much about came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church, not the constitution. It wasn't until 1947, and the Supreme Court Decision in Everson v. Board of Education that this "wall" became a part of the Establishment Clause.
--------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
The program is voluntary, and has 132 participating inmates. Program officials are trying to work with prison officials to find a way to privately fund the program, but I doubt that will please the critics. Rev. Barry Lynn, from Americans United For Separation of Church and State was quoted in the article, "Private funding, though, does not address some of the issues the judge found unconstitutional, including the preferential treatment of prisoners in the program, the delegation of authority to a religious group, the exclusive use of certain prison property by this program."
Never mind that successful programs that help people turn their lives around makes a belief in God as one of the primary steps. You would think that the state would have an interest in programs that keep inmates from coming back for another stay. It was a voluntary program, and prison officials weren't forcing inmates to join.
There is another important part of this article. It was a quote from Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who said he has had concerns that InnerChange is anti-Catholic and a "right-wing Christian conversion program" that promotes the idea of wives being subservient to their husbands. Two paragraphs later, the paper says McCarthy is open to private funding, which I'll give him credit for. But the above quote is irresponsible, and he should be called to account for it.
Before this post end, one point. The fallacy of the argument from the "separation of church and state" crowd is that the Constitution says no such thing. The Establishment Clause says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means no national "Church of America" and no forcing people to practice a certain religion or denomination. The founders didn't want to practice religion like in England, where you joined the official church, or else you could be punished. The famous "wall" we hear so much about came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church, not the constitution. It wasn't until 1947, and the Supreme Court Decision in Everson v. Board of Education that this "wall" became a part of the Establishment Clause.
--------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Bloomberg and the 12th Amendment
Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics has a piece up about Michael Bloomberg and the 12th Amendment. That's the amendment which details how the House and Senate picks the President and Vice-President if no-one wins enough electoral votes. It's a great article which outlines and explains why the process is set as it is. I agree with Cost that Bloomberg, if he runs as a third party, would not be capable of throwing the election to the House. Nobody really knows who he is, and he hasn't done anything to make himself stand out. If Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were unable to do it, Bloomberg won't be able to.
--------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
--------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)