Here’s the scuttle making the rounds right now:
Michelle then ties in the recent polls that show the Democrats losing huge amounts of popularity. As if they’re connected issues.
In my opinion, they are, but not for the same reason Michelle leads one to believe. Although Nancy Pelosi did oust Jefferson from the Ways and Means Committee, much to the chagrin of the Black Caucus. She did so due to the very obvious legal conflict an investigation into a Congressman presiding over the Justice Department had. It was just TOO obvious. Especially more so given her harping over the culture of corruption of the Republicans. If she hadn’t removed Jefferson, the FBI would have been looking at a lot more people than Jefferson alone. That could have been very bad. However, putting Jefferson on Homeland Security looked just as bad to the common person. Why would someone caught with the hands in the till be rewarded with a powerful committee assignment? The culture of corruption is biting Nancy in the ass. As it should. However, apparently, she’s got an even bigger problem on her hands because apparently the Black Caucus doesn’t have a problem living in a culture of corruption. So, does Nancy continue to harp on Republicans and run the risk of alienating blacks, or does she drop the corruption and run the risk of looking as bad, if not worse, than Delay? This ethical conflict isn’t going away any time soon, and Nancy has pinned herself into a corner I don’t see how she can get out of. She can’t accuse a black of being corrupt, she can’t accuse a Democrat of being corrupt. And, we all know, all people of all races can be. I wouldn’t want to be Nancy right now.
Someone said “pride goeth before the fall”, but in this case, the fall is already happening.
The new, kinder, gentler, Nancy Pelosi led Congress.
When the new Democrat controlled Congress took over in January, they got a reprieve, with about a 15% jump in approval ratings just for being there. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid of the Senate came in with guns firing. They passed all kinds of major legislation including raising the minimum wage. The approval rating increased. Things were looking good. However, starting a month or so ago, they got hung up on Iraq. They started inserting all kinds of pork into the military bill, which got it killed. They started setting deadlines for Iraq, which got the legislation killed. The result? A nearly 10% drop in favorability since they started their attack on the war in Iraq. The result on the President during this same time?
Largely unchanged.
Now, if the person supporting the war remains largely unchanged, and the people opposing the war are dropping like flies, that should tell ya something. What it tells me is that since the people opposing the war are living and dieing on that one issue right now, and they’re ratings have dropped BELOW the person supporting it, the answer is obvious. A couple of days ago I did a thingy on how I felt media was mis-representing the US sentiment by how they presented their polls. I think this is more evidence that I’m right.
A clue here to Nancy, Harry, and the Dems. Most people don’t like the war. However, they understand what’s going on. The more the Dems undermine our soldiers, and that’s what it LOOKS like, the worse it’s gonna get and the very apparent take-over of the White House in 2008 will be squandered exactly the same as it was by Kerry in 2004. They’ve read this situation totally wrong by relying on the extreme left caucus within their party and basically nothing but push polls in the media. And unless they start looking at the situation realistically instead of personally political, they’ll lose the White House in 2008 and probably Congress as well. You heard it here first. ( Well, maybe, I haven’t seen anyone else going out on this limb yet. )
Here’s their message:
Letter to House Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture
Dear Member,
Tomorrow you will have a hearing on the nations current rural broadband programs. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is responsible for the Rural Broadband Loan Program, which subsidizes broadband service in rural areas. RUS has spent more than $871 million to provide this service since 2003. A report released this month by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development entitled Broadband Statistics to December 2006 found that, while the U.S. has the most total broadband subscribers of the 30 countries it researched, our nation ranked 15th in broadband deployment penetration. On behalf of the more than 1.2 million members and supports of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I ask that you abolish the Rural Broadband Loan Program.
Besides the more than $30 million in broadband loans that have gone into default, the program has lost its focus on serving rural America. A 2005 audit conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General stated RUS has not exclusively served those rural communities most requiring Federal assistance to obtain access to broadband technologies. Because RUS definition of rural area is too broad to distinguish usefully between suburban and rural communities, the agency has issued over $103.4 million in grants and loans (nearly 12 percent of $895 million in total program funds) to communities near metropolitan areas Though the law does not explicitly forbid issuing loans to communities with preexisting service, we question whether the Rural Broadband Loan Program should be providing funds for competition in many of the communities served, while other communities go entirely without service.
Instead of allowing the free market to flourish, RUS has been subsidizing private companies to provide broadband in neighborhoods that already have this service. The government should no longer be allowed to waste the taxpayers money in bringing broadband to rural areas. This goal should be left entirely to the private technology sector. CCAGW asks that you support the abolition of the Rural Broadband Loan Program.
I am completely opposed to their opinion. Completely.
First of all, they liken the broadband services as basically all being the same. They are not. Not even close. Just because a community has dial-up does not mean they have the resources to provide adequate bandwidth to lure industry. A typical DSL connection will not support an internet based company. In order to do this, you have to have huge chunks of bandwidth. The local cable company or DSL company doesn’t need that type of overhead to provide typical home-based internet browsing. As such, although most of the rural United States may have broadband penetration as CAGW states, they are at a disadvantage to attracting industries to most third world nations at this time. Given the financial and technological resources available in the United States, that is quite embarrassing to me.
On a national security level, clustering all our communications assets in very localized urban areas is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. There is no need to all of our critical data to be in Washington, DC. Put some in rural Kentucky. Put some in rural Nebraska. Hell, put some in Kansas. Spreading those resources out makes things a lot more complicated for enemies.
Now, on a bigger picture that Tom Schatz is missing, some people feel that urban areas are the main problem in global warming. There’s a phenomena called urban warming named specifically for that effect. It’s not much of an issue in rural areas. I have pondered several times on my blogs that it seems to me that de-urbanizing the United States would do the US, and the world, good. We no longer need to cluster a million people in a small area thereby overwhelming the Earth’s ability to provide. We don’t need huge expanses of concrete and asphalt. We just need to spread out a little. We need to live amongst the trees so those trees can counter our CO2 emissions a little more efficiently. We just don’t need cities in this day and age and they are doing more harm than good. A big part of the reason we don’t need cities any more is because of remarkably improved communications. It is no longer expected of a person to meet face-to-face every single time you have an important message. We don’t have to hand deliver documents. We don’t have to assemble 100 people in the same room to coordinate a message. The internet has solved all those issues. So, to say broadband is not worth the government investing in it is ludicrous and extremely short-sighted.
CAGW does a lot of good things and tackles a lot of truly wasteful spending. However, in this case, they’re 100% wrong.
Yesterday Bush vetoed the Iraqi pullout bill. In that bill, it had emergency spending for the military as well. That was both expected politically, and I expected it for bigger reasons. Spending will be done one way or another until a proper funding bill is presented. The war won’t stop just because a few loonies sabotaged it. The bigger issue in my opinion is Bush kept Congress from meddling in a military operation. The very last thing this country needs is 535 people with no real military experience or commitment trying to micromanage our troops in harm’s way. They have the right to examine what’s going on, to give guidance to the President, and pass laws affecting it’s funding etc.. What they do not have the right, per the Constitution, is to usurp the authority of the Commander and Chief as defined by the Constitution they promised to uphold. Every single person that voted for that bill IMO has voted to violate the US Constitution and should be forced to explain how it does NOT violate the separation of powers. Here’s the list of people who felt compelled to totally toss the Constitution aside and take over the military:
|
|
|
Now, I am curious, although I KNOW they would all flip completely out if I question the patriotism, which I’m not, I think they think they’re doing what’s best for the US, but, they’re letting their politics outweigh their logic. Now, treason is defined as aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States. If these people feel it’s best to surrender and walk away at a very defined date, then they have made the enemy’s job profoundly simple. Just hide and wait it out. That folks, is aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States. It’s a harsh word to use, but it’s a fact. I don’t question their patriotism, but I do question their priorities. Before I wrap it all up, think about the plight of another gallant US citizen from way back when:
….distinguished himself as a hero of revolution early in the war through acts of cunning and bravery in the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga, the Invasion of Canada (1775), the Battle of Valcour Island in Lake Champlain in 1776, the battles of Danbury and Ridgefield in Connecticut (after which he was promoted to Major General), and the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. He was wounded several times.
At the time, this guy was one of the most heralded patriots in the United States. No one would DARE question his patriotism. However, due to later commitments to other issues (namely a loyalist wife and bitterness over a missed promotion), Benedict Arnold would set a defined timeline for the US to withdraw troops from a contested location.
The only difference between what he did and what these people did is the location.
Additionally, what disturbs me about this vote is three of the people who voted for it are running for President. I really think people need to think twice about a potential President who does not understand, respect, or honor the very basic philosophy of the United States Constitution. That being the separation of powers. If they don’t respect it now, you can’t make the argument they’ll suddenly respect it if elected.
|
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Apparently “the Dems” picked up the endorsement of MSNBC, who claims unequivocally that Americans are siding with Dems. The headline leaves no room for error. It’s not “most”, “a majority”, or “some”. It’s all. Every single American. Mexican, Canadien, Brazillian, it’s all of them. That’s a pretty powerful block of people to be supporting “Dem”. That’s a good thing for the “Dems” I suppose. They are already extremely popular with Al Qaeda I would suppose.
However, I think the truth is much more likely that more people in MSNBC’s poll supported the “Dems”. Let’s test that theory wording the situation a little more realistically, shall we?
Now, you can assume I am a little over the top in my summary judgment. But, to support the “Dems”, you HAVE TO ASSUME that Al Qaeda will just quit their war against the US simply because we are not fighting them IN the Middle East.
And everyone knows what happens when you assume. Only this time, it’s a lot more serious.
Sometimes something is so overt it just strikes me as being surreal how some people can claim it’s not what it seems. Former Representative Tom Andrews had this to say regarding the Out of Iraq Caucus ( and others ):
OK, now, here’s the membership of the Out of Iraq Caucus, matched up with the Congressional Progressive Caucus:
Jack Murtha is sponsoring legislation they demand, although isn’t an official member. So, what part of that group doesn’t scream Democrat?
So, how does Andrews propose allowing all those Democrats to speak as one, but not be viewed as an extention of the Democrat Party? Why, he forms a 527 of course. That way, they’re just "informational", they’re not political. Get it? Next thing they’ll try to sell me is that the Progressive Caucus isn’t Democrat either.
This has got to be the most disingenious thing I’ve seen in years. I fully expect in 2008, you’ll have a whole bunch of people, with media in tow, telling us how the Democrats didn’t undermine the effort in Iraq, support our military, and believe in a strong national defense. When someone questions these sixty-five exclusively Democrat members of the "Out of Iraq Caucus", I’m quite certain Howard Dean and the respective presidential candidates, will simply state they didn’t represent the Democrat Party. Simple question here, who DO they represent and what would be our only logical choice in voting them out? 527 or not, that makes it a purely Democrat issue whether Tom Andrews, Howard Dean, Jack Murtha, or anyone else wants you to believe.
Every single election, people all over the country whine that the election was fixed, rigged, or outright stolen. Pretty much every time, it leads nowhere. However, I have stumbled across a fairly local race that does show that sometimes mistakes ( or worse ) happens and the election is definitely in doubt. Here’s a good one:
There ya go conspiracy theorists, an actual election that is definitely "rigged". However, in this case, voters apparently weren’t discouraged.
Actually, I think a re-vote is in order there. More realistically, I think the town just needs to dissolve and not waste their money on the re-vote.
A lot of people are reading things into this week’s elections. Some people claimed these elections are nothing but a national referendum on Bush and/or the Republicans. As such, I posted my “anticipated results” from the elections a few days ago. I’m still sticking with those “predictions” post-election. Now, here’s what happens when “national” expectations are thrust on individual elections:
Tuesday’s election results certainly sent a powerful message to President Bush about his policy on Iraq – but on the scientific front, there was also a strong message sent in support of embryonic stem cell research. And Gail Pressberg, one of the authors of an upcoming book on the stem cell debate, says that message just might reverberate in the Oval Office as well.
“One has to wonder what his attitude will be now,” Pressberg told me today.
Now, the caveat here is, correct me if I’m wrong, but not one of those candidates endorsed EMBRYONIC stem cell research. They endorsed “expanding” stem cell research. The catch here is that Bush is the ONLY president to ever EXPAND stem cell research. The ONLY one. So, I’m gonna tell you the headlines for next year now. The new Senate will pass legislation EXPANDING stem cell research, which Bush will sign because he’s ALWAYS supported stem cell research to some degree. They will not allow EMBRYONIC stem cell research as there’s too much political negativity attached to it. In simpler terms, nothing will have changed.
The media will have a field day with headlines citing how Bush has ditched his religious convictions, his ethics, and everything else and caved in to political pressure from the Democrats on this subject. All the while, nothing will have changed.
The reason nothing will have changed is threefold.
-
The legislation to expand stem cell funding IS ALREADY IN PLACE. IF this truly was a deciding factor by voters in those races, they were duped. Which isn’t hard to do. Rather than using the internet to actually research topics, I have found most people advocating an issue choose to use it to reinforce their bias on the issue. Nothing will get done, and people will be happy with that because it’s the Democrats getting nothing done instead of the Republicans.
-
My experience here is that the people advocating EMBRYONIC stem cell research were the same people advocating spit government ( as long it leans Democrat ). The problem we have now is that the government is not only split, it’s a balanced split. What you will see happening for the most part will be basically nothing getting done for two years as Bush knows he can veto anything he wants and there is absolutely nothing either chamber can do about it. Nothing. Expanding stem cell research is already on the books. EMBRYONIC research is not. EMBRYONIC research is what gets conservatives worked up and united. The Democrats’ hold on the Senate is dangerously tenuous. They lose one seat in ’08, it’s lost. The very last thing they are going to do is unite the neo-conservative base that basically didn’t show up at all last Tuesday. Proposing legislation that would do just that and have no chance of getting signed is not something I think Pelosi or the Senate leader are stupid enough to do. So, look for NOTHING TO HAPPEN while they try to take credit for legislation that’s already passed.
-
And, all politics IS local. Most of the pro-stem cell candidates won by hairs. They’re not indiviudally going to intentionally unite the conservatives in Missouri or anywhere else. They didn’t support embryonic stem cell research, they supported what Bush has supported, just putting more money in it. They can get by with that, but if Pelosi puts embryonic stem cell research on the table, those hairs they won by are gone.
So, I stand by my original assumption, Michael J. Fox put the screws to stem cell research. How long is Fox going to let McCaskill off the hook when nothing gets done by the Democrats?
People have accused Google of allowing their political leanings to affect some of their content searches. Google of course denied the allegations. But, it was kind of obvious something was amiss. The reason I yanked Googe AdSense was because no matter what I wrote about Bush, their "unbiased" searches would ALWAYS come up with something anti-Bush. Every, single, time. Now, it’s official, Google NetPAC is an official Washington PAC. They are boasting that the first person to receive any money is a Republican and that the PAC will cater to Republicans since the employees donate about 95% to Democrats.
It really doesn’t matter to me. Google allowing itself to be considered political at all is scary. Too many people rely on their searches and if those searches are skewed for political gain, that’s a bad, bad, thing. Now, because they came out of the closet entirely, that bias will now be more than speculation as every "bad" search result will have the perception of supporting their political philosphies.
Dumb move Google, probably dumber than buying Youtube. I ditched Adsense for the most part a long time ago. I’m in the process of ditching Youtube now because what they allowing and not allowing just don’t seem quite right. I wonder if it’s political ( see Michelle Malkin’s grief with Youtube for the shining example )? People slander her and it stays, she replies and it’s yanked. Go figure huh?
Dumb move Google, really dumb.
24
Oct
Was reading a trashy New York gossip rag that was talking about Rush attacking Michael J. Fox for over-acting his Parkinson’s symptoms for political gain. Well, here is the video in question via Claire McCaskill:
Here’s Fox circa June 2006:
The problem Rush has is just making the allegation is distasteful to just about anyone with a heart. So, he’s totally damned for even suggesting what he suggested. It doesn’t matter whether he’s right or not. And, I do think that just about anyone that sees the video that is familiar with Fox’s public appearances will kinda sit back a little. And, the answer that Fox takes meds in public but sometimes doesn’t at home isn’t truly a sincere response since he can control it to some degree, he might as well show how he "normally" is. Being someone who has a vested interest in stem cell research, as Fox is, I resent people polarizing this issue thereby making it a political hot potato that established politicians don’t want to touch. That’s what Fox is doing here, even if it is a sincere desire to elect people who will advocate stem cell research. The problem is, McCaskill will not be in a position to affect any funding for a decade. And, in the meantime, the political backlash will be people in a position to affect funding. So, either way, Fox, by endorsing individual candidates solely on a promise they can’t keep, is hurting the issue right now.
Now you know what I think. Wanna tell me what you think?
October 30, 2006 UPDATE: Just as I fully expected:
Thanks a lot, Fox. It’s now a political football. By making a lousy ad supporting a candidate running against incorrect assumptions, the conservative right is now polarized and ready to pounce on the entire issue. Is that what you wanted?
