MIKE HUCKABEE IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 28, 2007.
As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record. As his political consultant in the early ’90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.
A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a “47 percent increase in state tax burden.” But during Huckabee’s years in office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005.
In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.
Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn’t need it any longer.
He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)
He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security.
And he can win in Iowa.
When voters who have decided not to back Rudy Giuliani because of his social positions consider the contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, they will have no difficulty choosing between a real social conservative and an ersatz one.
Romney, who began as a pro-lifer and switched in order to win in Massachusetts, and then flipped back again, cannot compete with a lifelong pro-lifer, Huckabee.
But Huckabee’s strength is not just his orthodoxy on gay marriage, abortion, gun control and the usual litany. It is his opening of the religious right to a host of new issues. He speaks firmly for the right to life, but then notes that our responsibility for children does not end with childbirth. His answer to the rise of medical costs is novel and exciting. “Eighty percent of all medical spending,” he says, “is for chronic diseases.” So he urges an all-out attack on teen smoking and overeating and a push for exercise not as the policies of a big-government liberal but as the requisites of a fiscal conservative anxious to save tax money.
So what happens if Huckabee wins in Iowa? With New Hampshire only five days later, his momentum will be formidable. The key may boil down to how Hillary does in Iowa. Hillary? Yes. If she loses in Iowa, most of the independents in New Hampshire will flock to the Democratic primary to vote for her or against her. That will move the Republican electorate to the right in New Hampshire — bad news for Rudy, good news for Huckabee. But if she wins in Iowa, there will be no point in voting in the Democratic primary and a goodly number will enter the GOP contest, giving Rudy a big boost.
And afterward? If Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina, sweeping the early primaries, Giuliani will have a very tough task to bring him down in Florida or on Super Tuesday. It can be done, but it’s tough. But if Romney loses in Iowa (likely to Huckabee) then Rudy can survive the loss of Iowa and even New Hampshire without surrendering irresistible momentum to Romney.
In any event, neither Hillary nor Giuliani will be knocked out by defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their 50-state organizations, their national base and their massive war chests will permit them to fight it out all over the United States. Even if they lose the first two contests, they will remain in the race and could well come back to win.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH SUPPORTS HILLARY CLINTON?
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH SUPPORTS HILLARY CLINTON?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on November 21, 2007.
Just when every poll has Hillary slipping, she has gotten a shot in the arm from a very unlikely source: President George W. Bush.
In an interview on Tuesday featuring the first couple and Charles Gibson, the president said of Mrs. Clinton "No question, there is no question that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first — could see it first-hand."
By saying that she “understands the klieg lights,” Bush lent credence to Hillary’s campaign assertion that she could “hit the ground running” if she were elected president.
Would somebody please explain to us what Bush is doing, touting Hillary just as the rest of America is finally catching on to her artificial, evasive and contrived campaigning style?
This is not the first time Bush has rescued the Clintons. After they left the White House, both the former president and the new senator had low ratings in the polls. Beset by scandal — the White House gifts, the pardons-for-sale, the payments to Hillary’s brothers for pardons, the Hasidic vote-for-pardon scandal, and Bill’s nolo contender plea to obstructing justice — Bill and Hillary were sucking wind.
But, Bush swept in for the rescue, picking the former president off the ash heap of history and elevating him to parity with his father in a two-former-president effort to raise funds for the tsunami victims. By giving him a respected place alongside a former president of unquestioned integrity, Bush gave Clinton a tremendous way to climb out of disgrace and into the limelight.
Then, when the tsunami relief effort was winding down, he re-enlisted former president Clinton to work with his father again on helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Not only did Bush help the Clintons in positive ways, but he let his justice department drop the investigations of the pardons, the gifts, the payments to Hillary’s brothers and the Hasidic vote scandal with no prosecution or plea dealings.
Then Bush let Clinton off the hook another time when the former president’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught smuggling classified documents relating to 9/11 and the war on terror out of the National Archives in his pockets and socks. The Bush Justice Department accepted a plea deal with Berger which did not require him to say what documents he had taken and why he had swiped them. As a result, we never knew what aspect of the Clinton record on terrorism Berger was so anxious to cover up.
All of this kid glove treatment of the former first couple led to jokes about how George W and Bill are the two children of President George H.W. Now the president is going easy on his putative sister-in-law, Hillary.
The fact is that Hillary has no idea what it is like to be president. Unlike Bill, she did not have to face the media daily and could keep them at arms length as she toured the world, acting like a tourist, in carefully contrived photo opportunities. When she was really involved in public policy — during the health reform debate — her insistence on the secrecy of the proceedings led to a federal court order and judgment against her.
Is President Bush deliberately helping Hillary to win the nomination because he feels she would be the easiest one of the Democrats to beat? If he is, he’s making a serious mistake. She is the only Democrat who can bring 10 million new single female voters out of the woodwork to sway the election.
Or, is it an ex-president thing? A kind of exclusive club of former chiefs who treat one another with kindness, civility and bend over backwards to show respect? Whether it is through political miscalculation or elitism that Bush caters to Hillary Clinton, he should stop it. Every day, she bashes him full time on the campaign trail. His kind words for her are so out of place, they are jarring.
President George W. Bush has done quite enough to aid the election of Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States already, thank you. Without his generosity to Bill and his refusal to prosecute matters that could embarrass the Clintons, he bears a great deal of responsibility already for Hillary’s rise to front runner status in the Democratic primary.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on November 21, 2007.
Just when every poll has Hillary slipping, she has gotten a shot in the arm from a very unlikely source: President George W. Bush.
In an interview on Tuesday featuring the first couple and Charles Gibson, the president said of Mrs. Clinton "No question, there is no question that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first — could see it first-hand."
By saying that she “understands the klieg lights,” Bush lent credence to Hillary’s campaign assertion that she could “hit the ground running” if she were elected president.
Would somebody please explain to us what Bush is doing, touting Hillary just as the rest of America is finally catching on to her artificial, evasive and contrived campaigning style?
This is not the first time Bush has rescued the Clintons. After they left the White House, both the former president and the new senator had low ratings in the polls. Beset by scandal — the White House gifts, the pardons-for-sale, the payments to Hillary’s brothers for pardons, the Hasidic vote-for-pardon scandal, and Bill’s nolo contender plea to obstructing justice — Bill and Hillary were sucking wind.
But, Bush swept in for the rescue, picking the former president off the ash heap of history and elevating him to parity with his father in a two-former-president effort to raise funds for the tsunami victims. By giving him a respected place alongside a former president of unquestioned integrity, Bush gave Clinton a tremendous way to climb out of disgrace and into the limelight.
Then, when the tsunami relief effort was winding down, he re-enlisted former president Clinton to work with his father again on helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Not only did Bush help the Clintons in positive ways, but he let his justice department drop the investigations of the pardons, the gifts, the payments to Hillary’s brothers and the Hasidic vote scandal with no prosecution or plea dealings.
Then Bush let Clinton off the hook another time when the former president’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught smuggling classified documents relating to 9/11 and the war on terror out of the National Archives in his pockets and socks. The Bush Justice Department accepted a plea deal with Berger which did not require him to say what documents he had taken and why he had swiped them. As a result, we never knew what aspect of the Clinton record on terrorism Berger was so anxious to cover up.
All of this kid glove treatment of the former first couple led to jokes about how George W and Bill are the two children of President George H.W. Now the president is going easy on his putative sister-in-law, Hillary.
The fact is that Hillary has no idea what it is like to be president. Unlike Bill, she did not have to face the media daily and could keep them at arms length as she toured the world, acting like a tourist, in carefully contrived photo opportunities. When she was really involved in public policy — during the health reform debate — her insistence on the secrecy of the proceedings led to a federal court order and judgment against her.
Is President Bush deliberately helping Hillary to win the nomination because he feels she would be the easiest one of the Democrats to beat? If he is, he’s making a serious mistake. She is the only Democrat who can bring 10 million new single female voters out of the woodwork to sway the election.
Or, is it an ex-president thing? A kind of exclusive club of former chiefs who treat one another with kindness, civility and bend over backwards to show respect? Whether it is through political miscalculation or elitism that Bush caters to Hillary Clinton, he should stop it. Every day, she bashes him full time on the campaign trail. His kind words for her are so out of place, they are jarring.
President George W. Bush has done quite enough to aid the election of Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States already, thank you. Without his generosity to Bill and his refusal to prosecute matters that could embarrass the Clintons, he bears a great deal of responsibility already for Hillary’s rise to front runner status in the Democratic primary.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration Reform
Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration Reform
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Ron Paul Campaign Announces New Arizona Leadership
Ron Paul Campaign Announces New Arizona Leadership
Roy Miller, Karen Johnson To Serve As Ron Paul 2008 Arizona Co-Chairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jesse Benton
September 27, 2007 202-246-6363
ARLINGTON, VA – As national support for his 2008 presidential campaign continues to grow,
Republican Congressman Ron Paul is pleased to announce the campaign appointments of Roy
Miller and Karen Johnson as Arizona co-chairs.
Roy and Karen both have extensive Arizona policy backgrounds.
Roy Miller earned his M.B.A. from Arizona State, and retired as a colonel after serving six years
as an active duty Air Force pilot and twenty-five years as an Air Force Reserve member. In the
Arizona Republican Party, he held the offices of precinct committeeman and platform and
resolutions chairman. Roy co-founded the Goldwater Institute and served as its executive
director, and also founded the Arizona Economic Forum. While on the staff of the Arizona
Corporation Commission, he authored a series of policy papers that were instrumental in
Arizona’s intrastate transportation deregulation.
State Senator Karen S. Johnson represents the 18th Legislative District in Arizona. She serves in
the State Senate as chairman of the Education Committee, K-12, and is a member of the Natural
Resources & Rural Affairs, Appropriations, and Judiciary Committees. In the past, she worked
as the Arizona state campaign director for Pat Buchannan, office manager for Supervisor
Freestone in the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and an assistant to David Schweikert,
Majority Whip in the Arizona State Legislature. In the Senate, Karen prioritizes lowering taxes
for individuals, families, and small businesses, and constructing a new East Valley and statewide
freeway system.
“With the addition of Karen and Roy, Dr. Paul’s campaign is poised to make a strong impact in
Arizona,” said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “With their impressive backgrounds and
experiences, they will be instrumental in spreading Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity,
and peace.”
The Arizona Presidential Preference Election is slated for February 5, 2008.
Roy Miller, Karen Johnson To Serve As Ron Paul 2008 Arizona Co-Chairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jesse Benton
September 27, 2007 202-246-6363
ARLINGTON, VA – As national support for his 2008 presidential campaign continues to grow,
Republican Congressman Ron Paul is pleased to announce the campaign appointments of Roy
Miller and Karen Johnson as Arizona co-chairs.
Roy and Karen both have extensive Arizona policy backgrounds.
Roy Miller earned his M.B.A. from Arizona State, and retired as a colonel after serving six years
as an active duty Air Force pilot and twenty-five years as an Air Force Reserve member. In the
Arizona Republican Party, he held the offices of precinct committeeman and platform and
resolutions chairman. Roy co-founded the Goldwater Institute and served as its executive
director, and also founded the Arizona Economic Forum. While on the staff of the Arizona
Corporation Commission, he authored a series of policy papers that were instrumental in
Arizona’s intrastate transportation deregulation.
State Senator Karen S. Johnson represents the 18th Legislative District in Arizona. She serves in
the State Senate as chairman of the Education Committee, K-12, and is a member of the Natural
Resources & Rural Affairs, Appropriations, and Judiciary Committees. In the past, she worked
as the Arizona state campaign director for Pat Buchannan, office manager for Supervisor
Freestone in the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and an assistant to David Schweikert,
Majority Whip in the Arizona State Legislature. In the Senate, Karen prioritizes lowering taxes
for individuals, families, and small businesses, and constructing a new East Valley and statewide
freeway system.
“With the addition of Karen and Roy, Dr. Paul’s campaign is poised to make a strong impact in
Arizona,” said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “With their impressive backgrounds and
experiences, they will be instrumental in spreading Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity,
and peace.”
The Arizona Presidential Preference Election is slated for February 5, 2008.
Help Wanted: replacement senator for the state of Arizona
Help Wanted: replacement senator for the state of Arizona
After Senator John Mccain loses yet another presidential bid who's going to replace him as senator for Arizona ?
most recent pools shoes him dead last at 6% in Iowa
www.mccainalert.com
more news on shithead Mccain
After Senator John Mccain loses yet another presidential bid who's going to replace him as senator for Arizona ?
most recent pools shoes him dead last at 6% in Iowa
www.mccainalert.com
more news on shithead Mccain
Friday, November 23, 2007
Members of Congress Introduce Legislation to End Driver's Licenses for Illegal
Members of Congress Introduce Legislation to End Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens
In order to ensure other states do not attempt to take up where New York left off, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced legislation Tuesday that would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The bill (S. 2334) would withhold ten percent of federal highway funds from states that do not require, and subsequently verify, proof of legal status from driver's license applicants. Funds withheld from non-compliant states would ultimately be redistributed to states that do not give licenses to illegal aliens. In a statement made Tuesday morning, Senator Barrasso stressed the urgent need for such legislation. "We won't truly be serious about securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration until we stop the practice of issuing driver's licenses to the very individuals who are breaking our laws."
A similar bill (H.R. 4160) was introduced last Tuesday by Representative Vito Fossella (R-NY) in the House of Representatives. H.R. 4160 provides that if a state does not comply with REAL ID - which requires driver's license applicants to provide proof of legal presence - it will lose 2% of federal highway funds in the first year, 4% in the second, 6% in the third, and 8% in the fourth and subsequent years. Upon compliance with REAL ID, all funds will be re-instated.
In addition, last Wednesday Representatives Peter King (R-NY) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) introduced The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act (H.R. 4176), a bill that would bar states from granting licenses to illegal aliens. According to a statement released by Congressman Sessions, H.R.4176 amends the REAL ID Act of 2005 by eliminating a provision that allows a state to provide driver's licenses to illegal aliens as long as those licenses invalid for federal government purposes. Upon introduction, The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act already had 156 co-sponsors. Remarking on the introduction of their bill, Congressman Sessions said, "Providing illegal immigrants with state-issued driver's licenses would undermine the rule of law, further jeopardize the safety of our nation, and open a gateway for fraud." Congressman King said, "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues." In addition, King argued that granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens gives identification to those who could be terrorists and "rewards illegal immigrants." (USA Today, Nov. 16, 2007)
In order to ensure other states do not attempt to take up where New York left off, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced legislation Tuesday that would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The bill (S. 2334) would withhold ten percent of federal highway funds from states that do not require, and subsequently verify, proof of legal status from driver's license applicants. Funds withheld from non-compliant states would ultimately be redistributed to states that do not give licenses to illegal aliens. In a statement made Tuesday morning, Senator Barrasso stressed the urgent need for such legislation. "We won't truly be serious about securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration until we stop the practice of issuing driver's licenses to the very individuals who are breaking our laws."
A similar bill (H.R. 4160) was introduced last Tuesday by Representative Vito Fossella (R-NY) in the House of Representatives. H.R. 4160 provides that if a state does not comply with REAL ID - which requires driver's license applicants to provide proof of legal presence - it will lose 2% of federal highway funds in the first year, 4% in the second, 6% in the third, and 8% in the fourth and subsequent years. Upon compliance with REAL ID, all funds will be re-instated.
In addition, last Wednesday Representatives Peter King (R-NY) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) introduced The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act (H.R. 4176), a bill that would bar states from granting licenses to illegal aliens. According to a statement released by Congressman Sessions, H.R.4176 amends the REAL ID Act of 2005 by eliminating a provision that allows a state to provide driver's licenses to illegal aliens as long as those licenses invalid for federal government purposes. Upon introduction, The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act already had 156 co-sponsors. Remarking on the introduction of their bill, Congressman Sessions said, "Providing illegal immigrants with state-issued driver's licenses would undermine the rule of law, further jeopardize the safety of our nation, and open a gateway for fraud." Congressman King said, "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues." In addition, King argued that granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens gives identification to those who could be terrorists and "rewards illegal immigrants." (USA Today, Nov. 16, 2007)
SAVE Act Introduced in the Senate
SAVE Act Introduced in the Senate
The last few days before the Thanksgiving recess were peppered with the introduction of new immigration bills. On Thursday, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) separately introduced versions of Representative Heath Schuler's SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) into the Senate. The SAVE Act increases border infrastructure through fencing and technology, and requires all employers use the E-verify system (formerly Basic Pilot) to confirm that all employees are legally present and authorized to work in the U.S.
In introducing his version of the bill (S. 2366), Senator Vitter remarked, "Strengthening our borders is an important first step in fighting our growing illegal immigration problem, but interior enforcement is also critically important." Meanwhile, Senator Pryor reiterated the need for an enforcement-only legislation. "The American public must have confidence that our immigration system works, and I am happy to work with Representative Shuler to see that it does," he said. "This legislation [S. 2368] addresses these challenges through a fair and practical approach."
The last few days before the Thanksgiving recess were peppered with the introduction of new immigration bills. On Thursday, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) separately introduced versions of Representative Heath Schuler's SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) into the Senate. The SAVE Act increases border infrastructure through fencing and technology, and requires all employers use the E-verify system (formerly Basic Pilot) to confirm that all employees are legally present and authorized to work in the U.S.
In introducing his version of the bill (S. 2366), Senator Vitter remarked, "Strengthening our borders is an important first step in fighting our growing illegal immigration problem, but interior enforcement is also critically important." Meanwhile, Senator Pryor reiterated the need for an enforcement-only legislation. "The American public must have confidence that our immigration system works, and I am happy to work with Representative Shuler to see that it does," he said. "This legislation [S. 2368] addresses these challenges through a fair and practical approach."
John McCain proudly received the endorsement of Governor Tom Kean
Today John McCain proudly received the endorsement of Governor Tom Kean.
The Honorable Thomas H. Kean, 9/11 Commission Chairman and former governor of New Jersey, joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain, including:
George P. Shultz
Former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Former Secretary of State R. James Woolsey Jr.
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Henry A. Kissinger
Former Secretary of State John F. Lehman Jr.
Former Secretary of the Navy James R. Schlesinger
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Alexander M. Haig Jr.
Former Secretary of State Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor
Governor Kean endorsed John McCain because McCain understands the nature of the terrorist threats that continue to confront us all. America needs a commander in chief at the helm who is ready to be president on the day he or she takes office and John McCain is ready. Click here to read about of Governor Kean's endorsement.
The Honorable Thomas H. Kean, 9/11 Commission Chairman and former governor of New Jersey, joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain, including:
George P. Shultz
Former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Former Secretary of State R. James Woolsey Jr.
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Henry A. Kissinger
Former Secretary of State John F. Lehman Jr.
Former Secretary of the Navy James R. Schlesinger
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Alexander M. Haig Jr.
Former Secretary of State Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor
Governor Kean endorsed John McCain because McCain understands the nature of the terrorist threats that continue to confront us all. America needs a commander in chief at the helm who is ready to be president on the day he or she takes office and John McCain is ready. Click here to read about of Governor Kean's endorsement.
HILLARY'S SECRET POLICE RETURNS
HILLARY'S SECRET POLICE RETURNS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Newsmax.com on November 19, 2007.
Are the Clinton secret police back on patrol?
It looks like they may be making a late campaign comeback.
In a week-end column, Robert Novak alleged that “agents” of Hillary Clinton are “spreading the word that she has scandalous information” about Barack Obama, but decided not to use it. (How considerate of her!)
Obama has come out swinging, accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to swift-boat him and demanding that Clinton either release the information or admit that there is none.
The Clinton camp is shocked that anyone would ever think that it would use such tactics!
Clinton campaign Communications Director (and KGB enforcer look-alike) Howard Wolfson claimed that the campaign had “no idea” what Novak was talking about. Absolutely!
And, as usual, Wolfson tried to turn the embarrassing issue for Hillary into a problem for Barack, claiming he was naive for believing what was in the Novak column.
“A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games,” Wolfson said.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary hasn’t been gathering dirt on her opponents? Anyone with any experience in politics knows one thing for sure: Hillary Clinton plays the game rough and dirty — and she has a sordid history of using private investigators to find scandals in the background of anyone who gets in her way.
While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she’s not doing too well.
Remember in the 1992 campaign when Gennifer Flowers and other women were harassed by private detectives? The Clintons used campaign money to pay over $100,000 to private investigators to scare off the women. (Now they’ve learned to bury their investigative costs in lawyers bills.)
And does anyone think it was a coincidence that Republican speaker of the House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee were outed for extra-marital affairs just at the time that the impeachment vote was about to take place?
Or that there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker?
And what are the odds that the recent rumors about John Edwards came from Clinton operatives?
That’s how the Clintons try to obliterate their opponents, with Hillary at the helm. As she runs for commander-in-chief of the United States, she’s already the commander of the Clinton secret police.
The Clintons have no regard for the privacy of those who get in their way. Their clumsiness in bullying Linda Tripp cost the Department of Defense about $600,000 when she won her lawsuit for invasion of privacy after they arranged to illegally leak confidential information from her personnel file.
To paraphrase Hillary, privacy is just a word if you don’t have the experience and strength to know what to do about it.
And Hillary sure does know what to do.
As she told Sidney Blumenthal when the Lewinsky scandal broke: “We’ll just have to win.”
Winning at any cost is the Clinton mindset. So watch for more dirty tactics whenever Hillary and her team feel under attack.
Can we really afford to have a president who acts this way?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Newsmax.com on November 19, 2007.
Are the Clinton secret police back on patrol?
It looks like they may be making a late campaign comeback.
In a week-end column, Robert Novak alleged that “agents” of Hillary Clinton are “spreading the word that she has scandalous information” about Barack Obama, but decided not to use it. (How considerate of her!)
Obama has come out swinging, accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to swift-boat him and demanding that Clinton either release the information or admit that there is none.
The Clinton camp is shocked that anyone would ever think that it would use such tactics!
Clinton campaign Communications Director (and KGB enforcer look-alike) Howard Wolfson claimed that the campaign had “no idea” what Novak was talking about. Absolutely!
And, as usual, Wolfson tried to turn the embarrassing issue for Hillary into a problem for Barack, claiming he was naive for believing what was in the Novak column.
“A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games,” Wolfson said.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary hasn’t been gathering dirt on her opponents? Anyone with any experience in politics knows one thing for sure: Hillary Clinton plays the game rough and dirty — and she has a sordid history of using private investigators to find scandals in the background of anyone who gets in her way.
While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she’s not doing too well.
Remember in the 1992 campaign when Gennifer Flowers and other women were harassed by private detectives? The Clintons used campaign money to pay over $100,000 to private investigators to scare off the women. (Now they’ve learned to bury their investigative costs in lawyers bills.)
And does anyone think it was a coincidence that Republican speaker of the House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee were outed for extra-marital affairs just at the time that the impeachment vote was about to take place?
Or that there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker?
And what are the odds that the recent rumors about John Edwards came from Clinton operatives?
That’s how the Clintons try to obliterate their opponents, with Hillary at the helm. As she runs for commander-in-chief of the United States, she’s already the commander of the Clinton secret police.
The Clintons have no regard for the privacy of those who get in their way. Their clumsiness in bullying Linda Tripp cost the Department of Defense about $600,000 when she won her lawsuit for invasion of privacy after they arranged to illegally leak confidential information from her personnel file.
To paraphrase Hillary, privacy is just a word if you don’t have the experience and strength to know what to do about it.
And Hillary sure does know what to do.
As she told Sidney Blumenthal when the Lewinsky scandal broke: “We’ll just have to win.”
Winning at any cost is the Clinton mindset. So watch for more dirty tactics whenever Hillary and her team feel under attack.
Can we really afford to have a president who acts this way?
Clinton leads the field in seeking earmarks.....
Clinton leads senators seeking presidency in use of earmarks
BY BRIAN TUMULTY
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Among the five members of the U.S. Senate seeking the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a considerable lead in using the federal budget to pay for special projects known as earmarks.
Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware also have dozens of these projects in 2008 spending bills passed by the Senate. But they don’t use them as widely and systematically as their New York counterpart, according to a Gannett News Service review of a database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Clinton’s 147 earmarks totaling $728.3 million topped the $640.8 million obtained by Dodd, the $118.6 million by Obama and $108.3 million by Biden.
The fifth senator running for president, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, eschews the practice and has criticized Clinton’s use of earmarks on the campaign trail.
Democratic leaders in Congress and President Bush have separately promised to cut 2008 earmarks in half from their peak 13,496 projects totaling $19 billion in 2005, according to an estimate by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Those who defend earmarks often point out that local lawmakers are best suited to evaluate the needs of their communities. They deny the projects are wasteful.
Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines, defended the projects, noting they “train nurses, improve our hospitals, help those suffering from 9/11-related health ailments, bolster our national and homeland security.”
Taxpayers for Common Sense and other budget watchdog groups agree that many congressional earmarks are justified.
”The problem is that they are based on political muscle and not merit, ” spokesman Steve Ellis said.
Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, said McCain would almost certainly wage war against earmarks if he’s elected president.
The use of earmarks by the other four senators “reveals very little about how they would behave as president,” according to Mann. ”As senators, they naturally act as advocates for their states, and that includes trying to earmark spending. As president, their focus would be on national priorities and fiscal policy.“
McCain and the Democratic senators seeking the presidency support reforms passed by Congress to disclose the authors of earmarks.
And Obama joined Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma on legislation signed into law earlier this year that will establish an Internet database of all federal contracts.
Dodd said in an interview he’s never received an earmark he wouldn’t want to announce in a press release, including $470 million for shipbuilding included in the Senate’s 2008 defense bill.
”The news is, are you doing something that has little or no value?” he said. “Shipbuilding has value. It’s needed in the country. It’s the reason you have Democrats and Republicans on the major committees sponsoring it.”
The allocation grew to $588 million in the House-Senate conference agreement that removed the item’s classification as an earmark and simply lumped it in with other shipbuilding. The bill is the only one of 13 spending bills for 2008 that’s been signed by Bush.
The money will go toward construction of Virginia Class submarines by shipyards that include Electric Boat in Connecticut.
McCain has drawn attention to $1 million for the Bethel Performing Arts Center that Clinton and fellow New York Sen. Chuck Schumer requested in the 2008 Labor-Health and Human Services spending bill to commemorate the 1969 Woodstock rock concert.
McCain, a former Navy pilot shot down over North Vietnam, was a prisoner of war at the time of the concert. Last month he began running a TV ad in New Hampshire observing that Woodstock was ”a cultural event that defined a generation” while questioning if it’s “worthy of a million of your tax dollars to build a museum.”
The Arizona senator also targeted a $500,000 Clinton-Schumer request for a ”virtual herbarium” at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx.
Both the Woodstock and the New York Botanical Garden earmarks were removed during House-Senate negotiations, while funding for other Clinton-Schumer earmarks grew. A $600,000 allocation for Rochester, N.Y., area colleges for “excellence in math and sciences” increased to $1 million, and $250,000 for music education at Manhattan’s Lincoln Center rose to $400,000.
BY BRIAN TUMULTY
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Among the five members of the U.S. Senate seeking the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a considerable lead in using the federal budget to pay for special projects known as earmarks.
Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware also have dozens of these projects in 2008 spending bills passed by the Senate. But they don’t use them as widely and systematically as their New York counterpart, according to a Gannett News Service review of a database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Clinton’s 147 earmarks totaling $728.3 million topped the $640.8 million obtained by Dodd, the $118.6 million by Obama and $108.3 million by Biden.
The fifth senator running for president, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, eschews the practice and has criticized Clinton’s use of earmarks on the campaign trail.
Democratic leaders in Congress and President Bush have separately promised to cut 2008 earmarks in half from their peak 13,496 projects totaling $19 billion in 2005, according to an estimate by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Those who defend earmarks often point out that local lawmakers are best suited to evaluate the needs of their communities. They deny the projects are wasteful.
Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines, defended the projects, noting they “train nurses, improve our hospitals, help those suffering from 9/11-related health ailments, bolster our national and homeland security.”
Taxpayers for Common Sense and other budget watchdog groups agree that many congressional earmarks are justified.
”The problem is that they are based on political muscle and not merit, ” spokesman Steve Ellis said.
Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, said McCain would almost certainly wage war against earmarks if he’s elected president.
The use of earmarks by the other four senators “reveals very little about how they would behave as president,” according to Mann. ”As senators, they naturally act as advocates for their states, and that includes trying to earmark spending. As president, their focus would be on national priorities and fiscal policy.“
McCain and the Democratic senators seeking the presidency support reforms passed by Congress to disclose the authors of earmarks.
And Obama joined Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma on legislation signed into law earlier this year that will establish an Internet database of all federal contracts.
Dodd said in an interview he’s never received an earmark he wouldn’t want to announce in a press release, including $470 million for shipbuilding included in the Senate’s 2008 defense bill.
”The news is, are you doing something that has little or no value?” he said. “Shipbuilding has value. It’s needed in the country. It’s the reason you have Democrats and Republicans on the major committees sponsoring it.”
The allocation grew to $588 million in the House-Senate conference agreement that removed the item’s classification as an earmark and simply lumped it in with other shipbuilding. The bill is the only one of 13 spending bills for 2008 that’s been signed by Bush.
The money will go toward construction of Virginia Class submarines by shipyards that include Electric Boat in Connecticut.
McCain has drawn attention to $1 million for the Bethel Performing Arts Center that Clinton and fellow New York Sen. Chuck Schumer requested in the 2008 Labor-Health and Human Services spending bill to commemorate the 1969 Woodstock rock concert.
McCain, a former Navy pilot shot down over North Vietnam, was a prisoner of war at the time of the concert. Last month he began running a TV ad in New Hampshire observing that Woodstock was ”a cultural event that defined a generation” while questioning if it’s “worthy of a million of your tax dollars to build a museum.”
The Arizona senator also targeted a $500,000 Clinton-Schumer request for a ”virtual herbarium” at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx.
Both the Woodstock and the New York Botanical Garden earmarks were removed during House-Senate negotiations, while funding for other Clinton-Schumer earmarks grew. A $600,000 allocation for Rochester, N.Y., area colleges for “excellence in math and sciences” increased to $1 million, and $250,000 for music education at Manhattan’s Lincoln Center rose to $400,000.
Hillary slippage in Iowa
WHAT IOWA SLIPPAGE MEANS FOR HILLARY
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 20, 2007.
Strong winds swept through the political community on Monday night with the release of the latest Washington Post-ABC poll in Iowa showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in second place for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) led in the poll with 30 percent, Hillary trailed at 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) was in third at 22 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, auditioning for vice president, was fourth at 11 percent. This is the first primary or caucus poll nationwide or in any state in the nation this entire year that shows Hillary in second place!
The internals of the poll contain even worse news for Hillary:
• Obama is running even with Hillary among Iowa women.
• Of the 55 percent of Iowa Democrats who prefer change (versus the 33 percent who want experience), Obama leads with 43 percent to Edwards’s 25 and Hillary’s 17 percent. Being for change in a Democratic primary is like being for stability in a GOP contest. It’s the growth sector.
• Half of Hillary’s voters have not attended a previous caucus, versus 43 percent of Obama’s and 24 percent of Edwards’s. With the caucus system as complex as it is and the places of the meetings as distant as they are, previous attendance is a key indicator of the likelihood of their actually voting this time. If we assume no first-time caucus attendee will actually show up (an exaggeration but worth thinking about) then Hillary would finish third with Obama and Edwards tied for first.
So what does all this mean?
Can Hillary turn it around? She will increase her advertising and personal campaigning in Iowa, but so will her rivals now that they smell blood. The poll’s field dates were Nov. 14-18. The last national debate, in which Hillary had something of a comeback, was on Nov. 15, right in the middle of the sampling. It is possible that her stronger performance might tip some more votes her way, and she does have one more debate before the voting.
But consultant David Garth once said that the hardest thing to do in politics is change direction, and Obama’s and Edwards’s upward momentum, as well as Hillary’s slide, have gone on for three weeks now.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she will not be knocked out of the race. You can’t knock a long-term front-runner out with one punch. John Kerry did knock out Howard Dean in Iowa, but the Vermont governor was a recent front-runner with limited national recognition and a limited funding base. The more likely model is Reagan versus Ford in 1976, Bush versus McCain in 2000, Mondale versus Hart in 1984 or even Bill Clinton versus Tsongas in 1992. In these cases, you have to beat a front-runner state by state. A one-punch or one-state win doesn’t spell the end of the race, only its beginning. (And remember, in all four examples, the front-runner came from behind to win.)
Hillary is strong in New Hampshire. Her average lead over the last five polls reported on www.realclearpolitics.com is 36 for Hillary, 23 for Obama and 13 for Edwards. Of course, New Hampshire is a county in Iowa. A hard defeat in Iowa would set Hillary back a good deal in New Hampshire. But she might well rally there or in Michigan, South Carolina or Florida down the road before she hits the national primary on Feb. 5.
If Obama wins in Iowa, he will face several key problems:
• Edwards will likely do very well in Iowa, so Obama will still have to split the anti-Hillary vote with him.
• Democrats will begin to wonder if an African-American can really win and if they really want to take a chance on a Republican victory by nominating Obama.
• And some will worry about Obama’s lack of experience, even though his real political experience is about as limited as Hillary’s. But by adopting Bill’s record as her own, Hillary can use her faux and vicarious experience to defeat Obama.
My bet is that if Hillary loses Iowa, she will rally to win New Hampshire and go on to win the nomination. But this is the first time she appears vulnerable.
www.mccainalert.com
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 20, 2007.
Strong winds swept through the political community on Monday night with the release of the latest Washington Post-ABC poll in Iowa showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in second place for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) led in the poll with 30 percent, Hillary trailed at 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) was in third at 22 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, auditioning for vice president, was fourth at 11 percent. This is the first primary or caucus poll nationwide or in any state in the nation this entire year that shows Hillary in second place!
The internals of the poll contain even worse news for Hillary:
• Obama is running even with Hillary among Iowa women.
• Of the 55 percent of Iowa Democrats who prefer change (versus the 33 percent who want experience), Obama leads with 43 percent to Edwards’s 25 and Hillary’s 17 percent. Being for change in a Democratic primary is like being for stability in a GOP contest. It’s the growth sector.
• Half of Hillary’s voters have not attended a previous caucus, versus 43 percent of Obama’s and 24 percent of Edwards’s. With the caucus system as complex as it is and the places of the meetings as distant as they are, previous attendance is a key indicator of the likelihood of their actually voting this time. If we assume no first-time caucus attendee will actually show up (an exaggeration but worth thinking about) then Hillary would finish third with Obama and Edwards tied for first.
So what does all this mean?
Can Hillary turn it around? She will increase her advertising and personal campaigning in Iowa, but so will her rivals now that they smell blood. The poll’s field dates were Nov. 14-18. The last national debate, in which Hillary had something of a comeback, was on Nov. 15, right in the middle of the sampling. It is possible that her stronger performance might tip some more votes her way, and she does have one more debate before the voting.
But consultant David Garth once said that the hardest thing to do in politics is change direction, and Obama’s and Edwards’s upward momentum, as well as Hillary’s slide, have gone on for three weeks now.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she will not be knocked out of the race. You can’t knock a long-term front-runner out with one punch. John Kerry did knock out Howard Dean in Iowa, but the Vermont governor was a recent front-runner with limited national recognition and a limited funding base. The more likely model is Reagan versus Ford in 1976, Bush versus McCain in 2000, Mondale versus Hart in 1984 or even Bill Clinton versus Tsongas in 1992. In these cases, you have to beat a front-runner state by state. A one-punch or one-state win doesn’t spell the end of the race, only its beginning. (And remember, in all four examples, the front-runner came from behind to win.)
Hillary is strong in New Hampshire. Her average lead over the last five polls reported on www.realclearpolitics.com is 36 for Hillary, 23 for Obama and 13 for Edwards. Of course, New Hampshire is a county in Iowa. A hard defeat in Iowa would set Hillary back a good deal in New Hampshire. But she might well rally there or in Michigan, South Carolina or Florida down the road before she hits the national primary on Feb. 5.
If Obama wins in Iowa, he will face several key problems:
• Edwards will likely do very well in Iowa, so Obama will still have to split the anti-Hillary vote with him.
• Democrats will begin to wonder if an African-American can really win and if they really want to take a chance on a Republican victory by nominating Obama.
• And some will worry about Obama’s lack of experience, even though his real political experience is about as limited as Hillary’s. But by adopting Bill’s record as her own, Hillary can use her faux and vicarious experience to defeat Obama.
My bet is that if Hillary loses Iowa, she will rally to win New Hampshire and go on to win the nomination. But this is the first time she appears vulnerable.
www.mccainalert.com
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
John Mccain polls dead last in Iowa at 6%
John Mccain polls dead last in Iowa at 6%
about time, who's gonna replace him in the senate now ?
www.mccainalert.com
about time, who's gonna replace him in the senate now ?
www.mccainalert.com
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Border fence funding hoax exposed?
Border fence funding hoax exposed?
Grassfire.org Alliance We have the "smoking gun" on why the government
isn'tbuilding the double-layered fence mandated by law.
Please read below and forward to your friends.
As we reported to you last week, our government has built just fivemiles of the 854 miles of double-layer border fence mandated bythe Secure Fence Act of 2006. This outrageous fact begs a question... Why? If the law mandated a double layer fence covering 854 miles,then how come such little progress has been made? + + Border fence funding hoax of 2006 and 2007 Grassfire.org's research staff has blown the lid off a deceptiveand convoluted border fence funding sham being perpetrated onthe citizens of our nation. Warning -- reading this report will enrage you. It willinfuriate you. Go here to access the full report: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869
As you will see in this report, Congress and the Administrationare pretending to support a real border fence but then workingbehind the scenes to ensure that the Secure Fence Act is neverreally implemented. It happened last year, and as I write, Congress is trying to repeatits Border Fence Funding Hoax on us again! Here's how... As you may know, last week an amendment providing $3 billion forborder security was stripped from the DOD appropriations bill. We fully expect that bill to be added to the DHS funding billin the next few days. But even if they pass the $3 billionfunding amendment, DHS may not be required to use any of thatmoney for the border fence. Not ONE DIME! That's because of another amendment by Sen. Hutchison that saysDHS does not have to build the fence! Sen. Hutchison's staff toldus this amendment (also removed from DOD appropriations) will alsobe re-attached to the DHS appropriations bill. + + Action Items: Help expose the Funding Hoax ed, I need your help to expose Congress’ Fence FundingHoax. We need to flood every House and Senate office with faxesdemanding action. Specifically, we are calling for an amendment (or amendments) tobe added to the DHS appropriations bill to fully fund thedouble-layer fence and directly tie that funding to the actualbuilding of the fence mandated by the Secure Fence Act. I am asking you to take two actions today:
1. Send faxes to your Senators, your Congressman and otherkey leaders exposing the Fence Funding Hoax Go here: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869 (As always you can use our FaxFire system or send your own faxes.All the information is provided at the above link.)
2. Call your Senators and Congressman today: Sen. McCain 202-224-2235Sen. Kyl 202-224-4521 To reach your representative, call the House Switchboard: 202-221-3121. Talking Points: 1. I am disappointed that Congress has not tied the border securityfunding directly to the double-layer fence mandated by the SecureFence Act. 2. I call on Congress to reject any amendments (such as theHutchison Amendment, SA 3176 to H.R. 3222) that gives HomelandSecurity total discretion over whether or not to build aborder fence.
3. I call on Congress to amend the DHS appropriations bill tofully fund 854 miles of DOUBLE-LAYER fening and directly tiesuch funding to the Secure Fence Act's two-layer fence mandate. Again, please read our full report. You will be outraged when yousee how the "fix was in" last year even before the Senate voted onthe Secure Fence Act -- and how Congress is trying to repeat thefunding hoax this year. The DHS appropriations bill is in House-Senate conference rightnow and could move quickly. Thank you for taking action. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S. Again, you can access Grassfire's complete Special Reporton the Fence Funding Hoax here:
http://www.firesociety.com/article/19402/?src=111 P.P.S. I really want our feedback on this message and report.Please go here to post your comments/thoughts on a specialFireSociety.com page: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/Discussion/?src=111
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +(Note: Please do not "reply" directly to this e-mail message. Thise-mail address is not designed to receive your personal messages.To contact Grassfire.org with comments, questions or to changeyour status, see link at the end.)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Feedback or comments on this update? Go to FireSociety.com and post your comments so that the Grassfirestaff along with thousands of citizens can benefit from yourthoughts and opinions: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/?src=111
Grassfire.org Alliance We have the "smoking gun" on why the government
isn'tbuilding the double-layered fence mandated by law.
Please read below and forward to your friends.
As we reported to you last week, our government has built just fivemiles of the 854 miles of double-layer border fence mandated bythe Secure Fence Act of 2006. This outrageous fact begs a question... Why? If the law mandated a double layer fence covering 854 miles,then how come such little progress has been made? + + Border fence funding hoax of 2006 and 2007 Grassfire.org's research staff has blown the lid off a deceptiveand convoluted border fence funding sham being perpetrated onthe citizens of our nation. Warning -- reading this report will enrage you. It willinfuriate you. Go here to access the full report: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869
As you will see in this report, Congress and the Administrationare pretending to support a real border fence but then workingbehind the scenes to ensure that the Secure Fence Act is neverreally implemented. It happened last year, and as I write, Congress is trying to repeatits Border Fence Funding Hoax on us again! Here's how... As you may know, last week an amendment providing $3 billion forborder security was stripped from the DOD appropriations bill. We fully expect that bill to be added to the DHS funding billin the next few days. But even if they pass the $3 billionfunding amendment, DHS may not be required to use any of thatmoney for the border fence. Not ONE DIME! That's because of another amendment by Sen. Hutchison that saysDHS does not have to build the fence! Sen. Hutchison's staff toldus this amendment (also removed from DOD appropriations) will alsobe re-attached to the DHS appropriations bill. + + Action Items: Help expose the Funding Hoax ed, I need your help to expose Congress’ Fence FundingHoax. We need to flood every House and Senate office with faxesdemanding action. Specifically, we are calling for an amendment (or amendments) tobe added to the DHS appropriations bill to fully fund thedouble-layer fence and directly tie that funding to the actualbuilding of the fence mandated by the Secure Fence Act. I am asking you to take two actions today:
1. Send faxes to your Senators, your Congressman and otherkey leaders exposing the Fence Funding Hoax Go here: http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869 (As always you can use our FaxFire system or send your own faxes.All the information is provided at the above link.)
2. Call your Senators and Congressman today: Sen. McCain 202-224-2235Sen. Kyl 202-224-4521 To reach your representative, call the House Switchboard: 202-221-3121. Talking Points: 1. I am disappointed that Congress has not tied the border securityfunding directly to the double-layer fence mandated by the SecureFence Act. 2. I call on Congress to reject any amendments (such as theHutchison Amendment, SA 3176 to H.R. 3222) that gives HomelandSecurity total discretion over whether or not to build aborder fence.
3. I call on Congress to amend the DHS appropriations bill tofully fund 854 miles of DOUBLE-LAYER fening and directly tiesuch funding to the Secure Fence Act's two-layer fence mandate. Again, please read our full report. You will be outraged when yousee how the "fix was in" last year even before the Senate voted onthe Secure Fence Act -- and how Congress is trying to repeat thefunding hoax this year. The DHS appropriations bill is in House-Senate conference rightnow and could move quickly. Thank you for taking action. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S. Again, you can access Grassfire's complete Special Reporton the Fence Funding Hoax here:
http://www.firesociety.com/article/19402/?src=111 P.P.S. I really want our feedback on this message and report.Please go here to post your comments/thoughts on a specialFireSociety.com page: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/Discussion/?src=111
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +(Note: Please do not "reply" directly to this e-mail message. Thise-mail address is not designed to receive your personal messages.To contact Grassfire.org with comments, questions or to changeyour status, see link at the end.)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Feedback or comments on this update? Go to FireSociety.com and post your comments so that the Grassfirestaff along with thousands of citizens can benefit from yourthoughts and opinions: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/19430/?src=111
Mr
invite to see Fred Thompson in Phoenix
Please join the Arizona Republican Party as we welcomePresidential Candidate
and
Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson
For a Trunk and Tusk Speaker Series Event
November 29th, Phoenix Airport Marriott
1101 North 44 Phoenix, Arizona 85008
12:00 p.m. Lunch with Senator Fred Thompson
Registration will open at 11:00 a.
$2,300 Table Sponsor – includes 2 tickets to a private reception, 10 tickets to lunch
$150 Individual
Please RSVP to Amilyn Gordon at mailto="mailto:agordon@azgop.org" To=agordon@azgop.org or Please specify if you are a Trunk and Tusk member; you admission is included in your membership dues!
Please join the Arizona Republican Party as we welcomePresidential Candidate
and
Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson
For a Trunk and Tusk Speaker Series Event
November 29th, Phoenix Airport Marriott
1101 North 44 Phoenix, Arizona 85008
12:00 p.m. Lunch with Senator Fred Thompson
Registration will open at 11:00 a.
$2,300 Table Sponsor – includes 2 tickets to a private reception, 10 tickets to lunch
$150 Individual
Please RSVP to Amilyn Gordon at mailto="mailto:agordon@azgop.org" To=agordon@azgop.org or Please specify if you are a Trunk and Tusk member; you admission is included in your membership dues!
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Cordially invite you to private luncheon with Mrs. Janet Huckabee
disappointed in Sentor Mccain
Cordially invite you to private luncheon with Mrs. Janet Huckabee
First Lady of Arkansas
Monday, November 12, 2007
Phoenix Country Club
2901 North 7Street, Phoenix, 85014
$100 per person
$500 for event sponsorship
$1,000 per table
To RSVP, please contact Amilyn at
(602) 957-7770
Paid for by the Arizona Republican Party
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. Contributions are
not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from
corporations, foreign nationals and minors are prohibited. Contributions are
subject to federal contributions limits of $10,000 from individuals and
$5,000 from PACs
www.mccainalert.com
Cordially invite you to private luncheon with Mrs. Janet Huckabee
First Lady of Arkansas
Monday, November 12, 2007
Phoenix Country Club
2901 North 7Street, Phoenix, 85014
$100 per person
$500 for event sponsorship
$1,000 per table
To RSVP, please contact Amilyn at
(602) 957-7770
Paid for by the Arizona Republican Party
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. Contributions are
not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from
corporations, foreign nationals and minors are prohibited. Contributions are
subject to federal contributions limits of $10,000 from individuals and
$5,000 from PACs
www.mccainalert.com
Friday, November 02, 2007
WHAT IF THE IOWA POLLS DON'T CHANGE?
WHAT IF THE IOWA POLLS DON'T CHANGE?
What if the current polls in Iowa are the final result? What if Romney wins in Iowa and then comes in first again in New Hampshire? What if Giuliani stumbles badly in Iowa and finishes fourth? What if Huckabee surges and finishes second in Iowa? What if Fred Thompson makes an unimpressive third-place finish there?
And, on the Democratic side, what if Hillary only narrowly beats Obama in the first caucus state?
With two months to go before the Iowa caucus, everything can change, and probably will, but it is worth speculating on what the impact will be if things don’t change much from now until then.
On the Republican side, a Romney victory in Iowa would virtually guarantee a win in New Hampshire. The two states, in media terms, are practically one. Two-thirds of New Hampshire lives in the southern part of the state that watches Boston television every night. Since Romney served as governor in Massachusetts, he will probably win New Hampshire anyway. A win in Iowa would make it a fait accompli.
Two victories would make Romney the front-runner for the Republican nomination. Coupled with a Giuliani stumble in Iowa, it could totally change the dynamic of the Republican primary. Here’s what might happen:
Rudy could come to be seen as too antagonistic to the Christian right, and moderates might once again turn to McCain as the less inflammatory option, sidetracking the former New York mayor.
Huckabee, coming in a strong second, could take off and become the poor man’s Romney, taking advantage of his greater consistency on social issues, his Christian (read: non-Mormon) beliefs, and his support of the Fair Tax as an alternative to the IRS.
Republicans would likely panic about the idea of a Mormon candidate and worry about his prospects, making Huckabee and either Rudy or McCain viable as alternatives.
Thompson will be forced out, having lost his position as the socially conservative answer to Rudy.
And on the Democratic side, Edwards, who had been leading in Iowa until recently, would probably have to leave the race. That would coalesce the entire ABH vote (Anybody But Hillary) around Obama, giving him a leg up in the national race.
Hillary’s vulnerability, newly revealed in the Iowa vote, could create a sense that she might not be electable given her baggage and lead Democratic voters to look seriously at Obama. The result could be a real slugfest between the two candidates, making a mockery of the idea that her nomination is inevitable.
And the outcome? Hillary probably still wins. The history of Democratic primaries has always been that challengers emerge and run stronger than anyone believed they would but then fade and the front-runner prevails after all (see Bradley in 2000, Tsongas after New Hampshire and Brown after Connecticut in 1992, Gore after the Southern primaries in 1988, Hart in 1984 and Kennedy in 1980).
And among the Republicans? Who knows? The race would be thrown into chaos. Anyone could win. Romney would have the momentum, but doubts about his ability to win as a Mormon would make his lead unstable. Huckabee would be gaining, but he may not be well enough known to make it. Giuliani could still recover, given his strong national standing, but would be hobbled. And McCain would still have his immigration position hanging over his head, but as Rudy falters, he might pick up the slack.
Then again, Hillary could open up a large lead in Iowa as her juggernaut gets going. And Rudy could, at least, finish a strong second to Romney in Iowa, and perhaps beat him, making it a Giuliani-Romney runoff in the main primaries, which Rudy probably wins. Then the general election match-up would be Hillary vs. Rudy, as we have all anticipated.
But what if?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 31, 2007.
What if the current polls in Iowa are the final result? What if Romney wins in Iowa and then comes in first again in New Hampshire? What if Giuliani stumbles badly in Iowa and finishes fourth? What if Huckabee surges and finishes second in Iowa? What if Fred Thompson makes an unimpressive third-place finish there?
And, on the Democratic side, what if Hillary only narrowly beats Obama in the first caucus state?
With two months to go before the Iowa caucus, everything can change, and probably will, but it is worth speculating on what the impact will be if things don’t change much from now until then.
On the Republican side, a Romney victory in Iowa would virtually guarantee a win in New Hampshire. The two states, in media terms, are practically one. Two-thirds of New Hampshire lives in the southern part of the state that watches Boston television every night. Since Romney served as governor in Massachusetts, he will probably win New Hampshire anyway. A win in Iowa would make it a fait accompli.
Two victories would make Romney the front-runner for the Republican nomination. Coupled with a Giuliani stumble in Iowa, it could totally change the dynamic of the Republican primary. Here’s what might happen:
Rudy could come to be seen as too antagonistic to the Christian right, and moderates might once again turn to McCain as the less inflammatory option, sidetracking the former New York mayor.
Huckabee, coming in a strong second, could take off and become the poor man’s Romney, taking advantage of his greater consistency on social issues, his Christian (read: non-Mormon) beliefs, and his support of the Fair Tax as an alternative to the IRS.
Republicans would likely panic about the idea of a Mormon candidate and worry about his prospects, making Huckabee and either Rudy or McCain viable as alternatives.
Thompson will be forced out, having lost his position as the socially conservative answer to Rudy.
And on the Democratic side, Edwards, who had been leading in Iowa until recently, would probably have to leave the race. That would coalesce the entire ABH vote (Anybody But Hillary) around Obama, giving him a leg up in the national race.
Hillary’s vulnerability, newly revealed in the Iowa vote, could create a sense that she might not be electable given her baggage and lead Democratic voters to look seriously at Obama. The result could be a real slugfest between the two candidates, making a mockery of the idea that her nomination is inevitable.
And the outcome? Hillary probably still wins. The history of Democratic primaries has always been that challengers emerge and run stronger than anyone believed they would but then fade and the front-runner prevails after all (see Bradley in 2000, Tsongas after New Hampshire and Brown after Connecticut in 1992, Gore after the Southern primaries in 1988, Hart in 1984 and Kennedy in 1980).
And among the Republicans? Who knows? The race would be thrown into chaos. Anyone could win. Romney would have the momentum, but doubts about his ability to win as a Mormon would make his lead unstable. Huckabee would be gaining, but he may not be well enough known to make it. Giuliani could still recover, given his strong national standing, but would be hobbled. And McCain would still have his immigration position hanging over his head, but as Rudy falters, he might pick up the slack.
Then again, Hillary could open up a large lead in Iowa as her juggernaut gets going. And Rudy could, at least, finish a strong second to Romney in Iowa, and perhaps beat him, making it a Giuliani-Romney runoff in the main primaries, which Rudy probably wins. Then the general election match-up would be Hillary vs. Rudy, as we have all anticipated.
But what if?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 31, 2007.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
HILLARY’S BAD NIGHT
HILLARY’S BAD NIGHT
Hillary Clinton finally got too cute by half in her explanation of her convoluted position on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
the American people saw her tying herself into a knot over the issue, trying to have it both ways.
It was a moment in the 2008 campaign akin to Ted Kennedy’s inability to explain to Roger Mudd why he was running for president in 1980. It was one of those few moments when the real candidate is on display and visible to all. It came about because Senator Chris Dodd had the courage to defy the uni-speak of the Democratic debates, where everybody agrees with everybody else and spoke out against the proposal to give licenses to illegal immigrants. Hillary, suddenly realizing how exposed she was by her seeming endorsement of Spitzer’s plan to illegals, backtracked and pointed out that she had not explicitly endorsed the plan. It was her equivalent of Bill saying that it depended on what the definition of is is. It was a Hillary moment and her parsing and mincing of the vocabulary to have it both ways was on full public display. Caught, she retreated, with asperity, to the claim that everybody was playing “gotcha” but, indeed, she had been got!
www.dickmorris.com
www.mccainalert.com
Hillary Clinton finally got too cute by half in her explanation of her convoluted position on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
the American people saw her tying herself into a knot over the issue, trying to have it both ways.
It was a moment in the 2008 campaign akin to Ted Kennedy’s inability to explain to Roger Mudd why he was running for president in 1980. It was one of those few moments when the real candidate is on display and visible to all. It came about because Senator Chris Dodd had the courage to defy the uni-speak of the Democratic debates, where everybody agrees with everybody else and spoke out against the proposal to give licenses to illegal immigrants. Hillary, suddenly realizing how exposed she was by her seeming endorsement of Spitzer’s plan to illegals, backtracked and pointed out that she had not explicitly endorsed the plan. It was her equivalent of Bill saying that it depended on what the definition of is is. It was a Hillary moment and her parsing and mincing of the vocabulary to have it both ways was on full public display. Caught, she retreated, with asperity, to the claim that everybody was playing “gotcha” but, indeed, she had been got!
www.dickmorris.com
www.mccainalert.com
THE HUCKABEE BOOMLET
THE HUCKABEE BOOMLET
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on October 26, 2007.
Arkansas ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee is shaking up the Republican race.
Think of the primary process as a tennis tournament. On the center court, in the semi-final, Rudy Giuliani is defeating John McCain in straight sets. But on the right court, low-seeded Huckabee beat Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback in the quarter-finals for the designation of "Christian Coalition" challenger - and now will face off against ex-Sen. Fred Thompson and Massachusetts ex-Gov. Mitt Romney in the right-court semi-final. The winner will meet Rudy in the finals.
Huckabee's national poll numbers are rising. Scott Rasmussen has him at 10 percent nationally and in third place at 18 percent in Iowa, where he trails Thompson by 1 percent and Romney by 7 percent.
Thompson's campaign has been a disaster - from his comment that Osama bin Laden was entitled to due process to his refusal to sign a no-tax pledge. The average of the last five national polls (see realclearpolitics.com) shows him trailing Rudy, 28-18, and only barely ahead of Romney and McCain.
Thanks to heavy advertising, Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire - but his edge is dwindling, and he's never broken 16 percent in any national poll.
Why doesn't this charismatic, articulate candidate catch on? Part of it is blatant anti-Mormon bigotry. But part of it is his flip-flop-flip on abortion: As a candidate in liberal Massachusetts, he switched from pro-life to pro-choice; then, as he got ready for this race, he switched back to pro-life again.
Huckabee, who has risen rapidly without either money or organization, is the most interesting phenomenon in either party's race (and the only surprise). He finished second to Romney in the Ames, Iowa straw poll with 18 percent. That's significant because you had to pay $35 to vote. Romney wrote out checks for anyone and everyone, but Huckabee said, "I can't afford to buy you. I can't even afford to rent you" - and came in strong anyway.
More recently, he swept last weekend's Values Voters convention among those who appeared in person. (He lost by less than one point overall to Romney, whose tally included a mass of Internet votes.)
Why the Huckabee boomlet? A gripping, humorous, passionate orator, he brings a spiritual dimension to public-policy problems. His ideas are interesting. Want lower health-care costs? Tackle obesity and smoking. Education reform? Music and art education are just as important to our national creativity as science and math.
He has a good chance to be the front-ranking challenger to Giuliani in the national primary on Feb. 5. He might beat Rudy - or at least earn a VP designation, because Giuliani will be anxious to appeal to Christian-right voters.
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on October 26, 2007.
Arkansas ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee is shaking up the Republican race.
Think of the primary process as a tennis tournament. On the center court, in the semi-final, Rudy Giuliani is defeating John McCain in straight sets. But on the right court, low-seeded Huckabee beat Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback in the quarter-finals for the designation of "Christian Coalition" challenger - and now will face off against ex-Sen. Fred Thompson and Massachusetts ex-Gov. Mitt Romney in the right-court semi-final. The winner will meet Rudy in the finals.
Huckabee's national poll numbers are rising. Scott Rasmussen has him at 10 percent nationally and in third place at 18 percent in Iowa, where he trails Thompson by 1 percent and Romney by 7 percent.
Thompson's campaign has been a disaster - from his comment that Osama bin Laden was entitled to due process to his refusal to sign a no-tax pledge. The average of the last five national polls (see realclearpolitics.com) shows him trailing Rudy, 28-18, and only barely ahead of Romney and McCain.
Thanks to heavy advertising, Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire - but his edge is dwindling, and he's never broken 16 percent in any national poll.
Why doesn't this charismatic, articulate candidate catch on? Part of it is blatant anti-Mormon bigotry. But part of it is his flip-flop-flip on abortion: As a candidate in liberal Massachusetts, he switched from pro-life to pro-choice; then, as he got ready for this race, he switched back to pro-life again.
Huckabee, who has risen rapidly without either money or organization, is the most interesting phenomenon in either party's race (and the only surprise). He finished second to Romney in the Ames, Iowa straw poll with 18 percent. That's significant because you had to pay $35 to vote. Romney wrote out checks for anyone and everyone, but Huckabee said, "I can't afford to buy you. I can't even afford to rent you" - and came in strong anyway.
More recently, he swept last weekend's Values Voters convention among those who appeared in person. (He lost by less than one point overall to Romney, whose tally included a mass of Internet votes.)
Why the Huckabee boomlet? A gripping, humorous, passionate orator, he brings a spiritual dimension to public-policy problems. His ideas are interesting. Want lower health-care costs? Tackle obesity and smoking. Education reform? Music and art education are just as important to our national creativity as science and math.
He has a good chance to be the front-ranking challenger to Giuliani in the national primary on Feb. 5. He might beat Rudy - or at least earn a VP designation, because Giuliani will be anxious to appeal to Christian-right voters.
New Report from FAIR Finds More than 13 Million Illegal Aliens
New Report from FAIR Finds More than 13 Million Illegal Aliens Reside in the U.S.
2007 Figures Represent an 88 Percent Increase Since 2000
(Washington, D.C.) According to a new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), How Many Illegal Aliens?, the illegal immigrant population of the United States now exceeds 13 million. In 2000, the now defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that there were a little more than 7 million people residing illegally in the U.S.
The burden and costs of illegal immigration are still distributed unevenly across the country, but states and regions that were virtually immune to the impact of large-scale illegal immigration just a decade ago are now feeling the effects, finds the study. About 60 percent of all illegal immigrants - nearly 8.4 million people - are settled in just six states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey. Other recent reports by FAIR indicate that the combined costs of K-12 education, health care and incarceration of criminals to those six states exceeds $27 billion annually.
"These new estimates, showing explosive growth in illegal immigration in recent years, indicate why Americans all across the country are demanding that the government control our borders and block illegal immigrants from working or receiving benefits in this country," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Almost from the day the Bush Administration took office, they made it clear that their aim was to reward illegal immigration with amnesty and assorted other benefits. As a result, we have seen record increases in illegal immigration, mounting burdens on taxpayers, and unprecedented public concern about this issue."
At 13,175,000 people, the illegal population of the United States is now larger than the entire population of Illinois, the nation's fifth most populous state. The phenomenon has also become a national one in the past decade, finds How Many Illegal Aliens? More than three-fifths of the states have seen their illegal alien population more than double since 2000. In all, 24 states now have illegal populations that exceed 100,000.
"There are no overnight fixes to a problem that has been growing for years," commented Stein. "But the American public strongly supports an enforcement-first approach that discourages new people from coming illegally and encourages millions who are here to return home. What is clear, is that lack of enforcement and proposed amnesties have only exacerbated the problem."
How Many Illegal Aliens? is available at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersb8ca
To receive more information from FAIR, click here.
To join or donate to FAIR, click here.
2007 Figures Represent an 88 Percent Increase Since 2000
(Washington, D.C.) According to a new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), How Many Illegal Aliens?, the illegal immigrant population of the United States now exceeds 13 million. In 2000, the now defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that there were a little more than 7 million people residing illegally in the U.S.
The burden and costs of illegal immigration are still distributed unevenly across the country, but states and regions that were virtually immune to the impact of large-scale illegal immigration just a decade ago are now feeling the effects, finds the study. About 60 percent of all illegal immigrants - nearly 8.4 million people - are settled in just six states, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey. Other recent reports by FAIR indicate that the combined costs of K-12 education, health care and incarceration of criminals to those six states exceeds $27 billion annually.
"These new estimates, showing explosive growth in illegal immigration in recent years, indicate why Americans all across the country are demanding that the government control our borders and block illegal immigrants from working or receiving benefits in this country," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Almost from the day the Bush Administration took office, they made it clear that their aim was to reward illegal immigration with amnesty and assorted other benefits. As a result, we have seen record increases in illegal immigration, mounting burdens on taxpayers, and unprecedented public concern about this issue."
At 13,175,000 people, the illegal population of the United States is now larger than the entire population of Illinois, the nation's fifth most populous state. The phenomenon has also become a national one in the past decade, finds How Many Illegal Aliens? More than three-fifths of the states have seen their illegal alien population more than double since 2000. In all, 24 states now have illegal populations that exceed 100,000.
"There are no overnight fixes to a problem that has been growing for years," commented Stein. "But the American public strongly supports an enforcement-first approach that discourages new people from coming illegally and encourages millions who are here to return home. What is clear, is that lack of enforcement and proposed amnesties have only exacerbated the problem."
How Many Illegal Aliens? is available at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersb8ca
To receive more information from FAIR, click here.
To join or donate to FAIR, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)