WebCoRep Blog

Tea Parties are HUGE Success

2009-04-16T07:42:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was Tax Day, but it was also Tea Party Day. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of people attended a Tea Party to protest higher taxes and higher government spending.

Several parties were held in Iowa. Iowa City had several hundred, and The Des Moines Register is reporting 3,000 people in Des Moines.

What does this mean? Some reporters, and Obama Spokesman Robert Gibbs, didn't think much of it. But they don't get it. It means that people are sick of government spending. They are sick of the government acting as an impediment to their abillity to make money to support their family or small business. In general, it means that people are sick of government not listening to them and going on their merry way doing what they want to do. A phrase on many of the flags flown throughout the country yesterday featured a phrase used during the American Revolution--"Don't Tread on Me."

Will the Democrats in the legislature listen? Maybe. Maybe not. While I lean towards the second option, you can take a page from Obama and always hope. Word on the street yesterday is that the Federal Deductibility bill is dead. House Speaker Pat Murpy is saying he is only one vote short, so don't believe it until every legislator is safely back in their district for the year. But Culver is still pushing his bonding proposals...you know, use the credit card because we can...even though 71% of Iowans, according to a recent DMR poll, don't support that option. It isn't over yet.

There is a reason my postings are done under the name wideawake. Because people need to stay awake to what is happening in their local, state, and national government. There are several examples of bad legislation at all levels that have been stopped, or at least brought to light, because people were paying attention. This is your government, this is you state and your country. Get involved.

Closing Time is Near

2009-04-13T07:17:00.000-07:00

The Legislature is hoping to adjurn this week. The Des Moines Register has a story here about what bills are done and which ones are still alive.

Republicans have had some impressive victories this session-changes in the Electoral College, labor bills (so far), Federal Deductibility (so far), etc. It isn't over yet, folks. Culver-Gronstall-et.al claim to have a deal on Federal Deductibility, Culver is still pushing on his bonding proposal, and some of those labor bills, particularly doctor shopping and changes in bargaining, are still lurking.

If you're not on Twitter, join today. It is a great way to keep up-to-date on what is happening, especially if you are at a computer all day. The best ones, but no means the only ones, to follow are: @ReneeSchulte, @NickAWagner, @KentSorenson, @IowaGOPer, @IowaSRC, @IowaGOP, @C_Rants, @charlotte_eby. You don't realize how much information you can get through Twitter until you try it out.

Keep our Republican legislators in your thougts and prayers as they keep up the good fight for the citizens of Iowa.

Couple Odds-n-Ends From the Past Few Days

2009-03-21T16:08:00.000-07:00

WATCH YOUR WALLETS!

I'm sure a lot of you have heard the story of the "Capital Purse Snatcher". Marshall Clemons, a custodian from Cedar Rapids, was at the capitol with the SEIU lobbying for the passage of union legislation, when he was busted snatching wallets from two purses. Oops, that can't make you look good in front of all those legislators. I believe that is only one notch up from stealing candy from a baby.

Turns out that then Presidential candidate, now Vice President, Joe Biden, followed Mr. Clemons as part of a "spend a day in my shoes" program during the primaries. Iowa Republican has video for us, as well as links to other stories about written at the time. Clemons was also Vice President Biden's "special guest" at the inauguration and gave him a tour of the White House. The more days go by, the more people associated with this administration get hammered on money issues.

CULVER'S "PAY-TO-SIT" PROGRAM GETS SMACKED DOWN BY THE W.H.

Gov. Culver and the White House are going to host a health care forum in Des Moines to "hear from everyone" as they go about implementing Universal Health Care. While the forum is open to the public, attendees need a ticket to enter, which they can only get through entering a lottery. Culver's office sent out an email seeking sponsors to help pay for the event, offering them guarenteed tickets as part of the package. Well, this got out, and people rightly were concerned. The White House finally put out a press release saying that there will be no sponsorhips or fundraising. Dave Price has the info and the emails. I would think it kind of embarassing if the White House did that to me, but maybe that's just me.

2012 NEWS

Per Iowa Republican, Bob Kraus, the chair of the IDP Veteran's Caucus, is launching an exploratory committee to take on Grassley in 2012. Will anyone else step up? Guess will find out in the coming months.

Iowan Gentry Collins Named RNC Political Director

2009-03-19T09:38:00.000-07:00

Bean Walker has the story here.

Congrats to Gentry, and congrats to Iowa.

Gentry brings a lot of experience to the RNC, with his serving in the past as ED of the state party, Political Director for the Republican Governor's Association, leading the Iowa effort for Mitt Romney's campaign and most recently as the Midwest Regional Campaign Manager for the McCain campaign. With someone like Gentry at the RNC, Iowa should feel more comfortable about retaining our First in the Nation status.

--------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

We're Back!

2009-03-18T13:27:00.000-07:00

After a long hiatus (much longer than I thought), this blog is back! Keep checking back, we'll have more stuff up here soon.

-------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Fred Thompson Coming to Town

2007-09-27T13:05:00.001-07:00

It is kind of neat that the 100th post on this blog belongs to this announcement:

FRED THOMPSON
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2ND, DOORS OPEN AT 10:50AM
WEBSTER COUNTY GOP HEADQUARTERS
900 CENTRAL AVENUE, FORT DODGE, IOWA

Contact Kristen Fuzer at kfuzer@fred08.com to RSPV (make sure to denote the Fort Dodge event).

---------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Last Nights Debate

2007-09-06T07:39:00.000-07:00

There has been some mixed reviews of the debate last night. Some thought it was good, some thought it wasn't so good.

Some general thoughts:

1). For all of the talk from the Democrats about how Fox News is an extension of the RNC, last night proved otherwise. I haven't seen the Democrats asked as tough of questions as the Republicans were last night. Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Wendall Goler didn't let the candidates off lightly. There is a consensus that Romney was hammered by the tough questions, which is probably true (I didn't keep count), and Giuliani was hit hard on his family and his immigration policies while mayor of New York. McCain faced some tough ones on immigration and on the no-tax pledge. I realize that some people may complain about this, and politically softball questions make candidates look better, but I think tough questions are good things. If a candidate can't face the serious questions, and confront any concerns about his or her candidacy, then they shouldn't be running in the first place.

2) McCain had his best debate performance yet, and I agree with the consensus that McCain won. He was running on all eight cylinders, his jokes were good and didn't sound like they were forced, he provided clear answers to the questions, and took advantage of the openings he found. He was the most solid on the war and the surge, as well as on spending. He hit the question about him not signing the no-tax pledge a lot harder than many were anticipating. You could tell Romney was caught off guard when McCain hit him back on the surge that it's not apparently working, it is working. It was interesting to see how many of the candidates were complementing McCain or referring to his previous statements. If McCain can keep this up, he's going to be back in the hunt in no time.

3) Romney didn't look as good as he had in previous debates. For starters, his hair and make-up wasn't very good (but then, a lot of them had that problem). Some of his answers were a little weak, particularly on Iraq, and many of his jokes fell flat.

4) Who kept laughing at Ron Paul? Every time he was asked a question or gave an answer, there was an audible laugh from someone near a microphone. Paul provided one of the memorable moments in the debate when he and Mike Huckabee (in a position that every other candidate wanted to be in) went back and forth about the war. And the moderators didn't hold anything back when questioning Paul. Chris Wallace (or was it Brit Hume?) took a huge swipe at him by asking him about his stances on abolishing the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, etc. Wallace also had a good jab at Paul when he asked "So we should take our marching orders from Al-Qaeda?"

5) Tancredo's speaking style when he talked about immigration was much much better than it has been in the past. I was always uncomfortable because he started rushing his answer trying to get as much in as he could within the time limit, which led to a choppy speech pattern as he had to fight for breaths and to stop and think for brief moments. I found it distracting from his answer. He didn't have that problem on his immigration answer last night, but then the choppiness returned later on.

6) Fred Thompson received a lot of flak about skipping the debate in favor of appearing on Jay Leno. Even though I have noticed a little anti-Thompson feeling from Fox News (particularly from Carl Cameron) and that he did skip their debate, I was a little surprised that the moderators allowed the bash fest for the first question of the night. While I can understand why he wanted to go and announce on Leno (I'm still not sure if that is the right place to announce that you're running for President of the United States, but that's another post), I also think it was important that he be in New Hampshire for the debate. We'll find what, if anything, this will do for Thompson in his campaign.

Overall I thought it was a good debate. As I pointed out earlier, the Republican candidates faced the tough questions from what Democrats say is a friendly network. I think it says a lot about Fox News as a news organization, as well as the candidates that they stood up to the questions and, overall, did a good job in responding to them. And I think it says a lot about the Democrats who haven't faced those kinds of tough questions, even from "their network"--CNN.
----------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Should RPI Make Republican Candidates Take the Pledge?

2007-09-04T07:43:00.000-07:00

I think the Democrats are on to something--or at least some of them anyway. Before you move onto another site, hear me out.

My last post I talked a bit about the jumping primary schedule. Both the DNC and the RNC have been trying very hard to keep states from jumping ahead, mainly by threatening to take away a state's half or full (as in the case of Florida and the DNC) convention delegates. It doesn't appear to have done much yet as Michigan appears to have jumped to Jan 15th, and Wyoming to January 5th

So why not use the candidates themselves to keep the schedule as set by the national committees? You may have heard that the chairs of the Iowa, New Hampshire,Nevada, and South Carolina Democrat Parties sent letters to the Democrat presidential candidates asking them to pledge to keep the primary schedule as set by the DNC. Pretty much all of them, including Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, have taken the pledge. Bill Richardson this weekend even proclaimed that God wanted Iowa to be first in the nation.

My question is why are Republicans not doing the same thing?

John McCain probably came the closest of any of the Republican hopefuls this weekend when he said that the traditional spot for Iowa and New Hampshire should remain the way it has been, and said he would consider skipping any state that moves to disrupt the calendar. In his stop at Jewell on Sunday night, he said that Iowa and New Hampshire were the best at determining character in candidates, and by not having us and NH up front means that candidates will not have that one-on-one vetting and political campaigns will be run almost only as advertisements on TV and the internet.

Why shouldn't Ray Hoffman and his counterparts in New Hampshire and South Carolina send out letters asking candidates to pledge to not campaign in states to move ahead in the schedule? RPI wasn't shy about expressing its feelings on McCain, Giuliani and Thompson skipping the Iowa Straw Poll. Why should it be shy now?

This would probably be the most effective way to stop the calendar shuffling, and it will mean more if all of the candidates in both parties pledge to not campaign in the jumping states. One would think that a state wouldn't choose to jump ahead if they know it won't bring any more candidate face time than they currently have. But it needs to be done ASAP, before Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs the bill that would move their primary up, and before any other states decide to jump ahead as well.

------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Iowa's Influence in the Primary Cycle

2007-09-02T13:36:00.000-07:00

Ross Kaminsky as an interesting piece at Real Clear Politics on the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. Kaminsky argues that Iowa and New Hampshire is loosing it's influence in the primary schedule. Romney is leading by between 10 and 15 points in both Iowa and New Hampshire, while Giuliani is leading in a number of the February 5th states, as well as in the national polls.

Kaminsky argues that while focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire is probably the best strategy for Romney, in the end it won't help him with the nomination because the compact schedule will prevent him from gaining on any momentum in the later states (particularly the February 5th states) where Giuliani has a good hold.

While I think that Kaminsky is on to something, and indeed I pretty much agree that the nomination will come down to a question of strategy, I still wonder.

If you look at the polls and the poll averages at Real Clear Politics, you'll see that the one in the lead only has, at most, a support in the low thirties. There is also about 20% or so, maybe more or maybe less, of the respondents who didn't have an opinion. Combine this with the well known statistic that an overwhelming majority of caucus/primary goers do not choose who they vote for until the week or even the day before the voting.

So, in theory, Romney could win several of the lead off states and gain the support of those late deciders in later states. Of course this would depend greatly on how the media spins the early state results as well as how the other top candidates perform. For instance, with Giuliani's positions that are in conflict with voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc, he would still look strong coming in 2nd or 3rd in the early states, and maintain his positioning in the later states.

Another question is where will supporters go when their candidate drops out? It might lead the number 2 or 3 man to look more competitive in the state, but they could also pad the leader's numbers and make him look even better.

So Iowa and New Hampshire could still have some kind of influence on the later states.
In the end, it's not over yet and the big questions--how will the new calendar affect who is the nominee and how it effects Iowa's and New Hampshire's influence--has a while before it's answered.

UPDATE: Mathew Continetti at The Weekly Standard is thinking along the same lines in an article where he looks at Giuliani's chances at winning the nomination.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

On the Recent Unpleasantness

2007-08-31T18:46:00.000-07:00

As you've probably heard by now, District Judge Robert Hanson down in Polk County single handedly decided that Iowa would recognize gay marriage. The actual ruling is here, thanks to Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today (see below). A stay was issued today, but not before 21 licenses were handed out, with one couple from Ames actually getting married before the stay was put in place. Jonathan Martin has a piece up on his blog at The Politico.com about this, and has a map depicting what states allow same-sex marriage, civil unions or partnerships. Notice that the highlighted states are on the coasts, except for Iowa, right in the middle.

Kudos to Mitt Romney for sending this message out fairly soon after the announcement: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."

According to Jonathan Martin at the above link, John McCain issued a press release saying that "the decision "a loss for the traditional family,' and noting that he supports 'the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."

Chris Rants issued this release:
“Judge Hanson’s shocking action today has reversed the will of the people of Iowa, the will of the Legislature,” said Rants. “Democrats, in trying to appease special interest groups, allowed this to happen with their opposition to a marriage amendment. If Gov. Culver and Legislative Democrats proceed with a special session regarding the date of the Iowa caucus, Democrats need to step up and put this issue to rest by introducing a marriage amendment to Iowa’s Constitution.”

Rants added that House Republicans would support a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage in the state of Iowa. “The over-stepping and stunning action taken by this court today proves that work on a Constitutional marriage amendment must begin immediately.”

And Governor Culver, a little surprising I might say, issued this release: “While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

“I also believe in the rule of law and respect for the judicial process. I have not had the opportunity to review today's opinion from the Polk County District Court. I understand this ruling is one step that is subject to appeal, up to and including the Supreme Court. I will continue to follow this matter closely as it continues through the judicial system before determining whether any additional legislative actions are appropriate or necessary."

This ruling should outrage everyone. There are several different aspects of this case that can be discussed.

The first obvious issue is gay marriage. Is marriage to remain as one man and one woman, or can/could/should the definition of marriage be changed to same sex or anything else? Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today brought this up. He opened his post with this: I’ve only glanced at the Iowa decision, so this is nothing like a final or fully considered analysis. Still, I was struck by one particular phrase in the decision: "In addition, their [i.e. same-sex couples’] exclusion [from marriage] defeats the state’s admitted interest in the welfare of all [emphasis original] of its children, regardless of whether they are parented by different-sex couples, same-sex couples or any other family unit [p. 58, my emphasis]. Its a good post that I recommend you read, as well as the "Beyond Same Sex Marriage" manifesto he links to. He brings up an important point. Opponents of same sex marriage have argued almost from day one about the slippery slope---same sex marriage leading to polygamy, or something else. It appears that the slope is more real that some would have you believe.

Second, and I would argue more important, is what is the role of judges in our government? Are judges there to interpret law, or make law? The constitution, both federal and state, says that the legislature makes law, while the judicial interprets that law. They don't read into the law what they want, they don't make things up and say its in there with some creative wording (Justice Douglas' "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance" in Roe v. Wade). Is Iowa going to stand by and allow law to be made from the bench, or will we, the electorate as well as our elected officials stand up and keep the right to make law only with the legislative branch?

Third is the option of constitutional amendments. It's fairly obvious that there will be a huge push for a change in the Iowa constitution. The question though is how many states will likewise see a push for constitutional amendments (currently there are twenty-six states with the amendment), and will there be a new push for a federal amendment? It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out with the presidential candidates. Mitt Romney supports a federal amendment, while John McCain and Fred Thompson have voiced their support for individual state amendments instead. I'm not sure where the other candidates stand on the issue, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

Finally, this is an issue that is going to energize Republicans across the state. In Iowa, a constitutional amendment needs to be read in the legislature during two consecutive sessions before being passed onto a state wide referendum. So while an actual amendment won't be on the ballot in 2008 (unless a special session would count as one session, then the 2008 session as number two), Republicans will come out in force to vote against anyone who doesn't support an amendment. Everybody running for office this cycle, from presidential candidates all the way down to the local level, is going to be asked repeatedly what his or her stance is on this and if they will support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Their responses need to be recorded and distributed so everyone knows. Even those not facing reelection this cycle need to be repeatedly asked about this.

The effects of Robert Hanson's actions won't only be seen here in Iowa however. It's going to be felt across the county. Before, the only states anyone saw this happening was in California, Massachusetts, and other bastions of liberalism along the coasts. Again, see the map posted in the first paragraph. Nobody expected this to happen in Iowa. Iowa was probably the last place, outside of the south, where someone might expect this. But it happened. And if it can happen in Iowa, it can happen anywhere.

-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

A Few Things After a Long Break

2007-08-29T19:22:00.000-07:00

Sorry for such a delay in posting. I've been a little busy lately, but now it looks like I might be able to post a little bit more. For now, a few odds and ends that have come up in the past few weeks.

---The last post was about the Fair Tax rally in Fort Dodge on August 4th. The rain put a little damper on the event, but it was moved to the canopy at the library entrance, and still there was a pretty good crowd for the weather. Many of them seemed to walk away if not enthused about the Fair Tax, at least with a peaked interest. The organization gave away free hats, t-shirts, and tickets and transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll. There was also a video booth where the participant could make a short video about their tax experiences, what they hate about the IRS, etc, with the best video winning $500. I saw two or three people go in, but I'm not sure who the winner was.

---The Iowa Straw Poll, in my opinion as well as the opinion of those who went, was a success. The media was filled with stories about how the numbers were way down, it was anti-climatic as Romney, as expected, won and Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson did not participate; it only weeded one candidate from the the field (Tommy Thompson); yadda yadda yadda. First off, everyone was comparing this year's straw poll with the 1999 one, which itself was an anomaly. The number of attendees in 1999 vastly exceeded what was planned for, which was why there were problems with voting and such. It was a pretty hot day in Ames, which very likely kept many at home, especially those with any health problems. RPI did a very good job with planning and logistics. The event itself, except for the minor recount at the end, went off almost without a hitch. Everything was orderly, and everyone seemed to be having a good time and enjoying themselves. The size of the tents and crowds at the Brownback and Romney tent was impressive. Romney actually had two tents--a "kitchen" where you picked up your food, and a "mess hall" where you could sit down and eat-- as well as a stage with a giant video screen that aired Romney's speech live. The Fair Tax tent was also impressive. It was air conditioned which served pretty good tenderloins, and had a faris wheel and several other games outside.

---Finally, the primary schedule. To put it bluntly, this is getting ridiculous. All eyes have been on Florida lately, with it wanting to move up to January 29th, and the DNC and RNC in turn threating to take away half or all of their convention delegates if they actually did so. Today comes news that Wyoming has moved their date to JANUARY 5TH. This will push New Hampshire and Iowa into December. That means we'll be heading to caucuses in about three and a half months. That means that on that drive, we'll be listening to Christmas music on the radio, and pass Christmas lights on the way. Some might even go Christmas shopping afterwards if all goes speedy.

The dates and methods of choosing convention delegates and how electoral votes will be apportioned has always been up to the states. If you've ever read Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy, or some other work about the political history before the Civil War, you'll see examples of this, and how things changed over the years. But the days of the states deciding for themselves when they hold their caucus or primary are almost over. In the next congress, there will be some bill creating a national primary day or days, thus stripping another power away from the states. My guess is that the states will divided into 3-4 groups, with fairly even numbers of large and small states, that will rotate among set primary dates every four years. Iowa and New Hampshire will be in no place to do anything about it as their delegations are small, and it won't help Iowa's case with the likely possibility of us losing a congressional seat next redistricting. This also means that the days of retail politics, where the candidate has to greet people and pass the one-on-one test, are pretty much done as well. If the next primary cycle features a large number of states grouped on the same day, the campaigns will organize the larger, less personable events than what we are used to now. Enjoy it while it lasts folks, and you know what states you can thank.

---------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Fair Tax Rally

2007-08-02T14:07:00.000-07:00

The Fair Tax organization will have a rally in front of the Fort Dodge Rally on SATURDAY, AUGUST 4TH FROM 11:30-1:30. There will be a free catered lunch, free hats, t-shirts, Iowa Straw Poll tickets and transportation, as well as a contest where you can win $500 if you make a 30-60 second video about what you don't like about the IRS. This is part of the giant bus tour the Fair Tax organization is conduction across Iowa before the Iowa Straw Poll.

In case you don't know what Fair Tax is, it is a national sales tax that would replace the federal income tax and the IRS. Presidential candidates Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, along with Iowa's very own Steve King are co-sponsors of the House bill; Mike Huckabee has made Fair Tax one of his main issues in his campaign; and John McCain and Tommy Thompson have said they will sign it if it comes across their desk. You can find the co-sponsors of HF25 and S1025 here, and where other US House and Senate members stand on Fair Tax here. The Fair Tax is also an official plank of the Republican Party of Iowa platform (13.6 under the "Taxes and Spending" section).

There will be a giant Fair Tax rally at the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th that the organization would love to get everyone involved with.

So whether you are a supporter, or aren't quite sure yet, come on out and hear more about the Fair Tax on Saturday. It'll be worth your time.

---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Straw Poll Analysis

2007-07-22T09:43:00.000-07:00

While a few day late, Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post has a piece up about the Ames Straw Poll and looks at each candidate and what must happen for them. It's a good analysis.

First, the straw poll is a showing of organization on who can get the most supporters there. This requires at the very least several weeks, but more like several months, to find supporters, organize transportation all across the state, organizing all of the tent activities, and so on. If you read the Des Moines Register story on Sara Taylor this morning, you read about how she went around to biker bars signing up people to ride their Harley's to the straw poll for George W Bush. While it recently came out that he is scaling back his straw poll organization, Romney's campaign has been doing quite a bit of phone calling in the last month or so finding supporters. Other campaigns are starting to tour the state, and enlisting the help of supporters who attend their events.

With Mitt Romney the only one of the "front runners" participating, it'll be a contest of the second-tier candidates. I'm looking at the straw poll as creating a wild card entry into the top tier, particularly if the candidate is not to well known. The candidate will have quite a bit of free media to broadcast his message, and voters across the state and country will probably check him out more. Of course, it'll be up to the candidate to take full advantage of this.

The big questions I have:

--Which candidate will beat expectations? A candidate won't necessarily need to win the poll if they can do better than expected (yes, I know, that pretty much covers every candidate). For example, if say John Cox or Tommy Thompson, two candidates who receive scant media coverage, can finish a strong second or third, it will benefit their campaign immensely. A similar question is will any candidate fail to meet expectations? Mitt Romney is the odds on favorite to win, and it appears that Brownback is starting to catch on with a lot of people. If Romney fails to win or doesn't win by a sizable amount, or if Brownback doesn't finish well, it won't be good for them and they'll have their work cut out for them till January.

--How will Fred Thompson do? He's on the ballot, and it appears he won't be contesting the poll as he probably won't announce until after Labor Day. If he doesn't do well, it won't matter much because he didn't contest it. If he does do well though, it'll add more to his developing campaign.

--What candidates will drop out if they have a poor showing? Huckabee and Tommy Thompson have laid it all on the line; Huckabee says he needs to finish third or better, Thompson says second or better. Tancredo, it appears, will probably drop his bid if he doesn't finish at least fifth. In the back of my mind, 5th place was the cut off point, but it will ultimately depend on the candidate and how they feel they need to do. Elizabeth Dole finished 3rd in 2000, about 1,500 votes behind Steve Forbes and a good 1,300 votes ahead of Gary Bauer, and still dropped out. Pat Buchanan and Lamar Alexander finished 5th and 6th, respectively, and dropped out, however, Alan Keys and Orin Hatch, finishing 7th and 9th, respectively, stayed on till the caucus.

--How will Ron Paul finish. This might strike some people as an odd question, but if you pay attention to the political internet world, you'll know why I ask. He's been getting a lot of media coverage lately, his followers patrol the internet forums, blogs and comment sections for any opportunity to get Paul's message out there. Then, Patrick Ruffini last week predicted that Paul will finish second, based a lot on the fact he had 1,400 people attend his rally after the ICA candidate forum on June 30th. The only thing is that you must be an Iowa resident to vote at the straw poll, and I have no idea on what Paul's grassroots strength is in the state. That's why I'm interested.

--And finally, How many people will turn out for the event, and what kinds of, if any, problems will show up? Originally, the Republican Party of Iowa was estimating up to 50,000 people before Giuliani and McCain dropped out. Now the guesstimates are between 30,000 and 40,000. This is a big fund raiser for the party, and the more tickets sold, the better for the party's bank account. As for the problems, no event goes off without a hitch, especially one of this size. A major complaint at the 2000 straw poll was that because more people showed up than expected, the voting process left a lot of people in line for quite a while. It sounds like RPI has fixed this, and if the event can go off with few and little problems, it will be a great boost for the state party.
--------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Outright Disgusting

2007-07-19T18:45:00.000-07:00

You probably remember the case of the "Flying Imams" in Minneapolis in November. Six Imams, during the boarding of a US Airways flight, passengers observed them making suspecious movements, including asking for seatbelt extenders when they obviously didn't need them, changing seats, and making anti-American statements. The Imams were removed from the flight, and proceeded to sue the "John Does"--the passengers who reported the movements to flight authorities.

This led Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to bring forth a legislation in the House that would prevent passengers from being sued for reporting suspicious activities. In effect, it would be a Good Samaritan law, like those which protect people from trying to render aid to another person. King rightly saw that the threat of suing those who speak up would be used to quiet the public and thus put transportation passengers in much greater risk.

The amendment passed the House overwhelmingly--by a vote of 304-21. Case closed, right?

Wrong. Today, House Democrats left out the amendment in the Homeland Security Bill. The Democrat Congress voted for legislation that protects US citizens from litigation for alerting authorities to suspicious activity, and then found a convenient technicality to throw it out. It's exactly as John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog says, Democrats can go home and say they voted for this and be technically correct. However, if there is no outrage from those who voted for this, then the voters need to be reminded of it. This move does nothing to increase our national security. In effect, it diminishes it. If American citizens are too worried about being sued to report suspicious activity, that gives terrorist a free hand to do what they please.

This is pathetic and outright disgusting. Democrats are trying to portray themselves as strong on defense, but you can't take them seriously after this stunt.

The Washington Times story reports that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has said she will try to insert a similiar amendment to an education bill pending in the Senate, and that Rep. King is in talks with Sen. Joe Lieberman to get the amendment slipped into the conference bill. Keep your fingers crossed.

More commentary and/or links at The Corner, and Captain's Quarters, and Powerline.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reports that Sen. Collins move tonight just failed, 57-39, missing cloture by 3 votes thanks to some last minute Democrat arm twisting. The link includes a lot of coverage on the topic, including the roll call of tonights vote. Grassley voted for it , HARKIN VOTED AGAINST IT. As for the presidential candidates--voting "Yes" was Clinton and McCain. Voting "No" was Dodd and Biden. Those who did not vote were Brownback and Obama.

As Malkin points out, we still have the conference report.

UPDATE #2: Andy McCarthy at The Corner has more coverage on the event. He makes a good point with this: "If the state subpoenas you for information, you are compelled to provide it to the authorities whether you want to or not; but if you want to provide it voluntarily in order to protect your community, the Democrats say, 'prepare to be sued.'"

Debra Berlingame has an opinion piece up at DailyNews.net on the story.

Also, Audrey Hudson at the Washington Times, who first reported this story, is now reporting that a parliamentarian ruled that the amendment can be added to the legislation as it fits into the scope of it. Democrats are only allowing 3-4 amendments to be added, so it remains to be seen if King's amendment will be one of those.
-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Reaction to Harkin's "No Sleep Until We Retreat" Speech

2007-07-19T14:11:00.000-07:00

National Review Online had an article today by Mark Hemingway, writing about his experience watching the "No Sleep Until We Retreat" debate in the Senate the other night. Hemingway mentions Tom Harkin, at the 1:09 and 1:15am entries. Those entries, like the whole article, are pretty funny, so check it out.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Tancredo in Fort Dodge

2007-07-18T16:44:00.000-07:00

In continuance of the pre-Iowa Straw Poll candidate visits, Tom Tancredo came to the headquarters in Fort Dodge Monday night (July 16th). The Messenger doesn't have an online article, but there was a story in the paper edition on Tuesday.

The event drew, by our account, somewhere between 120 and 130 people. We're not sure if we've ever had that many people in the headquarters before, but if we have, it has certainly been a while. Even though we brought in extra chairs, seating was at a premium, and a good portion of the attendees had to stand. Outside, the campaign had parked a moving truck they had covered with Tancredo signs, which I heard they were driving around Fort Dodge during the afternoon.

I wasn't able to hear the whole speech, so I can't recap what he said ( I can tell you he did talk about immigration), but I did hear the audience applause several times. There were some questions about how many came just for the free food, but the reactions Tancredo received showed it couldn't have been many. I overheard several inquiries about the Iowa Straw Poll, and a few for yard signs.

One of the impressions left on several people I talked with afterwards is that immigration is going to be a big issue this election. Judging by what I heard from people coming up to talk with Tancred both before and after he spoke, that was the big reason they came. It would be smart for Republicans to at least look at making immigration one of its main issues this election.

All in all, it was a good event for the Tancredo campaign. Word is he'll be back in the area toward the end of the month, so keep visiting this blog as well as our website (www.webcorep.com).

UPDATE: Tancredo's blog has a couple photos of the event up.

------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Presidential Candidate Contact Information

2007-07-16T08:37:00.000-07:00

Here is a list of contact information for our Republican presidential candidates. Unless I did not have such information, I used the candidate's Iowa office contact information, and also listed the specific Iowa page on the candidates website if one existed. This information will be updated and changed as needed.

Sam Brownback
www.brownback.com
526 Main Street
Ames, Ia.

John Cox
www.cox2008.com
815 Office Park Road
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265

Rudy Giuliani
www.joinrudy2008.com
Campaign headquarters address:
295 Greenwich St., No. 371
New York, N.Y. 10007
212-835-9449

Mike Huckabee
www.mikehuckabee.com
(Iowa page) http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=IowaHQ.Home
P.O. Box 200
Little Rock, Ark. 72203
501-324-2008

Duncan Hunter
www.gohunter08.com
Hunter for President Inc.
9340 Fuerte Drive, Suite 302
La Mesa, Calif. 91941
619-463-3896

John McCain
www.johnmccain.com
(Iowa site) http://iowa.johnmccain.com/
2335 70th Street
Urbandale, IA 50322

Mitt Romney
www.mittromney.com
3590 109th St.
Urbandale, Iowa

Tom Tancredo
http://www.teamtancredo.com/
Suite 102
217 Welch Avenue
Ames, IA 50014
Phone: (515) 268-3341
Fax: (515) 268-3347

Tommy Thompson
www.tommy2008.com
(Iowa Page) http://www.tommy2008.com/Tommy_Across_Iowa.aspx
10544 Justin Drive
Urbandale, IA 50322
515-422-5100
iowa@tommy2008.com

Huckabee Visits Fort Dodge

2007-07-16T08:09:00.000-07:00

Mike Huckabee stopped at the GOP Headquarters to speak with about 40 people on Saturday afternoon. Here is a story on the event from The Messenger. There are photos taken by the paper here.

Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas, originally from the town Hope. That, you'll remember, is the same place Bill Clinton is from. Huckabee brought Bob Vander Plaats with him. Vander Plaats was the Lieutenant Governor nominee last year, and is currently Huckabee's state chair.

Huckabee ran a little late (it's a rare politician who doesn't), and apologized for his tardiness. He mentioned that he was speeding to get over here and luckily the state patrol wasn't on the road. An audience member shouted "that's because he's in here" (which was true, though he was off duty). Huckabee's face blanked out briefly, the quickly replied that he wasn't driving and he didn't even know what vehicle he was in.

Huckabee touched on several topics, including the Fair Tax, changes needed in the health care system, and foreign policy. The attendees seemed impressed with the former governor and what he had to say.

Huckabee asked everyone to come to the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th, and support him. He promised that at his tent, it would be 68 degrees with no humidity. If you're interested in attending the straw poll with Gov. Huckabee, contact his campaign, it looks like you can use this page to sign up.

----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

It's Time to Disengage from Congress

2007-07-12T20:17:00.000-07:00

Tonight, the US House of Representatives voted for defeat. On a party line vote of 223-201, the House approved a measure to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 180 days and to be completely out by April 1st, 2008 (April Fools Day, oddly enough).

Petraeus hasn't even given his September report. The full component of troops for the surge just arrived in the country. They have been engaging Al Qaeda, as Michael Yon has reported on. Tribes previously allied with AQ have turned and joined us. We are gaining more intelligence because the local populace feels more secure and doesn't fear for their lives in giving that information. And through this engagement, we have found how sickening these terrorists are, and what we are truly facing in this war. Iraqi troops found mass graves filled with the bodies of Al Qaeda victims. Yon reported on a story of an 11 year old boy baked...BAKED... and served to his parents because that young boy's parents had somehow crossed Al Qaeda.

This vote came about because of a document released today stating that eight of the benchmarks for Iraq have been met. Which means, even if the press doesn't make much of it, that eight of the benchmarks have been met or are well on their way there. Bombings have decreased. Death squad kills have decreased. Civilian deaths have decreased. The benchmarks that haven't been met yet are mostly political. They haven't prepared enough for local elections. They haven't done anything on oil revenue sharing. Etc.

Now, the US House wants us to leave. Have those who voted for this bill considered what will happen if we leave? Have they considered the violence that Al Qaeda will bring to Iraq? It will make places like Lebanon look like a picnic. Iran will seek to push its hegemony in the region, and Saudi Arabia will make similar moves. The Kurds in the north will push for their own country, and Turkey will come in to prevent an independent Kurdistan, as well as to flush out PKK terrorist hiding out in the mountains of area. You think gas prices are high now? If Iran gets control, or at the very least influence, over this area, gas prices will go sky high.

Rush Limbaugh brought up the point that our..OUR..congress can't deal with our current oil problems. They haven't built any new refineries. They haven't built any new nuclear power plants. Instead, they sit around and yell about oil company profits. Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy fly around in their private jets telling us how WE need to change our ways. How can we expect the Iraqis to quickly deal with their problems if our congress can't? Democrats are always throwing the word "hypocrisy" into conversations, so why don't we?

Rush, Mark Levin, and probably others today, have said this: Why don't we hear about benchmarks with the current congress? How is that "6 for '06" thing going? Huh? If I remember right, the only part of that plan that has been signed into law is the minimum wage. Instead, all we get is Harry Reid telling us that the war is lost even when the surge forces were still be redeployed. All we get is Speaker Pelosi going over to Syria to "meet and talk" with a government who is currently allowing terrorist to cross it's boarder and kill our troops . All we get is Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer boasting about how many Senate seats they are going to gain because of the war. All we get is Jack Murtha calling our troops murders. They call for vote after vote after vote on Iraq, and jump with glee when the "yea" votes increase. The immigration bill--the bill that the American people overwhelming opposed--had to be killed not once--BUT TWICE.

This obviously means that the Democrat controlled congress has failed to meet its benchmarks. Thus, I call for a disengagement of the American People from this Congress. It is time to bring our Representatives and Senators home before they waste any more of our hard earned tax money on doing nothing.

PS---As a final note, I hope you have all heard Sen. John McCain's speech on the Senate floor the other day about his recent trip to Iraq. You can read the text here, and I'm sure there is video of it out there somewhere. I know there are a lot of people out there who don't care for Sen. McCain, and that can be putting it mildly. I know there are people out there jumping for joy at the recent events surrounding his campaign. But you have to admire a man who is willing to stand up in the Senate and say what he said. Not as an affront to any other candidate, but Sen. McCain has been, in my opinion, the most passionate of our candidates calling out the mistakes and mismanagement that has occurred in this war, and the need for us to finish the job over there.
------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

City Council Bans Sexual Orientation Descrimination

2007-07-11T18:20:00.000-07:00

Monday night, the Fort Dodge City Council voted in favor of adding sexual orientation to an anti-discrimination law. Everyone voted yes except for Cindy Litwiller, who voted no.

When this last came up last year, it created a firestorm of controversy. A couple of local religious groups opposed it because of their religious beliefs. One proponent said we needed the law because they would make the city look better (would this be a job Fort Dodge citizens are unwilling to do?). The council didn't make any friends by just tabling the issue and doing nothing.

Even with the controversy I can't say I'm too surprised that the law was passed with as many votes as it did. As The Messenger article noted, a similar law was passed by the Iowa legislature this year, so it pretty much made it inevitable. But what really got me was a quote by Council Member Dan Payne, who said that even though most everyone he talked to opposed the measure, and even though he personally opposed the measure, he voted "yes" anyways.

My only question is--How do you reconcile the two? Its one thing to vote the way your constituents want you to. It's one thing to take a stand and vote your belief and convictions. But to go against both of those?

-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Webster County Fair

2007-07-11T18:05:00.000-07:00

We should be out at the Webster County Fair with a tent during the week. Not sure exactly where we'll be set up or when the tent will be open, but if no one is there, stop by another time. If you're interested in helping man the table, contact Tina Kastendieck (tina@webcorep.com) and let her know when you can help out.

---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

More Candidates Comming Our Way

2007-07-10T08:10:00.000-07:00

The Iowa Straw Poll is just around the corner. We had Tommy Thompson at the HQ on Saturday, and now we have two more candidates visiting us in the next week.

SATURDAY, JULY 14TH, 3:00-4:30PM--MIKE HUCKABEE The event will be at the Webster County GOP headquarters (900 Central Ave).

MONDAY, JULY 16TH, 6:30PM-- TOM TANCREDO The event will also be at the Webster County GOP headquarters (900 Central Ave).

So let you friends know, and bring at least one of them along with you. Even if you are not planning on supporting either of these candidates, come out anyways and hear what they have to say. If word gets out that Webster County can draw good numbers to candidate visits, we'll get more of them--and that's a good think.

-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Can NASCAR and Politicians Learn From Each Other?

2007-07-09T07:08:00.000-07:00

If you are a member of NASCAR Nation, you knew that the Pepsi 400, one of the biggest races of the Nextel Cup season, was run on Saturday. If you were watching Fox News Channel this weekend, you probably saw a report by Carl Cameron about Rudy's appearance at the Daytona International Speedway for the race.

If, like me, you fall into both categories, you probably winced a little watching Rudy stumble though his understanding of NASCAR, and how it compares to political campaigns. Now, I have a lot of respect for Rudy, and I understand what he was trying to do because it's something that I've thought about several times. So I'm going to help him out, and compare NASCAR and political campaigns. This isn't supposed to be some serious analysis, just a fun little thought piece.

First off, they are both races (well, d'uh). In the most basic form, both are competitions among several people/groups to see who can finish first. Massive preparation among the competitors proceed the races to have the best team they can field to win the race.

The average NASCAR driver competes in 36 races each season. Drivers receives a certain number of points for what place they finish, and if they led a lap and if they led the most laps. In the final 10 races of the season, the top 12 drivers in the points standings then compete for the championship. In politics, you usually continue to run for office until you want to retire or you loose. The election that a politician currently runs in maybe be one in a long line of elections, or it may be the only election he or she participates in.

Drivers get into the Cup series by competing in lower tier series (the Busch Series or the Craftsman Truck series), or other series such as F1 circuit ( Juan Pablo Montoya) or Indy Racing League (IRL champion and 2 time Nextel Cup champion Tony Stewart). How long you drive depends on how well you drive. Unless you are marketable, if you can't compete and run up front, a driver might find himself out of a ride. This also goes for crews. Crew members who show talent are usually courted by better teams, and many of them can start off low on the totem poll sweeping the shop.

It's not much different in politics. Outside of local and state legislators, most politicians have probably previously served in a lower level of government or some other aspect of government. Bush 43 and Clinton were both governors, Bush 41 was Vice-President and former CIA director. Many Senators have served in the US Congress. A politician is not afforded as many chances to not come in first though. If you loose, you political career could very well be over. And if you loose too many campaigns, you become a laughing stock or just ignored. Staffers and consultants usually start low on the totem poll as well. Staffers who prove themselves on state legislature campaigns can find themselves working for congressional or senate campaigns or presidential campaigns. Likewise, people who have worked for issue advocacy groups can find themselves working for campaigns.

So lets look at and compare the teams. In NASCAR, while we focus on the drivers, it really is a competition among teams. Every car has a pit crew at the race who changes the tires, refuels the car, and fixes any damage that occurs on the track. The team will have a crew chief who makes the calls on whether and when the driver should come to pit road, how many tires the pit crew will put on, how much fuel should be added, etc. Back at the shop, there is a car chief who makes sure the car is ready to go for the race. The engine teams tears apart, cleans, replace parts, and then rebuilds the engine. The fabricators build whole new cars to replace damaged or old cars. The PR team will take care of press questions, and helps market their driver and team to the fans as well as sponsors, whose contributions makes it possible to run the whole organization. How many people you have in your organization depends on how big the team is and how much money you can raise from your sponsors.

Political elections can likewise be considered a competition among teams. While everyone focuses on the candidate, there is a whole team behind him or her. There are campaign managers who make the decisions on what and how much to spend. There are the press and communication aides who deal with the press and answers questions from the public. There are more and more internet people who help market the candidate on the internet. There are people who focus on fund raising. Consultants help with marketing the candidate to various constituent groups, such as veterans, religious groups, tax groups, etc. And of course you have a field staff who goes out and finds supporters and sets up the grass roots organization. Like NASCAR, the size of the campaign depends on fund raising and how many contributions you can bring in.

Now lets look at the race itself. First off, no two races are really the same. The tracks vary. Daytona and Talladega are Super Speedways where the driver never lets off the throttle and the use of restrictor plates (which reduce the amount of airflow into the engine and tops the speed at 190mph) force the drivers to draft other cars and create huge packs. You can loose a lot of spots by loosing the draft, and gain a lot of spots by getting a good draft. Cars packed together driving at high speeds with drivers fighting to get to the front often creates the "big one," a wreck that involves several cars. Tracks such as Bristol, Martinsville and Richmond, are short tracks that require a different kind of strategy, centering around track position and pit strategy because of the difficulty in passing. Many of the intermediate tracks are similar in constructions (Michigan, Chicago, Kansas, and California), but they have their differences as well, such as how many racing "lines" there are. The weather, time of day, and air and track temperature also makes a difference. The heat in the track will effect tire pressure which alters the handle of the car. In races where the green flag drops in the daylight and finishes under the lights, teams have to take into account the change in temperatures in order to have a chance to win. Approaching bad weather and the chances of a shortened race can also effect how the race plays out. Drivers will stay out on the track longer than planned to keep their position in rain is imminent.

In politics, campaigns differ greatly as well. The obvious is that presidential campaigns can be run differently from US Senate campaigns, US Congressional campaigns, state legislature campaigns, etc. Within each category, the various campaigns can differ as well. The popularity of the parties, which can differ from district and region, will play a role. Issue importance may differ also in different regions. Employment may be more important in an area that just lost a manufacturing plant than another area where a plant is still operating. Candidate personalities and perceptions also differ. Some candidates may have to work harder than others because of name recognition and media coverage. Different strategies can develop among candidates from the same party. For example, let's look at the presidential campaigns. Some candidates are riding completely on the Iowa Straw Poll. Others look ahead at winning the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Others may focus on the February 5th primaries, like what many are speculating Rudy will do. And when you get into a general election, the focus of the Democrat campaign will differ from the Republican campaign like in issues, though they can also be similar such as focusing on the same battleground states.

The place that a driver or candidate is running at the beginning can change throughout the race. I've seen many races where the guys running up front at the beginning of the race are not the same ones running up front at the end. Several years ago, Kasey Kahne was out driving everyone at Charlotte, but a blown tire sent him into the wall and ended his night. Drivers who have trouble at the beginning of the race can still have a good finish. Jeff Gordon was 3 laps down at Martinsville a few years ago, but was able to get back on the lead lap and finish 4th. The same can happen with elections. Howard Dean was the Democrat front runner until he burned out a few weeks before the Iowa caucus and had to eventually drop out. And of course there is the story of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who came in as nobodies running at the back and ended up winning the whole thing.

Both NASCAR and elections have a preliminary stage. NASCAR has qualifying a day or two before the race to narrow the field down from 50 or so cars to 43. Aside from the top 35 drivers in the points standings who are locked into the race, if you aren't fast enough, you're going home. In elections, there is the primary stage. Though not always, each party usually has two more more people vying for the nomination of their party. The candidates who cannot keep up are usually forced to drop out. And when when the time comes, if you can't make the cut, you're going home.

And of course, we cannot forget the people on the outside--the fans and supporters. In NASCAR, the fans are everything. A driver's stock can go up if enough fans come to the track to support him and buys his merchandise. Fans are die hard for their driver, and often times deck themselves out head-to-toe in driver gear. There is also the driver or two they absolutely hate. Prime example is Dale Earnhardt and Earnhardt Jr and Jeff Gordon. While the drivers themselves were and are friends, there is a huge fan rivalry, particularly on the part of Earnhardt fans. Don't believe me? Look at the track after a big Gordon win.

The same goes for politics. The more supporters a candidate has, the more his stock goes up. Look at how much focus Obama received when it was revealed how many people had donated to his campaign, or how any candidate or supporter brags when he or she has a well attended event. Supporters will place bumper stickers on their car, put up signs in their yards, and the more die hard supporters will write letters to the editor to their local papers, and volunteer for phone banks or door knocking. And supporters can create a larger rivalry than exists between candidates. Quite a rivalry had emerged between McCain and Romney supporters, for example, and another one is growing between Fred Thompson and Romney supporters. Going back into history a bit, Reagan supporters hated Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill and vice versa, however the guys themselves got along pretty well though they disagreed on a lot of issues.

Obviously, you can't create a direct comparison between NASCAR and elections, but it is interesting how you can compare the two. As Johnathan Martin at The Politico has pointed out, with Rudy at the Pepsi 400, John McCain's appearance at the Coca-Cola 600 in May, and Mike Huckabee at Darlington, it looks like the NASCAR vote will return in 2008. The big question is which candidate will make the next appearance?

-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Thompson--the Governor--at the HQ

2007-07-08T14:23:00.000-07:00

Tommy Thompson, former Governor of Wisconsin and current presidential candidate, was at the HQ on Saturday as part of his "Common Sense Solutions Tour." The event turned out very well, and I think everyone was very pleased. The Messenger has coverage here, and The Des Moines Register has some coverage here as well.

There were about 50 people in attendance, many of them whom I don't remember seeing when Gov. Thompson was in Fort Dodge back in April. The Governor arrived in an RV with a campaign-themed paint job. The first thing he did was pose for photos with attendees. Even though there was a good line, it went pretty fast. The nice thing about this set-up was that during the event, staffers printed off the photos in the RV so that people could pick their picture up afterwards. Several of these ended up autographed as the Governor was leaving.

Thompson stuck around afterwards and talked with and meet everyone who wanted to. In fact, aside from a 2 of staffers and the couple of county central committee members helping clean up, he was the last one out the door. He said he was off to have pizza in Pocahontas.

Thompson has repeatedly said almost from day one that his campaign will hinge on his performance at the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11. We certainly wish him luck.

----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Tommy Thompson in FD

2007-07-06T07:09:00.000-07:00

Tommy Thompson, presidential candidate, will be at the headquarters (900 Central Ave--the Trolley Center) at 10:00am on Saturday. Please stop by and hear what he has to say.

Happy 4th

2007-07-04T21:00:00.000-07:00

Happy 4th of July Everyone!

How Far Away Are We?

2007-06-29T07:37:00.000-07:00

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

Couple of Pieces on Iraq

2007-06-27T08:36:00.000-07:00

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:

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

Operation Arrowhead Ripper

2007-06-24T16:36:00.000-07:00

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:

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

Novak Talks Iowa

2007-06-23T08:56:00.000-07:00

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

Michael Yon and Another Must Read

2007-06-19T19:43:00.001-07:00

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

Uh-Oh for Grassley

2007-06-19T18:07:00.000-07:00

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:

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

2007-06-19T10:32:00.000-07:00

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

Nussle to White House Budget Director

2007-06-19T09:27:00.001-07:00

Jim Nussle is going to replace Rob Portman as White House Budget Director. More here from FoxNews.

----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Are Republians the Depressed Party?

2007-06-19T08:25:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2007-06-19T08:13:00.000-07:00

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

Open Field Politics

2007-06-18T11:06:00.000-07:00

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

Muslim, Arab, American

2007-06-13T15:47:00.000-07:00

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:

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???

2007-06-13T15:16:00.000-07:00

Manolo's Shoe Blog calls for President Bush to be impeached.

Seriously though, black presidential anklets?

Striaght From the Horse's Mouth

2007-06-10T10:06:00.000-07:00

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):

‘‘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

Culver's Approval Rating

2007-06-06T10:38:00.000-07:00

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:

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

2007-06-06T09:29:00.000-07:00

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:

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.

"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.

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.

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"

2007-06-06T07:36:00.000-07:00

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

We Need Better Communication Control In This War

2007-06-01T07:30:00.000-07:00

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:

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.

But we also have to deal with the 24/7 news media, and the effects is has on the US population. This is the biggest problem that the US government has to figure out in order to prosecute wars. Freedom of the press is a wonderful thing, and it serves to keep government and officials honest. However, the question is, who is the media accountable to? Who decides what is news? Look through your newspaper, and a huge majority of the articles you see will be from the AP. Editors have to decide what stories will appear on the front page of the paper, or on the half-hour news broadcast that night.

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

2007-06-01T06:36:00.000-07:00

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

Bloomberg and the 12th Amendment

2007-06-01T06:24:00.000-07:00

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

What's New Law---and What Isn't

2007-05-31T09:38:00.000-07:00

Several stories in the news lately about Gov. Culver signing bills before the Tuesday 12 midnight deadline,
here, here ,here ,
here
and here

Here is the whole list of bills signed or vetoed by Culver, via his website. I must say, It's nice to see that a page like this exists. It makes things much easier for people to find out what's going on with the bills Culver has been sent.

---------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Some Reading For Your Wednesday

2007-05-30T07:41:00.000-07:00

Cal Thomas takes on the subject of "unending war," arguing that it's not the US who is pushing it, as some would have you believe. Rather it's Al-Qaida who is responsible.

Jonah Goldberg looks at some of the controversies John Edwards has found himself in lately. Here's a piece I rather enjoyed:

A few years ago, when it was reported that "virtuecrat" Bill Bennett, the former Education secretary, liked to gamble in Las Vegas, columnist Michael Kinsley spoke for much of establishment liberalism when he declared, "Bennett has been exposed as a humbug artist who ought to be pelted off the public stage." I thought this was unfair, as Bennett never inveighed against gambling, nor did his church consider it a sin. Edwards, who gets choked up and misty-eyed from his own relentlessly recounted stump speech about "two Americas," is more of a humbug artist than Bennett ever was. You would think that when Edwards looks in the mirror in one of his new, 28,000-square-foot house's six bathrooms, inspecting whether it's time for another $400 haircut, he might feel the slightest twinge of conscience about his us-versus-them shtick.

Thomas Sowell writes about how the use of words work in the political arena. It's an interesting piece that could complement Frank Luntz's book Words that Work.

Finally, Rich Lowry has a piece up about Americans and their love of cars. Lowry has several interesting statistics in his piece. We hear about how raising fuel standards will help, however for every 10% increase in fuel economy, people drive 2% more. Most interesting though are his comments about Europe. Cars make up 88% of travel in the US. Europe isn't that far behind, with cars making up 78% of travel, and driving per capita is increasing more that twice as fast as the US. Just as interesting was what Lowry said about the cost of mass transit. Gas would have to be $15 a gallon in order for driving to be more expensive than flying or taking the train or bus. In fact, while the working population has increased since 1960, the number of people using mass transportation has dropped.

------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Al-Qaeda Tortue Manual

2007-05-29T10:07:00.000-07:00

You may have seen something about this before. The Smoking Gun got a hold of an Al-Qaeda torture training manual, and published photos from it online. Here is a Pajamas Media post on the subject as well, including some blog reaction.

BE WARNED: THESE ARE GRAPHIC IMAGES. They are not for the faint or weak hearted. So don't click on these links if you don't think you can handle it. I post them because it's important to remind everyone just exactly who it is we are fighting. Here are what the images portray:

--Drilling Hands
--Severing Limbs
--Dragging Victims Behind Cars
--Eye Removal
--Blow Torch To The Skin
--Suspended From Ceiling and Electrocuted
--Breaking Limbs and Restricting Breath
--Binding and Beating
--Suspending and Whipping
--Clothes Iron to Skin
--Victim's Head in a Vice

Our troops in Iraq are discovering torture rooms where this stuff takes place. It's happening. And the people we are fighting are the ones who are doing it.

--------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The "Successful" New Congress

2007-05-29T08:18:00.000-07:00

Ronald Cass has a piece at Real Clear Politics today about how "successful" the new Democrat Congress has been so far.

Cass nails the Democrats on several aspects:

--The failure to get only one of their "6 for '06" agenda into law. That was a staggered increase in the minimum wage. President Bush agreed to sign that legislation at his first meeting with the new Democrat leadership, but the Democrats still had to pack it in with the defense spending bill. Don't forget, the "first 100 hours" became the "first 100 legislative" hours.

--Democrats railed against the "culture of corruption" during the election. When it came time for leadership elections, Madam Pelosi supported John Murtha as House Majority Leader. Murtha has a shaky ethical past. Neither has anything been done about Rep. William Jefferson, the man made famous by the $90,000 in cold, hard, cash found in his freezer in an FBI raid of his home.

--Serious delays--109 days-- in getting funding to our troops in war zones because Democrats had to please their anti-war constituency but including withdrawal deadlines in the bill. Today on his radio show, Glenn Beck brought up a conversation he had with his nephew in Iraq about how he and a couple of guys in his unit were wearing older helmets "that looked like they were out of WW2" because they couldn't get replacements. The nephew also asked Glenn to send food, not snacks, but food, because the military have had to start rationing in the past few weeks. Maybe it's only an isolated incident, but it's still a frightening thought.

The Democrats didn't win on anything substantial except on the perceived negatives the public had about Republicans. But for a few thousand votes in either Montana or Virginia, the Senate would still be in Republican hands. Several house seats were decided by very narrow margins, and most of the Democrat winners were more conservative--at least that is how they portrayed themselves--than their party's mainstream.

When you hear Democrats talking about their success like this in the future, remember---for all of their "successes", Congress still has a lower approval rating than President Bush.

-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Conservative Theories and Today

2007-05-29T07:27:00.000-07:00

Two articles are up on the net today discussing more of the intellectual aspects of conservatism.

Peter Berkowitz at OpinionJournal.com has a piece up about, as he says in the subtitle: "The American Right is a cauldron of debate; the left isn't." Berkowitz digs in a little to the roots of conservatism, quoting some of it's past leaders and thinkers. But it mainly points out that what looks like splits in the movement are actually just debates about where to go from where we are at now.

The other piece, by S.T. Karnick at TCS Daily, looks at the "classical liberalism" arguments about what's happening in Iraq. While I don't think you can argue with the logic of classical liberalism, I do believe that the line between nation building and national security is much blurrier than what Karnick leads readers to believe. We don't want to make Iraq into something of a US colony, but at the same time we don't want to leave Iraq as a terrorist safe haven or as a sphere of influence for Iran. The blurry line comes with determining when pushing the Iraqi government to stand up so we can draw down becomes dictating Iraqi government policy.

---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Memorial Day

2007-05-28T09:25:00.000-07:00

Here are a couple of links for this Memorial Day.

Peter Collier has a piece up at OpinionJournal on some of the stories of Memorial Day. Collier includes a handful of the many stories of courage and heroism in American Military History.

Power Line blog has a short post up about an article at the New York Times about a group of Civil War buffs who are identifying and restoring the head stones of over 3,000 Civil War Veterans buried in Brooklyn's Green-Wood Cemetery.

Michael Yon has a post up on Memorial Day. For those of you who do not know who Michael Yon is, he is one of the few journalist who regularly go out on patrols with our troops in Iraq, and spends much more time with our troops than most journalist over there do. Many consider him a modern day Ernie Pyle. Bookmark his site, and visit often.

Even through Memorial Day weekend has become more and more just another 3-day weekend, it's important to remember those who have served our nation in the military. God Bless all of our veterans.

--------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Now They Are Comming For Your Internet

2007-05-26T11:20:00.000-07:00

A ban that prohibits states from taxing internet use is close to lapsing. From CNET News

At issue is the scheduled expiration on November 1 of a law, initially enacted in 1998, that says local governments generally cannot tax Internet access, including DSL (digital subscriber line), cable modem and BlackBerry-type wireless transmission services. The law also prohibits governments from taxing items sold online in a different manner than those sold at brick-and-mortar stores, but it does not deal with sales taxes on online shopping.

The article goes on:

But previous attempts at renewing the ban for more than two to four years have failed, in part because of resistance from state and local government lobby groups. State government representatives caution against making the moratorium permanent, saying it would deprive states indefinitely of vital revenue sources and that its original purpose--boosting the nascent Internet to commercial viability--has essentially been accomplished.

The argument is that the state is entitled to your money---that simple.

A separate issue on one politician's mind was what to do about the collection of sales taxes on the Internet. State governments have long griped that they are losing revenue to booming e-commerce businesses that aren't required to collect taxes from customers in states where the businesses don't have a physical presence. Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said he was planning to try again at enacting a bill designed to address those concerns.

Newsmax.com also has a story up about this:

Proposals in the U.S. Congress could lead to taxes on Internet shopping, broadband connections and even e-mail by this fall. State and local governments are lobbying Congress to gain the ability to impose the new taxes.
Sen. Michael Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, has introduced a bill that would usher in mandatory sales tax collection for Internet purchases, the CNET News.com Web site reported.
And the House has held a hearing to decide whether to let a temporary ban on Net access taxes lapse when it expires in November.
"With Democrats now in control of both chambers of Congress, the political dynamic appears to have shifted in favor of the pro-tax advocates and their allies on Capitol Hill,” according to CNET.

But Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, said he prefers "an impregnable ban on taxes on the Internet.”
If the ban on Net access taxes is allowed to lapse, states and municipalities could impose an array of access taxes, just as they now do on telephone bills.
Internet users could then see a tax on e-mails, said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., who added:
"They might say, ‘We have no interest in having tax on e-mail,’ but if we allow the prohibition on Internet taxes to expire, then you open the door on cities and towns and states to tax e-mail or other aspects of Internet access.”

Can you believe this? This just goes to show that the government wants its hands on everything. It's one thing to discuss the issue of sales taxes on online purchases, but taxing internet use itself, and even email use? I remember these as rumors way back in the late 90's, but it sounds like its all too real now.

It should be obvious to everyone that if this ban lapses, taxes will increase. And I would be surprised if Iowa Democrats didn't go after it. They are already want to tax Internet downloads, seriously looking at it this past session. With how much they are increasing spending during this legislature's sessions, the Democrats are going to be looking for as many tax dollars as they can get. All I can say is hold onto your wallets.

-----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

You're Not Paying Enough For Gas

2007-05-26T09:21:00.001-07:00

This article from MSN Money says that you're not paying enough for gas. A responsible government, it turns out, would increase taxes so that a gallon of gas never drops below $4 a gallon. It's not the government's fault though---it's our fault because we can't do anything about our addiction to "gas-hogging SUVs." Even though this is just an opinion piece by who appears to be some kook, I bet we hear more and more about this in the near future.

When talking about energy, Europe should always be our example:

Europe has an average fuel economy for its new-car fleet of more than 40 miles per gallon. The European Union years ago amassed support among members for high taxes on gasoline, which drove a swift migration from big cars to smaller cars and to diesel fuel. The result: less dependency on OPEC and cleaner air in the cities.

The French get 80% of their power from nuclear sources. Does this mean we can build more nuclear reactors? Oh wait, the environmentalists won't like that. Never mind.

Europe also has a larger rail system set up that covers the continent for people who still can't afford or don't want to pay that much for gas. While that might work here in the US for more urban areas, but what about in places like Webster County? Who is going to invest in putting in a rail system linking towns such as Dayton, Harcourt, and Badger to Fort Dodge, and then run the trains?

But consumers won't trade the Ford Expeditions, Toyota Sequoias and Chevy Tahoes that they don't need until gasoline is permanently more than $4 per gallon. The people who really need those vehicles for ranching and boat towing will buy them no matter what.

So, stick the farmer, the person who grows the food that you eat, and now grows the stuff that you mix with your gas, with higher gas taxes? Just because they will buy the big vehicle anyways? These Buisness Week guys need to come spend some time on a farm to see how the whole operation works before saying something like this.

Notice also how they assume what kinds of vehicles we do and do not need. Shouldn't that be a personal choice? Beside, how do they know we don't need Expeditions or Tahoes? What if you have a large family, either numerically or physically, and need the room? This, like the rest of the article, just yells arrogance.

The new tax money could go to tax offsets for lower- and lower-middle-income consumers and to invest in new energy infrastructure in the U.S. That makes sense. This is not an original idea, but the gas tax could be called a "patriot tax" to exempt it from political wrangling.

Oh, so now its a progressive gas tax. Just like income taxes, the filthy rich can afford to pay for gas for the not-so-rich. Actually, it won't only be the filthy rich, it will be the middle income consumers.

I don't like the price of gas, just like everyone else. I'm all for finding alternative fuels, but do people like this really want to solve our fuel problem, or just dictate to everyone how we will get around? Americans were the first in flight. America put man on the moon. Are you telling me that America can't find some alternative source of fuel that doesn't involve us driving small ugly cars? That the only thing America can do is play like Europe and tax the hell out of gas?

One of the major reasons for the increase in gas prices is because we don't have enough fuel refineries. In fact, I've heard that 13% of refined gasoline in the US is imported. Refineries are running at almost 100% capacity full time, and when one goes off line for what ever reason, the effects are felt across the country. Why not just build more refineries, or increase our refinery capacities? The environmentalist won't allow it, and they've been able to get laws and regulations enacted that slows down the process. It takes years of planning, paper work, and dealing with government bureaucracy even before building could begin.

What about all of the different variants of gas that states require? Why not try stream lining this into one or two variants?

Keep your eyes out on this kind of stuff. There are probably very very few politicians, if any, who would openly support increasing gas taxes like this, because it would be politically stupid to do so. This is all about power though, and there are those who will push for it at the first opportunity.
----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Four of Our Many Heroes

2007-05-25T20:19:00.000-07:00

Jeff Emanuel has an article posted at NRO that features the stories of four of our many heroes in the War on Terror. I urge you to read it and keep them and our other men and women in uniform in your thoughts this Memorial Day weekend.

----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Braley and Loebsack Vote No on Funding Our Troops

2007-05-25T16:28:00.000-07:00

Iowa Congressmen Bruce Braley (IA-1) and Dave Loebsack (IA-2) voted against the recent bill that funds our efforts in Iraq through the year. The rest of the Iowa delegation, including Rep. Boswell and Sen. Tom Harkin.

According to Radio Iowa's story, Braley released the comment on his vote:

"The American people and the people of Iowa have demanded a new direction in Iraq. That's why I cannot support legislation that excludes a reasonable timetable for redeployment, effectively writing the President a blank check to continue his failed policy in Iraq.

Congressman, we started a new direction in January with the surge. Second, redeployment = withdraw and surrender.

This is what Loebsack had to say:

"Like all Iowans, I support the men and women in our military. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I work everyday to ensure our troops receive the support they deserve in service and at home. Unfortunately, this bill would allow the President to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan without full training, proper equipment, and the necessary rest period required between deployments. Over the course of the past five years, President Bush has mismanaged this war and stubbornly refused to listen to advice or accept the reality on the ground in Iraq. Congress can no longer continue to give President Bush unchecked authority. We need real timelines and real accountability.

Hasn't Bush always listened to his generals, who repeateadly said they had all they needed? Didn't President Bush implement a surge after listening to officers such as Gen. Petraus, historians, military experts, and members of Congress?

While Braley and Loebsack don't directly represent Webster County, they do represent Iowa.
------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Is it a "War on Terror"?

2007-05-25T08:02:00.001-07:00

You have probably heard about John Edward's recent remark about how the term "War on Terror" is just a bumper sticker slogan and nothing more. This a man running for the nomination of a party whose foreign policy is based off of the phrase "Bush Lied--People Died."

James S. Robbins has an article up at NRO about the names that have been proposed for the War on Terror, and the debate on whether it truly is a war or not. It's a good article, and he sums up that we are truly in a war.

This points to the most important reason to call this struggle a war — because the enemy does. Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States and its allies twice, in 1996 and 1998. He and others attacked US and allied interests numerous times in the tears leading up to 9/11. We placed ourselves at a clear disadvantage by not accepting that when violent, highly motivated group such as al Qaeda declare war, they really do mean it. If we behave as though they don’t, we do so at our peril.

It would be an act of great hubris to stop referring to the conflict with the terrorists as a war. It would implicitly say that they are not threat enough to warrant that designation. Enough for a struggle, maybe a tussle, but no more. Maybe in some ways they aren’t; we have done a great job in disrupting their networks, capturing or killing their leaders, interdicting their finances, and breaking up their planned attacks. The terrorists are not the threat to our homeland that they were six years ago. But if we give up “war,” what then? Will the public stay focused? Will the bureaucracy stay motivated, to the extent it still is? Will we be able to take the kind of resolute action we need to take as opportunities to take our terrorists abroad present themselves? Or will the calcification return — the old patterns of thinking — less focus on mission effectiveness, more on procedural detail — less innovation, more careerism. Giving up on the notion that we are at war with people who are pledged to our destruction is to invite complacency. Eventually the imagination would again fail. And the consequences next time could be far more deadly.

It’s a war all right. Ask any terrorist.

-----------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The Future of Fort Dodge

2007-05-24T15:48:00.000-07:00

The Messenger has an article today (available online here) about planning for the future of Fort Dodge. There was another article yesterday on the topic. Take a read, there are a lot of good ideas they are looking at. The report to the city council contains 194 policy statements and 163 strategies. The article focuses more on the entertainment aspects they are looking at, but are also looking at areas such as schools and business climate.

As long as the city can foster a climate that encourages start-up and growing businesses and is capable of maintaining a 21st Century workforce, Fort Dodge has a lot of potential for future growth and development. It isn't only Fort Dodge that could see benefits. There is the potential of the whole county benefiting--whether it be more jobs, people moving into the area for work but wishing to live in a smaller town, increased attendance at the various town celebrations throughout the year, and so on.

Of course, this will be a group effort. Let the council know your thoughts and feelings. I'm sure they would appreciate it.

UPDATE: Another article was published in todays paper, focusing on what Fort Dodge will look like in 2030. They are envisioning green spaces spread around the city, better roads, a water system the must be planned for future growth, moving the Fort Museum out by a 4 lane Highway-20, and a city wind farm to help power the city
---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The Greatness of America

2007-05-24T07:16:00.001-07:00

Victor Davis Hanson has a piece up at Real Clear Politics about America and the future. Its a good piece on how even when people say that America is done and can't compete with foreign events or countries, American proves otherwise. In the many doom and gloom news, articles, etc, it's a good pick-me-up article. Print it out, and save it for those days when the news has you down. Here's an excerpt:

In the last 60 years, we have been warned in succession that new paradigms in racially pure Germany, the Soviet workers' paradise, Japan Inc. and now 24/7 China all were about to displace the United States. None did. All have had relative moments of amazing success -- but in the end none proved as resilient, flexible and adaptable as America.

That brings us to the United States' greatest strength: radical self-critique. We Americans are worrywarts, always believing we're on the verge of extinction. And so, to "renew," "reinvent" or "save" America, we whip ourselves up about "wars" on poverty, drugs and cancer; space "races;" missile "gaps;" literacy "crusades;" and "campaigns" against litter, waste and smoking.

In other words, we nail-biters have always been paranoid that we must change and improve in order to survive. And thus we usually do -- just in time.

-----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The Importance of Youth

2007-05-24T05:39:00.000-07:00

There is an editorial in The Seattle Times discussing the politics of the 18-25 year olds in this country. The majority of the opinion piece is recitation of the regular talking points of how younger people are leaning Democrat. The columnist, Joni Balter, cites Pew research data that 48% of 18-25 year olds identify more with Democrats, while only 35% identify with Republicans. It is pretty much a the-youth-vote-will-save-the-Democrat-Party piece.

She does say though that "the trend isn't foolproof." College Republicans have huge membership lists, especially in place you don't think so. The CRs are one of the largest student groups at the University of Iowa, and even at UC Berkley, where last I heard it was number two. College Republicans provide an excellent opportunity for college students to get involved in politics. The Teenage Republicans are another group that aims at high school students.

The importance of reaching out to youth cannot be overstated. It may sound kind of hokey, but they are the future of the party. I've seen the energy that young people can bring campaigns and local Republican groups. We need to make sure we are encouraging them to do so.

---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Boehner Goes After Pelosi On Earmark Reform

2007-05-23T13:43:00.000-07:00

You remember all of the talk about ear-mark reform and how the Democrats were going to clean up Congress, right? John Boehner released a second letter he sent to Speaker Pelosi asking why there has not been much action on it yet. Here is the whole press release, as found on his website:

Washington, May 21 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) charging Democrats with moving backwards on promises to clean up the congressional earmark process, noting that the process “has become less transparent and less accountable than it was during the 109th Congress, directly violating pledges made last year by Democratic leaders.” Boehner’s letter comes as the House prepares to consider a privileged resolution offered by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) concerning an earmark-related House rules violation by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), who was the Speaker’s preferred choice for House Majority Leader.

Boehner’s letter lists a series of rules abuses by the Democratic majority he argues have made a mockery of House rules that are supposed to ensure no taxpayer-funded earmark is passed without appropriate scrutiny and debate. In addition to the Murtha incidents, Boehner notes Democrats have refused to allow Members to challenge questionable earmarks on the House floor, certified a huge spending bill as “earmark free” though it contained hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks, and preserved special privileges for state and local government lobbyists seeking earmarks from Congress, including lobbyists for public universities.

“At the outset of this Congress, Republicans and Democrats jointly pledged to make the earmark process more transparent and more accountable to the American people. A rules package was adopted that was supposed to enforce this pledge as one of its central objectives by ensuring no earmark would be passed by the House without appropriate scrutiny and opportunity for debate. Recent actions by the majority have begun to make a mockery of this vow and of the rules themselves,” Boehner says in the letter.

“These actions by the majority have become increasingly flagrant and bold with each passing month of the 110th Congress, fueling public cynicism about our institution and disheartening many who believe fundamental change is needed in the way in which Washington spends the taxpayers’ money,” Boehner says in the letter. “[W]e have now reached the point at which the congressional earmark process has become less transparent and less accountable than it was during the 109th Congress, directly violating pledges made last year by Democratic leaders.”

In the letter, Boehner repeats his request that the Speaker establish a bipartisan panel to review problems with the House rules that were drafted unilaterally by Democratic leaders in January. Boehner wrote to the Speaker in March to document mounting problems and confusion with the new rules and to request that such a panel be established. To date, the Speaker has not responded to Boehner’s letter.

#####

The text of the letter is as follows:

May 21, 2007

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the House

H-232, U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C. 20515

Madame Speaker:

Fifty days have passed with no reply from you to my letter expressing concern about the chaos being inflicted on the House and its Members by the complex, confusing and contradictory ethics rules for the 110th Congress drafted unilaterally by Democratic leaders in January.

During your seven weeks of silence on this vital matter, it has become painfully clear that the House ethics rules are even more hopelessly broken than we recognized when I wrote to you back in March. It has also become increasingly clear that uncertainty over the rules is beginning to negatively impact public policy and undermine public confidence in our institution at the very time we should be working together to restore it.

At the outset of this Congress, Republicans and Democrats jointly pledged to make the earmark process more transparent and more accountable to the American people. A rules package was adopted that was supposed to enforce this pledge as one of its central objectives by ensuring no earmark would be passed by the House without appropriate scrutiny and opportunity for debate.

Recent actions by the majority have begun to make a mockery of this vow and of the rules themselves. These actions by the majority have become increasingly flagrant and bold with each passing month of the 110th Congress, fueling public cynicism about our institution and disheartening many who believe fundamental change is needed in the way in which Washington spends the taxpayers’ money. In fact, I would submit that as a result of the flawed rules, we have now reached the point at which the congressional earmark process has become less transparent and less accountable than it was during the 109th Congress, directly violating pledges made last year by Democratic leaders.

The following examples illustrate the scale of the problem:

Rep. John Murtha was recently able to secure tens of millions of dollars for a questionable project in his district by highly suspect methods that either flaunted the new rules without penalty or at best nominally complied with them – proving in either case how utterly ineffective the new rules really are.

In February, the majority was able to certify a massive spending bill as “earmark-free,” despite the fact that it contained hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks.

Under the rules, lobbyists working for state and local governmental institutions – including public universities lobbying Congress for earmarks and other causes – continue to be exempt from the congressional gift ban that apply to other all lobbyists. This gaping loophole in the gift rules has inexplicably been left open by the majority, both in its rules and the lobbying reform legislation introduced last week.

Under the rules, there is no way a Member can challenge an earmark that is included in a bill brought to the House floor as long as the bill contains a list of earmarks – even if the list is inaccurate, and fails to include the earmark the Member seeks to challenge.

Perhaps most appalling, the majority has twisted House rules and procedure to prevent questionable earmarks – once identified – from being challenged in any way on the House floor by Members seeking nothing more than up-or-down votes on these suspect provisions. In fact, on at least two occasions, Republican Members objecting to illegitimate earmarks have been directly threatened with retaliation by a senior Democratic Member, in open defiance of the new rules.

Sadly, Madame Speaker, the sorry state of the earmark process represents only a portion of the chaos that continues to mount both inside and outside Congress concerning the new rules. Rather than repeat the many examples cited in my earlier letter, let me renew my longstanding request that you join me in appointing a bipartisan working group tasked with analyzing House ethics rules and recommending fair, sensible and understandable revisions designed to improve both compliance and enforcement.

As I do so, I am reminded of your plea to the previous Republican leadership on April 14, 2005: “If you have discomfort with these [ethics] rules, let’s get together in a bipartisan way to review them.” We do, and we should.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner

Republican Leader

---------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The Internet Age Gap

2007-05-23T08:11:00.000-07:00

The Des Moines Register has a new Iowa poll about where Iowans get their election news and information. It's an interesting poll, and it goes back to the subject of the growing role of the internet. While some people may question any results from the Iowa Poll, after pretty much calling the results of the 2006 midterms, I’m not quite as willing to throw out the results.

Towards the end of the article, here is what the poll found about internet use:

When it comes to using the Internet, the Iowa Poll shows that four-fifths of likely caucus participants in the 18-to-34 age bracket have searched the Internet for candidates' stands on issues or that is something they are likely to do.

The level of use drops off to about two-fifths of likely caucus goers who are 55 or older.

The age gap is about the same for visiting candidate Web sites.

Significant age differences also show up in the Iowa Poll in reading online forums or blogs written by experts, with use in the 34-or-younger group running 20 percentage points higher than in the 55-or-older age group.

This adds to the argument that we as a party need to keep up on the use of the Internet as a method of voter contact. Twice as many people in the 18-34 group use the internet for candidate research than the over 55 group. (I’m including “visiting candidate websites” into the candidate research column as that is the most likely reason why people visit them in the first place.) The 18-34 and the 35-54 group have much closer results. It is only a 10% difference in using the internet for candidate research, and only a 1% difference on reading blogs and forums by experts. When they asked about newspaper use, the poll didn’t differentiate between print and online articles, but I’m sure we’d see similar results.

The article also found that for both parties, half of those planning on attending the caucuses are over 55, and only 10% will be 18-34 year olds. Combining the survey into 2 groups, under 55 and over 55, half of caucus attendees will make much use of the internet in deciding who to support. This will only increase for future caucuses and elections. The Internet will be to our and future generations to what the TV ad and direct mailing was to those in the late 20^th century, and the political rallies, marches, and speeches of several hours in length to those is the 19^th century.

------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Another Reason We Love Reagan

2007-05-22T14:43:00.000-07:00

Paul Kengor at NRO has an article up remembering Ronald Reagan's debate with Robert Kennedy 40 years ago.

It's an interesting article and I find myself looking for a video of the event.

Reading through some examples of the questions they were faced, I can't help but think about the Democrat candidates refusing to a debate hosted by FOX News. Reagan probably knew that there was going to be a student panel filled with college students the likes of which he confronted as Governor. He also probably expected the kinds of questions he was going to get, but went on and rebutted them all. The Democrats, on the other hand, can't stand the idea of participating in a debate hosted by a news channel they don't like.

Some examples of the questions and statements made by the student panel:

“I believe the war in Vietnam is illegal, immoral, politically unjustifiable, and economically motivated.”

In another exchange still difficult to watch, a contemptuous Brit named Jeff Jordan, whom Kennedy permitted to roll all over him, complained that the Diem regime, with the alleged help of U.S. advisers, had incarcerated six million Vietnamese in “forced prison camps.”

“Excuse me, sir…. You think something is good; he thinks something else is good. You want him to give up some of his hostile views. You are not prepared to move back one inch from yours.”

------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Iowa Loosing Its Influence?

2007-05-22T06:33:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal has an article up today about how the front loading of the primary schedule will dilute Iowa's influence. Even though much has been written on this subject, this article takes a different approach, focusing more on early voters and how campaigns will need to target them long before the state's caucus/primary.

Christopher Cooper, the author, makes several good points. Campaigns will be able to lock up votes before the caucus and primaries begin that can lessen any poor showing in earlier states. He also writes that candidates will also spend more time in these states to influence these early voters. Finally, there is the money thing. Sending out mailers to everyone who requests an absentee ballot will require a lot of money. This won't bother the larger campaigns, but can hurt smaller ones.

My only problem with this is what are the early voter rates in these states? Cooper writes that 47% of voters in the 2006 primary were absentee votes. That's a large percentage, however California also has a program that automatically sends out absentee ballots to those who request that service. He doesn't cite rates in other states. Aside from California, will the number of early votes provide a real potential to offset primary day voters?

Of course there is another question that needs to be addressed----should there even be early voting for primaries and caucuses? Unlike a general election, primaries feature several candidates, many of whom are operating on very limited budgets and may not be doing well in polls. What were to happen if a candidate drops out of the race after ballots are sent out? Anyone who voted for that candidate would effectively loose their vote. Granted, the likely hood of this so close to voting day is low, but it's still a question that should be addressed.

I don't think that Iowa's or New Hampshire's influence will be diluted with the front loaded schedule. If anything, it will make these states more important. A win or good finish in these two states will provide much momentum for that campaign into the future races. That candidate will also be on every news show for the next week---millions of dollars in earned media. The creation of Super Tuesday was supposed to dilute early state influence, but as we have seen, it only influenced them.

----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Another Democrat Who Gets It

2007-05-22T05:41:00.000-07:00

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey has an article posted by Opinion Journal discussing how Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror. As an excerpt to entice you to read it:

Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.
The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.
Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

Elsewhere in the article, Kerrey writes about that even if Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the invasion, the fact that they are there now means that we can't just get up and leave. This is probably the most important point he makes. No matter when or how they got there, the fact that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq means that the focus is in Iraq.

--------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Tax Rates Will Be A'Risin'

2007-05-21T12:40:00.000-07:00

Peter Ferrara has an article up at NRO about how the national debt is shrinking, and what Democrats might do to disrupt or even reverse it.

The Treasury Department’s tax-collection data for April puts the federal deficit over the 12-month period ending April 30 at $144.7 billion. This leaves the deficit at about one percent of GDP, and declining, which is not a significant economic problem.

The decline is due to surging tax revenues from a booming economy. The deficit is down about $120 billion, or 45 percent, since last April. It has declined by $309 billion, or 68 percent, over the last three years from the peak of $455 billion in April, 2004. This experience shows that combining pro-growth tax cuts with just moderate spending restraint can sharply reduce, and, indeed, eliminate the deficit.

The deficit has declined now for 26 consecutive months and will continue to do so over the next 5 months until the end of the fiscal year. The deficit will consequently soon be well below one percent of GDP. Even with some modest slow down in economic growth, this deficit could be eliminated over the next two years with reasonable restraint in the growth of federal spending.

But any such reasonable restraint in spending is not going to happen with the new Democrat Congress. Their emerging budget plan calls for even more rapid increases in federal spending, sopping up all projected increases in revenues, which will leave no scope for continued deficit reduction in the next fiscal year. They tout a plan to eliminate the remaining rapidly shrinking deficit over a ridiculous five years, and that only with tax increases.

Starting this fall, therefore, Democrats will be harping on a deficit which was rapidly falling toward extinction, but which they chose instead to sustain and perpetuate with excessive spending increases.

Tax revenues this fiscal year are running at about 19 percent of GDP, which is in line with historical averages over the last 50-plus years, showing there is no justification for a tax increase. But the Democrats’ plan for history-shattering tax increases starting in the next fiscal year, to support record-setting increases in spending. Their long-term budget plan is for truly massive increases in taxes and spending, like nothing ever seen before.

The budget has shunk faster than predicted, yet this isn't enough for Democrats. The budget they are presenting before Congress is like the budget passed in the Iowa legislature this year--way more than is should be. How are they going to pay for it--they're not going to "raise taxes," but rather let tax cuts lapse. There is no difference--its a tax raise.

-----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The Internet Wars

2007-05-21T07:37:00.000-07:00

The methods of electioneering changes as technology does. The Selling of the President: 1968 paints a very good, and interesting, picture of how TV came to be the dominate mode to reach voters. The use of direct mail has played a huge part in elections as well. Going back to the 19th century and the founding of our country, you see how the role of the printing press--in the form of newspapers, pamphlets, books, tracts, etc---affected campaigns.

Jose Antonio Vargas has an article at The Washington Post website about the Republican and Democrat parties and their use of the internet. He argues that Republicans are loosing the internet race, citing that Democrat websites have far more hits, and that Democrat presidential candidate profiles on MySpace and Facebook have more friends that their Republican counterparts. He offers a couple of reasons why.

Here is one portion that struck me:

One reason for the disparity between the parties, political insiders say, is that the top Republican candidates are not exciting voters the way the Democratic front-runners are. Another is that it takes a certain level of technical skill and understanding to be an online strategist, and Republicans admit that "the pool of talent in the Democrats' side is much bigger than ours."
But an underlying cause may be the nature of the Republican Party and its traditional discipline -- the antithesis of the often chaotic, bottom-up, user-generated atmosphere of the Internet.
"We've always been a party of staying on message," All said. "It's the Rush Limbaugh model. What Tony Snow says in the White House filters down to talk radio, which makes its way to the blogs."
Peter Leyden, director of the New Politics Institute, a San Francisco-based think tank that in recent months has been advising Democratic members of Congress and their staffs on how to take full advantage of the Web, argues that the culture of Democrats is a much better fit in the Internet world.
"What was once seen as a liability for Democrats and progressives in the past -- they couldn't get 20 people to agree to the same thing, they could never finish anything, they couldn't stay on message -- is now an asset," Leyden said. "All this talking and discussing and fighting energizes everyone, involves everyone, and gets people totally into it."

I don't really buy the part about Republicans being more of a top-down party than the Democrats. In Congress, Democrats appear to have much stronger party discipline than Republicans do. Conservative bloggers, columnists, and radio hosts have criticized President Bush and members of Congress about spending, No Child Left Behind, etc, while their liberal equivalents have criticized Democrats for not being anti-war enough, etc.

Towards the end of the article, Vargas hints again at why Republicans lag behind:

"But look at the short history of online politics," Glover said. "For Republicans, the Internet is where bad things happen. Take [former U.S. senator] George Allen and his 'macaca' moment. . . . You can kind of understand why Republicans have this almost instinctive fear of the Internet, where the mob rules."
Turk, who led the RNC's e-campaign shop after serving as Bush's online chief, is revamping the lackluster ABC PAC. Turk, who was deputy director of the New Mexico GOP in the 1990s, helped build the fundraising site last spring, months after leaving the RNC, which he found "too bureaucratic" and "not at all conducive to a lot of cutting-edge, creative, outside-the-box thinking."
He's equally critical of the Internet strategy of his party's presidential candidates. "Yes," he said, "they've all got Web sites. Yes, they're doing videos. Yes, some are blogging. But that's not enough to really connect with voters," said Turk, who now works as vice president of industry grass roots at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

One thing not covered here that I think is important is that the Republican and Democrat parties operate differently and have different organizations. They operate towards different constituencies, so it would be stupid to expect both parties to operate, and use the internet, in the exact same way. The author also errs in making the article about the parties and candidates, and then start discussing things such as The Daily Kos. Blogs, even though they work to influence voters and elected officials, fall under the category of ideas/positions, and not party.

Even so, there are some good points in the article. Anytime you find something that works, you are hesitant to make any changes. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" as they saying goes. Talk radio, magazines such as National Review, Fox News, and so on, has done a lot for Conservatives and the Republican party. And you can't let that stop you from taking the internet seriously. More and more people are getting their news, shopping, trading stocks, etc, online and that will continue to expand.

But when you think along the lines of "Conservative vs. Liberal," I don't think that conservatives are really that far behind. National Review and The Weekly Standard post new articles on their websites daily, and offer a digital version of their magazine available on their website. Whereas not long ago the only place you could find opinion pieces only in your newspaper or magazines you subscribed too, now a whole host of websites, such as Townhall.com, Opinionjournal.com, and American Thinker offer opinion pieces on a whole host of subjects. Blogs, such as Captain's Quarters, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, State 29, Caucus Cooler, the former Krusty Konservative, and so on, do the same thing. Radio shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc offer online streaming of their shows as well as downloadable podcasts. The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, AEI, and other conservative think tanks publish their research and articles on their website with easy to use search and browse feature. We may not have something on the lines of The Daily Kos in terms of giant Republican/Conservative message boards, we are getting our message out.

--------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Dodd Open to Attacking Iran

2007-05-18T22:02:00.000-07:00

Chris Dodd was in Iowa campaigning for the Democrat nomination. Here is the Des Moines Register article on it:

Democratic presidential candidate Christopher Dodd said today that using military force ought to be an option in containing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

"I would never take the military option off the table," the Connecticut senator told about 50 Democratic activists during a forum at Drake University. "That arrow is in my quiver."

But Dodd criticized the Bush administration for being too quick to threaten and use military force.

Dodd's hour-long event in Drake's Olmsted Center was broadcast live on the Internet, with satellite events held simultaneously in Burlington, Charles City, Decatur City, Iowa City and Sioux City.

Dodd also discussed his support for a measure that would have all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.

He also took questions on a range of topics, including whether he supported direct negotiations with Iran and Syria, which have given support to terrorist organizations attacking U.S. forces in Iraq.

"Responsible leaders understand that negotiations are something you do with people you have a problem with," Dodd said.

Dodd capped a two-day swing to Iowa, the leadoff caucus state, in Des Moines, after addressing Dubuque-area Democrats Thursday.

Interesting how Dodd wants the US to pull out of Iraq, he even has a commercial up announcing his support for such a move. However he still believes that military force should still be an option against Iran. Doesn't make much sense to me, I wonder how he reconciles that.

-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Article Round-up for May 18th

2007-05-18T06:13:00.000-07:00

Stuart Rothenberg has an article discussing the Ames Straw Poll in August. Good reading, Rothenberg gives a good account of what the poll is and the effects it can have on the 2008 campaign.

E.J. Dione, a big liberal journalist and I think historian, has an article up trying to convince people that Conservative Orthodoxy in the GOP is over, kaput, finished. I don't buy into it, so take it for what you want. Its always important to know what the other side thinks, and I've seen this kind of thinking quite a bit since last November.

Here's an article from The Des Moines Register about Iowan reaction to the Immigration Reform bill that was worked out yesterday.

Tom Harkin is the richest member of the Iowa delegation, with between $5 and $10 Million in assets. So much for the idea that the Republican Party is the party of the rich. The article also covers the other members of our delegation.

Jonah Goldberg has an article at NRO about the "civil war" in Iraq. Just one of several good points he makes:

Every liberal foreign policy do-gooder in Christendom wants America to interject itself in the Sudanese civil war unfolding so horrifically in Darfur. The high-water mark in post-Vietnam liberal foreign policy was Bill Clinton’s intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war. If we can violate the prime directive of no civil wars for Darfur and Kosovo, why not for Kirkuk and Basra?

Sen. Mitch McConnell has a piece at NRO about the budget going through congress today, and it doesn't look good. Here's a key part:

Despite what happened to Democrats as a result of that tax hike, the budget they submitted their first year back in control of both houses of Congress — and pushed through Thursday on a party-line vote — provides a framework for tax hikes a full three times larger than the one that put them in the minority back then. This budget reverses more than a decade of Republican tax relief. It means a tax hike on every single American — working, retired, rich or poor — and, even as it aims to raise nearly $1 trillion with new taxes, does absolutely nothing to rein in spending or shore up an entitlement system badly in need of reform.

Everyone takes a hit. Forty-five million working families with two children will see their taxes increase by nearly $3,000 annually. They’d see the current child tax credit cut in half — from $1,000 to $500. The standard deduction for married couples is also cut in half, from the current $3,400 to $1,700. The overall effect on married couples with children is obvious: Far from shifting the burden onto the wealthy, the Democratic budget drives up taxes on the average American family by more than 130 percent.

Seniors get hit hard too. Democrats like to crow that only the richest one percent of Americans benefit from the stimulative tax cuts Republicans passed in 2001 and 2003. What they rarely mention is how much seniors benefited from those cuts in the form of increased income as a result of lower taxes on dividends and capital gains. More than half of all seniors today claim income from these two sources, and the Democratic budget would lower the income of every one of them by reversing every one of those cuts.

---------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Lathams Takes the Democrats to Task

2007-05-17T19:48:00.000-07:00

The Des Moines Register has an article today about Congressman Latham's efforts at getting pension benefits opened to the parents of Jaime Jaenke so they may take care of her daugher. Jaime was killed in Iraq in June 2006.

Washington, D.C. — In an emotional speech Wednesday on the floor of the U.S. House, Rep. Tom Latham charged that Democrats denied an Iowa family a chance to collect a $100,000 death benefit to help raise the child of a reservist killed in Iraq.

"I would think you would be ashamed," said Latham, an Alexander Republican who has been trying to assist the Jaenke family of Iowa Falls. He said an amendment he proposed to a defense bill was killed "for partisan reasons" by Democrats on the House Rules Committee.

A Democratic committee spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

The difficult situation came about after Jaime Jaenke, a Navy reservist, was killed in June 2006. She left behind a daughter, Kayla, 10, who is cared for by Jaenke's parents.

Jaime Jaenke had designated her mother, Susan Jaenke, as the beneficiary of a $100,000 death benefit intended as a "bridge" paid within 24 hours to help survivors. Jaime Jaenke also wrote a letter specifying her intentions.

However, under law, grandparents are not allowed access to the death benefit, and it will be kept in trust for Kayla until she turns 18.

Susan Jaenke told a House Veterans Affairs subcommittee in April that the family had depended on Jaime's income and plunged into deep financial trouble after her death. Members apologized and pledged to help her.

Latham, who says there are at least 143 identical cases, introduced a bill that would allow the benefit payment to be made to grandparents, aunts or uncles who had custody of the surviving child.

In addition, it would assist the Jaenkes by applying to earlier cases in which "a clear expression of intent" had been made by the member of the military.

The bill has drawn 27 co-sponsors, 15 of them Democrats and 12 Republicans, including every member of the Iowa delegation in the House. Two of the seven members of the Veterans Affairs subcommittee that held the hearing have signed on.

Latham asked the House Rules Committee Tuesday night to allow a vote on the bill as an amendment during House debate on the defense authorization bill.

The committee turned him down on a 9-4, party-line vote.

Latham said the Rules Committee wouldn't allow an amendment that would have given Kayla "access to the death gratuity that her mother wanted her to have when she was killed in Iraq. This is outrageous."

He said there was broad bipartisan support for the "simple change" in the law he proposed. "It would not cost a dime, and it's the right thing to do," he said.

In an interview, Susan Jaenke said she was disappointed to hear the House did not act on the bill, but she also said she did not expect much out of Washington, despite the sympathy expressed by lawmakers at the hearing.

"Does this surprise me? No," she said. "Mr. Latham can't do it by himself. He got all these pledges of help - where did they go?"

Republicans complained throughout the day that they were being denied the chance to offer amendments to the defense bill, and attempted, without success, to adjourn the House.

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

I've always been proud to have Tom Latham as my Congressman, and this just ads to the list of reasons. The bill has more Democrat co-sponsors than Republican, and the entire Iowa delegation signed on. However it went down to defeat on a party line vote. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but apparently it is. Unfortunate, to say the least.

UPDATE: Here is some more from The Des Moines Register.:

Congress fails family of fallen Iowa soldier

Politics trumps doing right by surviving child.

REGISTER EDITORIAL BOARD
Susan Jaenke traveled to Washington last month to ask lawmakers for help after her daughter was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Before her death, Navy reservist Jaime Jaenke wrote a letter to her mother, telling her she wanted the military's $100,000 "death gratuity" to be given to her parents to help raise her daughter, Kayla.

But the law requires money to go first to a spouse or child. Kayla - not her grandparents - collected the $100,000, which goes into a trust until she's 18.

Jaime Jaenke's military paychecks had been helping the family make ends meet. When she died, the money stopped coming. Now the grandparents can't use the death benefit to cover expenses for Kayla, who is 10.

It's an obvious case of the law not working for families - families whose loved ones died in the line of duty. It an obvious problem Congress needs to fix.

But it's also painfully obvious there is something wrong in Washington. Partisan politics have prevented this Iowa family and others like it from getting help.

Lawmakers should put aside politics and help the people they were elected to serve.

In February, Iowa Republican Rep. Tom Latham introduced a bill to allow service members to designate a parent, brother or sister who has custody of a service member's minor child as the recipient of the death benefit.

Passing it is a no-brainer. Like the Jaenkes, more than 140 families around the country have had trouble collecting benefits to help care for the children of fallen soldiers, Latham says. Lawmakers even apologized to Susan Jaenke after she testified.

But apparently being sorry doesn't trump partisan bickering in Congress.

On Tuesday, the House Rules Committee voted straight down party lines to block consideration of Latham's bill. Nine Democrats voted against it; four Republicans for it. Every Republican-proposed amendment was killed, according to James Carstensen, director of communications for Latham.

The vote "speaks volumes about how blind partisanship continues to block consideration of this legislation - legislation which is not controversial other than the author has an R behind his name in a body controlled by those with a D behind their names," he said.

This Iowa family has suffered enough. They've lost a loved one. They've navigated the bureaucratic nightmare of the U.S. government. They've hired a lawyer, traveled to Washington and pleaded with lawmakers.

And now they're victims of partisan bickering.

What a disgrace.

Latham has said he will continue to fight to help the Jaenkes. But that's going to require some help from the Democrats in power.

The DSM also printed an editorial cartoon here.

Pay attention to the quote from James Carstensen in the bold, because it speaks volumes and it what I was pointing to when I first posted this. What is wrong with Washington when a bill like this can't even be passed because of the letter behind the author's name? Disgraceful, and those who voted against this should be ashamed of themselves and owe the country, and our men and women in uniform, an apology.

-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Iowa is Looking a Tad Different

2007-05-17T14:32:00.000-07:00

New census data shows that Iowa is growing older and a bit more diverse. Via The Des Moines Register.

.....New census estimates to be released today show there were 114,700 Iowans who said they were of Hispanic or Latino origin as of July 1, 2006.

That's a 39 percent increase just since 2000, and a demonstration of how the Hispanic population is fanning out across the nation far beyond the U.S.-Mexico border........

.....According to the new census estimates, Iowa is 91 percent white, compared with 92.8 percent in 2000, said Beth Henning, Iowa state data center coordinator and a census expert.....

.....Even as Iowa becomes more diverse, it's also aging.

That's not a new trend, but there is one interesting development this decade: The number of Iowa children under 5 has actually increased since 2000, from 188,143 to 192,055 in 2006.

Nonetheless, the median Iowan age in the new census estimates was 37.8 years, compared with 36.6 years in 2000.

There's a big gap between the sexes, with Iowa men at a median 36.4 years of age and women at a median 39.4 years.

Henning said 14.6 percent of Iowans are over 65. That ranks fourth in the nation, tied with Maine and North Dakota. Florida has the highest percentage of residents over 65, at 16.8 percent.

Iowa ranked No. 3 in the nation for those over 85 years of age, at 2.5 percent. Only Florida and North Dakota ranked higher, at 2.6 percent.

The number of Iowa children under 18 has declined since 2000, from 733,638 to 710,194.

Henning, looking back over birth records, said there was a dip in births during the 1990s.

This is why it's important to find ways to keep youth in Iowa. Iowa ranks 4th in the nations in people over 65 (by 2.2%), and 3rd for people over 85 (by only 0.1%). Meanwhile, the number of people under 18 has declined since 2000 by 23,444, whereas the number of children under 5 has increased only by 3,912. Iowa is already slated to loose a US Congressional seat when the lines are redrawn, and at this rate, we will loose more.

-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Harkin: Shrek Wants Kids To Be Fat

2007-05-17T10:37:00.000-07:00

Shrek, the lovable animated ogre who has a new movie out this summer, wants kids to be fat. At least that is what our very own Sen. Tom Harkin thinks. From the Des Moines Register:

Washington, D.C. — Put down the Pop Tarts, Shrek. Sen. Tom Harkin wants you to try some healthier treats.

The Iowa Democrat said today that it is "totally irresponsible" for the producers of the new kids' movie "Shrek the Third" to allow the lovable green ogre to promote sugary, high-fat food such as Pop Tarts, Froot Loops, Cheez Its, Snickers and more.

"It's damaging to our kids' health, damaging to our entire country," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters.

"I think people have to start understanding Shrek maybe really is an ogre," he said. "Maybe he isn't good for kids' health."

Harkin wrote a letter this week to Jeffrey Katzenberg, CEO of Dreamworks, which produces the Shrek movie series, asking that he reconsider unhealthy food promoted by Shrek. He told Katzenberg that the food tie-ins call into question the company's commitment to ending the nation's "food crisis."

"For years now I have spoken out against the aggressive marketing of junk food to America's children," Harkin said. "It's fueling an epidemic of child obesity. It's undermining parents' authority."

Harkin said food advertisers are using cell phones and text messages to reach kids and teens. He also said he wants to give the government more authority to regulate ads to kids.

But it's Shrek that really has Harkin feeling — well, like an ogre.

"If these industries continue on their present course, government has a responsibility to act," said Harkin. "We are not going to stand idly by in the face of a worsening epidemic of childhood obesity and diabetes."

Parents have a responsibility to watch what their children eat, but corporations have responsibilities as well, "and right now they're acting totally irresponsibly," Harkin said.

"Kids love Shrek so if Shrek says, 'Eat Cheetos,' then kids want to eat Cheetos," he said. "Why isn't Shrek advertising fresh fruits, vegetables, healthy choices?"

Katzenberg is a major Democratic contributor, giving since 1998 about $442,000 in soft money to party committees and about $235,000 to various candidate committees, according to Federal Election Commission records.

That includes Harkin, to whom Katzenberg gave $1,000 in 2001. Asked if he would return the money, Harkin said, "Heck no, I'm not going to give it back to him. Serves him right."

Harkin has received campaign contributions from others in the Hollywood film and TV industry but he said that it doesn't influence his feelings about the junk-food issue.

"Even if they are contributors, this is something I feel very strongly about and I take that message out to them," he said. "I'll continue to do that."

Officials with Dreamworks had no immediate comment.

So, if Shrek doesn't clean up his act, and put his face on the next sack of carrots or bag of peas you buy, then the Government has the responsibility to act. Thats OK though, because it's all for the children. We all know that the only reason kids don't like eating their peas and carrots is because Shrek's face isn't on the bag. And Shrek's face is the only reason why kids want the sweets. When I was a kid, I wanted the sweet, sugary things, no matter what was on the package, because I liked the junk food better than the peas and carrots. It was a part of being a kid.

Harkin received a contribution from the guy he's going after, Jeffrey Katzenberg. Asked if he would return the contribution, Harkin said "Heck no, I'm not going to give it back to him. Serves him right." Why such arrogance? I hope future contributers to Harkin see this and think twice about supporting him.

Childhood obesity is a growing problem in the US, and the presence of so much junk food is probably a reason for it. But is going after Shrek really the way to do something about it, and then threaten the use of the federal government if nothing is done? I don't care what is on the package. Unless they are old enough and have some kind of income, kids can't buy this stuff on their own. It still comes down to the parent or other adult who says yes or no. Besides, we are in the middle of a war, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid is going bankrupt, we have open boarders which need to be addressed, and Harkin is using our tax dollars to go after Shrek. Maybe its time for Harkin to announce his exit strategy from the US Senate.

--------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Confused about the 2008 Primary Schedule?

2007-05-17T07:41:00.000-07:00

Hotline On Call has a post up about the relations between the RNC and the different state parties concerning the 2008 primary schedule. It's a good piece that I recommend you read to get at least some understanding of what is going on and why.

May 16, 2007

The RNC's Dilemma

COLUMBIA – The Republican National Committee is an unincorporated association of its 50 state parties. They’re kept on a loose leash; only 30 national rules govern their conduct. In the vacuum years – that is, the year before a presidential election when candidates begin to assert themselves – the national party is especially weak, and the state parties, correspondingly grow stronger. This year, at least five state parties are preparing to flout a national rule and schedule their presidential primaries in January. Technically, they can’t – the “window” through the RNC accepts convention delegates opens on Feb. 5, 2008. States selecting delegates before that date will lose half of their allotted delegates, half of their convention hotel rooms, half of their meal tickets. RNC chairman Mike Duncan says the rule will be enforced, and until the convention itself, is irreversible.

No matter: to these wayward states – Florida, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and possibly Wyoming and Michigan – clout matters more than delegates, and the prospect of giving activists in their state a greater role in determining the identity of the party’s nominee is worth the risk. And why not? Parties are about elections, and, really, about one major election every four years. State party chairs are beholden to their state committees, to their state party’s wealthy donors, the aggregate preferences of Republicans in the state, and to the states
themselves.

Duncan has one arrow in his quiver. By September 1, parties must submit their delegate selection plans for 2008. At some point between September 1 and December 31, Duncan will put out the formal “call for convention.” States that haven’t submitted delegate plans by then could get nine tenths of their delegates taken away from them.
Several states might fall into the trap. New Hampshire’s Secretary of State Bill Gardner could theoretically announce in late November that he’s decided to hold the New Hampshire Primary in mid-December. Under that scenario, Iowa would rush to hold its caucuses a week earlier. South Carolina has tentatively scheduled its primary for Feb. 5; they would almost certainly move up by two weeks. Michigan would move; other states could abandon February for January as well. Several may decide to hold what one party chairman called a “non-b inding, binding straw poll” before the window opens and then “formally” choose their delegates later.

Can Duncan enforce his rules? Will it matter? Strategists for the major presidential candidates say that they’d welcome back all the delegates that Duncan took away from the party – an action Duncan says is “binding.” Rhetorically, Duncan asks: what formal power do the presidential candidates have?

I put that question to a senior strategist for one of the Republican frontrunners last night. His response: “What power does Mike Duncan think he’ll have when there’s a nominee?”

A confrontation looms. Duncan said he’s being pressured by some states to formally call for a convention as soon as possible, with the goal of pressuring out-of-line states to conform. Duncan wouldn’t show his cards, but did say, repeatedly, that “I intend to enforce the rules.”

Does it disturb him that some state parties don’t seem to care? “Does it disturb me? No. It’s part of a process that will, over time, self-correct.”

In the mid-90s, Duncan, then on the RNC rules committee, worked with chairman Haley Barbour to offer miscreant states a carrot – they’d get bonus delegates for staying within the window. This year’s delegate penalties are the stick.

Privately, some Republicans said that a convention floor fight about the primary calendar is the only way to resolve the impasse.

The pressure to give more states a greater voice is evident, as is the concern that that pressure is unwisely trumping a thoughtful, deliberate primary process that would produce the best nominee the party can find. Each state wants more influence; that compresses the schedule. Collectively, the less compressed the schedule is, the better. Compression can prevent a solid frontrunner from recovering from a stumble. It can also prevent a dark horse from gaining momentum. It could result in the party choosing a nominee who is manifestly un-electable.
Conservative activists in Iowa and South Carolina worry that the early Florida primary will dilute their influence. South Carolina worries, rationally, that it will no longer be the firewall state for non-Southern candidates. Party apparatchiks worry about the six or seven months between the nominee determination in early February and the convention in August.

Duncan said that RNC staffers are meeting regularly with their DNC counterparts, and that he’s invited DNC rules committee members to attend RNC rules committee meetings. The parties are weary of working together openly; they don’t want to collude and they don’t want Congress to intervene. (Congress doesn’t want to intervene, incidentally). But as institutions, the DNC and RNC face the same problem: how legitimate are they if they can’t enforce their own rules? [MARC AMBINDER]

--------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Article Round-up for May 17th

2007-05-17T06:08:00.000-07:00

Ralph Peters has an article at the New York Post critical of the new War Czar position to oversee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. ________ at NRO yesterday had an article that liked the idea.

Victor Davis Hanson has an article up at Real Clear Politics about the history of penance and how it compares today to the global warming craze.

George Will has a column today about gas prices and what Democrats are doing about it. Will discusses the issue of national security when it comes to gasoline:

Are Democrats worried about security of oil supplies? In some ways, Hayward says, America's energy supply is more secure than it was in the 1970s, partly because "since 1975, energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product has fallen 48 percent." Furthermore, "oil represents a shrinking share of total U.S. energy consumption -- from 44 percent in 1970 to 40 percent in 2005." The oil America consumes -- only one-eighth of which comes from the Middle East -- is used almost entirely in transportation, and accounts for about 40 percent of energy uses. Half of America's electricity is generated by coal, of which America has a huge abundance.

Will also covers where your money goes when you buy a gallon of gas:

Actually, Pelosi's constituents are being gouged by people like Pelosi -- by government. While oil companies make about 13 cents on a gallon of gasoline, the federal government makes 18.4 cents (the federal tax) and California's various governments make 40.2 cents (the nation's third-highest gasoline tax). Pelosi's San Francisco collects a local sales tax of 8.5 percent -- higher than the state's average for local sales taxes.

Johnathan Foreman has an article at NRO about Afghanistan and how the media is affecting our efforts there. Foreman makes some good points on the second page about how journalist misunderstanding of basic military facts can distort their stories.

Fred Thompson has a transcript of his podcast up at NRO about how colleges are teaching less and less about military history, and why this is a bad thing.

Carrie Lukas discusses how Democrats do not understand how the free market and competitive pricing works.

------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Culture of Corruption Strikes Again

2007-05-16T13:21:00.000-07:00

Drudge has a post up now that because of her embarrassment at procedural moves Republicans are making on the House Floor, Speaker Pelosi is going to change floor rules to completely shut out the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822. In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

Good for the Republican leadership. If last November truly was a mandate from the American people, then why is Pelosi considering this move? If holding the majority in Congress means that you get everything you want and the minority is to sit and be quiet, why didn't we pass Social Security reform in 2005, among other things? Shameless Democrat hypocrisy shows its ugly face yet again.

I'm sure we'll hear more about this story in the next day or so.
UPDATE: John Boehner sent out this press release today:

DEMOCRATS TO CHANGE 185 YEAR-OLD HOUSE RULE TO ALLOW TAX HIKES WITHOUT HAVING TO VOTE

May 16, 2007

In a stunning move, House Democrats today revealed they will attempt to rewrite House rules that have gone unchanged since 1822 in order to make it possible to increase taxes and government spending without having to vote and be held accountable. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today vowed Republicans will use every available means to fight this unprecedented change.

“This is an astonishing attempt by the majority leadership to duck accountability for tax-and-spend policies the American people do not want,” Boehner said. “The majority leadership is gutting House rules that have been in place for 185 years so they can raise taxes and increase government spending without a vote. House Republicans will use every tool available to fight this abuse of power.”

Last November, House Democratic leaders promised the most open, ethical Congress in history:

“[W]e promised the American people that we would have the most honest and most open government and we will.” (Nancy Pelosi press stakeout, December 6, 2006)

“We intend to have a Rules Committee ... that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.” (Steny Hoyer in CongressDaily PM, December 5, 2006)

The rules House Democrats are seeking to change have not been changed since 1822.

Republicans have already achieved significant legislative successes on the House floor with 11 consecutive “motion-to-recommit” victories that exposed flaws and substantively improved weaknesses in underlying Democrat bills. But rather than living by the same rules which have guided the House of Representatives for 185 years, Democrats are proposing to change the rules in order to game the system and raise taxes and increase spending without a House vote. What are House Democrats afraid of?

Update #2:

Eric Cantor, the Chief Deputy Republican Whip, just announced on his website that the Democrats have blinked:

House Democrats wanted to change the rules to make it easier to raise taxes. They wanted to hide their Members from a direct vote on the tough issues. They wanted to change rules on minority floor rights that have been in place since 1822. They failed.

Today, House Republicans stood united and successfully fought against the House Democrats’ ill-advised rule changes, by reducing all business on the House Floor to a crawl. We used a creative set of motions and other parliamentary techniques to bring the fight.

In the end, House Democrats lost and the American People won.

Good Job Republicans! United We Stand, Divided We Fall!

UPDATE #3: From the Republican Study Committee Blog:

Stare Down is Over, GOP Wins in Early Rounds

In response to an earlier post, the Democrat Leadership responded to the protest votes (after about 4 hours) and pulled the rule change from the bill. Read Chairman Hensarling's statement

Earlier today, House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), today sought to rewrite the rules of the House to prevent PAYGO offsets from expanding the scope of germaneness to further what Republicans may offer in their motions to recommit the bills to Committee. Such a change would allow House Democrats to more easily raise taxes and increase government spending without being held to account. The move would have marked the first change in the germaneness rule since 1822 and is a direct infringement on the rights of the Minority in the House and the Americans that they represent. The Republican Study Committee Floor Action Team, under the leadership of Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), began requesting a series of procedural protest votes every 30 minutes in response to this power grab by the Majority, and was joined Rep. Tom Price, another member of the RSC floor Action Team. Today was a big win for all Republicans in the House.

--------------------------

Stay Awake Pay Attention Always Vote

Another Article Round-Up

2007-05-16T09:01:00.000-07:00

Some more articles I found on the net today that I found intersting.

A post from Larry Kudlow on NRO's The Corner Blog about Sen. Grassley's comments on possible tax increases with Democrat control.

Bernard Lewis at Opinion Journal about the question of perceived US weakness in the middle east. Bernard Lewis is an Middle East historian and author of several best selling books on the subject. What Went Wrong and The Crises of Islam are two short books of his that do a good job of explaining the history and some of the cultural differences and perceptions between the US and the Middle East.

A mayor in Pennsylvania who is known for his work in combating illegal immigration in his town has won the Republican AND DEMOCRATIC renomination for the office. From the article:

ALLENTOWN, Pa. --
Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who gained national prominence by targeting illegal immigrants living in his small northeastern Pennsylvania city, cruised to the Republican nomination for a third term on Tuesday - and unexpectedly won the Democratic nomination, too.
Barletta trounced GOP challenger Dee Deakos with nearly 94 percent of the vote. And he beat former Mayor Michael Marsicano for the Democratic nomination by staging a last-minute write-in campaign, all but guaranteeing himself another term, unofficial returns showed.

John Hughes at Christian Science Monitor has an article discussing democracy and the Arab world.

Bob Rayner at the Richmond Times Dispatch has an article discussing whether we are seeing the end of the Reagan era and comparing what happened then and what the Democrats want to do now.

Michelle Malkin over at NRO has a story about the differences in undercover reporting on military recruiting and Planned Parenthood.

And finally, Howard Fineman at Newsweek online discusses the Fairness Doctrine and Democrats pushing for it to be reinstated. Here is an American Spectator article on it, and here is Rush talking about the issue on his show earlier this week.

Enjoy!

----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Article Round-up

2007-05-15T09:40:00.000-07:00

Couple of articles I ran across today

W. Thomas Smith Jr. has an article at National Review Online discussing the reality on the ground in Iraq.

Max Boot discusses the surge and the possible consequences of pulling out of Iraq too early.

Christopher Hitchens discusses the changing culture in British neighborhoods and the rise of British Jihadists.

-------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

What a Popular Congress

2007-05-11T07:22:00.000-07:00

The media and the left loves to take comfort in President Bush's low approval ratings (can anyone say schadenfreud?). Well, what you don't hear too much of is that the approval rating for Congress isn't much better:

The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.

This new congress has always had a low approval rating--I think it got above 40% only briefly a month or so ago. Looks like its just another nail in the coffin of the claims that last November signaled Democrats truly represent the nation and a sign conservatism in America is receding.

------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Romney in Fort Dodge

2007-05-10T22:17:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, Gov. Mitt Romney came to Fort Dodge for a town hall meeting at the Starlight Village. Here is the Messenger's article on the event. Like the McCain event, I wasn't able to take notes, so I'll type some of my thoughts and leave the rest to the link above.

The Governor had a good turnout, by my estimate somewhere between 200 or 250 people. Hotel staff had to remove some wall partitions to make some more room.

Romney spoke in front of the group for about an hour. Rep. Dave Tjepkes, who is endorsing the Governor, gave a very nice introduction where he praised Romney for his record in Massachusetts and in the private sector.

Romney focused much of his speech on the domestic problems that America is facing--illegal immigration, too much government spending, the need for low taxes on middle income Americans, health care, and the importance of strong families with both a mother and a father.

Afterwards, the Governor shook hands, signed autographs and posed for pictures for everyone who stuck around. Its always nice to see candidates do this and meet and talk personally with the voters.

It looked like Romney made a good impression on the attendees, as they decide which candidate they will be supporting at the caucuses next January (who knows, it might even be December). The campaign staff should be very happy with the event.

Keep up the good work Webster County (as well as you surrounding counties)! It's your participation in these events that keep the candidates coming to our area.

-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

A Glimps of Future Democrat Foreign Policy?

2007-05-10T19:04:00.000-07:00

Robert Novak in his column today discusses how the Democrats have snubbed Colombia by ignoring president Alvaro Uribe during his trip to Washington:

Colombia's president, Álvaro Uribe, returned to Bogota this week in a state of shock. His three-day visit to Capitol Hill to win over Democrats in Congress was described by one American supporter as "catastrophic." Colombian sources said Uribe was stunned by the ferocity of his Democratic opponents, and Vice President Francisco Santos publicly talked about cutting U.S.-Colombian ties.

Colombia is one of the few remaining friends the US has in Latin America, even more important when Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is working to turn nations against the US.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters also covers this.

If the Democrats do this to our southern allies, where our attention, unfortunately, has not been very great, what would/will they do to our other allies we have across the globe?

----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Our Southern Boarders and National Security

2007-05-10T11:05:00.000-07:00

Roger Simon wrote at The Politico that we have not suffered any terrorist attacks from Mexicans, other Latinos, or anyone who got into the US through the southern boarder. So why all the hubub about securing our boarders? He finishes his piece with:

And you get the feeling that immigration reform is something both parties wish would just go away.

Building bigger fences is so much easier -- and more popular -- right now.

Well, now we are hearing more about Al Queda and Hezbollah, the Iranian backed terrorist group, working on smuggling in terrorists through the southern boarder.

There are too many relevant portions of the article to excerpt, so I urge you to read the article yourself. But as an example of what you'll see:

At this stage, G2 Bulletin sources say, the growing danger is that of militant Islam penetrating Mexico, a country with an increasing Muslim community, including Muslim converts. Some of them have ties to the Mexican community and to illegal immigrants' smugglers operating in American states bordering Mexico, especially those with connections in the greater Los Angeles area and other major cities.
Anti-terrorism experts say extremist cells tied to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida network are operating in Argentina, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Uruguay. Although cooperation between al-Qaida and Hezbollah has been known for some time, the two groups have formed a much closer relationship since al-Qaida was evicted from its base in Afghanistan, according to G2 Bulletin.

This should be a wake up call for everyone in the country.

UPDATE:

Victor Davis Hanson discusses the messages that our immigration problems sends to terrorists. And Andy McCarthy follows up with some more points

-----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Authorization to Use Military Force

2007-05-10T07:44:00.000-07:00

Victor Davis Hanson has a piece at Real Clear Politics today discussing how Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the war, even though many of them voted for the AUMF. He cites that in the AUMF there were 23 reasons cited, but because we did not find any WMD, only one of the 23 reasons, the war should never have been fought.

So I decided to post the 23 reasons to remove Saddam from power, just as a refresher:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Global Warming Trumps Al-Queda

2007-05-10T07:34:00.000-07:00

Byron York at National Review Online has a good round-up of what the Democrats want to do with our intelligence services. Under a bill being voted on today, intelligence money being spent on North Korea, Iran, etc, will be diverted to study GLOBAL WARMING!

Whether you believe in global warming, and if its man-made or not, this is ridiculous. It has happened before, and as a result, the focus was taken off of our enemies:

Hoekstra and other Republicans worry that Democrats want to return intelligence policy to a time in the 1990s when the Clinton administration established what was known as the DCI Environmental Center within the CIA. The Center used satellite spying resources to track environmental matters. “They took pictures of volcanoes and sea turtle nests and took air samples of air pollution, as opposed to checking for traces of biological or chemical weapons, and it was all done at the behest of Al Gore,” says one Republican knowledgeable about intelligence affairs.

Former CIA director George Tenet mentions Gore’s environmental emphasis in his new book, At the Center of the Storm. “True to his interests, [Gore] had a fascination for wonkish issues,” Tenet writes. “He asked lots of questions about the impact on national security of water shortages, disease and environmental concerns.” Tenet reveals that some inside the CIA derided Gore’s priorities as “bugs and bunnies.”

“We started allocating precious intelligence resources to environmental issues just as al Qaeda was on the upswing,” says Rep. Hoekstra. “We were becoming politically correct. My fear is that we’re going back to the same place.”

One can only wonder how things would have been different if our intelligence services were able to focus on the growing terrorist threats during the 1990s instead of the environment.

And the Democrats want to be taken seriously when it comes to national security.

-------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

John McCain Visits Fort Dodge

2007-05-10T06:26:00.000-07:00

John McCain was in Fort Dodge Tuesday for a town hall meeting. This will be just bits and pieces about the event. I wasn't able to take notes, but you can find out more about that here, here, and here. The DesMoines Register also has photos on their website, and both WHO TV and KCCI have video on their website.

There was around 150 people who filled the Opera House to hear the Senator. The campaign provided a free lunch of ham or turkey sandwiches, chips, cookies and pink lemonade for everyone.

While he was about 20 minutes late, several people were impressed that McCain stuck around afterwards until everyone had a chance to meet him and get an autograph or a picture. I'm not sure how many people there were, but it was a good number of people. Everyone is used to candidates hurrying to get to the door in order to stay on schedule, so this was refreshing.

McCain's jokes were well received. Its hard to say which one went over the best, but I always enjoy the one about the drunken sailor. There were two exchanges with the audience that stick out in my mind. One was the discussion over ethanol. The gentleman asked McCain about his stance on ethanol, and how it differed from his stance in 2000. He went to return the mic, when McCain told the handler to give the mic back because he wanted to hear the gentleman's reaction. The two went back and forth 3 or 4 times, discussing the effects of ethanol on cattlemen and hog farmers, as well as comparing ethanol with other forms of renewable and non-fossil fuel energy. There was another gentleman who stood up and said how touched he was about how McCain, after going through what he did in the Hanoi Hilton, was able to forgive his captors. The Senator responded that it was a case that you have to move on in life, even though there are a couple of his captors he wouldn't mind seeing again.

As everyone knows, McCain's number one issue is the war, and he hit on that topic several times during the event. He fully supports the troop surge and said that we were starting to see results, and asks that everyone gives it time to succeed. He also hit on the fact that by picking up and leaving now, we leave the door open to genocide and chaos.

The campaign should be very happy with the event. Webster and surrounding counties have done a great job in turning out for presidential candidates, so lets keep it up. It's areas like ours where candidates love to flock to and spend time.

----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

America's Car Problem?

2007-05-09T07:15:00.000-07:00

Henry Payne at National Review Online today has an article called "Obama's Energy Vision" where he discusses Obama's speech to a Detroit auto group, and blamed them for out oil crises.

Ignoring the extraordinary freedom and mobility that the gas engine has delivered, Obama instead outlined a dark picture of a civilization on Armageddon’s doorstep. Our “oil addiction,” he said, has empowered Osama bin Laden and corrupt Latin dictators, and has set “off a chain of dangerous weather patterns that would condemn future generations to global catastrophe.” Hurricanes, drought, famine, and forest fires are ravaging the globe today with the result that “people are dying. . . and species are becoming extinct.”

He laid blame at the American auto industry’s feet.

Payne provided some facts about what kinds of vehicles American and foreign companies are producing:

That would be news to foreign competitors. In fact, Japanese carmakers have penetrated the U.S. market in the last 30 years by selling consumers what they want: quality, and big, sedans and trucks. In 1985, for example, 96 percent of the nearly one million cars Toyota sold were small cars. Today, at 2.5 million in sales, only 28 percent of its fleet is small vehicles, while 20 percent are light trucks. Meanwhile, General Motors leads the industry with 23 different models that get over 30 miles per gallon — hardly the resistance to reform that, the senator says, “could’ve saved the industry.”

He also talked about the CAFE standards:

First, he would strengthen federal fuel efficiency (so-called CAFE) laws by an arbitrary four percent a year. Since 1975, CAFE laws requiring that auto fleets average 27.5 mpg have failed miserably. Oil imports as a share of U.S. oil consumption have risen from 35 to 59 percent, and Americans today consume 20-percent more fuel driving twice as many miles.

I have always found this statistic interesting. It falls into the category of "unforeseen consequences of good intentions." But it also leads to another thing--in order to get CAFE standards up, auto makers have had to make cars lighter. I have lost track of the number of complaint's I have heard about plastic bumpers. I would love to see a report or study about the lifespan and safety of our vehicles today as opposed to 20,30 or 40 years ago.

Aside from all of this, I sometimes feel that what is being left out of stories like this is the ultimate question--what is a car? Yes, it sounds like a stupid question, but think about it. Is a car simply a means for transportation, like a bicycle? Or is it something that identifies and describes you personally? When you go and purchase a vehicle, you are likely going to consider things like gas mileage, reliability, etc. But you are also going to take into account the look and feel of the vehicle. Finances not being an issue, you are unlikely to drive a car if your personality fits more with a truck, and vice versa.

Like it or not, the car is a part of American culture. From the Model-T, to the muscle cars of the '60s and '70s, to the SUVs and trucks of today, the car identifies us. It represents the independence that America provides for its citizens. It represents the freedom of movement that is America. Obama and others like him talk about the "responsibility" of the auto dealers and the American people to drive cars that get 45 miles a gallon. But what of the responsibility of the auto dealers, as a business, to make cars that Americans truly want to drive? That's one of the reasons environmentalists create a lot of anger---they're trying to force us to drive ugly cars.

Why can't we keep the "American" car, and work on solutions around that? Instead of "encouraging" Americans to buy brand new vehicles to be responsible, why can't politicians demand a way to convert the cars we have and we like now be more fuel efficient and cut down on the use of fossil fuels? Groups try to push hybrids and low(or under) powered vehicles, but do you think Americans will willfully buy these when they lack power under the hood? Groups try to push cars that run on electricity, and all you have to do is plug your car in at night. But do we really think that Americans are going to want a car they have to plug in at night like they would a cell phone or an iPod? Why not create a prize for the first person/company to find a way to easily and cheaply convert our present cars to run on hydrogen, or methane, or our garbage?

No matter what your opinions are on global warming and the use of fossil fuels, I think everyone can agree about the national security aspect and concerns about oil revenues in the middle east. I'm all for finding alternative fuels, but for American's to follow, cars will need to continue to have power, speed and come in styles that Americans will want to drive.

-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Presidential Candidates Are a'Commin'

2007-05-03T07:45:00.000-07:00

Next week will provide an excellent opportunity for Republicans learning more about our Presidential candidates.

Sen. John McCain will be at the Fort Dodge Opera House for a town hall meeting on May 8th at 11:30 AM, and will provide a free lunch. Please call Grant Young at 515-402-6715 to RSVP.

Gov. Mitt Romney will be at the Starlight Village Best Western (1518 3rd Ave NW) in Fort Dodge on Wed., May 9th at 12:15pm for a town hall meeting and free lunch. Please RSVP at (888) 722-4704, ext 200.

I encourage everyone to attend and let the candidates know that we are interested in what they have to say. We will try to get event wrap-ups on the blog as soon as possible afterwards.

-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

They're at it Again

2007-04-20T07:13:00.000-07:00

From the Des Moines Register:

A bill containing what critics described as an "iPod tax" was approved by the Senate on Thursday.

The catch-all revenue department bill includes a provision that would raise $4.3 million or more annually by applying the 5 percent state sales tax to digital material that's been downloaded from the Internet: songs, audio books, cell-phone ring tones, movies and computer software.

"This tax is impractical, unenforceable and it is highly unpopular," said Sen. Jeff Angelo, a Creston Republican, in opposing the measure.

Supporters say the state is simply treating the taxation of such items the same - whether the purchase is from a business on Main Street or on the Internet.

Senate File 596 was passed by the Senate on a 29-20 vote and sent to the House for more debate.

Is anyone else sick and tired of the state and federal government taxing everything they can so they can grab every last penny that is "owed to them?"

They first anger a lot of people who voted for them by passing the tobacco tax increase, now they are passing a tax on internet downloads that will anger a lot of the young people who tend to lean Democrat. It wasn't long ago when the record companies were going after illegal downloads. If the House passes this tax, will illegal downloads go up again? Also, how will this tax be collected? Are they going to make the companies send them a monthly check? Or maybe send a bill to each household?

I said this after the tobacco tax increase, and I'll say it again. There is nothing that this new majority at the State House in Des Moines will not tax. It won't be long and you'll be seeing taxes proposed on your fast food, on your carbon footprint, and who knows what else.

-----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Dems Own Defeat: Straight From the Donkey's Mouth

2007-04-19T13:37:00.000-07:00

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, today said that the war in Iraq is lost.

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.
Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.
"I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

Then, for added measure, Reid drew yet another comparison to Vietnam:

But Reid drew a parallel with former US president Lyndon Johnson who decided to deploy more troops in Vietnam some 40 years ago when 24,000 US troops had already been killed.
"Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam," Reid said.

Apparently, Reid tried to backtrack from his comments later saying that he was talking about the present strategy. The present strategy which has seen death squad murders drop by over 50%, which has helped us clear previous terrorist strongholds such as Sadr City, which has helped us find weapon making facilities around Baghdad as well as Iranians helping the insurgents kill our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians. And this is without the full contingent of troops to be sent in the surge.

Democrats campaigned in 2006 that we needed a course change in Iraq, and for much of the war criticized Bush that we didn't have enough troops. In January, President Bush obliged by deciding to send more troops to help secure the country. But the Democrats likewise changed course, because now they didn't want to send more troops. Instead, they want to "re-deploy" our troops out of Iraq, and they want a timetable telling the enemy when precisely we will do this. It seems as if their strategy for Iraq is whatever is opposite of President Bush's plan.

This isn't just a slip of the tongue on Sen. Reid's part. It has to be obvious to everyone now that the Democrats want nothing other than defeat in Iraq. I truly wonder sometimes if they ever realized that by failing to see the consequences in effectively ignoring the attacks on the USS Cole, our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, our barracks in Saudi Arabia, on the World Trade Center in 1993, and so on, we failed to fully grasp what we were facing until it was too late, and we lost 3,000 citizens on 9/11?

Have they taken a look now at the possible consequences of just pulling up and leaving Iraq? How easy will it be to get allies in different regions of the world if we have no credibility of sticking with them? How much will we encourage further terrorist activity by showing that their tactics achieved their desired results? How many regions of the world will we loose to the spread of radical Islamic terrorist influence? How many of these terrorist groups will decide it is now time for attacks on US soil? What effects will it have on Iran, and their seeking nuclear weapons?

General Petraeus was confirmed by the US Senate with a vote of 81-0. It is only proper to give him the time he needs to do the job he was given.

-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Beall Votes Against Mandatory Firearms for Campus Police

2007-04-18T16:44:00.000-07:00

The Iowa Senate today voted against an Senate Amendment 3371 that would made it mandatory for security officers on our college campus' to carry firearms. The law, and opponents to the legislation, say that the issue is up to the Board of Regents. Sen. Beall voted against the amendment, while Sen. Olive supported it.

Folks, campus police at the University of Iowa, UNI, and ISU are PROHIBITED from carrying firearms as part of their duty. No other Big 10 or Big 12 school does this. These are sworn, academy trained police officers, and they are not allowed to carry firearms.

This is from the UofI Dept. of Public Safety website:

Applicants must be either currently certified as a peace officer by the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy, or can achieve that status within 12 months of their date of hire. The Iowa Law Enforcement Academy has specific requirements, so please refer to their website. In addition to the Academy requirements, you must successfully complete our Field Training Program, take a drug test at your own expense, pass a thorough background investigation, and pass an oral interview board.

Here is from the UNI Dept of Public Safety Website:

The University of Northern Iowa Department of Public Safety Police Division is the official law enforcement authority for the university. More than 25 fully certified, sworn police officers and dispatchers provide a variety of services to the community on a 24-hour basis. Trained full and part-time employees supplement agency operations. Pursuant to state statutes, University of Northern Iowa police officers possess full powers to detain, investigate, and arrest.

The ISU Dept. of Public Safety website is down, but I'm sure I'd find a similar quote there also.

The heads of these departments want their officers armed.

This is not a case of taking political advantage of a tragedy, as Senate Majority Leader Gronstal accused Republicans of doing today. This is about public safety. Do those who voted against this amendment feel that campus police officers are not responsible enough to carry firearms, even though they go through the exact same training and certification process as to officers in Fort Dodge, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Sioux City, and so on?

Let's hope the Board of Regents will reverse course and allow campus security the use of firearms. Keep in mind, these are state schools, paid for with our tax dollars, and ultimately, the buck stops at our state government. If the Board of Regents will not do the responsible things to allow certified, sworn police officers to carry firearms as part of their duty, then the state government needs to do so.

-----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Caught on Camera

2007-04-18T10:50:00.000-07:00

Webster County Chairman Mike Bradley was snapped in a picture while visiting Tom Tancredo's reception after the Lincoln Day Unity Dinner in Des Moines on April 15th.

Beall, Miller and Bailey Don't Like Wal-Mart

2007-04-18T09:24:00.000-07:00

Props out to State 29 for bringing this to attention. If you were watching local news in the past few days, you probably saw a story about the Wake-Up Wall-Mart people holding a press conference at the state capital with State Senator Bolckom and State Sen. Hatch. They were damning Wal-Mart for wasting state tax dollars because they don't provide enough health care for their employees.

A press release/letter to Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott is out highlighting these complaints. Signatories to this letter were several members of our state legislature, include Sen. Daryl Beall, Sen. Rich Olive, Rep. McKinley Bailey, and Rep. Helen Miller.

They are worried about spending, but are these legislators just as outraged about the 10% increase in state spending this year and the projected 10% increase for next year as well? Maybe we shouldn't be too hard though. Teacher pay was only increased by 4% this year under a Democrat controlled statehouse, when last year, under Republican control, Sen. Beall felt our teachers deserved 6%.

Here some of the facts that Wal-Mart gives about their health care coverage (more can be found here):

In FY 2006, Wal-Mart is projected to spend roughly $4.7 billion on associate benefits including, for example, contributions to health and dental plans, 401(K)/profit-sharing plans and associate discount cards. For perspective, Wal-Mart’s net income for FY 2005 was $10.3 billion.
Benefits spending at Wal-Mart has grown 15% per year over the last three years, increasing from 1.5% to 1.9% of sales between FY 2002 and FY 2005.
Health care spending alone has grown 19% per year during the same period.
We are providing access to private insurance: Wal-Mart provides health insurance to full- and part-time associates after a waiting period considered standard in the retail industry. For many associates, a job at Wal-Mart means new access to health coverage. Surveys of hourly associates showed that 30% had no health coverage before coming to work for Wal-Mart. After joining Wal-Mart, the percentage of associates who are uninsured drops. By our estimates, we have helped over 160,000 associates get off the rolls of the uninsured.
We are taking people off public assistance programs: According to a survey by The Segmentation Company, 7% of associates join Wal-Mart on Medicaid. Only 3% of associates remain on Medicaid after working for Wal-Mart for two years.
The majority of Wal-Mart’s hourly associates are full-time. (Fulltime at Wal-Mart is 34+ hours per week.) That’s well above the 20% to 40% typically found in the retail industry.
Many associates – such as students looking for work experience, seniors supplementing their retirement income and individuals working a second job – join Wal-Mart with existing health care benefits.
During our recent open enrollment, about 70,000 associates who had previously waived coverage signed up for Wal-Mart plans.
Of these associates, 78% of those surveyed said they were previously uninsured.
Over one-third of those associates, previously uninsured and recently electing coverage, selected the Wal-Mart Value Plan.
Considering factors that include associates who left Wal-Mart, those that elected to drop coverage as well as those who recently became eligible, this growth in enrollment leaves Wal-Mart in January 2006 with over 615,000 associates, (or over 1 million Americans, including spouses and dependants) on Wal-Mart health plans.
Wal-Mart offers health coverage to both full- and part-time associates -- only 23% of all employers offer coverage to their part-time employees.
On average in 2005, 73% of all associates were eligible for Wal-Mart plans and 43% of all associates chose to enroll. In January 2006, the number of associates covered by Wal-Mart health care insurance increased to 46%.
According to a 2005 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the proportion of Wal-Mart associates eligible for company health care benefits (73%) is comparable to other large employers (79%) and significantly higher than the retail industry average (61%).
According to a survey conducted by The Segmentation Company, 5% of Wal-Mart associates are on Medicaid. This is lower than the retail sector average of 6% and only slightly higher than the national average of 4%.
27% of the children of Wal-Mart associates are on Medicaid or S-CHIP programs, a proportion lower than the retail sector average of 36%.
Historically, Wal-Mart’s contribution to both individual and family health care coverage has been approximately two-thirds of the total cost.
The total benefits package for a Wal-Mart associate includes, in addition to health care, programs such as company contributions to 401(K)/profit-sharing plans, associate discount cards, paid time off and life insurance. In FY 2006, Wal-Mart is projected to spend roughly $4.7 billion on associate benefits.

And this doesn't even cover how much Wal-Mart has saved Iowans and people in other states.

I'd be interested to see how many of these legislatures have shopped or continue to shop at Wal-Mart. Should we expect to see apologies from any of them for their past behavior? I won't hold my breath.

----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Democrat Vs Republican Healthcare

2007-04-18T06:37:00.000-07:00

Sen. John Kyl (R-Arizona) has an article at Real Clear Politics today about the health care debate coming in Congress. He contrasts the differences between Republican and Democrat Health Care.

Kyl talks about the success of the Prescription Drug Program that was passed a few years ago. Despite what some might say (or even not even discuss), the program is popular among seniors and is saving them money:

Republicans passed a prescription drug benefit that uses market competition to provide critical medications to seniors at much lower costs than were projected. This "Part D" benefit for the first time is providing seniors with affordable access to a broad range of prescription drugs. Due to robust competition among health plans, the average senior is saving more than $1,200, with many saving much more. Average monthly premiums for seniors are only $22 -- 40 percent less than expected. Over 90 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are now receiving comprehensive prescription drug coverage, and polls show that more than 80 percent of seniors are happy with their drug coverage.

The American taxpayer also benefits from these lower costs. The drug benefit is estimated to cost $265 billion less than projected over the next ten years. When is the last time a government program came in under budget with a greater than 80 percent approval rating? Yet, instead of supporting the principles that have made this program successful, Senate Democrats this week will try to undo them.

Here is what Kyl says is the problem with government intervention:

Proponents of government intervention say they simply want to use the market power of the large number of Medicare beneficiaries to lower prices. But private pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) already use this same market clout to negotiate lower prices. In fact, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, the three largest PBMs already negotiate on behalf of four times as many beneficiaries (200 million) as the entire Medicare population (44 million).

Then Kyl sums it all up:

The choice is clear: a government-run health care bureaucracy that restricts choice and rations care or a consumer-driven health care system that expands health care options while controlling costs. The prescription drug legislation has put this choice to the test, and seniors have proven that they prefer the Republican model. Seniors have independently chosen plans that provide more health care options at lower costs. For example, 88 percent of seniors who enrolled in a prescription drug plan in 2007 chose a plan that offered coverage other than the standard benefit, and this year seniors have chosen plans with 13 percent more available medications than last year.

Wise men will tell you that you don't mess with government programs that 80% of its recipients are happy with. If and when Congress passes more health care legislation, it needs to focus on the free market, not bureaucratic decision making.

-----------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Rebellion of UK Doctors

2007-04-16T10:46:00.000-07:00

UK doctors are refusing to perform abortion in the government run hospitals, forcing women to seek abortions at private clinics.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

1956 versus Today

2007-04-16T10:40:00.000-07:00

Roger Kimball has a short piece at The New Criterion that reminds me of a comedic rant a friend of mine went on a few years ago about the difference between now and when he was a kid. Here is the introductory paragraph:

A friend in Chicago sent these 8 scenarios comparing life in 1956 and
today. We are always told how repressive, staid, homogenizing, and uncreative
the 1950s were. These comparisons suggest how far off-base that stereotype is.

----------------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

RIP Pat Buckley

2007-04-16T08:12:00.000-07:00

Pat Buckley, the wife of the founder of National Review, William F. Buckley, died Sunday Morning. National Review Online has several articles up remembering her. Bill Buckley is considered by most as the father of the modern conservative movement, and Pat helped him immensely along the way. We would like to pass along our thoughts and prayers to the Buckley family at this time.

RPI Lincoln Day Dinner

2007-04-15T11:59:00.000-07:00

The annual Lincoln Day Dinner for the Republican Party of Iowa turned out pretty well, in my opinion. It was held at the convention center in downtown Des Moines, and drew 1,000 people from across the state. It featured the 10 Republican Presidential candidates, and because of that the event drew C-SPAN which broadcast the dinner live. However, Duncan Hunter had some air travel problems, and wasn't able to make it. I won't give a play-by-play of the event, just things that I noticed, thought, etc. I'll leave the play-by-plays to the other blogs. Please Note that any opinions that might be reflected in this post are not necessarily the opinions of the Webster County Republicans.

The Brownback supporters were out in mass for the event. They stood infront of the doors holding signs, and chanted a bit in the lobby. For some reason, Brownback had several cameramen (both still and video) following him around the entire event. At first I thought they were regular press guys, until I saw the Brownback stickers they were wearing. I'm not sure if it was a visual image the campaign was going for, or, most likely, simply getting shots for future ads.

Flip the Dolphin was also there. Thats the dolphin that follows Mitt Romney around to draw attention to the flip-flops that he has been accused of. Romney had the only "keepsake" of the candidates with his Mitt "mitts"---baseball gloves made of foam ala the famous foam finger seen in sporting stadiums nation wide. The only other "keepsake" was the wine glass that the Fair Tax people had for everyone sitting at the table. John Cox also had volunteers passing out bags of potato chips.

Now, to the speeches. The speeches were only to be 6 minutes long. The only candidate who came close to keeping within the limit was John McCain, the last speaker of the evening. While all of these candidates are used to speaking at longer lengths at their own events, every candidate talking for 20 minutes or so each made the event longer than necessary, and no doubt many in the audience grew bored.

Rudy was the first speaker, and he finished by reminding people to keep Reagan's 11th Commandment (thou shalt speak no ill will of other Republicans). While there were a few candidates who made indirect comments about other candidates (read: Rudy, Mitt and McCain), I saw those as more of differentiating themselves from the others, and the rule was followed pretty well until Gov. Jim Gilmore got up. When he said the line "Rudy McRomney is not a conservative, and he knows he's not a conservative," a hush grew over the crowd, and then came a lot of "oooo's" signifiying that they couldn't believe, and/or didn't really appreciate, the comment. Asside from a few lines, the rest of his speech didn't receive much reaction.

One of those indirect comments won, in my opinion, the line of the night. Tom Tancredo was talking about immigration (surprise, surprise, :-)), and of the recent converts to his side of the issue: "They are welcome, of course, but my concern is that the conversions have occurred not on the road to Damascus but on the road here to Des Moines." Tancredo got a good responce from this line, if for anything else, it's sheer cleaverness.

A nice surprise of the night was when Gov. Mike Huckabee got on stage, and introduced us to the "other" govorner of Arkansas. A bald man took the mike with a great Clinton impression where he thanked his supporters and then rattled off a bunch of women's names. As he left the stage, Huckabee asked the crowd to give a hand to Paul Shanklin, the guy who writes and performs all of the songs we hear on Rush Limbaugh.

Tommy Thompson was probably the surprise of the night. I saw him speak earlier in the day in Fort Dodge, but he was on fire that night. There were several candidates who gave most if not all of the speech in a "fire and brimstone" type voice, which came over more as just being loud than passionate. Thompson was the exception. He delievered some the best recieved jokes of the night, and you could feel that he had he undivided attention of a good part of the audience for a good part of the speech, particulary when he talked about his new granddaughter.

I was most interested in seeing how John McCain was recieved. The national polls have him trailing Giuliani by a bit, however polls in the lead-off states have them running almost even. Then, there are those who have serious doubts about McCain because of his past stances. With all of this, he was recieved very well. From my vantage point, he had a lot of people standing for him both when he walked on and off the stage. He was the only candidate who didn't stand behind the podium. Rather, he took the mic and walked around the stage as in his town hall meetings. He made a couple of jokes that were recieved as well as Tommy Thompson's were, and he focused a majority of this speech on Iraq. While there are a lot of people who have doubts about McCain , you could feel the respect in the room for him and what he has done in his life. I was told afterward that as he was walking through the kitchen, he took and answered several questions from the staff working the event.

After the dinner, the candidates held receptions for their supporters and other interested people. This was probably what made the event. It was a nice, relaxed atmosphere and everyone was enjoying themselves. I wasn't able to make it to all of them, but from what I saw, they all had a good turnout.

McCain had the greatest ice-cream treat invented by man---the Drumstick--- available visiters. McCain made a short speech where he thanked his supporters and asked for their help in the caucuses, and then signed many autographs and posed for several pictures before he left.

The most popular reception was the Fair Tax group. They had a huge table with chocolate covered strawberries, crackers and cheese, cheesecake, and fruit, gave away 10 i-pod nanos at the end of the night, and the most popular attraction of the night---the open bar. I think we are going to keep hearing more from the Fair Tax people. They continue to grow their nationwide organization, and are attracting a lot of favorable attention from both voters and the candidates. Their reception only added to that.

Mike Huckabee, in case you didn't know, plays bass guitar in a rock band. He brought the band up with him, and played until the building guys were ready to close up. They are a pretty good live band, playing a bunch of classic rock hits. People in the audience were dancing along, including a couple prominent people in the party.

RPI should be happy with the Lincoln Day dinner this year. Though the speeches were a tad long, I think everyone enjoyed hearing from all of the candidates in the same night, and further enjoyed the relaxed atmosphere of the receptions. One thing it made evident is that at this point, it's still a wide open race. While Giuliani, McCain and Romney are still the front runners, I don't think we can leave out the possibility of one of the second tier or unannounced candidates from pulling off an upset, or at least a very good showing.

-----------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Tommy Thompson Event Re-Cap

2007-04-15T09:52:00.000-07:00

Tommy Thompson, former Wisconsin Governor and Secretary of Health and Human Services, was in Fort Dodge Saturday prior to the RPI Lincon Day Dinner in Des Moines. The event was held at the Hickory House and filled up the south two rooms of the resturant. The campaign offered free food to the attendees, which I counted around fifty people.

The first thing Thompson did upon his arrival was to walk around the room and greet everyone. One woman told him that her maiden name was Thopmson, which delighted him and referred to her has his cousin.

Thompson talked a lot about his record as governor, which is impressive. He vetoed 1,900 bills, and saved the state billions of dollars. He told the story of his welfare reform, which would became the model for several other states, as well as in Washington D.C. Thompson had invited several welfare mothers to the executive mansion, and asked what would be needed for them to go back to work, after which Thompson worked to help them with insurance, job training and transportation.

Gov. Thompson has a lot of background in health care, most notably his service has head of HHS. He hit on the need for more focus on prevention, and the need to increase health information to help people make healthy choices. He believes that increasing the use of technology can help speed up the medical process and lower medical costs. He also touched on the need for Medicare and Medicade reform, saying that these will go bankrupt in 2013, and thus in far more trouble than Social Security.

The other major topic that Thompson covered is the war in Iraq, and our image around the world. The first thing that Thompson would like to happen is for the Iraqis to vote on whether the US should leave. If they vote no, then we have the definite OK to keep doing what we're doing. If they vote no, then we leave. Thompson would also like for the 18 territories in Iraq to become the equivelant of US states, which would elect their own government, and allow Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to have their own territories. Thompson talked about how the sectarian violence has been occuring for 1400 years, and there is nothing that the US can do about it.

Thompson also talked about the hospital he helped build in Kabul, Afghanistan. When he originally visited there, he was horrified at the conditions, especially in the maternity wards. Afghanistan had one of the worst mortality rates in the world, with 25% of babies dieing not long after birth. Thompson came home, and with the help of the President, Laura Bush, and others, raised $3 Million to build a hospital in Kabul. At it's opening on Easter Sunday in 2003, Thompson said that 700 women had come to thank the US. Thompson thinks its important for the US to continue projects like this, to help the US image in the world. One idea he has is to ask US medical hospitals to supply a couple or so medical students to spend a year on one of two hospital ships and help give medical aid in places like Somalia and the Middle East.

Probably the most powerful story Tompson told was how his mother-in-law, his wife, and his daughter had all suffered from cancer. Before his daughter went in for her mastectomy, she has one of her eggs harvested so she could have a child later on. The egg was frozen for 2 and a half years, when her oldest sister agreed to carry the embryo. With only a 5% chance of success, Thompson had a new granddaughter born earlier this year. He said that looking down at his granddaughter, and remembering that she had come from a frozen egg invisible to the nake eye, reminded him why he had and is pro-life.

Overall, I would gage the event as a success. Thompson had a good turnout, and I heard several positive things from people afterwards.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

They'll Be Comming For Your Cell Phones

2007-04-15T07:33:00.000-07:00

NBC News in the last week or so had been featuring stories about bees going missing in the US, and the possible effects on the economy. Now, the Independent (UK) has a story today which identifies the culperites as cell phones. If and/or when this story gets picked up, I predict it'll be followed by stories asking people to give up their cell phones "for the bees." At least they aren't blaming Global Warming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

VDH Has a Dream

2007-04-13T07:30:00.000-07:00

Ever since I started reading his articles and columns, I have found my thoughts in the words of the classist and historian Victor Davis Hanson. His writings, which often take the form of think pieces, are almost always based on history, and are filled with thought and reason. His article at National Review Online today it titled "The PostWest: A Civilization That Has Become Just A Dream" and is worth a look.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODNjMmVlOTJiOTUyZTU0YWRkZTA0ZGNmZDRlYmM2Yzk=

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

I'm not sure where to start

2007-04-12T12:46:00.000-07:00

http://www.grinnell.edu/offices/ce/news/033020071/

I guess I don't know too much about Grinnell College. There are a couple of institutes of higher learning I could see this at, but I never would have thought that Grinnell would invite an "organizer and philosopher" and someone "associated with the Black Panther Party in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the Communist Party of the United States of America" AS THE 2007 COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER!

----------------------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote