HILLARY HAD NO ROLE IN IRISH PEACE, DESPITE BILL’S CLAIMS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Foxnews.com on December 21, 2007.
Recently, as only Hillary can do, she claimed that she was “deeply involved in the Irish peace process.” Bill has also picked up the theme, citing her “independent” role in resolving the century-old conflict as “experience” with which to justify a White House run.
How odd that Hillary forgot to mention her pivotal role in Ireland just four years ago, when she wrote her $8 million memoir, Living History. There, she told a very different story.
Her first mention of Ireland was in a discussion of Bill’s October 2004 trip:
“The trip highlighted Bill’s milestones in foreign affairs. In addition to his pivotal role in easing the tensions in the Middle East, he was now focusing on the decades Long Troubles in Northern Ireland.” (Emphasis added)
No memories of her own involvement in the Irish “troubles.”
Ireland next appeared in Hillary’s memoirs in 1995, when the Clintons visited Belfast and Dublin. According to Hillary, while Bill met with the “various factions” of Irish politics, Hillary met with women leaders of the peace movement. Rather than discuss the difficulties of the peace process, Hillary focused on a teapot used by the women:
“They poured tea from ordinary stainless steel teapots, and when I remarked how well they kept the tea warm, Joyce insisted that I take a pot to remember them by. I used that dented teapot every day in our small family kitchen in the White House...”
Other than to describe the women’s fear when their sons left the house and their support for a ceasefire and an end to the violence, Hillary doesn’t cover much policy.
She then describes a visit to Derry to meet John Hume, the charming Nobel Peace Prize winner, where “tens of thousands thronged the streets in the freezing cold to roar approval of Bill and America, and I was filled with pride and respect for my husband.” (Emphasis added)
After Derry, the Clintons went to Belfast to light the Christmas tree in front of City Hall. Following the ceremony, they attended a reception.
No mention of Hillary’s deep involvement.
From Belfast, the Clintons flew to Dublin, where Hillary addressed a group of women from both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. According to her recollections, she “praised the bravery of Irish women who had stood up for peace.”
After meeting the Irish president, the U.S. ambassador, Ted Kennedy’s sister, and the Nobel Prize winning poet Seamus Heaney, Bono and the Clintons went shopping and tried to trace Bill Clinton’s mother’s genealogy.
Not exactly heavy-duty diplomacy.
Hillary returned to Ireland in 1997 where she attended a dinner in Dublin for Prime Minister Ahern and then flew to Belfast where she gave a speech in honor of the late Joyce McCartan, a respected promoter of peace and the women who had given Hillary the stainless teapot a few years earlier. Hillary brought the teapot back to Ireland with her as a tribute to the women of Ireland who sought peace. Hillary also attended a roundtable discussion with young Catholic and Protestant representatives.
In describing August 1998 in her book — the month when Ken Starr granted Monica Lewinsky immunity — Hillary lists world events, such as the end of the Soviet Union, and free elections in South Africa. She also mentions in passing that: “The peace talks and cease-fire were successful in Ireland.”
End of story. Nothing about her role in that process.
Later, she describes the setback to the peace process in Omagh, Northern Ireland, where a car bomb killed 28 people and injured hundreds of others, “damaging the peace process that Bill had worked so long and hard to nurture with Irish leaders.” (Emphasis added)
Hillary does recall that in her meetings with women in Ireland, she’d spoken with them about the troubles and how to find a way to “achieve peace and reconciliation.” But she turns that into a discussion of her own personal problems with Bill and Monica, “Now that’s what I had to try to do in the midst of my own heartbreaking troubles.”
Hillary makes one last mention of Ireland in her book, citing the important role of her husband and former Sen. George Mitchell in the peace process.
That’s it.
Bill’s memoirs are also totally devoid of any memories of any role at all by Hillary in the peace process. Other than the Christmas tree lighting and attending receptions and meeting celebrities — Bono, Seamaus Heaney, etc. — there is nothing substantive about Hillary.
In elaborating on her so-called role in the Irish peace process, candidate Hillary now says:
"And I know it’s frustrating. It took years before the Catholics and the Protestants before Sinn Fein and you know, the DUP would even talk to each other … I mean George Mitchell sat at a table sometimes for hours and nobody would say a word or if they would they would say: 'would you tell him this?' Or 'here's what I think'. And that went on for years. But eventually there were breakthroughs. You could build enough trust and connection."
So what does that have to do with her and what was her deep involvement in the Irish peace process? Hillary never explains.
But Bill Clinton said, as he desperately tried to help Hillary overcome her new found deficit in Iowa, that an unnamed man had said that Hillary had played "an independent role in the Irish peace process.”
Clinton offered no explanation of who the anonymous man was or what exactly this “independent” role was for Hillary.
But Bill does describe his own role — and Hillary was nowhere to be found:
"Good Friday was one of the happiest days of my presidency. Seventeen hours past the deadline for a decision, all the parties in Northern Ireland agreed to a plan to end 30 years of sectarian violence. I had been up most of the night, trying to help George Mitchell close the deal. Besides George, I talked to Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair, David Trimble, and Gerry Adams twice, before going to bed at 2:30 a.m. At five, George woke me with a request to call Adams again to seal the deal.”
Hillary apparently slept through the night — perhaps dreaming her Walter Mitty dream of delivering the peace agreement single handedly.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
MAKE OR BREAK IN MICHIGAN
MAKE OR BREAK IN MICHIGAN
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on December 19, 2007.
The Jan. 15 Michigan primary is now looking like the big "elimination round" in the '08 GOP contest - the contest that could bring us down to the final two contenders.
In the semi-finals, to be held in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney will face Mike Huckabee to see who's tops among the party's right, while Rudy Giuliani battles John McCain for the more moderate slot.
Huckabee and Romney are likely headed for a split decision, with the former winning Iowa (where he now leads 34 percent to 23 percent) and the later winning New Hampshire (where he now leads, 32-11).
On the centrist court, Rudy has a slender lead over McCain in Iowa (10-6). But the Des Moines Register endorsement of the Arizona senator could pare Giuliani's slim support base. In New Hampshire, McCain holds a tight 19-17 lead over Giuliani as they battle for second place.
Fred Thompson and the other wannabes will likely drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire (except, of course, for crazy Ron Paul, who will never give up the ghost). Then, it will all come down to the third state to vote - the Michigan primary, a week after New Hampshire.
Huckabee will enter Michigan seeking to recapture the momentum he'll have gained after Iowa and lost in New Hampshire. He'll be facing a rap that he could only win in a small farm state like his own after he campaigned there nonstop for months, almost never going home. If he loses Michigan, he'll be gone.
Romney will try to prove that his New Hampshire victory wasn't simply a favorite-son triumph. With two-thirds of New Hampshire watching Boston TV, the win there by the former Massachusetts governor in the first primary will be suspect. The ghost of Paul Tsongas, the Bay State senator who won New Hampshire in 1992, then faded, may haunt Romney's campaign. He'll will labor under the rap that he can't win road games.
Odds are that the winner of Romney vs. Huckabee will face off against Rudy or McCain on Super Tuesday.
In Michigan, Giuliani will seek to show that he loses only in small states like Iowa and New Hampshire and that he can win in a major industrial state. McCain will try to capitalize on his strong showing in New Hampshire to survive and fight on.
In Michigan, Rasmussen is the only pollster with current data. In a Dec. 4 survey, he had a three-way tie: Huckabee at 21 percent; Romney, 20, and Giuliani, 19. (McCain's at 8 percent.)
Romney has an advantage in Michigan, where he's campaigned arduously. His father was governor there and is still fondly remembered.
(The Democratic primary in Michigan doesn't matter because Hillary Clinton is the only major candidate on the ballot. Obama and Edwards both pulled out in fealty to Iowa and New Hampshire, which resented Michigan's decision to hold an early primary.)
After Michigan comes Nevada on Jan. 19. The last two polls (American Research Group and Mason Dixon), taken in early December, show an average of a close three-way contest - Romney at 25 percent, Giuliani at 21 and Huckabee at 20 percent, with McCain trailing at 7.
Then, the race moves to South Carolina, where Huckabee now leads with 24 percent followed by Romney at 17 percent, Rudy at 15 and McCain at 11. (Thompson, should he live so long, is now at 16 percent in the first southern contest.)
But the top two in Michigan are likely be the finalists that will do battle in Florida on Jan. 29 and in the rest of the country on Feb. 5.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on December 19, 2007.
The Jan. 15 Michigan primary is now looking like the big "elimination round" in the '08 GOP contest - the contest that could bring us down to the final two contenders.
In the semi-finals, to be held in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney will face Mike Huckabee to see who's tops among the party's right, while Rudy Giuliani battles John McCain for the more moderate slot.
Huckabee and Romney are likely headed for a split decision, with the former winning Iowa (where he now leads 34 percent to 23 percent) and the later winning New Hampshire (where he now leads, 32-11).
On the centrist court, Rudy has a slender lead over McCain in Iowa (10-6). But the Des Moines Register endorsement of the Arizona senator could pare Giuliani's slim support base. In New Hampshire, McCain holds a tight 19-17 lead over Giuliani as they battle for second place.
Fred Thompson and the other wannabes will likely drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire (except, of course, for crazy Ron Paul, who will never give up the ghost). Then, it will all come down to the third state to vote - the Michigan primary, a week after New Hampshire.
Huckabee will enter Michigan seeking to recapture the momentum he'll have gained after Iowa and lost in New Hampshire. He'll be facing a rap that he could only win in a small farm state like his own after he campaigned there nonstop for months, almost never going home. If he loses Michigan, he'll be gone.
Romney will try to prove that his New Hampshire victory wasn't simply a favorite-son triumph. With two-thirds of New Hampshire watching Boston TV, the win there by the former Massachusetts governor in the first primary will be suspect. The ghost of Paul Tsongas, the Bay State senator who won New Hampshire in 1992, then faded, may haunt Romney's campaign. He'll will labor under the rap that he can't win road games.
Odds are that the winner of Romney vs. Huckabee will face off against Rudy or McCain on Super Tuesday.
In Michigan, Giuliani will seek to show that he loses only in small states like Iowa and New Hampshire and that he can win in a major industrial state. McCain will try to capitalize on his strong showing in New Hampshire to survive and fight on.
In Michigan, Rasmussen is the only pollster with current data. In a Dec. 4 survey, he had a three-way tie: Huckabee at 21 percent; Romney, 20, and Giuliani, 19. (McCain's at 8 percent.)
Romney has an advantage in Michigan, where he's campaigned arduously. His father was governor there and is still fondly remembered.
(The Democratic primary in Michigan doesn't matter because Hillary Clinton is the only major candidate on the ballot. Obama and Edwards both pulled out in fealty to Iowa and New Hampshire, which resented Michigan's decision to hold an early primary.)
After Michigan comes Nevada on Jan. 19. The last two polls (American Research Group and Mason Dixon), taken in early December, show an average of a close three-way contest - Romney at 25 percent, Giuliani at 21 and Huckabee at 20 percent, with McCain trailing at 7.
Then, the race moves to South Carolina, where Huckabee now leads with 24 percent followed by Romney at 17 percent, Rudy at 15 and McCain at 11. (Thompson, should he live so long, is now at 16 percent in the first southern contest.)
But the top two in Michigan are likely be the finalists that will do battle in Florida on Jan. 29 and in the rest of the country on Feb. 5.
Fence funding hoax exposed, but bill passes?
Fence funding hoax exposed, but bill passes?
From: Steve Elliott (alert@grassfire.net)
Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org Alliance 12/20/2007
Despite the best efforts of thousands of grassroots citizensacross the country, last night Congress passed the omnibusConsolidated Appropriations bill with the border fence-guttingHutchison amendment. It took a very deceptive, clandestine effort to sneak theFence Act-gutting amendment through Congress. In fact, without the efforts of Grassfire.org team members,I am convinced this Amendment would have sailed through withoutany knowledge of what they were doing and without any opposition.
+ + Hoax exposed But thanks to you, the Fence Funding Hoax has been exposed.Over the past 48 hours, members of Congress and the media haveused OUR talking points
on this issue -- stating plainly thatthe omnibus bill would "gut" the
Secure Fence Act, "eliminate"the double-layer fence requirement, and give DHS the authorityto not even build a fence! ed, the cat is out of the bag!
We have once and for all exposed the funding tricks thatCongress uses
to NOT secure our borders, and the Americanpeople will not be fooled again. For example, last night, Glenn Beck led off his TV show withthe fence
funding hoax. The story was covered by the AssociatedPress, Lou Dobbs, Washington Times and many other outlets. EvenSam Brownback said reducing the border
fence was "uncacceptable." I have listed links to several of the news
reports on the
Funding Hoaxhere: http://www.firesociety.com/article/19402/?src=111
+ + The battle ahead...
I know you share my frustration -- my anger --that Congress succeeded
in gutting the Secure Fence Act's specificrequirements. This entire episode leaves me more distrusting of our electedofficials. (Even many of our "friends" on the Hill voted for this bill.We suspect many were totally unaware of the Fence Funding Hoax.) But it also makes me more convinced that the real solution tothe illegal invasion crisis ultimately rests with grassrootsAmericans like you and me. Let's face facts: No politician is going to secure our borders.Only a massive effort by grassroots Americans can make it happen.That will be our challenge in 2008 -- to move from defense tooffense in the struggle to stop the illegal invasion.
+ + You did the impossible in 2007! For now, on behalf of the entire Grassfire.org team, please acceptmy deepest thanks for all you have done this year. You did somethingthat pundits said was impossible -- you stopped the Bush-KennedyAmnesty push. You stopped the other amnesty bills that cropped up.These efforts are still resonating through the halls of Congressas politicians fear a similar backlash from the American people. Thank you so much for all you have done and continue. And may youhave a wonderful Christmas season with family and friends. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org Alliance
P.S. I would very much enjoy reading your comments on this update,as well as your thoughts as we finish this year and move aheadinto next year. Please go here: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/20389/?src=111
From: Steve Elliott (alert@grassfire.net)
Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org Alliance 12/20/2007
Despite the best efforts of thousands of grassroots citizensacross the country, last night Congress passed the omnibusConsolidated Appropriations bill with the border fence-guttingHutchison amendment. It took a very deceptive, clandestine effort to sneak theFence Act-gutting amendment through Congress. In fact, without the efforts of Grassfire.org team members,I am convinced this Amendment would have sailed through withoutany knowledge of what they were doing and without any opposition.
+ + Hoax exposed But thanks to you, the Fence Funding Hoax has been exposed.Over the past 48 hours, members of Congress and the media haveused OUR talking points
on this issue -- stating plainly thatthe omnibus bill would "gut" the
Secure Fence Act, "eliminate"the double-layer fence requirement, and give DHS the authorityto not even build a fence! ed, the cat is out of the bag!
We have once and for all exposed the funding tricks thatCongress uses
to NOT secure our borders, and the Americanpeople will not be fooled again. For example, last night, Glenn Beck led off his TV show withthe fence
funding hoax. The story was covered by the AssociatedPress, Lou Dobbs, Washington Times and many other outlets. EvenSam Brownback said reducing the border
fence was "uncacceptable." I have listed links to several of the news
reports on the
Funding Hoaxhere: http://www.firesociety.com/article/19402/?src=111
+ + The battle ahead...
I know you share my frustration -- my anger --that Congress succeeded
in gutting the Secure Fence Act's specificrequirements. This entire episode leaves me more distrusting of our electedofficials. (Even many of our "friends" on the Hill voted for this bill.We suspect many were totally unaware of the Fence Funding Hoax.) But it also makes me more convinced that the real solution tothe illegal invasion crisis ultimately rests with grassrootsAmericans like you and me. Let's face facts: No politician is going to secure our borders.Only a massive effort by grassroots Americans can make it happen.That will be our challenge in 2008 -- to move from defense tooffense in the struggle to stop the illegal invasion.
+ + You did the impossible in 2007! For now, on behalf of the entire Grassfire.org team, please acceptmy deepest thanks for all you have done this year. You did somethingthat pundits said was impossible -- you stopped the Bush-KennedyAmnesty push. You stopped the other amnesty bills that cropped up.These efforts are still resonating through the halls of Congressas politicians fear a similar backlash from the American people. Thank you so much for all you have done and continue. And may youhave a wonderful Christmas season with family and friends. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org Alliance
P.S. I would very much enjoy reading your comments on this update,as well as your thoughts as we finish this year and move aheadinto next year. Please go here: http://www.firesociety.com/comments/20389/?src=111
Thursday, December 20, 2007
new crack down on illegal immigration in Missouri
Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri is working hard to crack down on illegal immigration in his state. His latest set of proposals include banning sanctuary cities in Missouri, imposing sanctions against contractors who hire illegal aliens and requiring public employers to verify a worker's legal status. Governor Matt Blunt joins us tonight.
see loudobbs.com on CNN or online.
see loudobbs.com on CNN or online.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
WHY ARE THE WHEELS COMING OFF THE CLINTON BANDWAGON?
WHY ARE THE WHEELS COMING OFF THE CLINTON BANDWAGON?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Foxnews.com on December 14, 2007.
In Iowa and New Hampshire — the first two tests for the presidential nominating process — Hillary Clinton is faltering badly.
When you average all the polls in Iowa, her lead has dwindled and is now eradicated:
Hillary vs. Obama in Iowa
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 30 23 +7
1st half Nov. 28 22 +6
2nd half Nov. 26 28 -2
December 28 30 -2
And, Hillary has suffered an even greater slippage in New Hampshire, where the last poll, by Rasmussen, has Obama ahead by three points. Here are the averages of all the polls for these time periods:
Hillary vs. Obama in New Hampshire
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 41 22 +19
1st half Nov. 36 23 +13
2nd half Nov. 34 23 +11
December 31 29 +2
But curiously, Hillary remains in the national lead and her margin has not dwindled appreciably:
Hillary vs. Obama National
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 47 21 +26
1st half Nov. 45 23 +22
2nd half Nov. 45 23 +22
December 45 24 +21
Hillary Clinton is tanking and Obama is surging in New Hampshire, gaining a net of 17 points. In Iowa, Hillary is dropping and Obama is also moving up, gaining a net of nine points. But nationally, there is almost no change since November 1. Throughout the country, Obama has gained only five points in three months.
Why the difference?
Obviously, New Hampshire and Iowa are markedly different states with little in common demographically. But, what they do have in common is prolonged exposure to the candidates and to their paid media advertising. These two states have been through what we will all go through before Election Day. They have seen Hillary and Obama campaign day after day. They have watched the candidates — with the advertisements on television, heard them on radio and have focused on the more intensive news coverage they are receiving in the local media. The conclusion is inescapable: the more voters come to know Hillary Clinton the less they like her and the more they get to know Barack Obama the more they like him.
In the abstract, Hillary is a captivating idea. The first woman to run for president, she is the living reminder of the better economic times and international peace of the Clinton administration. But, up close and personal, she is far less attractive. As the rest of the country is exposed to the former first lady, if they emulate the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire and revise their opinion of her, the results will not please the Clinton camp.
What is Hillary doing wrong and what is Obama doing right?
A trip to youtube.com or to the Web site of each of the candidates shows in an instant the difference in the ads the two campaigns are running. Obama's send goose bumps up your skin while Hillary's leave one flat. Obama speaks and demonstrates his charisma. Hillary’s platform style is no match for the Illinois senator and most of her ads feature a voice over doing the speaking for her.
In their campaign themes, Hillary stresses her experience while Obama focuses on the need for change. Hillary seems determined to appropriate her husband’s record, while Obama mocks the idea of going back to an alternation of the Bushes and the Clintons, a latter day American Hatfields and McCoys.
Now, in desperation, Hillary and her minions are attacking Obama with shots that will only arouse voter sympathy for him and backlash against her. Hillary asks, “When did running for president become a qualification to be president?” and her aides distribute evidence that Obama wanted to run for president in kindergarten to defuse the attack that Hillary and Bill have always planned on a regal, dynastic succession. More recently, a top Hillary campaign aide spoke of the need to investigate Obama’s drug use in high school where he has admitted to using cocaine.
None of these shots are going to knock anybody out or even down, but Hillary keeps up the pattern of personal, irrelevant negative attacks.
The conclusion is obvious: neither Hillary nor her staff know how to campaign. After the Clinton re-election in 1996, they have never been tested in a competitive race. When Giuliani dropped out of the New York State Senate race and the young Congressman Rick Lazio had to enter at the last minute to try to stop Hillary’s bid, the conclusion was pre-ordained. Hillary’s re-election was a cakewalk against a totally under funded opponent. She doesn’t know how to win.
Hillary’s experience has been limited to the insider back biting of Washington where she is an expert at using her secret police — a small army of private detectives — to unearth negatives about her or Bill’s opponents. (Even former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young recently admitted that Hillary ran the effort to discredit women who might come forward and accuse Clinton of misconduct.) But, when it comes to campaigning, advertising and winning an election, these folks and this candidate don’t have a clue.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Foxnews.com on December 14, 2007.
In Iowa and New Hampshire — the first two tests for the presidential nominating process — Hillary Clinton is faltering badly.
When you average all the polls in Iowa, her lead has dwindled and is now eradicated:
Hillary vs. Obama in Iowa
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 30 23 +7
1st half Nov. 28 22 +6
2nd half Nov. 26 28 -2
December 28 30 -2
And, Hillary has suffered an even greater slippage in New Hampshire, where the last poll, by Rasmussen, has Obama ahead by three points. Here are the averages of all the polls for these time periods:
Hillary vs. Obama in New Hampshire
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 41 22 +19
1st half Nov. 36 23 +13
2nd half Nov. 34 23 +11
December 31 29 +2
But curiously, Hillary remains in the national lead and her margin has not dwindled appreciably:
Hillary vs. Obama National
Hillary Obama Hillary Margin
October 47 21 +26
1st half Nov. 45 23 +22
2nd half Nov. 45 23 +22
December 45 24 +21
Hillary Clinton is tanking and Obama is surging in New Hampshire, gaining a net of 17 points. In Iowa, Hillary is dropping and Obama is also moving up, gaining a net of nine points. But nationally, there is almost no change since November 1. Throughout the country, Obama has gained only five points in three months.
Why the difference?
Obviously, New Hampshire and Iowa are markedly different states with little in common demographically. But, what they do have in common is prolonged exposure to the candidates and to their paid media advertising. These two states have been through what we will all go through before Election Day. They have seen Hillary and Obama campaign day after day. They have watched the candidates — with the advertisements on television, heard them on radio and have focused on the more intensive news coverage they are receiving in the local media. The conclusion is inescapable: the more voters come to know Hillary Clinton the less they like her and the more they get to know Barack Obama the more they like him.
In the abstract, Hillary is a captivating idea. The first woman to run for president, she is the living reminder of the better economic times and international peace of the Clinton administration. But, up close and personal, she is far less attractive. As the rest of the country is exposed to the former first lady, if they emulate the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire and revise their opinion of her, the results will not please the Clinton camp.
What is Hillary doing wrong and what is Obama doing right?
A trip to youtube.com or to the Web site of each of the candidates shows in an instant the difference in the ads the two campaigns are running. Obama's send goose bumps up your skin while Hillary's leave one flat. Obama speaks and demonstrates his charisma. Hillary’s platform style is no match for the Illinois senator and most of her ads feature a voice over doing the speaking for her.
In their campaign themes, Hillary stresses her experience while Obama focuses on the need for change. Hillary seems determined to appropriate her husband’s record, while Obama mocks the idea of going back to an alternation of the Bushes and the Clintons, a latter day American Hatfields and McCoys.
Now, in desperation, Hillary and her minions are attacking Obama with shots that will only arouse voter sympathy for him and backlash against her. Hillary asks, “When did running for president become a qualification to be president?” and her aides distribute evidence that Obama wanted to run for president in kindergarten to defuse the attack that Hillary and Bill have always planned on a regal, dynastic succession. More recently, a top Hillary campaign aide spoke of the need to investigate Obama’s drug use in high school where he has admitted to using cocaine.
None of these shots are going to knock anybody out or even down, but Hillary keeps up the pattern of personal, irrelevant negative attacks.
The conclusion is obvious: neither Hillary nor her staff know how to campaign. After the Clinton re-election in 1996, they have never been tested in a competitive race. When Giuliani dropped out of the New York State Senate race and the young Congressman Rick Lazio had to enter at the last minute to try to stop Hillary’s bid, the conclusion was pre-ordained. Hillary’s re-election was a cakewalk against a totally under funded opponent. She doesn’t know how to win.
Hillary’s experience has been limited to the insider back biting of Washington where she is an expert at using her secret police — a small army of private detectives — to unearth negatives about her or Bill’s opponents. (Even former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young recently admitted that Hillary ran the effort to discredit women who might come forward and accuse Clinton of misconduct.) But, when it comes to campaigning, advertising and winning an election, these folks and this candidate don’t have a clue.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Fighting Border Criminals from Gov
Fighting Border Criminals
Friday, December 14, 2007
Dear Friends,
I want to share with you a great example of how Arizona is working to tackle border crime, even as the federal government continues to push off confronting the problems of the border.
Arizona’s Department of Public Safety has begun using high-tech license plate readers to track and seize stolen vehicles. Vehicle theft and stolen license plates are key tools that smugglers use to carry illegal cargo – whether drugs or human beings.
One DPS officer in particular, Officer Dave Callister, has shown what hard work and an innovative approach can do to fight these border criminals. Officer Callister works with mobile license plate readers, devices that were originally designed for low-speed environments. Officer Callister worked to make these readers function on highways. Over a period of 16 months, Officer Callister recovered 75 stolen vehicles and 140 stolen license plates – helping to bring the fight to criminal rackets that thrive off our porous borders.
Continued smuggler and gang activity is one of greatest costs of the federal government’s inaction on comprehensive immigration reform and serious border security measures. Years of federal neglect have left our borders porous as criminal syndicates – including human smugglers, drug smugglers, and street gangs – have thrived in this lawless environment.
But all across Arizona, we’re not waiting for federal action to crack down on border crime – instead, Officer Callister is but one example of how we’re utilizing innovative law enforcement technologies to fight gangs and smugglers.
We have introduced new tools to prosecute border smugglers, created new laws that allow police to attack border criminals by seizing their assets, and cracked down on border gangs. In the past few months, we have entered into important agreements with law enforcement in Mexico to share information in the fight against meth traffickers. Last week, I also signed an agreement with the federal Department of Homeland Security that helps create a secure form of voluntary ID that will be less susceptible to fraud – which will help in the fight against border criminals who use identity theft as a tool to commit crimes.
The border presents a host of tough issues, and political deadlock often leaves problems such as border crime unaddressed. In Arizona, however, we’re working hard to take concrete action on these public safety problems that have an impact on Arizonans’ lives.
As always, I appreciate your input, and encourage you to call my office at 602-542-1318 if you have questions or thoughts to share. Or, please visit our Web site at www.azgovernor.gov for information and news in state government.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano
Governor
Friday, December 14, 2007
Dear Friends,
I want to share with you a great example of how Arizona is working to tackle border crime, even as the federal government continues to push off confronting the problems of the border.
Arizona’s Department of Public Safety has begun using high-tech license plate readers to track and seize stolen vehicles. Vehicle theft and stolen license plates are key tools that smugglers use to carry illegal cargo – whether drugs or human beings.
One DPS officer in particular, Officer Dave Callister, has shown what hard work and an innovative approach can do to fight these border criminals. Officer Callister works with mobile license plate readers, devices that were originally designed for low-speed environments. Officer Callister worked to make these readers function on highways. Over a period of 16 months, Officer Callister recovered 75 stolen vehicles and 140 stolen license plates – helping to bring the fight to criminal rackets that thrive off our porous borders.
Continued smuggler and gang activity is one of greatest costs of the federal government’s inaction on comprehensive immigration reform and serious border security measures. Years of federal neglect have left our borders porous as criminal syndicates – including human smugglers, drug smugglers, and street gangs – have thrived in this lawless environment.
But all across Arizona, we’re not waiting for federal action to crack down on border crime – instead, Officer Callister is but one example of how we’re utilizing innovative law enforcement technologies to fight gangs and smugglers.
We have introduced new tools to prosecute border smugglers, created new laws that allow police to attack border criminals by seizing their assets, and cracked down on border gangs. In the past few months, we have entered into important agreements with law enforcement in Mexico to share information in the fight against meth traffickers. Last week, I also signed an agreement with the federal Department of Homeland Security that helps create a secure form of voluntary ID that will be less susceptible to fraud – which will help in the fight against border criminals who use identity theft as a tool to commit crimes.
The border presents a host of tough issues, and political deadlock often leaves problems such as border crime unaddressed. In Arizona, however, we’re working hard to take concrete action on these public safety problems that have an impact on Arizonans’ lives.
As always, I appreciate your input, and encourage you to call my office at 602-542-1318 if you have questions or thoughts to share. Or, please visit our Web site at www.azgovernor.gov for information and news in state government.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano
Governor
Thursday, December 13, 2007
BILL HURTS, NOT HELPS, HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN
BILL HURTS, NOT HELPS, HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on December 7, 2007.
Bill Clinton’s poll ratings are very high so Hillary figures he can be of great help to her on the campaign trail. So far, so good — but then they extrapolate that view and conclude that he would be a good person to make her negative attacks on opponents, to answer charges against her and to take the media to task for their coverage. And that’s where they are wrong.
Bill’s high ratings are largely due to his nonpolitical activities in recent years. His book Giving, although largely a payoff to those who have given to him or to his wife’s campaign, portrays him as a philanthropist par excellence. Combined with the kudos for his role in helping tsunami and Katrina victims, and his annual September conference to organize and help to third world countries, he is acquiring the statesmanlike reputation that eluded him when he was a working politician.
But when he gets down and dirty, defending his own record, rebutting attacks on Hillary or excoriating the media or his wife’s opponents, he acts very political and brings down the very ratings that made his intervention seem useful in the first place.
He and I spoke right before the 1994 Congressional elections about where he could campaign to help to re-elect Democrats. He had just returned from the signing of the peace accord between Jordan and Israel and his approval ratings, for once, were pretty high. “You should go back to the Middle East,” I told him.
“But you don’t understand, my ratings are high now because of the trip to the Middle East and I can do candidates a lot of good,” he answered.
“No, you’ll lower your ratings because you won’t appear presidential as you campaign and you’ll end up doing the candidates for whom you campaign more harm than good,” I replied.
Bill couldn’t help himself. He ran out and campaigned all over the U.S. for the congressmen and senators who had backed his economic package and anti-crime bill, and most of them ended up losing in the GOP sweep of 1994. In the meantime, he lowered his rating by 10 points by campaigning and seeming political.
When Bill takes the stump for Hillary and speaks in bland generalities, he does her some good and no harm. But when he emerges as a cut and burn politician, flipping and flopping over his past position on Iraq and attacking media coverage of Hillary, he lowers his ratings and ends his usefulness to Hillary’s campaign.
The best thing for Bill to do is to stay home. Or better yet, leave the country on some charitable or philanthropic mission while his wife runs for president. His job is to keep his own ratings high. Her job is to exploit those ratings for her own advantage, no matter how little she deserves them.
Hillary’s entire campaign, like her whole legal and political career, is entirely derivative of Bill’s. By using her lynchpin as a bludgeon to hammer her opponents, he destroys his effectiveness and hurts her own campaign.
That is not to say that left to her own devices, Hillary will do herself any good. She seems incapable of waging an effective negative campaign. She hits Obama with stupid charges like her campaign’s comment about his kindergarten remarks or throws pitty-pat punches that do no real damage like her attack on his health care proposal. Absent real dirt, Hillary is facing an almost impossible task in trying to besmirch Mr. Clean, and as she tries, she undermines both the perception that she is a winner and the idea that she is an effective fighter.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on December 7, 2007.
Bill Clinton’s poll ratings are very high so Hillary figures he can be of great help to her on the campaign trail. So far, so good — but then they extrapolate that view and conclude that he would be a good person to make her negative attacks on opponents, to answer charges against her and to take the media to task for their coverage. And that’s where they are wrong.
Bill’s high ratings are largely due to his nonpolitical activities in recent years. His book Giving, although largely a payoff to those who have given to him or to his wife’s campaign, portrays him as a philanthropist par excellence. Combined with the kudos for his role in helping tsunami and Katrina victims, and his annual September conference to organize and help to third world countries, he is acquiring the statesmanlike reputation that eluded him when he was a working politician.
But when he gets down and dirty, defending his own record, rebutting attacks on Hillary or excoriating the media or his wife’s opponents, he acts very political and brings down the very ratings that made his intervention seem useful in the first place.
He and I spoke right before the 1994 Congressional elections about where he could campaign to help to re-elect Democrats. He had just returned from the signing of the peace accord between Jordan and Israel and his approval ratings, for once, were pretty high. “You should go back to the Middle East,” I told him.
“But you don’t understand, my ratings are high now because of the trip to the Middle East and I can do candidates a lot of good,” he answered.
“No, you’ll lower your ratings because you won’t appear presidential as you campaign and you’ll end up doing the candidates for whom you campaign more harm than good,” I replied.
Bill couldn’t help himself. He ran out and campaigned all over the U.S. for the congressmen and senators who had backed his economic package and anti-crime bill, and most of them ended up losing in the GOP sweep of 1994. In the meantime, he lowered his rating by 10 points by campaigning and seeming political.
When Bill takes the stump for Hillary and speaks in bland generalities, he does her some good and no harm. But when he emerges as a cut and burn politician, flipping and flopping over his past position on Iraq and attacking media coverage of Hillary, he lowers his ratings and ends his usefulness to Hillary’s campaign.
The best thing for Bill to do is to stay home. Or better yet, leave the country on some charitable or philanthropic mission while his wife runs for president. His job is to keep his own ratings high. Her job is to exploit those ratings for her own advantage, no matter how little she deserves them.
Hillary’s entire campaign, like her whole legal and political career, is entirely derivative of Bill’s. By using her lynchpin as a bludgeon to hammer her opponents, he destroys his effectiveness and hurts her own campaign.
That is not to say that left to her own devices, Hillary will do herself any good. She seems incapable of waging an effective negative campaign. She hits Obama with stupid charges like her campaign’s comment about his kindergarten remarks or throws pitty-pat punches that do no real damage like her attack on his health care proposal. Absent real dirt, Hillary is facing an almost impossible task in trying to besmirch Mr. Clean, and as she tries, she undermines both the perception that she is a winner and the idea that she is an effective fighter.
THE OPRAH FACTOR: A BIG BOOST FOR OBAMA
THE OPRAH FACTOR: A BIG BOOST FOR OBAMA
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHill.com on December 12, 2007.
The era of celebrity endorsements ended some time ago. We no longer buy the shaving cream that Derek Jeter tells us to use; nor do we vote as some Hollywood actor suggests. We have come to assume that political endorsements are often the product of partisan loyalty rather than any particular standard of merit and that commercial testimonials come only in exchange for cash.
But Oprah’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is truly unique and will have a profound impact on the presidential race. She transforms a candidacy into a movement and will increase his momentum from a growth curve to a surging wave.
It is not just that people trust what Oprah says. Her endorsement is important because of who she is and what message her support sends to those like her. As the most famous black woman in the world, she is a cultural icon. And as a figure who effortlessly crosses the racial divide, she has a special role in a presidential primary that pits the first woman against the first black to contest for president with a serious chance of victory. In this environment, Oprah’s demographic is her message.
Oprah sends a message to all American women that it is OK not to vote for Hillary and one to African-Americans that they need to vote for Obama. Were Oprah seen primarily as a black leader, her endorsement of a candidate of her own race running against one of her own gender wouldn’t mean that much. If her reputation were one for putting her race constantly ahead of her gender, her endorsement of Obama would seem automatic. But that is not who Oprah is.
She is iconic to women of all races; to them she’s a woman who is black, not a black who is female. So her refusal to endorse a fellow female seeking the presidency is tremendously significant to women voters. She sends a message by her unusual intervention in a political contest in which a woman is running. It reads: A woman, yes. This woman, no.
Oprah’s embrace of Obama’s message of change stamps his campaign mantra as legitimate and turns experience into a disqualification rather than an attribute for Hillary. That this much-admired woman would turn against Hillary in order to seek change in Washington lifts Obama to JFK proportions even as it pins on Hillary — to her detriment — the Nixon slogan of 1960: “Experience counts.”
But to black voters, Oprah’s endorsement, precisely because it flies in the face of her gender, is especially significant. The message it sends to African-Americans is: It’s time. Her foray into politics to endorse Obama makes it clear that his candidacy has special relevance to all black men and women everywhere. It is not so much that she has reached into politics to back Obama as that the senator’s candidacy has such meaning for any citizen who is black that it reaches into Oprah’s life and demands that she come forth to support it. Her endorsement seems to suggest that just as anti-Catholic bigotry went away when John Kennedy was elected, so racism may fade in the aftermath of an Obama presidency.
Oprah’s backing also helps tilt the balance of power to Obama and away from John Edwards. Two challengers would have much less chance of beating Hillary than one would in a straight-on battle. But Obama and Edwards sound so much alike that it is hard to distinguish for which one to vote. Oprah’s endorsement almost anoints Obama as the challenger.
Finally, we must recognize that this is truly the first Christmas campaign, conducted not only against the harsh backdrop of news coverage but on a stage also festooned with holiday cheer. Now, in addition to the flag as a prop for campaigning, we have reindeer and Santa. Oprah is from the world of Christmas — mystical, cheerful, appealing, even beguiling. She is no policy wonk but is cast well as a black, female St. Nick bringing joy to the world. Her endorsement softens Obama, wraps him up, and makes of him a Christmas present to America.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHill.com on December 12, 2007.
The era of celebrity endorsements ended some time ago. We no longer buy the shaving cream that Derek Jeter tells us to use; nor do we vote as some Hollywood actor suggests. We have come to assume that political endorsements are often the product of partisan loyalty rather than any particular standard of merit and that commercial testimonials come only in exchange for cash.
But Oprah’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is truly unique and will have a profound impact on the presidential race. She transforms a candidacy into a movement and will increase his momentum from a growth curve to a surging wave.
It is not just that people trust what Oprah says. Her endorsement is important because of who she is and what message her support sends to those like her. As the most famous black woman in the world, she is a cultural icon. And as a figure who effortlessly crosses the racial divide, she has a special role in a presidential primary that pits the first woman against the first black to contest for president with a serious chance of victory. In this environment, Oprah’s demographic is her message.
Oprah sends a message to all American women that it is OK not to vote for Hillary and one to African-Americans that they need to vote for Obama. Were Oprah seen primarily as a black leader, her endorsement of a candidate of her own race running against one of her own gender wouldn’t mean that much. If her reputation were one for putting her race constantly ahead of her gender, her endorsement of Obama would seem automatic. But that is not who Oprah is.
She is iconic to women of all races; to them she’s a woman who is black, not a black who is female. So her refusal to endorse a fellow female seeking the presidency is tremendously significant to women voters. She sends a message by her unusual intervention in a political contest in which a woman is running. It reads: A woman, yes. This woman, no.
Oprah’s embrace of Obama’s message of change stamps his campaign mantra as legitimate and turns experience into a disqualification rather than an attribute for Hillary. That this much-admired woman would turn against Hillary in order to seek change in Washington lifts Obama to JFK proportions even as it pins on Hillary — to her detriment — the Nixon slogan of 1960: “Experience counts.”
But to black voters, Oprah’s endorsement, precisely because it flies in the face of her gender, is especially significant. The message it sends to African-Americans is: It’s time. Her foray into politics to endorse Obama makes it clear that his candidacy has special relevance to all black men and women everywhere. It is not so much that she has reached into politics to back Obama as that the senator’s candidacy has such meaning for any citizen who is black that it reaches into Oprah’s life and demands that she come forth to support it. Her endorsement seems to suggest that just as anti-Catholic bigotry went away when John Kennedy was elected, so racism may fade in the aftermath of an Obama presidency.
Oprah’s backing also helps tilt the balance of power to Obama and away from John Edwards. Two challengers would have much less chance of beating Hillary than one would in a straight-on battle. But Obama and Edwards sound so much alike that it is hard to distinguish for which one to vote. Oprah’s endorsement almost anoints Obama as the challenger.
Finally, we must recognize that this is truly the first Christmas campaign, conducted not only against the harsh backdrop of news coverage but on a stage also festooned with holiday cheer. Now, in addition to the flag as a prop for campaigning, we have reindeer and Santa. Oprah is from the world of Christmas — mystical, cheerful, appealing, even beguiling. She is no policy wonk but is cast well as a black, female St. Nick bringing joy to the world. Her endorsement softens Obama, wraps him up, and makes of him a Christmas present to America.
Monday, December 10, 2007
CNN reports that Senator Mccain misses 54 % of his votes in the senate ?
CNN reports that Senator Mccain misses 54 % of his votes in the senate ?
whos's he working for? the people of Arizona ?
after he loses another bid for the presidential nomination, who will replace him in the senate.
whos's he working for? the people of Arizona ?
after he loses another bid for the presidential nomination, who will replace him in the senate.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Would-be burglars shot by Houston man were in the US illegally
Would-be burglars shot by Houston man were in the US illegally
I’m sure you’ve heard some of the story, but in case not, last month Pasadena, TX man Joe Horn shot and killed two men who were breaking into his neighbor’s property. The entire incident was recorded, as he was on the phone with 911 when he exited his home to shoot the two men.
It turns out that the would-be burglars were in the US illegally, and both were known criminals.
Miguel Dejesus and Diego Ortiz were both from Colombia. Dejesus spent six years in a Texas prison for drug dealing, then was deported. Obviously, he came back illegally. Ortiz was arrested by Houston police on a drug charge. We don’t know much more about him, because Houston is a “Sanctuary City” and does not cooperate with Homeland Security or with the press in matters involving criminal aliens.
That last sentence probably answers why they weren’t deported again: Houston’s sanctuary policies.
And they were already being watched by the Texas Department of Public Safety during their most recent illegal stay in the US for allegedly using fraudulent documents to obtain valid Texas drivers licenses.
According to a DPS memo obtained by 11 News, the department was investigating the use of Puerto Rican birth certificates by Colombians seeking to obtain Texas driver’s licenses.
Both Ortiz and Dejesus had applied for licenses. Dejesus listed his country of origin as Puerto Rico, but both men were Colombian.
Apparently, the DPS is investigating hundreds of immigrants who may have used illegal papers to get Texas licenses.
But that’s not all.
A much wider probe has been launched into an organized syndicate of Colombians who are engaged in illegal weapons sales and home break-ins – just like the one Ortiz and Dejesus were involved in last month in Pasadena.
How many more of these stories do we have to hear before Washington gets a clue and secures the border? Too many.
I’m sure you’ve heard some of the story, but in case not, last month Pasadena, TX man Joe Horn shot and killed two men who were breaking into his neighbor’s property. The entire incident was recorded, as he was on the phone with 911 when he exited his home to shoot the two men.
It turns out that the would-be burglars were in the US illegally, and both were known criminals.
Miguel Dejesus and Diego Ortiz were both from Colombia. Dejesus spent six years in a Texas prison for drug dealing, then was deported. Obviously, he came back illegally. Ortiz was arrested by Houston police on a drug charge. We don’t know much more about him, because Houston is a “Sanctuary City” and does not cooperate with Homeland Security or with the press in matters involving criminal aliens.
That last sentence probably answers why they weren’t deported again: Houston’s sanctuary policies.
And they were already being watched by the Texas Department of Public Safety during their most recent illegal stay in the US for allegedly using fraudulent documents to obtain valid Texas drivers licenses.
According to a DPS memo obtained by 11 News, the department was investigating the use of Puerto Rican birth certificates by Colombians seeking to obtain Texas driver’s licenses.
Both Ortiz and Dejesus had applied for licenses. Dejesus listed his country of origin as Puerto Rico, but both men were Colombian.
Apparently, the DPS is investigating hundreds of immigrants who may have used illegal papers to get Texas licenses.
But that’s not all.
A much wider probe has been launched into an organized syndicate of Colombians who are engaged in illegal weapons sales and home break-ins – just like the one Ortiz and Dejesus were involved in last month in Pasadena.
How many more of these stories do we have to hear before Washington gets a clue and secures the border? Too many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)