Barack Obama will be in Milwaukee tomorrow for a rally supporting Gov. Jim Doyle and Senator Herb Kohl. I believe it starts at 9 a.m. Follow the link to get more information. Many of the "political elite" will be there.
I have to work, but you guys should go and tell me how awesome it was.
Some statistics
9 days remaining
House (35 contested races)
Leans GOP 5
Toss-Up 17
Leans Dem 13
Senate (9 contested races)
Leans GOP 0
Toss-Up4
Leans Dem5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign06/countdown.html
House (35 contested races)
Leans GOP 5
Toss-Up 17
Leans Dem 13
Senate (9 contested races)
Leans GOP 0
Toss-Up4
Leans Dem5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign06/countdown.html
A dirrrrty campaign season?
The Washington Post a few days ago reported about the race in Wisconsin between Republican Rep. Ron Kind and Paul Nelson, the Democratic challenger.
The race features a commercial in which Nelson has "XXX" in a twisted-logic sort of way to brand Kind.
The story talks about this race and how this campaign season seems to be getting more and more personal. Nelson is quoted in the story:
The race features a commercial in which Nelson has "XXX" in a twisted-logic sort of way to brand Kind.
The story talks about this race and how this campaign season seems to be getting more and more personal. Nelson is quoted in the story:
"Negative campaigning is vicious personal attacks," he said in an interview. "This (commercial) isn't personal at all."
Later in the story:
The National Republican Campaign Committee is spending more than 90 percent of its advertising budget on negative ads, according to GOP operatives, and the rest of the party seems to be following suit.
I haven't been paying too much attention to the commercials, to be honest, except for the Doyle-Green gubernatorial race, which is certainly a pretty negative race.
Does anyone have any feelings on whether this campaign season has been any dirtier or more negative than past ones?Lurid Excerpts
After viewing several ads on Wednesday in lecture, I found the following video to be interesting because it shows how bad political elections have become when it comes to bashing away at ones opponent in the election, even as far as to use books one has written previously. You can find the video under the catergory: Video Features on Fox News Channel.
"No-Brainer" Could It be Last Out-Cry to Rally Republicans
"The conservative radio host, Scott Hennen, asked Mr Cheney if he agreed that "a dunk in water is a no-brainer" if it would unearth information of pending attacks and save lives.
Mr Cheney replied: "Well, it's a no-brainer for me." He went on to say that he was not condoning torture but said you can have a robust interrogation programme without torture". Does this looks likes a stunt to rally the hard-core Republicans, who might not be feeling very upbeat lately, less than 2 week before elections. It's hard to say if these kinds of statements will work for or against the Republicnas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6093298.stm
Mr Cheney replied: "Well, it's a no-brainer for me." He went on to say that he was not condoning torture but said you can have a robust interrogation programme without torture". Does this looks likes a stunt to rally the hard-core Republicans, who might not be feeling very upbeat lately, less than 2 week before elections. It's hard to say if these kinds of statements will work for or against the Republicnas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6093298.stm
Middle class is abandoning the GOP
Say you're a representative and you firmly plant yourself where you want; now say your opponent moves somewhat to get closer to what the constituents want. It's not that hard to have realized that this was going to happen. Unless you're slow or thinking you're invulnerable.
I'll place any money that in the future thought the GOP will try to align themselves differently to gain back some of the voters since they can't fight against the "war" that's turning away the majority of the middle class.
I'll place any money that in the future thought the GOP will try to align themselves differently to gain back some of the voters since they can't fight against the "war" that's turning away the majority of the middle class.
Herb Kohl: 'Benign' re-election
The Journal Sentinel today has a story about the Kohl Senate race.
I found this paragraph intriguing:
I found this paragraph intriguing:
When you've been in the Senate for 18 years, when you own the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team, when you're wealthy enough to own a Van Gogh if you chose to, and when your face is on television as often as you want it to be, running for re-election can seem like a pretty benign matter. Especially if you add one factor: The other major party has all but withdrawn from the battlefield.And it made me wonder: Would Jacobson and Stewart say that Kohl's re-election campaigns are "benign"? Sure, he's had it easy in terms of political opponents, but something tells me that Kohl is still nervous about the re-elections, even if that nervousness seems misplaced.
Partisanship: The Enemy of the People
There are so many critiques of American politics one doesn’t know where the finger pointing ends and the real problems begin. However, it appears pretty evident that one of the largest flaws in government now is partisanship.
The people elect representatives, and they should do precisely what their title dictates; represent the people. However, the growing wave of partisanship has our “representatives” standing for something else; party lines. This militant adherence to which side of the spectrum they sit on only serves to worsen their ability to govern the people.
The party in power sets the stage with no due recourse, and with only a few notable exceptions, the party members fall in, whether they believe in the course of action they are taking or not. Issues that split party lines never get solved; instead they worsen as debate quiets in the chambers and heats up on the streets.
The two party system is responsible for this debacle, with each side pushing and tugging for power and influence to further their agenda, while PACs and special interest groups tug the strings attached to their wallets.
The only resolution to this problem is the abolition of the two party system, which is an impossibility in modern American politics. However, if each of us held our representatives truly responsible maybe some change would come.
In order for this to happen people must be willing to send letters, make calls, and do whatever it takes to get politicians to enact our will.
The people elect representatives, and they should do precisely what their title dictates; represent the people. However, the growing wave of partisanship has our “representatives” standing for something else; party lines. This militant adherence to which side of the spectrum they sit on only serves to worsen their ability to govern the people.
The party in power sets the stage with no due recourse, and with only a few notable exceptions, the party members fall in, whether they believe in the course of action they are taking or not. Issues that split party lines never get solved; instead they worsen as debate quiets in the chambers and heats up on the streets.
The two party system is responsible for this debacle, with each side pushing and tugging for power and influence to further their agenda, while PACs and special interest groups tug the strings attached to their wallets.
The only resolution to this problem is the abolition of the two party system, which is an impossibility in modern American politics. However, if each of us held our representatives truly responsible maybe some change would come.
In order for this to happen people must be willing to send letters, make calls, and do whatever it takes to get politicians to enact our will.
GOP terrorism ad sparks Democratic furor
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/20/gop.ad/index.html
This article is basically about how the Democrats feel that the Republicans are using Osama Bin Laden to strike fear into the voters to vote for the GOP in the election that is looming. Fear-mongering is sometimes a good ploy, albeit ridiculous when it comes to the informed voter, but I believe that it won't work this time.
It states from beginning in the article that the "Republicans took a page from President Johnson's Cold War-era presidential campaign with an advertisement set to air this weekend called "The Stakes," which prominently features al Qaeda leaders threatening to kill Americans."
I can only assume that since things are not looking great for the Republicans what the GOP are doing is basically saying that Bin Laden is in support of the Democrats which is ridiculous and is a desperate move. What do you all think?
This article is basically about how the Democrats feel that the Republicans are using Osama Bin Laden to strike fear into the voters to vote for the GOP in the election that is looming. Fear-mongering is sometimes a good ploy, albeit ridiculous when it comes to the informed voter, but I believe that it won't work this time.
It states from beginning in the article that the "Republicans took a page from President Johnson's Cold War-era presidential campaign with an advertisement set to air this weekend called "The Stakes," which prominently features al Qaeda leaders threatening to kill Americans."
I can only assume that since things are not looking great for the Republicans what the GOP are doing is basically saying that Bin Laden is in support of the Democrats which is ridiculous and is a desperate move. What do you all think?
Poll: 74 percent of Americans say Congress out of touch
The headline says it all. While its not uncommon for people to feel congress is out of touch, these numbers are, and as the article reports, the same numbers were seen in 1994 before the republican take over.
Poll: Half of Americans think Congress is corrupt
I agree with the opinion of this article. Corruption flows throughout the branches government. Everything and anything has lost it's true purpose; governing for the good of the people, not individualistic ideals has been forgotten. Within the span of the GW Bush regime people have lost confidence in the government and it would take a stronger/wiser leader to gain back the faith of the people.
Minnesota 6
Patty Wetterling. If the name sounds familiar it's probably because you recall the tragedy of her son Jacob who disappeared never to be seen again. Well Mrs. Wetterling has been working tirelessly since then as a child advocate and is currently running for the Minnesota 6th District-a seat to be vacated by Mark Kennedy (R-MN) who is running for Senate. A recent poll puts Wetterling 8 points ahead of her opponent Michele Bachmann.
What is intersting about this article in particular is that the race has been very close up until this point and they consider the possiblity that this surge in points is a direc result to the Foley scandal.
It seems likely that one of the seats to be gained by the Dems, or in MN the DFL, may well be the MN 6th.
What is intersting about this article in particular is that the race has been very close up until this point and they consider the possiblity that this surge in points is a direc result to the Foley scandal.
It seems likely that one of the seats to be gained by the Dems, or in MN the DFL, may well be the MN 6th.
The Worst Congress Ever
TAGLINE: How our national legislature has become a stable of thieves and perverts -- in five easy steps.
Their 10 worst representatives:
Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI)
Don Young (R-AK)
William Jefferson (D-LA)
Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Tom Tancredo (R-CO)
Dick Pombo (R-CA)
Curt Weldon (R-PA)
Hal Rogers (R-KY)
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Their 10 worst representatives:
Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI)
Don Young (R-AK)
William Jefferson (D-LA)
Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Tom Tancredo (R-CO)
Dick Pombo (R-CA)
Curt Weldon (R-PA)
Hal Rogers (R-KY)
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Another corrupt politician?
"Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- The FBI said it raided the home of Representative Curt Weldon's daughter as part of what one person familiar with the case said is an investigation into whether the Pennsylvania Republican used his influence to steer business to her consulting firm.
The raids by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents took place today at the Philadelphia-area homes of Karen Weldon and her business associate, Charles Sexton, according to FBI spokeswoman Debra Weierman.
Weierman said those raids were among six carried out by the FBI ``in relation to a pending investigation.'' She said four were in the Philadelphia area and two were in the Jacksonville, Florida, area."
I wonder, with all these stories about Republicans coming out now, maybe it's possible that others were holding onto them in an attempt to use them near elections to get them out of office? If it really happened as early as it says in the article and it didn't make the news then, or even if it did, but is being restated so soon to the election period then I think it's possible it was saved as ammo.
In Final Weeks, G.O.P. Focuses on Best Bets
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 — Senior Republican leaders have concluded that Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, a pivotal state in this year’s fierce midterm election battles, is likely to be heading for defeat and are moving to reduce financial support for his race and divert party money to other embattled Republican senators, party officials said.
U.S., Japan seek N. Korea sanctions vote
This is highly contridictory for the U.S. Why are they even voting? U.S. is going to ignore the U.N. decision if it doesn't swing in their favor. To think that U.N. still has power is ridiculous, because U.S. made this entity futile when it went to war with Iraq with it's unilateral decision. Why not just go to war? If the Republican Party has a the Majority in both houses why don't they just declare war because its within their power to do so. Isn't it much easier to elimate enemies that you can see instead of searching for them? In my opinion, North Korea is not a top priority in the U.S. national interest or U.S. (Bush administration) is afraid to fight a real war.
Mr. Mark Foley and the House of Representatives
This is an interesting editorial from The Washington Post about some reactions in the House for the scandal leaded by Mr. Foley.
The Speaker's Feint
Mr. Hastert would assign the wrong mission to his 'high-caliber' adviser.
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A22
HOUSE SPEAKER J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) yesterday came up with yet another ploy to shield himself and his colleagues from scrutiny while pretending to do the opposite.
The issue is how House leaders dealt with warnings that Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) had sent inappropriate e-mail to a teenage page. The speaker announced with considerable satisfaction that he hopes to appoint an independent "person of high caliber" -- but not to do what is obviously needed, which is investigate whether the House botched the response, thereby endangering more pages. Instead, Mr. Hastert said, he wants someone "to advise us on the page program." He floated the idea of naming former FBI director Louis J. Freeh but pulled back when Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wouldn't go along.
Let's save the speaker, and whoever his eminent person turns out to be, some time by offering advice right now: No congressman should harass pages. No one should send them what White House press secretary Tony Snow dismissed as "naughty e-mails." And if there's even a hint that one of your colleagues is doing so, or wants to, don't brush it off. "The buck stops here," the speaker said yesterday, declaring that "we're taking responsibility." But announcing that doesn't make it so.
Yesterday's gambit followed an earlier tack, which was to turn the matter over to the FBI. The FBI has a role to play in determining whether criminal violations occurred, but the appropriate constraints on the bureau -- in the scope of its investigation and its ability to share information with the House and the public -- make it an ill-suited vehicle "for us to try to find out what happened," as the speaker put it. Meanwhile, responding to the uproar with finger-pointing suggestions that the other side leaked the matter, as Mr. Hastert did yesterday, isn't going to fly. Would he be happier if the information hadn't come out?
The House ethics committee's announcement yesterday of an investigation is a development to be taken more seriously. As we've said previously, there are legitimate questions about the panel's ability to handle something with this much political sensitivity, given Republican efforts to undermine its power and independence and given its dysfunction during the Abramoff scandal. That's why an independent investigator -- a "person of high caliber," in the speaker's phrase -- would have been the best way to ensure a thorough investigation and unsparing conclusions.
That apparently wasn't seriously considered, though, so now the ethics committee's integrity is on the line. It should resist calls for haste (including from Ms. Pelosi, who risks appearing more interested in electoral timelines than a thorough inquiry), but it also must work briskly and without regard for political fallout.
The Speaker's Feint
Mr. Hastert would assign the wrong mission to his 'high-caliber' adviser.
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A22
HOUSE SPEAKER J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) yesterday came up with yet another ploy to shield himself and his colleagues from scrutiny while pretending to do the opposite.
The issue is how House leaders dealt with warnings that Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) had sent inappropriate e-mail to a teenage page. The speaker announced with considerable satisfaction that he hopes to appoint an independent "person of high caliber" -- but not to do what is obviously needed, which is investigate whether the House botched the response, thereby endangering more pages. Instead, Mr. Hastert said, he wants someone "to advise us on the page program." He floated the idea of naming former FBI director Louis J. Freeh but pulled back when Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wouldn't go along.
Let's save the speaker, and whoever his eminent person turns out to be, some time by offering advice right now: No congressman should harass pages. No one should send them what White House press secretary Tony Snow dismissed as "naughty e-mails." And if there's even a hint that one of your colleagues is doing so, or wants to, don't brush it off. "The buck stops here," the speaker said yesterday, declaring that "we're taking responsibility." But announcing that doesn't make it so.
Yesterday's gambit followed an earlier tack, which was to turn the matter over to the FBI. The FBI has a role to play in determining whether criminal violations occurred, but the appropriate constraints on the bureau -- in the scope of its investigation and its ability to share information with the House and the public -- make it an ill-suited vehicle "for us to try to find out what happened," as the speaker put it. Meanwhile, responding to the uproar with finger-pointing suggestions that the other side leaked the matter, as Mr. Hastert did yesterday, isn't going to fly. Would he be happier if the information hadn't come out?
The House ethics committee's announcement yesterday of an investigation is a development to be taken more seriously. As we've said previously, there are legitimate questions about the panel's ability to handle something with this much political sensitivity, given Republican efforts to undermine its power and independence and given its dysfunction during the Abramoff scandal. That's why an independent investigator -- a "person of high caliber," in the speaker's phrase -- would have been the best way to ensure a thorough investigation and unsparing conclusions.
That apparently wasn't seriously considered, though, so now the ethics committee's integrity is on the line. It should resist calls for haste (including from Ms. Pelosi, who risks appearing more interested in electoral timelines than a thorough inquiry), but it also must work briskly and without regard for political fallout.
How the Democrats Would Rule the Hill
An interesting article from the Times exploring the various ways things would change under democratic rule should they win back the House and or Senate.
Two pretty obvious things they say include that Pelosi will likely be the Speaker and that of course the issues of focus would certainly change; they mention the minimum wage and the stem cell debate.
They also, however, discuss how the majority would be only slight leaving the democrats no room to lean too far to the left. They suggest that regardless of the outcome, a middle ground (with regards to partisanship) will be necessary, especially since we will be coming into a presidential election cycle.
Two pretty obvious things they say include that Pelosi will likely be the Speaker and that of course the issues of focus would certainly change; they mention the minimum wage and the stem cell debate.
They also, however, discuss how the majority would be only slight leaving the democrats no room to lean too far to the left. They suggest that regardless of the outcome, a middle ground (with regards to partisanship) will be necessary, especially since we will be coming into a presidential election cycle.
GOP's Hold on Evangelicals Weakening
This is an interesting article about how some of the GOP's most religious voters might be having second thoughts, due mostly to the Iraq war, but also now because of the current sex scandal and Bush's views toward torture. While the shift is not that significant overall, seeing how close many races are, the loss of a few percent of core voters could assist the Dems in some tight races come November.
Bush defies Congress, and can apparently edit security reports
"WASHINGTON -
President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the
Homeland Security Department's reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.
In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.
But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."
The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power."
I'm not sure what he's doing is completely legal, but I suppose if he's the head of the executive branch and thus in charge of everyone else of that branch he can "force" the guy to change his reports. But even then that's pretty borderline for legality but with it inching towards not being legal. I'm much too tired to figure out anything further then this.
President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the
Homeland Security Department's reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.
In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.
But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."
The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power."
I'm not sure what he's doing is completely legal, but I suppose if he's the head of the executive branch and thus in charge of everyone else of that branch he can "force" the guy to change his reports. But even then that's pretty borderline for legality but with it inching towards not being legal. I'm much too tired to figure out anything further then this.
SPORTS TAKE OVER CONGRESS
While doing some online research, I was shocked by the amount of pointless legislation that wastes precious time on Capitol Hill and worse, taxpayer money. One thing stood out in particular, and that was the fact that when a professional or collegiate sports team wins a championship, a senator from the team’s home state proposes a bill congratulating them.
I may be treading on the toes of a long held tradition, but it seems to me to be a giant waste of time. We elect these people to guide and shape the future of our country, and while important legislation stagnates in committee for years, senators are proposing and passing bills that are the equivalent to a pat on the back for winning a game.
I’m certain that not a single player on last year’s Pittsburgh Steelers team was elated and ecstatic to hear that Senator Rick Santorum passed a bill congratulating , or anyone from the University of Wisconsin hockey team stared longingly into a television tuned into CSPAN to make sure he got his thanks from Senator Russ Feingold.
These teams are already praised in the national sports media, which is now bigger and more influential then ever, they are praised by their coaches, team owners and institutions, they have parades held in their honor, are given keys to their respective cities. People even spend their own money to buy shirts and hats that proudly state which team won which game. They already get thanks enough, so is it really necessary for our senators to sign their congratulations into law?
I may be treading on the toes of a long held tradition, but it seems to me to be a giant waste of time. We elect these people to guide and shape the future of our country, and while important legislation stagnates in committee for years, senators are proposing and passing bills that are the equivalent to a pat on the back for winning a game.
I’m certain that not a single player on last year’s Pittsburgh Steelers team was elated and ecstatic to hear that Senator Rick Santorum passed a bill congratulating , or anyone from the University of Wisconsin hockey team stared longingly into a television tuned into CSPAN to make sure he got his thanks from Senator Russ Feingold.
These teams are already praised in the national sports media, which is now bigger and more influential then ever, they are praised by their coaches, team owners and institutions, they have parades held in their honor, are given keys to their respective cities. People even spend their own money to buy shirts and hats that proudly state which team won which game. They already get thanks enough, so is it really necessary for our senators to sign their congratulations into law?
Bush Says Democrats Shouldn't Be Trusted!
Bush says that Democrats should not be trusted in Congress because of the way they reacted to the September 11 attacks. Bush states that they just want to sit there and wait to be attacked again. Democrats fired back saying that Rice was briefed by the CIA about the attacks 2 months prior to it actually happening. Rice claims that she does not remember this meeting. All of this is going on while Republicans are having their fundraiser dinners to support their camping. Overall, its kind an interesting article because it just shows the two sides fighting. It is also an interesting because the Republicans are trying to do damage control over the incident in Florida.
Slate follows Senate races; Dems leading
Slate offers a feature of where the Senate races are each day and has indicators to how each of the close races are today.
The races seem to show that overall, the races that are in contention are leaning Democrat. Is this a result of the "referendum on Iraq" or can this be explained by something else?
If it is a national sign of the public's stance on Iraq, then it would be wise of the public to think less about the short-term instabilities and more about the long-term ramifications of any policy in the country before casting a vote on Nov. 7.
The races seem to show that overall, the races that are in contention are leaning Democrat. Is this a result of the "referendum on Iraq" or can this be explained by something else?
If it is a national sign of the public's stance on Iraq, then it would be wise of the public to think less about the short-term instabilities and more about the long-term ramifications of any policy in the country before casting a vote on Nov. 7.
Probably not too suprising
Bush didn't seem to thrilled about this whole scandal and even publically said he wanted Foley to be prosecuted. It's pretty interesting given the fact that he's campaigning right now for congressmen.
Foley Scandal and High Morality.
This scandal is getting worse than previously thought, because more is known about it now. The fact that Republicans knew about it and didn't do anything. The question is, could the core right-wing religious base of Republicans be turned-off by this scandal, and would not come vote in large numbers? As this article highlights, "Across the country as a whole, local Republicans have been running a number of campaigns, accusing the Democrats of being out of step with "family values". Who is out-of-step now, may be this is the last push that Democrat needed to oust Republicans from the Congress, and take majorities in both senate and House. Now beside war in Iraq, andother big issue which hugely favored Republicnas in last election, their values, would not be favoring them, atleast for a little while. What you think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5400536.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5400536.stm
Out of No Where, New Troubles for GOP
New York Time is reporting that top house Republicans knew about e-mail between Representative Mark Foley and the teenage page. Republicans kept this matter secret, and allowed Mr.Folley to remain head of Congressional caucus on children's issues. This is some of the stuff that Congressman wrote to the 16 year old boy, "How are you weathering the hurricane. . .are you safe. . .send me a pic of you as well.What do you want for your birthday coming up. . .what stuff do you like to do". Do you think that GOP is in big trouble for knowing this and not making it public, or not doing anything about it? It becomes more troubling to know that Mr.Foley was head of Congressional caucus on children's issues. Now, it is believed that Republicans are going to lose this seat, which they were almost certain to win before. Are they going to lose even more seats because of this issue?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/washington/01foley.html?hp&ex=1159761600&en=72f54d420adcb9e2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/washington/01foley.html?hp&ex=1159761600&en=72f54d420adcb9e2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)