Dobbs: Big media hide truth about immigration
By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The Bush administration and the leadership of the Democratic Party are preparing to take another legislative leap at imposing a massive illegal alien amnesty on American citizens.
And the mainstream media are complicit in advancing this thinly veiled blanket amnesty. Instead of asking and answering important questions about why our immigration laws aren't being enforced and why we're permitting pervasive document fraud, the national media seem hell-bent on trying to obfuscate the issue, shamelessly playing with language, equating legal immigration with illegal immigration while obviously trying to preserve the illusion of objectivity.
Too often, the language of the national media describes illegal immigration as "migration" and illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants," even though many of them have lots of documents, most of which are fraudulent or stolen. Some media outlets have taken to calling illegal aliens "entrants." Whether such language is meant to engender sympathy or to intentionally blur the distinction between legal and illegal, the mainstream media are taking sides in this debate.
The Arizona Republic, for example, used "undocumented immigrant" more than 80 times in 36 separate stories in the past month alone; the term appeared as many as 12 times in one article on "migration," according to our Lexis-Nexis search. At the same time, "illegal alien" appeared a total of only nine times during that span, with seven of the references coming from readers' opinions, one from a quotation and one from an editorial.
The mainstream media report as if America would no longer be a welcoming nation if we stopped illegal immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why do the national media conveniently and routinely neglect to report that the United States brings in more lawful immigrants than the countries of the rest of the world combined? Each year, we accept 2 million immigrants legally. We give a million legal immigrants permanent residency every year. We bestow citizenship on 700,000 people a year and provide almost half a million work-related visas a year.
Illegal immigration, in fact, has the potential to change the course of American history: Demographers at the Brookings Institution and the Population Reference Bureau paint a troubling picture of the future of our democracy. As more illegal aliens cross our borders and settle in large states like California, Texas and Florida, congressional seats will be redistributed to these bigger states following each decennial Census. States with low levels of immigration will ultimately lose seats as a result. Unfortunately for American citizens, this seismic shift in political representation will be decided by noncitizens that cannot vote.
Congress will soon take up so-called comprehensive immigration reform, and a bipartisan House bill would probably admit 400,000 guest workers a year. And since any plan calling for eventual legalization would include family members who live outside the United States, the legislation would open our borders to tens of millions of people. The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector estimated that the 2006 version of the McCain-Kennedy bill would have added an additional 66 million immigrants over the next 20 years. The bill may change, but that estimate has yet to be refuted.
There's no question this type of mass immigration would have a calamitous effect on working citizens and their families. Professor Carol Swain, professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University and author of "Debating Immigration," would like to see more people speak up for the sectors of society most affected by illegal immigration.
"How many African-American leaders have you seen come out and address the impact that high levels of illegal immigration [are] having in the communities when it comes to jobs, when it comes to education, when it comes to health care?" she asked. "And often, these low-skilled, low-wage workers compete in the same sectors for jobs."
Let's have a vigorous open debate on illegal immigration in this country, and let's begin with the facts. Estimates of illegal aliens in this country range from 12 million to 20 million people. Why doesn't our government know how many there are?
Shouldn't this Congress and this president at least recognize that the industries in which illegal aliens are employed in the greatest percentages also are suffering the largest wage declines? And shouldn't there be an economic impact statement researched and delivered to this Congress, this president and the rest of us before any legislation granting amnesty is even considered?
Shouldn't we first bring the facts of illegal immigration out of the shadows?
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
more news
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
John McCain is a CROOK! (The last surviving KEATING FIVE SCANDAL senator
On Jan 6, 11:57 pm, MURS radios wrote:
John McCain is a CROOK! (The last surviving KEATING FIVE SCANDAL
> Senator!):http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
"Crook" is about the mildest thing one can say about the illegal alien
loving
bastard.
greg
www.mccainalert.com
John McCain is a CROOK! (The last surviving KEATING FIVE SCANDAL
> Senator!):http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
"Crook" is about the mildest thing one can say about the illegal alien
loving
bastard.
greg
www.mccainalert.com
Senator John "crash" Mccain still playing the war hero card?
Senator John Mccain still playing the war hero card? with all due repect?
He was captured by the enemy, to me that doesn't make him a hero
more of a victim.
He was a victim of the Vietnam war, that was the 5th plane he lost.
his fellow pilots gave him the nick name of "crash" that shows something,
He barely graduated from the Naval Academy, almost last in his class. Problaby
with a little nudge from the his admiral uncle.
While captured by the North Vietnamese he made tape recordings for them.
He would have been in the stockade after the war for his pow behavior,
but his admiral uncle had the rules changed to avoid imprisionment for him.
This has all been documented, but the media still treats him as a sort of
war hero/pilot.
Wish someone in the media pick up on past and shed a little light
on his real military career.
I am stumped as to why ?
www.mccainalert.com
more insight into Senator John Mccain
He was captured by the enemy, to me that doesn't make him a hero
more of a victim.
He was a victim of the Vietnam war, that was the 5th plane he lost.
his fellow pilots gave him the nick name of "crash" that shows something,
He barely graduated from the Naval Academy, almost last in his class. Problaby
with a little nudge from the his admiral uncle.
While captured by the North Vietnamese he made tape recordings for them.
He would have been in the stockade after the war for his pow behavior,
but his admiral uncle had the rules changed to avoid imprisionment for him.
This has all been documented, but the media still treats him as a sort of
war hero/pilot.
Wish someone in the media pick up on past and shed a little light
on his real military career.
I am stumped as to why ?
www.mccainalert.com
more insight into Senator John Mccain
Hillary Clinton's Menopausal moment with a tear,,,
Hillary Clinton's Menopausal moment with a tear,,,
Senator Hillary Clinton's menopausal moment with a tear,talking about elections and pizzas?
was that a sympton of late menopausal ?
www.mccainalert.com
Senator Hillary Clinton's menopausal moment with a tear,talking about elections and pizzas?
was that a sympton of late menopausal ?
www.mccainalert.com
Monday, January 07, 2008
wow, Mccain could be 80+ years old in the White House ?
wow, Mccain could be 80+ years old in the White House ?
a disturbing thought for all americans...........
a disturbing thought for all americans...........
Sunday, January 06, 2008
remember the Mccain-Kennedy Amensty bill ?
remember the Mccain-Kennedy Amensty bill ?
is this a Senator Kerry type of flip flop ?
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
is this a Senator Kerry type of flip flop ?
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
when grandpa mccain loses his 2nd presidential bid
when grandpa mccain loses his 2nd presidential bid who's gonna replace him as the Arizona senator ? he is 72 years old ????
www.mccainalert.com
see more on Mccain
www.mccainalert.com
see more on Mccain
Saturday, January 05, 2008
WHO NEEDS WHAT FROM IOWA TODAY?
WHO NEEDS WHAT FROM IOWA TODAY?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 3, 2008.
The Iowa caucuses mean different things to different candidates. Of course Obama, Clinton and Edwards, for the Democrats, and Huckabee and Romney, for the Republicans, are vying for a win in Iowa. But there are separate sub-primaries going on as well: Obama v Edwards for the position of chief challenger to Clinton, McCain v Giuliani for the right to wear the “moderate” Republican mantle, and Fred Thompson v Oblivion for the right to stay in the race.
So here’s the scorecard to use in keeping track of what each candidate needs to get from Iowa.
Hillary Clinton
If she scores a decisive triumph, the race for the nomination is almost over. A victory here would likely propel her to a win in New Hampshire and the nomination would be hers’. But she doesn’t need to win. Her national base is so strong that she just has to stop anyone else from winning. If no clear winner emerges, but the results show, instead, a three-way tie with Obama and Edwards, or a two-way tie between herself and either of her challengers, she comes out the winner. But if she clearly loses by a good margin or finishes third, she has blown a major opportunity and is in for a long cold winter of primaries. She won’t be knocked out in Iowa no matter what, but she could be knocked down.
Barack Obama
He’s got to win in Iowa. He is so far behind Hillary in the national standings that he needs a decisive victory to give him the momentum to prevail in New Hampshire and to compete in Florida and on Super Tuesday. He also needs to leave the pesky John Edwards far behind so he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote behind his candidacy.
John Edwards
His immediate need is to finish close to or ahead of Obama so he can show that a vote for him is not wasted. With pro and anti Hillary sentiment so strong, Edwards risks being excluded as an also ran if he doesn’t make it. He also needs Hillary not to win decisively so that the race stays alive. He has a decent shot in New Hampshire if he can stay in the race and make sure there still is one.
Mike Huckabee
Win or die are his choices. The Huck-a-boom will be right in the ancient history books with the Howard Dean surge in September of 2004. But even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, he’ll probably lose in New Hampshire. Then his candidacy will come back to another game-set-match point in Michigan the following week.
Mitt Romney
He doesn’t have to win, place, or show. He’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game. But, a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan and he would limp into super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only.
John McCain
He’s got to finish third – or, in other words, beat Rudy. If he does, he has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and getting back into the game. If he doesn’t, Romney will win New Hampshire and McCain will be out of the race. Huckabee has to hope McCain does finish third so Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire and, therefore, doesn’t win Michigan. Got it?
Rudy Giuliani
The Republican front runner is in a parallel situation with Hillary. He won’t be knocked out no matter how badly he does. But finishing below McCain means that he has to split the moderate vote with the charismatic Arizona Senator and could weaken his chances in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Rudy can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and still survive to compete in the big states that follow. But he lost a golden chance to avoid a fight by winning in Iowa.
And, if Hillary wins big in Iowa, it will help McCain and hurt Romney in New Hampshire. Why? All the independents who would have voted for or against Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire will pile into the Republican Primary and may boost McCain to victory (if he survives Iowa).
And…by the same token, Rudy needs Hillary to win in the early rounds so he can draw independents into the Republican Primary to vote for him rather than the religious right crowd.
Having fun yet?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 3, 2008.
The Iowa caucuses mean different things to different candidates. Of course Obama, Clinton and Edwards, for the Democrats, and Huckabee and Romney, for the Republicans, are vying for a win in Iowa. But there are separate sub-primaries going on as well: Obama v Edwards for the position of chief challenger to Clinton, McCain v Giuliani for the right to wear the “moderate” Republican mantle, and Fred Thompson v Oblivion for the right to stay in the race.
So here’s the scorecard to use in keeping track of what each candidate needs to get from Iowa.
Hillary Clinton
If she scores a decisive triumph, the race for the nomination is almost over. A victory here would likely propel her to a win in New Hampshire and the nomination would be hers’. But she doesn’t need to win. Her national base is so strong that she just has to stop anyone else from winning. If no clear winner emerges, but the results show, instead, a three-way tie with Obama and Edwards, or a two-way tie between herself and either of her challengers, she comes out the winner. But if she clearly loses by a good margin or finishes third, she has blown a major opportunity and is in for a long cold winter of primaries. She won’t be knocked out in Iowa no matter what, but she could be knocked down.
Barack Obama
He’s got to win in Iowa. He is so far behind Hillary in the national standings that he needs a decisive victory to give him the momentum to prevail in New Hampshire and to compete in Florida and on Super Tuesday. He also needs to leave the pesky John Edwards far behind so he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote behind his candidacy.
John Edwards
His immediate need is to finish close to or ahead of Obama so he can show that a vote for him is not wasted. With pro and anti Hillary sentiment so strong, Edwards risks being excluded as an also ran if he doesn’t make it. He also needs Hillary not to win decisively so that the race stays alive. He has a decent shot in New Hampshire if he can stay in the race and make sure there still is one.
Mike Huckabee
Win or die are his choices. The Huck-a-boom will be right in the ancient history books with the Howard Dean surge in September of 2004. But even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, he’ll probably lose in New Hampshire. Then his candidacy will come back to another game-set-match point in Michigan the following week.
Mitt Romney
He doesn’t have to win, place, or show. He’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game. But, a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan and he would limp into super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only.
John McCain
He’s got to finish third – or, in other words, beat Rudy. If he does, he has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and getting back into the game. If he doesn’t, Romney will win New Hampshire and McCain will be out of the race. Huckabee has to hope McCain does finish third so Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire and, therefore, doesn’t win Michigan. Got it?
Rudy Giuliani
The Republican front runner is in a parallel situation with Hillary. He won’t be knocked out no matter how badly he does. But finishing below McCain means that he has to split the moderate vote with the charismatic Arizona Senator and could weaken his chances in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Rudy can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and still survive to compete in the big states that follow. But he lost a golden chance to avoid a fight by winning in Iowa.
And, if Hillary wins big in Iowa, it will help McCain and hurt Romney in New Hampshire. Why? All the independents who would have voted for or against Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire will pile into the Republican Primary and may boost McCain to victory (if he survives Iowa).
And…by the same token, Rudy needs Hillary to win in the early rounds so he can draw independents into the Republican Primary to vote for him rather than the religious right crowd.
Having fun yet?
HILLARY ON THE ROPES
HILLARY ON THE ROPES
January 5th, 2008
HILLARY ON THE ROPES
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 4, 2008.
The amazing victories by Obama and Huckabee in Iowa are truly historic. They demonstrate the impact and viability of a message of change in both parties. In the Democratic Party, Obama, winning in a totally white state, shows that racism is gone as a factor in American politics. On the Republican side, Huckabee’s win shows how a truly compassionate conservative can win by harvesting voters who want the message of concern for the poor and for values to prevail.
But what of Hillary? She’s down but she’s not out. Hillary Clinton, in the first really contested election of her own political career, lost dismally– outclassed, outdrawn, and outpolled by Barack Obama.
Her campaign professionals (including Bill) decided to stress experience, precisely the wrong message in a Democratic primary. Prematurely appealing to the center and abandoning the left, she fell between two chairs – not sufficiently centrist to win independents or liberal enough to attract Democrats.
On the Republican side, Huckabee brought a new phenomenon into politics. A New Testament Christian politician, he takes the Biblical message to the center-left, clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. His refusal to indulge in negative advertising sent a message to Iowa voters showing his strength under fire.
The Obama victory in Iowa probably presages a victory in New Hampshire and follow up victories in Nevada and South Carolina. (Hillary will win Michigan because she is alone on the ballot). Suddenly, Hillary’s argument that she should be the candidate because she has a record of defeating the “Republican attack machine” will backfire. Sold as a winner, she will be exposed as a loser. The overhang of Iowa will dog her for all of the early primaries.
Particularly important for Obama is the poor finish of John Edwards, who has campaigned in Iowa for six years. Now Obama can count on being the nearly unanimous choice of the anti-Hillary voters. No longer will the vote be divided.
Hillary faces a serious problem: Voters rejected her and rejected Bill on a very personal basis. Iowa was a referendum on Hillary and she lost 30-70. Her argument of experience only reinforced her phoniness and her issues positioning showed how contrived her ideology is. This is a stinging personal defeat for Hillary.
But what will happen next? With the limelight comes the spotlight. Obama will suddenly become the putative candidate of the Democratic Party and will be subject to the scrutiny that comes with the title. Can he weather the examination?
Perhaps not. Democrats may turn on Obama, worried that he may not win in November. The doubts about Obama, up to now hidden behind concerns about Hillary’s candidacy, will be on center stage. I wonder if he can stand the scrutiny.
Much the same process will evolve on the Republican side. Ignored in the Iowa result, Giuliani appears to be in even worse shape than Hillary with his fifth place finish. But the same process that will unfold for the Republican Party may take place on the Democratic side. Voters may wonder if all that stands between the White House and the Democratic Party is a Mormon, a Christian evangelical, and a 70-year old. Rudy, like Hillary, may look better once the rest of the field unfolds.
But don’t write off Obama or Huckabee. Their appeals are truly unique and obviously resonate with voters. Their approaches are now and the outcome shows how relevant their message is.
January 5th, 2008
HILLARY ON THE ROPES
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 4, 2008.
The amazing victories by Obama and Huckabee in Iowa are truly historic. They demonstrate the impact and viability of a message of change in both parties. In the Democratic Party, Obama, winning in a totally white state, shows that racism is gone as a factor in American politics. On the Republican side, Huckabee’s win shows how a truly compassionate conservative can win by harvesting voters who want the message of concern for the poor and for values to prevail.
But what of Hillary? She’s down but she’s not out. Hillary Clinton, in the first really contested election of her own political career, lost dismally– outclassed, outdrawn, and outpolled by Barack Obama.
Her campaign professionals (including Bill) decided to stress experience, precisely the wrong message in a Democratic primary. Prematurely appealing to the center and abandoning the left, she fell between two chairs – not sufficiently centrist to win independents or liberal enough to attract Democrats.
On the Republican side, Huckabee brought a new phenomenon into politics. A New Testament Christian politician, he takes the Biblical message to the center-left, clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. His refusal to indulge in negative advertising sent a message to Iowa voters showing his strength under fire.
The Obama victory in Iowa probably presages a victory in New Hampshire and follow up victories in Nevada and South Carolina. (Hillary will win Michigan because she is alone on the ballot). Suddenly, Hillary’s argument that she should be the candidate because she has a record of defeating the “Republican attack machine” will backfire. Sold as a winner, she will be exposed as a loser. The overhang of Iowa will dog her for all of the early primaries.
Particularly important for Obama is the poor finish of John Edwards, who has campaigned in Iowa for six years. Now Obama can count on being the nearly unanimous choice of the anti-Hillary voters. No longer will the vote be divided.
Hillary faces a serious problem: Voters rejected her and rejected Bill on a very personal basis. Iowa was a referendum on Hillary and she lost 30-70. Her argument of experience only reinforced her phoniness and her issues positioning showed how contrived her ideology is. This is a stinging personal defeat for Hillary.
But what will happen next? With the limelight comes the spotlight. Obama will suddenly become the putative candidate of the Democratic Party and will be subject to the scrutiny that comes with the title. Can he weather the examination?
Perhaps not. Democrats may turn on Obama, worried that he may not win in November. The doubts about Obama, up to now hidden behind concerns about Hillary’s candidacy, will be on center stage. I wonder if he can stand the scrutiny.
Much the same process will evolve on the Republican side. Ignored in the Iowa result, Giuliani appears to be in even worse shape than Hillary with his fifth place finish. But the same process that will unfold for the Republican Party may take place on the Democratic side. Voters may wonder if all that stands between the White House and the Democratic Party is a Mormon, a Christian evangelical, and a 70-year old. Rudy, like Hillary, may look better once the rest of the field unfolds.
But don’t write off Obama or Huckabee. Their appeals are truly unique and obviously resonate with voters. Their approaches are now and the outcome shows how relevant their message is.
Friday, January 04, 2008
WHO NEEDS WHAT FROM IOWA TODAY?
WHO NEEDS WHAT FROM IOWA TODAY?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 3, 2008.
The Iowa caucuses mean different things to different candidates. Of course Obama, Clinton and Edwards, for the Democrats, and Huckabee and Romney, for the Republicans, are vying for a win in Iowa. But there are separate sub-primaries going on as well: Obama v Edwards for the position of chief challenger to Clinton, McCain v Giuliani for the right to wear the “moderate” Republican mantle, and Fred Thompson v Oblivion for the right to stay in the race.
So here’s the scorecard to use in keeping track of what each candidate needs to get from Iowa.
Hillary Clinton
If she scores a decisive triumph, the race for the nomination is almost over. A victory here would likely propel her to a win in New Hampshire and the nomination would be hers’. But she doesn’t need to win. Her national base is so strong that she just has to stop anyone else from winning. If no clear winner emerges, but the results show, instead, a three-way tie with Obama and Edwards, or a two-way tie between herself and either of her challengers, she comes out the winner. But if she clearly loses by a good margin or finishes third, she has blown a major opportunity and is in for a long cold winter of primaries. She won’t be knocked out in Iowa no matter what, but she could be knocked down.
Barack Obama
He’s got to win in Iowa. He is so far behind Hillary in the national standings that he needs a decisive victory to give him the momentum to prevail in New Hampshire and to compete in Florida and on Super Tuesday. He also needs to leave the pesky John Edwards far behind so he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote behind his candidacy.
John Edwards
His immediate need is to finish close to or ahead of Obama so he can show that a vote for him is not wasted. With pro and anti Hillary sentiment so strong, Edwards risks being excluded as an also ran if he doesn’t make it. He also needs Hillary not to win decisively so that the race stays alive. He has a decent shot in New Hampshire if he can stay in the race and make sure there still is one.
Mike Huckabee
Win or die are his choices. The Huck-a-boom will be right in the ancient history books with the Howard Dean surge in September of 2004. But even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, he’ll probably lose in New Hampshire. Then his candidacy will come back to another game-set-match point in Michigan the following week.
Mitt Romney
He doesn’t have to win, place, or show. He’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game. But, a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan and he would limp into super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only.
John McCain
He’s got to finish third – or, in other words, beat Rudy. If he does, he has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and getting back into the game. If he doesn’t, Romney will win New Hampshire and McCain will be out of the race. Huckabee has to hope McCain does finish third so Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire and, therefore, doesn’t win Michigan. Got it?
Rudy Giuliani
The Republican front runner is in a parallel situation with Hillary. He won’t be knocked out no matter how badly he does. But finishing below McCain means that he has to split the moderate vote with the charismatic Arizona Senator and could weaken his chances in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Rudy can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and still survive to compete in the big states that follow. But he lost a golden chance to avoid a fight by winning in Iowa.
And, if Hillary wins big in Iowa, it will help McCain and hurt Romney in New Hampshire. Why? All the independents who would have voted for or against Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire will pile into the Republican Primary and may boost McCain to victory (if he survives Iowa).
And…by the same token, Rudy needs Hillary to win in the early rounds so he can draw independents into the Republican Primary to vote for him rather than the religious right crowd.
Having fun yet?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 3, 2008.
The Iowa caucuses mean different things to different candidates. Of course Obama, Clinton and Edwards, for the Democrats, and Huckabee and Romney, for the Republicans, are vying for a win in Iowa. But there are separate sub-primaries going on as well: Obama v Edwards for the position of chief challenger to Clinton, McCain v Giuliani for the right to wear the “moderate” Republican mantle, and Fred Thompson v Oblivion for the right to stay in the race.
So here’s the scorecard to use in keeping track of what each candidate needs to get from Iowa.
Hillary Clinton
If she scores a decisive triumph, the race for the nomination is almost over. A victory here would likely propel her to a win in New Hampshire and the nomination would be hers’. But she doesn’t need to win. Her national base is so strong that she just has to stop anyone else from winning. If no clear winner emerges, but the results show, instead, a three-way tie with Obama and Edwards, or a two-way tie between herself and either of her challengers, she comes out the winner. But if she clearly loses by a good margin or finishes third, she has blown a major opportunity and is in for a long cold winter of primaries. She won’t be knocked out in Iowa no matter what, but she could be knocked down.
Barack Obama
He’s got to win in Iowa. He is so far behind Hillary in the national standings that he needs a decisive victory to give him the momentum to prevail in New Hampshire and to compete in Florida and on Super Tuesday. He also needs to leave the pesky John Edwards far behind so he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote behind his candidacy.
John Edwards
His immediate need is to finish close to or ahead of Obama so he can show that a vote for him is not wasted. With pro and anti Hillary sentiment so strong, Edwards risks being excluded as an also ran if he doesn’t make it. He also needs Hillary not to win decisively so that the race stays alive. He has a decent shot in New Hampshire if he can stay in the race and make sure there still is one.
Mike Huckabee
Win or die are his choices. The Huck-a-boom will be right in the ancient history books with the Howard Dean surge in September of 2004. But even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, he’ll probably lose in New Hampshire. Then his candidacy will come back to another game-set-match point in Michigan the following week.
Mitt Romney
He doesn’t have to win, place, or show. He’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game. But, a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan and he would limp into super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only.
John McCain
He’s got to finish third – or, in other words, beat Rudy. If he does, he has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and getting back into the game. If he doesn’t, Romney will win New Hampshire and McCain will be out of the race. Huckabee has to hope McCain does finish third so Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire and, therefore, doesn’t win Michigan. Got it?
Rudy Giuliani
The Republican front runner is in a parallel situation with Hillary. He won’t be knocked out no matter how badly he does. But finishing below McCain means that he has to split the moderate vote with the charismatic Arizona Senator and could weaken his chances in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Rudy can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and still survive to compete in the big states that follow. But he lost a golden chance to avoid a fight by winning in Iowa.
And, if Hillary wins big in Iowa, it will help McCain and hurt Romney in New Hampshire. Why? All the independents who would have voted for or against Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire will pile into the Republican Primary and may boost McCain to victory (if he survives Iowa).
And…by the same token, Rudy needs Hillary to win in the early rounds so he can draw independents into the Republican Primary to vote for him rather than the religious right crowd.
Having fun yet?
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
DUI probation court feels weight of harsher laws
DUI probation court feels weight of harsher laws
Jill Redhage, Tribune
Combine the new stricter punishments for drunken drivers with law enforcement’s holiday DUI crackdown, and you get a lot more people eligible for DUI probation court, a DUI Court judge says.
Recently, the number of participants in the program — an alternative to regular probation for people convicted of a felony associated with drunken driving — has climbed to almost 400.
Serious DUI offenders will first face the state’s new laws, which went into effect on Sept. 19. The law requires anyone guilty of driving with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.20 or higher to spend at least 45 days in jail, to pay at least $500 in fines and to use an ignition interlock device for 18 months.
A second DUI conviction within seven years earns the driver no fewer than 180 days in jail, at least $1,000 fine and two years driving with an interlock device.
Maricopa County Superior Court Commissioner Steven Lynch said DUI probation court has been so successful that the court would like to expand it, but its prospects are unclear given a tight county budget. Lynch also said the program is limited geographically to where its counseling centers are located.
The three-step program, typically taking 18-24 months to complete, is meant not only to punish people who drive drunk, but also to help them recover from substance abuse problems and to reduce recidivism.
‘MORE STRENUOUS’
“DUI probation court is so much more strenuous than regular probation,” said Lynch, who holds probation court in his 1 W. Madison St. courtroom in Phoenix three Friday mornings each month.
“But if you complete the program, your likelihood of reoffending is much lower than someone who’s just completed standard probation.” Lynch said the recidivism rates drop well over 50 percent for participants.
The program combines group counseling, one-on-one counseling, drug and alcohol testing, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, paying court fines and attending DUI probation court meetings.
The participants, often beginning with electronic monitoring anklets that detect alcohol in their blood, earn increasingly more freedom as they progress successfully through the program.
Former presiding Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Colin Campbell started DUI probation court in the late 1990s. Since then, the program has grown to serve 300 to 400 people at a time. Participants are screened when convicted to determine if they’d be a good match for the program; usually people with significant substance abuse problems, but not a criminal past, are the best candidates.
In 2002, presiding Superior Court Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundell began Spanish DUI probation court, staffed by a Spanish-speaking county attorney, public defender, probation officer, counselor and herself. Mundell has said participants in the Spanish program, meeting every five weeks, are more likely to graduate than those in the English program.
During a recent probation court meeting, 48 people crammed into a small basement courtroom and listened for their names to be called.
Lynch first called the names of four people he’d be taking into custody, because they’d violated the terms of the program. Two were no-shows, and he issued warrants for their arrests.
Then came the four program graduates. All received framed diplomas, congratulations from the judge and a chance to speak before their peers.
“Do everything you gotta do. Keep your eye on the prize,” one graduate advised.
Another graduate said, “This has not been an easy 16 months for me.” He spoke of relapsing several times, forbidden by the program. But one day he switched his way of thinking — he got positive — he said, and breezed through the program.
“It changed my life,” he said.
After the graduate spoke, Lynch commended the “stars” — participants who have worked especially hard, attended extra meetings, paid off fines and who otherwise have proven their desire to succeed. Lynch singled out 11 for this honor, greeting them with a
“Congratulations,” a handshake and a note in their records.
‘COLLECTIVE BENEFIT’
“The whole idea is when you see people being praised, others being sanctioned — there’s a collective benefit for everyone,” Lynch said. “For a lot of these folks, they just have no other support in their lives.”
Following the “stars” and before meeting the new recruits, Lynch spoke with 22 participants in varying stages of the program experiencing varying levels of success.
He asked a woman to tell the group about a class she’d taken describing the possible consequences of driving drunk, such as causing a fatal motor vehicle collision.
“I’m glad I got caught when I did,” she said.
Jill Redhage, Tribune
Combine the new stricter punishments for drunken drivers with law enforcement’s holiday DUI crackdown, and you get a lot more people eligible for DUI probation court, a DUI Court judge says.
Recently, the number of participants in the program — an alternative to regular probation for people convicted of a felony associated with drunken driving — has climbed to almost 400.
Serious DUI offenders will first face the state’s new laws, which went into effect on Sept. 19. The law requires anyone guilty of driving with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.20 or higher to spend at least 45 days in jail, to pay at least $500 in fines and to use an ignition interlock device for 18 months.
A second DUI conviction within seven years earns the driver no fewer than 180 days in jail, at least $1,000 fine and two years driving with an interlock device.
Maricopa County Superior Court Commissioner Steven Lynch said DUI probation court has been so successful that the court would like to expand it, but its prospects are unclear given a tight county budget. Lynch also said the program is limited geographically to where its counseling centers are located.
The three-step program, typically taking 18-24 months to complete, is meant not only to punish people who drive drunk, but also to help them recover from substance abuse problems and to reduce recidivism.
‘MORE STRENUOUS’
“DUI probation court is so much more strenuous than regular probation,” said Lynch, who holds probation court in his 1 W. Madison St. courtroom in Phoenix three Friday mornings each month.
“But if you complete the program, your likelihood of reoffending is much lower than someone who’s just completed standard probation.” Lynch said the recidivism rates drop well over 50 percent for participants.
The program combines group counseling, one-on-one counseling, drug and alcohol testing, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, paying court fines and attending DUI probation court meetings.
The participants, often beginning with electronic monitoring anklets that detect alcohol in their blood, earn increasingly more freedom as they progress successfully through the program.
Former presiding Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Colin Campbell started DUI probation court in the late 1990s. Since then, the program has grown to serve 300 to 400 people at a time. Participants are screened when convicted to determine if they’d be a good match for the program; usually people with significant substance abuse problems, but not a criminal past, are the best candidates.
In 2002, presiding Superior Court Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundell began Spanish DUI probation court, staffed by a Spanish-speaking county attorney, public defender, probation officer, counselor and herself. Mundell has said participants in the Spanish program, meeting every five weeks, are more likely to graduate than those in the English program.
During a recent probation court meeting, 48 people crammed into a small basement courtroom and listened for their names to be called.
Lynch first called the names of four people he’d be taking into custody, because they’d violated the terms of the program. Two were no-shows, and he issued warrants for their arrests.
Then came the four program graduates. All received framed diplomas, congratulations from the judge and a chance to speak before their peers.
“Do everything you gotta do. Keep your eye on the prize,” one graduate advised.
Another graduate said, “This has not been an easy 16 months for me.” He spoke of relapsing several times, forbidden by the program. But one day he switched his way of thinking — he got positive — he said, and breezed through the program.
“It changed my life,” he said.
After the graduate spoke, Lynch commended the “stars” — participants who have worked especially hard, attended extra meetings, paid off fines and who otherwise have proven their desire to succeed. Lynch singled out 11 for this honor, greeting them with a
“Congratulations,” a handshake and a note in their records.
‘COLLECTIVE BENEFIT’
“The whole idea is when you see people being praised, others being sanctioned — there’s a collective benefit for everyone,” Lynch said. “For a lot of these folks, they just have no other support in their lives.”
Following the “stars” and before meeting the new recruits, Lynch spoke with 22 participants in varying stages of the program experiencing varying levels of success.
He asked a woman to tell the group about a class she’d taken describing the possible consequences of driving drunk, such as causing a fatal motor vehicle collision.
“I’m glad I got caught when I did,” she said.
did Senator Ted Kennedy move his money offshore ?
did Senator Ted Kennedy move his money offshore ?
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.com
Arizona Lawmaker Will Sponsor New DUI Laws
Lawmaker Will Sponsor New DUI Laws
December 31st, 2007 Steve Soliz/KTAR
State Sen. Jim Waring, R-Phoenix, will push four new bills targeting drunken drivers in the next session of the Arizona Legislature, beginning in January.
Waring said his bills will not solve the ultimate problem of drunken drivers and will not affect all people arrested for DUI. ``But there are a few cases where these sanctions may come into play, and we're really just filling in the gaps," he said.
One proposal would take the license of anyone who is involved in an alcohol-related collision.
``We feel it's not right to give that person a license and send them right back out on the road, which is the current practice if you're charged, for example, with manslaughter," said Waring. He said a hearing would be held to decide whether the driver could have his license back.
Another bill would require convicted DUI offenders to finish all of their community service before being given new licenses.
``I'm confident that we're going to get to the point where people realize that this is just not a road they want to go down. And hopefully, we can eliminate, maybe 50 fatalities per year. What would that be worth to the state? I would say a great deal."
In Arizona, more than 600 people died this year in alcohol-related crashes, Waring said.
Meanwhile, DUI arrests keep building during the holiday season. More than 2,500 suspected drunken drivers have been pulled off the streets since Thanksgiving. The state's Holiday DUI Task Force stopped nearly 34,000 drivers and issued more than 10,000 tickets for violations other than DUI.
http://www.arizona-real-estate-pima-tucson.com
more Arizona news
December 31st, 2007 Steve Soliz/KTAR
State Sen. Jim Waring, R-Phoenix, will push four new bills targeting drunken drivers in the next session of the Arizona Legislature, beginning in January.
Waring said his bills will not solve the ultimate problem of drunken drivers and will not affect all people arrested for DUI. ``But there are a few cases where these sanctions may come into play, and we're really just filling in the gaps," he said.
One proposal would take the license of anyone who is involved in an alcohol-related collision.
``We feel it's not right to give that person a license and send them right back out on the road, which is the current practice if you're charged, for example, with manslaughter," said Waring. He said a hearing would be held to decide whether the driver could have his license back.
Another bill would require convicted DUI offenders to finish all of their community service before being given new licenses.
``I'm confident that we're going to get to the point where people realize that this is just not a road they want to go down. And hopefully, we can eliminate, maybe 50 fatalities per year. What would that be worth to the state? I would say a great deal."
In Arizona, more than 600 people died this year in alcohol-related crashes, Waring said.
Meanwhile, DUI arrests keep building during the holiday season. More than 2,500 suspected drunken drivers have been pulled off the streets since Thanksgiving. The state's Holiday DUI Task Force stopped nearly 34,000 drivers and issued more than 10,000 tickets for violations other than DUI.
http://www.arizona-real-estate-pima-tucson.com
more Arizona news
Arizona DUI arrests top 2,300 in statewide holiday crackdown
DUI arrests top 2,300 in statewide holiday crackdown
Sunday, December 30, 2007
PHOENIX (AP) -- Authorities participating in a statewide holiday drunken driving task force say they've now made more than 2,300 DUI arrests since the effort began last month.
On Friday alone, 182 drivers were booked on drunken driving charges.
The Governor's Office of Highway Safety coordinates the effort, which involves saturation patrols, DUI checkpoints and youth alcohol enforcement using officers from dozens of law enforcement agencies.
Authorities have stopped more than 32,000 drivers and issued more than 9,500 citations for driving offenses besides DUI.
Under a new state law, DUI offenders face a minimum 10 day jail term, fines and license suspensions and must install an ignition interlock device in their vehicles.
The task force continues through New Year's Day.
www.arizona-real-estate-pima-tucson.com
Sunday, December 30, 2007
PHOENIX (AP) -- Authorities participating in a statewide holiday drunken driving task force say they've now made more than 2,300 DUI arrests since the effort began last month.
On Friday alone, 182 drivers were booked on drunken driving charges.
The Governor's Office of Highway Safety coordinates the effort, which involves saturation patrols, DUI checkpoints and youth alcohol enforcement using officers from dozens of law enforcement agencies.
Authorities have stopped more than 32,000 drivers and issued more than 9,500 citations for driving offenses besides DUI.
Under a new state law, DUI offenders face a minimum 10 day jail term, fines and license suspensions and must install an ignition interlock device in their vehicles.
The task force continues through New Year's Day.
www.arizona-real-estate-pima-tucson.com
New Year's revelers face tougher DUI law
New Year's revelers face tougher DUI law
The Arizona Republic
Welcome to party weekend.
The next three days will help the Valley ring in the New Year, capped off with signature events Monday night, including fireworks, bands, crowds by the thousands and plenty of drinking.
Factor in Arizona's tough new DUI laws, and there's a sobering reality for revelers.
The new law requires 10 days of jail time, a suspended driver's license and an in-car testing device - for a first-time offender. Of course, there's the biggest danger: hurting someone else or yourself by getting behind the wheel when you're not OK to drive.
With such high stakes, many in the Valley are taking new steps.
http://www.arizona-real-estate-pima-tucson.com/arizona-dui-basics.htm
more dui information for arizona
The Arizona Republic
Welcome to party weekend.
The next three days will help the Valley ring in the New Year, capped off with signature events Monday night, including fireworks, bands, crowds by the thousands and plenty of drinking.
Factor in Arizona's tough new DUI laws, and there's a sobering reality for revelers.
The new law requires 10 days of jail time, a suspended driver's license and an in-car testing device - for a first-time offender. Of course, there's the biggest danger: hurting someone else or yourself by getting behind the wheel when you're not OK to drive.
With such high stakes, many in the Valley are taking new steps.
http://www.arizona-real-estate-pima-tucson.com/arizona-dui-basics.htm
more dui information for arizona
Monday, December 24, 2007
HILLARY HAD NO ROLE IN IRISH PEACE, DESPITE BILL’S CLAIMS
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)