National Homeland Security Knowledgebase Campaign websites

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Top 10 WORST State Attorneys General in the Nation


Ranked by Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

State attorneys general are among the most powerful office holders in the country. Unlike governors and legislators, each state's top elected lawyer has fewer institutional checks on his or her powers. Yet, with the possible exception of former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the power wielded by attorneys general receives very little scrutiny from the media, voters, and even tort reform advocates -- even though it can often be abused.

Some attorneys general abuse this power for various reasons. Based on a set of explicit criteria -- such as encroachment on the powers of other branches of government, meddling in the affairs of other states or federal agencies, encouragement of judicial activism and frivolous lawsuits, favoritism towards campaign contributors, ethical breaches, and failure to provide representation to state agencies or to provide legal advice -- the following state attorneys general have earned the dishonor of being the nation's Top Ten Worst:

10. Tom Reilly, Massachusetts

9. Peg Lautenschlager, Wisconsin

8. Lisa Madigan, Illinois

7. William Sorrell, Vermont

6. Darrell McGraw, West Virginia

5. Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island

4. Zulima Farber, New Jersey

3. Eliot Spitzer, New York

2. Bill Lockyer, California

1. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

Dick Cheney – I Could Not Agree More


Copied from the Rush Limbaugh web site:

“RUSH: And then they have this exchange about Hillary.

[Wolf] BLITZER: Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president?

[Dick] CHENEY: No, I don't.

BLITZER: Why?

CHENEY: Because she's a Democrat. I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint.

BLITZER: Do you think she will be president, though?

CHENEY: I don't.”

And that is certainly my own opinion.

Hillary Clinton is a “Democrat” with a socialist philosophy. The Government is the be-all-and-end-all-of-all and she wants to be the boss of all that. She is patently unqualified.

She voted for the war before she voted against it. She is the master of hindsight and she is very good at cattle futures and hiding law firm records. She is an avid reader of Republican FBI files and she enjoys destroying the lives of many of the women raped by her husband. Jealousy is apparently her strong suit.

I have to say that if anyone knows Hillary’s philosophical bent it would be Dick Cheney. Hillary has not been slacking in her deranged diatribes against the Bush Administration. I have personally had to sit through 6 years of watching media watch Hillary in the Senate audience during the past State of the Union Addresses. If I had a dollar for every scowl and frown emitted from her insufferably envious countenance I would have at least enough to purchase a “Starbuck’s” latte. If I had a dollar for every time Hillary should have supported the United States but did not, then I could personally purchase Monticello.

Hillary never intended to help the State of New York. Her sole and pointed odyssey was aimed at the White House. I am glad she declared early and I am glad she is considered the front-runner. I remember Howard Dean.

It is true that Hillary will never be button-holed as was the Vice President by Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer tried to give Vice President a back-door black eye by mentioning his pregnant, lesbian daughter; then followed up his attempt to make Cheney out the schmuck by asking the Hillary question. Cheney was blunt. Blitzer was “out of line” with the comments concerning the Cheney family. Clinton would not make a good President. Enough said….tactfully and quietly.

The left is making a play to paint the Blitzer-Cheney exchange as some type of dog-fight. The Vice President handled the exchange with a great deal of patience and tact; unlike the in-your-face, finger-waving exchange another Clinton had with Chris Wallace of Fox News a few months ago. (Contrast: Class versus ass.)

For anyone following Madam Clinton it has become apparent that taxes will sky-rocket and social programs will reach a state of maximum redundancy under Clinton tutelage. Hillary believes the government teat is the surest way to retain power. Promise the electorate the world and give it to them a few pennies at a time over a long period of time to make it look as if there is progress where there is none. And raise taxes…often and high!

Clinton has nothing that speaks of leadership ability. She heads no committees and she headed no governments. She is the “junior” Senator of New York and even Chuck Schumer knows that the only thing Hillary is good at is raising money. She’s raised millions to pay the fines of her husband and keep a quality group of lawyers working on her personal defense fund requirements. She’s raised a boodle of cash for Billy’s library too.

When Hillary finally plants her foot on the war, taxes, health care, socialism and her husband she will as unreliable a candidate as was John Kerry. Kerry was known as a flip-flopper and Hillary has shown recent signs of that Kerry-istic trait. The point is Clinton has no qualified plan nor has she suggested any valuable piece of legislation since her first senatorial election. She is simply a token senatorial mouthpiece that is being used as some sort of bludgeon against Republican Party efforts to correct eight years of Clinton Presidential ineptitude! There has been no reasonable debate. There has been a lot of screeching (ala Howard Dean), but there’s been no real substance in Hillary’s sound bites.

Do I think Hillary will be President?

No; “because she’s a Democrat!”

Should Free Speech Be Criminalized?

Because life in the city of Brazoria, Texas, is as close to Heaven as God will allow, Mayor Ken Corley has been forced to create controversy just to assure that Brazoria does not fall into oblivion.

Specifically, the mayor has proposed a city ordinance that would make certain uses of the N word a crime, equal to disturbing the peace and punishable by a fine of up to $500.

The actual language in the ordinance seeks to punish those who use the word in an "offensive manner." Go here:

What, one wonders, would constitute a non-offensive use?

Apparently the ordinance addresses that question somewhat by providing a loophole in instances where the word is used as a "term of endearment."

Talk about creating business opportunities for lawyers! Does Mayor Corley run an employment agency for out-of-work lawyers when he is not proposing outrageous new laws for Brazoria?

As if this N word insanity is not bad enough, Corley has promised to expand his "outlawed words list" in the future.

In the name of diversity, the mayor should add phrases like "white trash," "cracker," and "red-neck hillbilly" to his next ordinance. By doing so, Corley will shield many of my closest friends, at least ones living in Texas.

Or to really tackle the issue head on, Mayor Corley, why not just work to have the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution repealed?

Friday, January 26, 2007

Hunter makes presidential bid official

Congressman Duncan Hunter of California has officially declared for President.  Stating he wants to pick up on the legacy of Ronald Reagan, he has garned my attention.

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


AP Photo
AP Photo/DENIS POROY

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (AP) -- Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, best known for his advocacy on behalf of the military, launched a longshot bid for the presidency Thursday in this early voting state.

Frequently citing Ronald Reagan, Hunter told supporters he wants to pick up on the former president's legacy.

"I want to lead that policy of peace through strength," said Hunter, a strong supporter of the Iraq war.

The 14-term conservative from California, who has made no secret of his White House aspirations, set up a presidential exploratory committee earlier this month.

He initially announced his intentions in October, becoming the first GOP candidate to declare, and then began making stops in early primary and caucus states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

He joins an increasingly crowded GOP field of declared and likely candidates, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Hunter has been a familiar face on Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon. Until Democrats took control of Congress this month, he was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the powerful panel that oversees military policy.

However, Hunter is little known outside of Congress and his San Diego district. He is a strong opponent of illegal immigration who wants fences extended along the U.S.-Mexico border and supports the prosecution of smugglers bringing illegal immigrants across the border.

Last week, Hunter filed a bill calling for a congressional pardon of two U.S. Border Patrol agents who are both serving more than a decade in prison for shooting a Mexican drug dealer as he fled, then covering up the crime.

In remarks before his speech, Hunter emphasized the importance of South Carolina in winning the GOP nomination.

"Nobody wins the presidency without winning South Carolina," Hunter said.

Hunter already has some deep-pocket allies in the state, including textile magnate Roger Milliken, who supports Hunter's promise to protect U.S. manufacturers threatened by cheap, overseas labor.

"I'm thrilled that he's running," said Milliken, who hasn't yet endorsed a presidential candidate. "This point of view he represents must be heard."

Hunter, 58, was born in Riverside, Calif., and was an Army Ranger in Vietnam. He worked his way through law school with farming and construction jobs.

Hunter won his U.S. House seat in 1980 and has been an ardent military supporter. His son has spent a pair of seven-month tours in Iraq.

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

Some more info on Congressman Duncan Hunter-

Hunter's Campaign website-
 
Congressman Hunter's Wikipedia entry-
 
Congressman Hunter's Official U.S. House website-
 
An op-ed on Congressman Hunter's candidacy from an anti-communist China blog China e-lobby-

I Am Woman, Hear Me Bore

It's nice to have a president who is not so sleazy that not a single Supreme Court justice shows up for his State of the Union address (Bill Clinton, January 1999, when eight justices stayed away to protest Clinton's disregard for the law and David Souter skipped the speech to watch "Sex and the City").

Speaking of which, the horny hick's wife finally ended the breathless anticipation by announcing that she is running for president. I studied tapes of Hillary feigning surprise at hearing about Monica to help me look surprised upon learning that she's running.

As long as we have revived the practice of celebrating multicultural milestones (briefly suspended when Condoleezza Rice became the first black female to be secretary of state), let us pause to note that Mrs. Clinton, if elected, would be the first woman to become president after her husband had sex with an intern in the Oval Office.

According to the famed "polls" -- or, as I call them, "surveys of uninformed people who think it's possible to get the answer wrong" -- Hillary is the current front-runner for the Democrats. Other than the massive case of narcolepsy her name inspires, this would cause me not the slightest distress -- except for the fact that the Republicans' current front-runners are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Fortunately, polls at this stage are nothing but name recognition contests, so please stop asking me to comment on them. "Arsenic" and "proctologist" have sky-high name recognition going for them, too.

In January, two years before the 2000 presidential election, the leading Republican candidate in New Hampshire was ... Liddy Dole (WMUR-TV/CNN poll, Jan. 12, 1999). In the end, Liddy Dole's most successful run turned out to be a mad dash from her husband Bob after he accidentally popped two Viagras.

At this stage before the 1992 presidential election, the three leading Democratic candidates were, in order: Mario Cuomo, Jesse Jackson and Lloyd Bentsen (Public Opinion Online, Feb. 21, 1991).

Only three months before the 1988 election, William Schneider cheerfully reported in The National Journal that Michael Dukakis beat George Herbert Walker Bush in 22 of 25 polls taken since April of that year. Bush did considerably better in the poll taken on Election Day.

The average poll respondent reads the above information and immediately responds that the administrations of presidents Cuomo, Dole and Dukakis were going in "the wrong direction."

Still and all, Mrs. Clinton is probably the real front-runner based on: (1) the multiple millions of dollars she has raised, and (2) the fact that her leading Democratic opponent is named "Barack Hussein Obama." Or, as he's known at CNN, "Osama." Or, as he's known on the Clinton campaign, "The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations."

Mrs. Clinton's acolytes are floating the idea of Hillary as another Margaret Thatcher to get past the question, "Can a woman be elected president?" This is based on the many, many things Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher have in common, such as the lack of a Y chromosome and ... hmmm, you know, I think that's it.

Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power -- Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry -- love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously.

It has nothing to do with their being women. It has to do with their cheap paths to power. Kevin Federline isn't taken seriously either.

It is as easy to imagine Americans voting for someone like Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice for president as it is difficult to imagine them voting for someone like Hillary. (Or Kevin Federline.) Hillary isn't piggybacking on Thatcher because she's a woman, she's piggybacking on Thatcher because Thatcher made it on her own, which Hillary did not.

But the most urgent question surrounding Hillary's candidacy is: How will the Democrats out-macho us if Hillary is their presidential nominee? Unlike their last presidential nominee, she doesn't even have any fake Purple Hearts.

Sen. Jim Webb, who managed to give the rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night without challenging the president to a fistfight (well done, Jim!), won his election last November by portraying himself as one of the new gun-totin' Democrats.

He once opposed women in the military by calling the idea "a horny woman's dream." But -- as some of us warned you -- it appears that Webb has already been fitted for his tutu by Rahm Emanuel.

Webb began his rebuttal by complaining that we don't have national health care and aren't spending enough on "education" (teachers unions). In other words, he talked about national issues that only are national issues because of this country's rash experiment with women's suffrage. I guess we should all be relieved that at least Webb's response did not involve putting a young boy's penis into a man's mouth, as characters in his novels are wont to do.

He then palavered on about the vast military experience of his entire family in order to better denounce the war in Iraq. As long as Democrats keep insisting that only warriors can discuss war, how about telling the chick to butt out?


Thursday, January 25, 2007

Why Republicans Lost Conservative Trust

The Cost of Abandoning 'Great Things'

By Leslie Carbone
1/25/2007

On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan delivered one of the major speeches of his life. It is remembered as “A Time for Choosing” or simply “The Speech.” In it, Reagan laid out the differences between the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate, Lyndon Johnson, and the Republican Party and its candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater. He remarked:

[T]his idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

Senator Goldwater, Reagan’s candidate, lost that election, and lost badly. But Reagan’s ideas resonated with people, and they continued to resound over the next decade and a half.

For Republicans reeling from November’s “thumpin’” at the polls, Reagan’s consistent message and ultimate achievements can provide hope for better success next year and guidance for how to reach it.

In 1976, he ran against President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination and lost by only seventy delegate votes at the Republican convention in Kansas City. After winning victory, President Ford invited Governor Reagan to speak to the delegates from the convention podium. Speaking off-the-cuff, Governor Reagan reminded the delegates and the television viewers of why the election mattered. He lamented “the erosion of freedom that has taken place under Democratic rule in this country, the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy.”

And he pointed out “that we live in a world in which the great powers have posed and aimed at each other horrible missiles of destruction that can, in a matter of minutes, arrive in each other’s country and destroy virtually the civilized world we live in.”

Governor Jimmy Carter narrowly defeated President Ford in the general election. But Ronald Reagan had become the voice of commonsense conservatism. Four years later, he was overwhelmingly elected president. In another four years, he was re-elected in an even bigger landslide.

He was known as the Great Communicator, but he rejected the title. In his farewell address nation before leaving the White House, the President said:

I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation—from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

Throughout his two terms, President Reagan clearly communicated great things. And he pushed policies rooted in great ideas and common sense through a Democrat-controlled Congress. Because those policies were based on a coherent philosophy grounded in truth, they worked. Reagan confronted the Soviet Union, and it collapsed. He cut taxes, and the American economy soared.

Tax cuts spurred economic growth because they reduced the disincentive to prosperity-building behavior inherent in high marginal tax rates. The Evil Empire crumbled because President Reagan’s defense buildup forced them to keep up; because communism stifles prosperity, they couldn’t maintain the same pace that America could.

Reagan correctly gauged how these mechanics would play out because he grasped a great and simple truth of the human spirit: People want to soar, and they can and will do so to the degree that they are unshackled by oppression—the pervasive oppression of totalitarian communism or the here-and-there oppression of a constitutional republic that has overstepped its just limits.

Twenty years removed from the Reagan administration, too many Republicans have squandered the legacy of clearly communicated great things bequeathed to them. They have failed to communicate great things, and they have failed to do the right things. And that’s why they suffered such an enormous defeat in November’s elections.

Squandering the opportunity to promote and pass market-based Social Security reform, they increased the size and scope of the welfare state by expanding Medicare. Failing to make real progress toward stopping abortion, they split the baby by allowing limited federally funded stem cell research. And their profligate spending is enough to make choosing between the two major parties like choosing between Donald Trump and Rosie O’Donnell. This federal expansionism was a betrayal of the conservative principle that civil government should remain small, leaving much of the responsibility for social welfare with individuals, families, churches, and community associations.

Instead of serving the American people by passing good policies based on great ideas, some Republicans even sold their support for gold, gifts, and golf trips. When one Republican engaged in an inappropriate pursuit of Capitol Hill pages, many treated the affair as a public relations problem, rather than a moral problem, and the House committee responsible for punishing such ethical atrocities took no punitive action. These scandals were a betrayal of the conservative principle articulated by Ronald Reagan “that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people.” An honorable public servant who knows what he believes can’t be bought; a politician who’s attained political office for the power and the perks can.

The party backed liberal Republicans at the expense of solid conservatives. This misplaced pragmatism was a betrayal of the conservative principle that sound policy is sound politics. It’s also politically dangerous game, because these liberal Republicans join with Democrats in approving harmful laws, and then they share the blame for the resulting damage.

These mistakes all added up to the massive Republican losses of November.

But conservative ideas triumphed on their own in nationwide trends. Ballot measures are the purest reflection of voter sentiment, because they are unadulterated by the taint of messengers. As homosexual activists agitated for “gay marriage,” seven states passed marriage amendments. After the Supreme Court trampled the right to property in the infamous Kelo decision, nine ballot measures limited the application of “eminent domain.”

And conservatism made its mark in some of the Republican defeats. Two years ago, the Democrats were narrowly defeated at the polls, and they discovered “values voters.” As Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean allowed, “One thing the Republicans have taught us is that values and character matter.” So they ran candidates who would appeal to the morally conservative majority of voters. With an unwitting assist by scandal-plagued, policy-confused Republicans, their strategy worked. Many of the victorious Democrat candidates were fairly conservative for their party. Jim Webb, a former Republican and Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration who closely defeated Virginia Senator George Allen, trumpeted Ronald Reagan’s decades-old praise for him (over Mrs. Reagan’s objections). Bob Casey, Jr., who defeated Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, is pro-life.

While Democrats were wooing conservatives, Republicans were giving them the cold shoulder. Given the opportunity to communicate conservative ideas and pass conservative policies, Republicans instead expanded the federal government and its spending spree. Entrusted with the honor of serving the American people, several Republicans sold the privilege for the porridge self-aggrandizement—allowing themselves to be lured into scandal. Faced with the opportunity to remove liberals from their ranks, Republicans circled the wagons—and sacrificed conservatives on the altar of “party unity.”

Now the party is unified in defeat, hanging together in its betrayal of correct principles, of conferred privileges, of conservative people, the way that Haman hanged on the gallows he built for Mordecai.

The lesson is clear. Republicans rejected conservative ideas, Ronald Reagan’s “great things,” and they lost for it.

The question is also clear: Will they learn from their mistake in time to salvage their chances in the next election?

The answer is anything but clear.

Leslie Carbone is a writer living in Virginia.

 

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Blackwell bonuses a savings?

“Depending on the severance package received, 10 members of the staff agreed not to accept unemployment benefits, which is a net savings for the office in terms of total pay outs,’’ stated Carlo Loparo, Mr. Blackwell’s former press secretary and one of the year-end beneficiaries, "Those were severance packages offered to members of senior staff."
 
See full article in Toledo Blade-

Senate Shows Its Age; Health Problems Pose Challenge For Governing

 From The Politico- http://www.politico.com/

The average age of members of the U.S. Senate is older than it has ever been, according to Senate Historian Richard Baker. For many senators, advanced age is starting to show, raising questions about their ability to govern.

Until his retirement last month, former majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a noted heart surgeon, was being consulted for informal medical advice by two dozen of his colleagues -- more than 20 percent of the Senate, according to a former leadership aide. They went to Frist complaining about a host of illnesses and chronic maladies, most related to aging.

Read More at--

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2466.html

Blacks Say Bush Blows Opportunity to Fight for Judges

Project 21 Chairman Says President Should Have Used Congressional Address to Combat Obstruction of Nominees


Washington, D.C. - President George W. Bush mentioned the importance of filling vacancies in our judicial system with qualified nominees, but he failed to use his State of the Union Address to discuss the problem of liberal obstructionism of these nominees in the Senate. Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie says President Bush should have used the high-profile speech to make his case to both the Senate and the public about the severity of the problem.

"So many of the things President Bush spent ample time covering in his State of the Union Address - the War on Terror, health care reform, quality education for our children and even our energy policy - will ultimately be shaped by our courts. The President failed to use last night's address to chastise liberal senators who are obstructing the judicial confirmation process and endangering his ability to name judges," said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. "These senators understand the powers a federal judge possesses and they want that appointment power for themselves. They are essentially trying to usurp the Constitution and force the President's hand. President Bush should have directly addressed this problem to them, with the American people watching."

Throughout the Bush Administration, Senate liberals have engaged in obstructionist tactics that deny fair and timely confirmation hearings and votes to judicial nominees who adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Four of these nominees withdrew their nominations earlier this month, in part due to the fact that the new Senate leadership is the source of much of this obstructionism.

In his speech, President Bush said: "A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of citizens across our Nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. And we have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty as well - to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor."

Currently, there are 59 judicial vacancies, with 28 of these vacancies considered "judicial emergencies" due to the length of the vacancy and the court's backlog of cases.

"I personally find it inexcusable that, in a speech of over 5,500 words, the President spent only 102 words - less than two percent of his speech - on one of the singularly most important issues in domestic security for Americans today," said Project 21's Massie. "I remain greatly disappointed in his reluctance to forcefully use his authority to fight tirelessly for these nominees."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.

- 30 -
 

Project 21 is an initiative of The National Center for Public Policy Research to promote the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family and commitment to individual responsibility has not traditionally been echoed by the nation's civil rights establishment.

Project 21 participants have been interviewed by hundreds of media outlets, including the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, the CNN Morning News, Black Entertainment Television's Lead Story, America's Black Forum, the McLaughlin Group, C-SPAN's Morning Journal and the Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy and Larry King shows, as well as in newspapers such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and many others.

Project 21 participants live all over the U.S. and have a variety of careers. What they have in common is a desire to make America a better place for African-Americans, and all Americans, to live and work. Project 21 members do this in a variety of ways in their own communities, and, through Project 21, by writing opinion editorials for newspapers, participating in public policy discussions on radio and television, by participating in policy panels, by giving speeches before student, business and community groups, and by advising policymakers at the national, state and local levels.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21Index.html

 

Dick Morris: Hillary in Trouble

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN -- Pressured by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' bold foray into her own backyard -- when he challenged her silence over the war during a speech at Riverside Church, the shrine of liberalism -- and by Sen. Barack Obama's formation of an exploratory committee, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has rushed to signal her intention to run for president.

She has told friends that she hadn't seen why she should wait until the fall of the year before the election, as her husband had done, to announce.

But she was so panicked by the Edwards and Obama initiatives that she announced her candidacy on a Saturday! That's the worst news day of the week, and the Clintons usually reserve it for announcements concerning their scandals.

And the latest Rasmussen Poll shows her plummeting down to 22 percent, with Obama at 21 percent and Edwards, a former and vice presidential nominee, up to 15 percent. Her campaign staff has been flatfooted, and her reaction to the Edwards offensive over the war has been slow.

When she should have been in the United States protesting President Bush's speech, she was in Iraq posing for photo ops.

Edwards is winning the race to the left -- the key place to be in the Democratic primaries.

Hillary's assertion that she would vote for a troop cap only begs the question of what she would do if Bush, as commander-in-chief, sends in the troops anyway.

Would she then vote to cut off funds -- to make him respect the congressional intrusion into the powers of the president? Hillary says she would not.

So Hillary will be reduced to what are essentially symbolic actions against the war. Meanwhile, Edwards, who is comfortably out of the Senate, can go as far to the left as he needs to go to win the primaries. (The latest Fox News Poll shows Democrats support a total cutoff of war funding by 59 percent to 33 percent).

Will the role of Ned Lamont in the upcoming primaries be played by Edwards while the role of Sen. Joeseph Lieberman is shared by Hillary and -- depending on how he votes -- Obama? We all know how the Connecticut primary turned out last August!

Bear in mind, however, that Hillary was similarly awkward in the opening months of her New York state race for the Senate in 2000, committing blunder after blunder until she got her act down pat.

But the fact is that Hillary has not run in a real election in her life. She was almost unopposed for the Senate last year, and she drew wet-behind-the-ears former Congressman Rick Lazio as her 2000 opponent, rather than heavyweight Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor.

And Hillary has never run in a Democratic primary in her life (unless you count her nominal race in 2006).

Her inexperience and the age of her staff is showing. She and they appear at a loss to adjust to the fast-moving pace of modern politics.

Dick is always saying, as he approaches 60 years of age, that 60 is the new 50. By the same token, 2007 is the new 2008. And Hillary seems not to have grasped this fact. By the time the Iowa caucuses are held, the race for the nomination will be over, just as it was in 2004.

Remember how Howard Dean surged out to a lead in September 2003, months before the first votes were cast, and then lost his lead to Sen. John Kerry in December 2003 amid a barrage of negative publicity?

By the time Iowa voted, it merely mirrored the results of the American-media primary, which had already been held the autumn before.

Will she win? Probably yes.

Still -- Hillary has the capacity to draw out a large number of voters who have not previously cast ballots. In 1996, 49 percent of Americans of voting age participated in the presidential contest. In 2000, 51 percent did. In 2004, the percentage was up to 55 percent.

Increasing turnout is the central fact of presidential elections these days. Karl Rove's ability to maximize the turnout of white married couples and single white men was the key to Bush's 2004 victory. The president got 12 million more votes in 2004 than he got in 2000.

But Kerry was also able to attract almost 6 million new single women to the polls who did not participate in 2000. They formed a large part of the 9 million extra votes Kerry got that former Vice President Al Gore did not.

Hillary, to a great extent, and Obama to a lesser degree, can impel large numbers of new voters to flock to the polls in the primaries and the election itself, which gives them a huge advantage.

But, to win, Hillary better get used to the pace of politics in 2007!

Supreme Court plans to review McCain-Feingold again

From the Evans-Novak Political Report for 1/24
 
"Not enough attention is being paid to the fact that key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill could be overturned within months. The newly composed Supreme Court will hear some of the issues in the form of the Wisconsin Right to Life case. At issue are the restrictions on mentioning a candidate's name in television and radio advertising 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.

The provision, one of the more absurd consequences of the campaign finance reform craze of 2002, bars any mention of a candidate's name or the broadcast of his image except by an FEC-regulated political committee. Groups such as Wisconsin Right to Life are barred from buying ads mentioning them.

In this case, the group wanted to air ads in 2004 urging Wisconsinites to contact their senators -- Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl -- to tell them to support judicial confirmations. But Feingold was up for re-election, therefore campaign law shielded him from being mentioned on television by any group that does not follow FEC regulations for gathering contributions and filing disclosure forms. The last time the Supreme Court considered the McCain-Feingold law, they ruled 5-4 upholding the advertising provisions. Now that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been replaced by the conservative Samuel Alito, the landmark legislation may be in danger of reversal. The consequences could be enormous in the 2008 election cycle."

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

2007 State of the Union Policy Initiatives

from whitehouse.gov

Overview Fact Sheet

Tonight, President Bush Will Address The Major Issues Facing Our Nation And Discuss Opportunities For Both Parties To Work Together To Accomplish Big Objectives For The American People. The President will unveil a positive, comprehensive agenda that will improve the daily lives of the American people and explain how our actions in the world will make our Nation safer and more secure. The President believes we can find practical ways to advance the American Dream and keep our Nation safe without either party compromising its principles.

President Bush's Agenda For Spreading Hope And Opportunity In America

In The State Of The Union Address, President Bush Will Discuss A Domestic Agenda Including:

  • Energy: President Bush will ask Congress and America's scientists, farmers, industry leaders, and entrepreneurs to join him in pursuing the goal of reducing U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next ten years – Twenty in Ten. We will reach the President's Twenty in Ten goal by increasing the supply of renewable and alternative fuels and by reforming and modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and extending the current light truck rule. The President's energy plan also includes stepping up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways and doubling the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
  • Health Care: President Bush will announce his proposals to make basic, private health insurance available and affordable for more Americans. The President's plan includes reforming the tax code with a standard deduction for health insurance so all Americans get the same tax breaks for health insurance, and helping states make affordable private health insurance available to their citizens.
  • Spending Reform: President Bush will discuss three major reforms to spend taxpayer dollars wisely: balancing the budget through pro-growth policies and spending restraint, enacting common-sense reforms to help prevent billions of taxpayer dollars from being spent on unnecessary earmarks, and reforming entitlement programs.
  • Education: President Bush will discuss his priorities for strengthening and reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) this year.
  • Immigration: President Bush will call on Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that will secure our borders, enhance interior and worksite enforcement, create a temporary worker program, resolve – without animosity and without amnesty – the status of illegal immigrants already here, and promote assimilation into our society.
  • Judges: The President has a duty to nominate qualified men and women to fill vacancies on the Federal bench, and he calls on the Senate to give those nominees a fair hearing and a prompt up-or-down vote.

America's Actions In The World Will Make Our Nation Safer And More Secure

In The State Of The Union Address, President Bush Will Discuss An International Agenda Including:

  • War On Terror/Iraq: The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict – it is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq, and the President believes his new Iraq plan is the best way to succeed. Tonight, the President will propose to establish a special advisory council on the War on Terror made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties.
  • Strengthening Our Military: Tonight, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to increase the overall strength of our active Army and the Marine Corps by 92,000 Soldiers and Marines in the next five years.
  • The President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) And The President's Malaria Initiative: The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President's Malaria Initiative are working abroad to save lives.

PRESIDENT BUSH'S DOMESTIC AGENDA

Energy

President Bush Will Ask Congress And America's Scientists, Farmers, Industry Leaders, And Entrepreneurs To Join Him In Pursuing The Goal Of Reducing U.S. Gasoline Usage By 20 Percent In The Next Ten Years – Twenty In Ten.

America Will Reach The President's Twenty In Ten Goal By:

  • Increasing The Supply Of Renewable And Alternative Fuels By Setting A Mandatory Fuels Standard To Require 35 Billion Gallons Of Renewable And Alternative Fuels In 2017 – Nearly Five Times The 2012 Target Now In Law. In 2017, this will displace 15 percent of projected annual gasoline use.
  • Reforming And Modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards For Cars And Extending The Current Light Truck Rule. In 2017, this will reduce projected annual gasoline use by up to 8.5 billion gallons, a further 5 percent reduction that, in combination with increasing the supply of renewable and alternative fuels, will bring the total reduction in projected annual gasoline use to 20 percent.
  • Congress Must Reform CAFE For Passenger Cars. The Administration has twice increased CAFE standards for light trucks using an attribute-based method. An attribute-based system (for example, a size-based system) reduces the risk that vehicle safety is compromised, helps preserve consumer choice, and helps spread the burden of compliance across all product lines and manufacturers. Congress should authorize the Secretary of Transportation to apply the same kind of attribute-based method to passenger cars.

The President's Plan Will Help Confront Climate Change By Stopping The Projected Growth Of Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Cars, Light Trucks, And SUVs Within 10 Years.

The President's Plan To Strengthen America's Energy Security Also Includes:

  • Stepping Up Domestic Oil Production In Environmentally Sensitive Ways
  • Doubling The Current Capacity Of The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) To 1.5 Billion Barrels By 2027. Doubling the SPR alone will provide approximately 97 days of net oil import protection, enhancing America's ability to respond to potential oil disruptions.

Health Care

President Bush Will Announce His Proposals To Make Basic, Private Health Insurance Available And Affordable For More Americans. Americans are fortunate to have the most advanced and innovative health care system in the world. The President's plan will make private health insurance more affordable and increase the number of Americans with health insurance. The plan will also help our Nation move away from reliance on government-run health care and toward a system in which Americans have better access to basic, affordable private insurance, and increased ownership of their medical decisions.

The President's Plan Includes Two Parts: Reforming The Tax Code With A Standard Deduction For Health Insurance So All Americans Get The Same Tax Breaks For Health Insurance And Helping States Make Affordable Private Health Insurance Available To Their Citizens.

  1. The President's Plan Will Help More Americans Afford Health Insurance By Reforming The Tax Code With A Standard Deduction For Health Insurance – Like The Standard Deduction For Dependents. The President's primary goal is to make health insurance more affordable, allowing more Americans to purchase coverage. The President's proposal levels the playing field for Americans who purchase health insurance on their own rather than through their employers, providing a substantial tax benefit for all those who now have health insurance purchased on the individual market. It also lowers taxes for all currently uninsured Americans who decide to purchase health insurance – making insurance more affordable and providing a significant incentive to all working Americans to purchase coverage, thereby reducing the number of uninsured Americans.
  • Under The President's Proposal, Families With Health Insurance Will Not Pay Income Or Payroll Taxes On The First $15,000 In Compensation And Singles Will Not Pay Income Or Payroll Taxes On The First $7,500.
    • At the same time, health insurance would be considered taxable income. This is a change for those who now have health insurance through their jobs.
    • The President's proposal will result in lower taxes for about 80 percent of employer-provided policies.
    • Those with more generous policies (20 percent) will have the option to adjust their compensation to have lower premiums and higher wages to offset the tax change.
  1. The President's Affordable Choices Initiative Will Help States Make Basic Private Health Insurance Available And Will Provide Additional Help To Americans Who Cannot Afford Insurance Or Who Have Persistently High Medical Expenses. For States that provide their citizens with access to basic, affordable private health insurance, the President's Affordable Choices Initiative will direct Federal funding to assist States in helping their poor and hard-to-insure citizensafford private insurance. By allocating current Federal health care funding more effectively, the President's plan accomplishes this goal without creating a new Federal entitlement or new Federal spending.

These Two Policies Will Work Together To Help More Americans Afford Basic Private Coverage. The President's proposed standard deduction for health insurance will help make basic private health insurance more affordable for families and individuals – whether they have insurance through their jobs or purchase insurance on their own. For those who remain unable to afford coverage, the President's Affordable Choices Initiative will help eligible States assist their poor and hard-to-insure citizens in purchasing private health insurance.

There Are Many Other Ways That Congress Can Help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts, help small businesses through Association Health Plans, reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology, encourage price transparency, and protect good doctors from predatory lawsuits by passing medical liability reform.

Spending Reform

President Bush Will Discuss Three Major Reforms To Spend Tax Dollars Wisely And Keep America's Economy Strong. Next week, the President will deliver a full report on the state of our economy, which has added more than 7.2 million jobs since August 2003. Americans are finding jobs and taking home more pay.

To Spend Tax Dollars Wisely, We Must:

  • Balance The Budget Through Pro-Growth Policies And Spending Restraint.
  • Enact Common-Sense Reforms To Help Prevent Billions Of Taxpayer Dollars From Being Spent On Unnecessary Earmarks.
  • Reform Entitlement Programs To Address The Longer-Term Fiscal Challenge Facing Our Country.

Education

President Bush Will Discuss His Priorities For The Reauthorization Of The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In 2001, President Bush worked with Republicans and Democrats to pass NCLB with overwhelming support, and he was proud to sign it into law in 2002. President Bush is committed to reauthorizing NCLB this year and building on the good progress that has been made. Strengthening and reauthorizing NCLB is critical – if we were to lower standards and roll back accountability now, we would be leaving children to the former status quo that failed them for decades.

  • NCLB Is Raising Student Achievement For Millions Of Children In Schools Nationwide. Because of NCLB, every State and the District of Columbia now hold schools accountable for results by testing every child and evaluating students by student group. Minority students are closing the achievement gap, and student achievement is rising – more reading progress was made by 9-year-olds in five years than in the previous 28 years combined, and reading and math scores for 9-year-olds and fourth-graders have reached all-time highs.
  • Reauthorization Offers An Opportunity To Make Some Common Sense Changes To Strengthen NCLB And Increase Flexibility, But We Must Preserve NCLB's Core Principles:
    • All students must be able to read and do math at grade level or above by 2014.
    • We must have higher expectations and demand greater accountability in order to improve the academic achievement of every student and to close the achievement gap using annual assessments and disaggregated data.
    • We must have effective teachers in core academic subjects in every classroom.
    • We must provide timely information and real options – including intensive tutoring and choice for children in consistently underperforming schools – for all parents with children in failing schools so they can make the best decisions for their children.
  • The President's Proposals To Strengthen NCLB Further The Goals Of His American Competitiveness Initiative. Math and science skills are critical for success in college and the workplace. Our students must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to compete in the global economy.

Immigration

President Bush Will Call On Congress To Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The President believes that America can simultaneously be a lawful, economically dynamic, and welcoming society. We must address the problem of illegal immigration and deliver a system that is secure, productive, orderly, and fair. The President calls on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that will secure our borders, enhance interior and worksite enforcement, create a temporary worker program, resolve – without animosity and without amnesty – the status of illegal immigrants already here, and promote assimilation into our society. All elements of this problem must be addressed together – or none of them will be solved.

Judges

President Bush Will Call On The Senate To Give His Judicial Nominees A Fair Hearing And A Prompt Up-Or-Down Vote. President Bush and Congress have a shared obligation to ensure that vacancies in the Federal courts are filled.

PRESIDENT BUSH'S INTERNATIONAL AGENDA

War On Terror/Iraq

President Bush Will Discuss His Determination To Defeat The Terrorists Who Are Part Of A Broader Extremist Movement That Is Now Doing Everything It Can To Defeat Us In Iraq. If the extremists prevail in Iraq, the American people will be less safe and our enemies will be emboldened and more lethal.

  • The Challenge Playing Out Across The Broader Middle East Is More Than A Military Conflict – It Is The Decisive Ideological Struggle Of Our Time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. It is in our Nation's interests to stand with moderates working for the cause of freedom across the Middle East.
  • For The Safety Of Our People, America Must Succeed In Iraq. The consequences of failure are clear: radical Islamists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
  • Now Is The Time For The Iraqi Government To Act. Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks to achieve reconciliation – to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens, to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq, to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, to hold local elections, and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province.
  • To Achieve Progress In Iraq, We Must First Secure Baghdad. The President's plan to deploy more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.
  • The President Believes His New Iraq Plan Is The Best Way To Succeed. Tonight, the President will propose to establish a special advisory council on the War on Terror made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. It is important for our country to come together in this hour of war and to give the President's new plan an opportunity to succeed. More information on the President's Iraq strategy is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html.

Strengthening Our Military

President Bush Will Act On Defense Secretary Bob Gates' Recommendation And Ask Congress For Authority To Increase The Overall Strength Of Our Active Army And The Marine Corps By 92,000 Soldiers And Marines Through 2012. A larger, all-volunteer Army and Marine Corps will expand the capabilities of our armed forces while reducing the stress on the force and the war fighter caused by deployments in the Global War on Terror. It may take some time for these new troops to become available for deployment, but it is important that our men and women in uniform know that additional manpower and resources are on the way.

President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)

President Bush Will Discuss How The President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Is Meeting His Commitment Of $15 Billion Over Five Years To Support Treatment For 2 Million People, Prevention Of 7 Million New Infections, And Care For 10 Million People. PEPFAR is the largest international health initiative in history dedicated to a single disease. PEPFAR works worldwide, but targets 15 focus countries that are home to approximately half of the world's 39 million HIV-positive people: Botswana, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, and Zambia.

Malaria

President Bush Will Discuss How The President's Malaria Initiative (PMI) Is Saving Lives. Announced by President Bush in June 2005, PMI is a five-year, $1.2 billion program that challenges the private sector to join the U.S. government in combating malaria in 15 of the hardest-hit African countries. In December 2006, the President and Mrs. Bush hosted the White House Summit on Malaria, bringing together experts; corporations and foundations; African civic leaders; multi-lateral groups; and voluntary, faith-based, and non-profit organizations to join PMI in the goal of cutting malaria's mortality rate by 50 percent in these target countries, freeing the citizens of these African nations from the grip this of debilitating disease.

Civilian Response Capacity

President Bush Will Call For The Development Of A Strong Civilian Response Capacity To Provide Critical Assistance To The Development Of Civil Society And Reconstruction Efforts.

School Demands Proof of Parent ‘Competence’

From the Homeschool Legal Defense Association

When the Guidance and Testing department of Camden public schools sent a letter to homeschool mom Olga Bonett demanding that she prove her “competence” to teach her own children, she immediately asked Home School Legal Defense Association for help.

The letter also demanded that she provide a list of courses and content to be taught, the books and materials to be used, and their hourly and daily schedule. The letter said this information must be submitted annually “in order for the Home School process to be continued for your child.” The letter was issued after Mrs. Bonett decided to send a notice (not required under law) that she was homeschooling.

Under New Jersey law, the family was not obligated to supply any of the information that was demanded. Prior to 2000, there was considerable confusion—even among government officials—as to what was required because former Commissioner of Education Klagholtz had issued “guidelines” that attempted to impose many duties on families with no lawful basis whatsoever.

The subsequent commissioner of education, after consultation with officials and homeschool leaders, published a set of “frequently asked questions” (FAQs) about homeschooling that was remarkably consistent with state statutory and case law. As a result, the former endemic confusion and conflict melted away. Since that time, when officials overstep their boundaries, the FAQs have been very helpful in reigning them back in.

HSLDA attorney Scott Woodruff had a long conversation with the Camden school official who sent out the letter. It became clear that she was just following a routine that had been established long ago, no doubt prior to the 2000 publication of the FAQs. She was very receptive when Woodruff explained that her letter was dramatically out of step with the FAQs. Woodruff sent her a link to the website where the FAQs are posted so she could review them herself.

Three days later she sent a letter to the HSLDA member family and Woodruff acknowledging that they had the right to completely disregard her letter.

View article online- http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/nj/200701220.asp

It doesn't take a village


By Julie Mosher
1/22/07

view article online- http://www.gopusa.com/michigan/commentary/Itdoesn

As I sit and drink my coffee, going over the local news stories on Yahoo, I come across one of the most outragous stories I have read yet. Assemblywoman Sally Lieber is proposing a ban on spanking your own children . This would make it a misdemeanor for spanking children 3 and under. It could land a parent in jail and a 1,000 dollar fine.

Now here we go with the left trying to force the hand of government into our lives. Big government,tax and spend,and let's make decisions based on "feelings". Does she really think we are so stupid as to spank a 6 month old? Or maybe a newborn? I think that falls under child abuse.

Here is where it will become a slippery slope. Where would we stop? Could our 10 year old have us jailed for grounding them from playing video games? Does she want the government to say what our children can and can't eat? My mother spanked us kids when we were little. It was the seventies! Don't tell me you never got the wooden spoon on your own butt! You know you did!

Children in schools today get away with murder. They tell their teachers off with no respect or any consequences. Many times with the parents coming to their rescue. No moral authority is to great for these kinds of children. Spankings were exceptable in schools as was prayer,two things that have now been taken away.

My point is, nobody should tell anyone how to raise their child. Spare the rod,spoil the child. Beating and spanking are two totally different things,and I think alot of uneccesary lawsuits would take up alot of judges time. Time out in my most humble opinion does not work.As a former pre-school teacher and mother, I know it doesn't work.

Maybe little Sally could direct her unwanted liberal jiberish in a more useful direction like putting pedophiles behind bars forever. Or better yet,make it so they get the death penalty and not just a six month probation. Stop wasting energy on media blitz scams to get your mug in the spotlight. I don't need the government to tell me how to raise my children. Luckily I don't live in Hollyweird or you and I might go toe to toe.

Friday, January 19, 2007

10 Questions for Ken Blackwell

Another great item from FYI news- http://fyinews.blogspot.com/2007/01/10-questions-for-ken-blackwell.html

An FYI News Exclusive

Ken Blackwell, Ohio’s former Secretary of State, ran a campaign for governor that not only gained national attention – but also international attention.

He’s been called “The Anti-Obama” by the Chicago Tribune, “The Republican Hillary” by The Other Paper, and a dog by the Rolling Stone. Needless to say, Mr. Blackwell is well known by the media and the political arena.

He recently took some time to talk to FYI News’ Vince Tornero…

FYI News: What have you been doing since the election?

Blackwell: I’ve been helping my Secretary of State staff work through what, in many of their cases, is a major disruption in their lives and in their careers. The administration of the Secretary of State’s office has not just changed from one person to another, but an inter-party change. There are about 45 people on my staff who will be looking for new employment. So, this is a pretty tough holiday season to make that transition for many of them.

I have also reflected on what I would like to do in the first quarter of next year in the bigger effort to advance important ideas that will transform our nation and our state.

FYI News: What kind and how many job offers have you received since the election? Do you plan to take any?

Blackwell: I have had a lot of folks who have expressed an interest in me working with their respective organization. Anywhere from starting a new business enterprise, to joining corporations, to serving on boards of directors of publicly traded and privately held companies, to a variety of think-tanks both regionally and nationally.

I want to take my time and reflect on the offers and the opportunities and make a determination as to where I could have the most significant impact. I have always, in my 32 years in public service, been driven by something I heard Mother Teresa say: “Sometimes we find ourselves by losing ourselves in service to others.”

FYI News: If you could change anything about this past election, what would it be and why?

Blackwell: Even though I came out victorious and won by a substantial margin (in the primary election), the contest fractured the party. I’m not sure we ever pulled the base back together. If we could have avoided it, it probably would have had some impact on the November outcome.

I actually have much to be thankful for. In the whirlwind of uncertainty associated with politics, I was blessed with a core of volunteers. I think we came away from this political setback with a clear understanding that there are 1.4 million Ohioans that share a worldview, values, and aspirations.

You play the hand that’s dealt you; we played it to the best of our abilities.

FYI News: Do you plan to run for public office (specifically governor) again?

Blackwell: I haven’t made that decision; that option is not off of the table.

I’ve been engaged in public service and electoral politics for 32 years. I love service and I love politics. So, I would imagine that if the opportunity revealed itself again, that I would seize the moment and the opportunity.

I know that we will be re-engaged in that arena (of public policy) within the first quarter of next year.

FYI News: Do you think that the media played a large part for Republican losses? Why/why not?

Blackwell: I think the media had an impact, but I am not sure whether the media was the decisive factor in the outcome. I think the decisive factor was the frustration with the missed opportunity that Republicans had to change the government. In 1994, we were given that opportunity. The reigns of power were placed squarely in our hands. We controlled every constitutional office, the Supreme Court, and both chambers of the legislature. And, instead of changing government, government changed the Republican party in the state of Ohio. I think that sort of duplicity and failure to seize the opportunity of change frustrated a substantial number of voters – independent and Republican alike.

There is no doubt that the media in Ohio has a liberal bent. It just fed a momentum that was moving away from the Republican party.

FYI News: Do you think that race played any key in your loss?

Blackwell: Do I think that there were a handful of voters who voted purely on race? Yes. But you can’t quantify it, and I don’t think it was a significant factor.

What I know is that Republicans in the spring of this year had a conservative, African-American candidate versus a white, moderate-Republican candidate. They chose the African-American conservative to be their standard bearer.

FYI News: Do you have any predictions for the first years of the Strickland Administration?

Blackwell: What I’ve said consistently is that I am not going to engage in criticism or predictions about the Strickland Administration until after the first 100 days. He won the right to advance his agenda; there is an urgency in the state of Ohio that the agenda must be articulated and must start to have impact in the first 100 days. Once he lays that on the table – or fails to lay it on the table – we will engage in the process.

FYI News: What should your supporters do in the meantime; do you have any message for them?

Blackwell: I think we all must reflect on the lessons learned in this past election. We must make sure we strengthen our ties with our families and our networks. We must understand that voters did not reject the principles upon which we advanced my candidacy. We must stay in contact with one another. We know that time passes quickly. The key over the next over the next 100 days is to make sure that we stay in contact by telephone, by e-mail. We need to know that the strength is in our numbers.

FYI News: What is your best memory from the campaign?

Blackwell: There were so many magic moments in the campaign. In a word, it was the capacity of a campaign to beat the odds and to empower people with the spirit that we can get things done.

That’s why I have no doubt that everybody associated with my campaign knows that we were knocked down. We weren’t knocked out. We’re back up, we have our bearings, and we’re ready to fight the next round.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Ron Paul jumps in

This time it's from the highly respected Politics1 website...
RON PAUL JUMPS IN.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) last ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party nominee, winning 400,000 votes and earning ballot status in all 50 states. On Thursday Paul filed federal exploratory committee paperwork to make a second run for President, this time as a Republican. Still an outspoken libertarian iconoclast, Paul stridently fights to slash taxes and reduce the role of the federal government. He also has opposed the Iraq War from the inception and opposes the President's domestic surveillance program and the Patriot Act as unconstitutional. On many House votes -- even routine ones of seemingly uncontroversial matters -- Paul frequently casts the lone dissenting vote. That is why Paul, a physician, earned the moniker of "Doctor No." Paul's campaign chair concedes Paul is "an underdog ... but we think it's well worth doing and we'll let the voters decide" ...

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Ron Paul announces exploratory committee

As reported by Viking Spirit Blog-

"Today, Congressman Ron Paul, one of yours truly's favorite Politicians, announced an exploratory committee for the Republican Presidential nomination. I can't seem to find a link to a story about this, but Paul did announce his exploratory committee.

Although I believe Paul has little to no chance at winning the nomination, I believe he can have an impact on the debate during the elections. Paul has consistently stood true to his ideals of limited government, and has voted time and time again against bills that expanded federal power. Paul is also a great fiscal conservative."
More info on U.S. Rep. Ron Paul http://www.ronpaul.org/
See post on Viking Spirit Blog-http://vikingspirit.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_vikingspirit_archive.html

Senator Boxer's Insult of Condoleezza Rice Condemned by Black Conservatives

Senator Boxer's Insult of Condoleezza Rice Condemned by Black Conservatives

Single, Childless Women Should Not Be Disqualified from Leadership, Project 21 Members Say


Washington, D.C. - Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is being criticized by members of the black leadership network Project 21 for implying that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lacks a proper perspective on the War on Terror in Iraq because she does not have children.

"Barbara Boxer is a feminist who is attacking the feminist dream," said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. "But Condoleezza Rice's achievements are disqualified because she is a black conservative, and her rise was not blessed by the liberal establishment. Former attorney general Janet Reno was also unmarried and childless, but I don't remember insulting questioning like this regarding her handling of Elian Gonzalez or the deadly raid on the Branch Davidian cult."

During a January 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator Boxer asked Secretary Rice: "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Secretary Rice replied: "I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom..." Senator Boxer cut her off, saying in response: "Madam Secretary, please. I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."

In an editorial about the incident, The New York Post noted: "The junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman."

Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli added: "I am deeply appalled by Senator Barbara Boxer's cruel and callous attack on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Senator Boxer's absurd comments are inexcusable and immoral, further proving what a characterless individual she is. The debate should have been about the war in Iraq and not a platform to demean Secretary Rice, who is one of the finest examples of a leader and is well qualified for the nation's chief cabinet office. No matter what her views are, Secretary Rice is a noteworthy public servant who should be treated with respect."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.

- 30 -