Cops Hunt Suspect in Texas Student's Burning Death; Another Arrested for Tampering With Evidence
Friday , September 28, 2007
Police said anyone with information on the whereabouts of Reyes should call 972-466-4775.
CARROLLTON, Texas —
A 19-year-old man was arrested Thursday on suspicion of tampering with evidence, as authorities continued their manhunt for a suspect in the death and subsequent burning of a University of North Texas sophomore.
Donovan R. Young was arrested Thursday night, according to Carrollton, Tex, police Sgt. John Singleton. "They do not believe that he was involved in the murder at this time," Singleton said.
Police have issued a murder warrant for the arrest of Ernesto Pina Reyes, a 20-year-old resident alien living in Denton, Texas, in connection with the death of Melanie Goodwin. Reyes remains at large.
Surveillance video from a business near where the charred remains of Goodwin, 19, were found this week shows a man dragging a body from a car and igniting a fire, according to an affidavit released Thursday by Carrollton police. Investigators believe the man in the video is Reyes.
Police were not releasing the video. Singleton, a police spokesman, said they considered it important evidence in Goodwin's death.
In the video, a car matching Goodwin's pulls into the parking lot of electronic payment business TransTech Merchant Group around 4 a.m. Tuesday. A stocky man parks the vehicle and pulls a body from it to the spot where Goodwin's remains were found later in the day. The man then lights a fire, according to the affidavit.
Goodwin's burnt body was found Tuesday and an autopsy revealed she died of blunt force trauma.
She was last seen at a Denton convenience store near UNT around 1:45 a.m. Tuesday. Another surveillance video showed her talking to a man with stocky build, wearing similar clothes as the man later seen in the Carrollton video.
A salesclerk remembers the man asked a woman matching Goodwin's description for a ride. Investigators say the clerk remembers the two left the store together, the affidavit said.
Before leaving, the man made and received phone calls from the convenience store's phone. Those were traced to a woman who identified the man as Reyes, her boyfriend. The woman said she saw Reyes Tuesday evening and noticed burns on his forearms and singed hair, authorities said.
Authorities don't believe Goodwin and Reyes knew each other. They haven't ruled out an abduction in her case, since it's unclear what happened in the parking lot of the convenience store, Singleton said.
Goodwin was a 2006 graduate of Bowie High School in Arlington and had appeared in school and community theatrical productions. She was majoring in radio-television-film at North Texas.
Police said anyone with information on the whereabouts of Reyes should call 972-466-4775.
Friday, September 28, 2007
HOW LOW CAN THEY GO? congressional approval
HOW LOW CAN THEY GO?
New poll shows Dem Congress at record low
Phoenix, AZ – “Just when you thought congressional approval ratings had hit rock bottom, the Democrats have proved otherwise and brought the U.S. Congress even lower to 11%,” said Randy Pullen, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party. “I think the question on everybody’s minds now is: ‘How low can they go?’.”
Pullen’s comments came after he learned that the newest Zogby/ Reuters poll of likely voters showed the Democrat controlled Congress achieving a mere 11% approval rating.
“Maybe the Democrats wouldn’t have such a low approval rating if Gabrielle Giffords hadn’t supported the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Or maybe the Democrats wouldn’t be so low if Harry Mitchell hadn’t voted against full funding of the border fence as mandated by Congress,” said Pullen.
Pullen continued, “Maybe their approval ratings wouldn’t be so low if Giffords hadn’t voted for the Democrat bill that tied spending for our troops with billions of dollars in Democrat pork. Maybe they would have better numbers if Mitchell didn’t vote to cut seniors’ Medicare, increase taxes on private health insurance, and open the door to taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens. Or maybe if Giffords hadn’t voted to strip American workers of their right to a secret ballot for union organizing elections and if Mitchell didn’t help “steal” a vote on the House floor, allowing benefits for illegal aliens, they might have better numbers.
“Americans want and deserve a Congress that will effectively represent the interests of American citizens. So far, the only interests that the Democrats have represented are there own,” concluded Pullen.
New poll shows Dem Congress at record low
Phoenix, AZ – “Just when you thought congressional approval ratings had hit rock bottom, the Democrats have proved otherwise and brought the U.S. Congress even lower to 11%,” said Randy Pullen, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party. “I think the question on everybody’s minds now is: ‘How low can they go?’.”
Pullen’s comments came after he learned that the newest Zogby/ Reuters poll of likely voters showed the Democrat controlled Congress achieving a mere 11% approval rating.
“Maybe the Democrats wouldn’t have such a low approval rating if Gabrielle Giffords hadn’t supported the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Or maybe the Democrats wouldn’t be so low if Harry Mitchell hadn’t voted against full funding of the border fence as mandated by Congress,” said Pullen.
Pullen continued, “Maybe their approval ratings wouldn’t be so low if Giffords hadn’t voted for the Democrat bill that tied spending for our troops with billions of dollars in Democrat pork. Maybe they would have better numbers if Mitchell didn’t vote to cut seniors’ Medicare, increase taxes on private health insurance, and open the door to taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens. Or maybe if Giffords hadn’t voted to strip American workers of their right to a secret ballot for union organizing elections and if Mitchell didn’t help “steal” a vote on the House floor, allowing benefits for illegal aliens, they might have better numbers.
“Americans want and deserve a Congress that will effectively represent the interests of American citizens. So far, the only interests that the Democrats have represented are there own,” concluded Pullen.
Free Happy Hour Networking Event
UPCOMING EVENTS:
www.RepublicanProfessionals.org
Free Happy Hour Networking Event
When? Thursday, October 4th at 6:00 PM
Where? 6 Lounge: 7316 E. Stetson Dr. Scottsdale, AZ
Who can attend? All Professionals (free admission)
Who will be speaking? J.D. Hayworth, Radio Personality and Former U.S. Congressman
Randy Pullen, Arizona Republican Party Chairman
CLICK HERE to view the evite and RSVP
The purpose of the Republican Professionals networking events is to link together like minded professionals into a monthly happy hour where they can network, socialize, synergize, and hear directly from their local and statewide Republican leaders. The Republican Professionals Association was started in Phoenix, Arizona and has already spread to other cities.
For more information on this event, please email info@RepublicanProfessionals.org
www.RepublicanProfessionals.org
Free Happy Hour Networking Event
When? Thursday, October 4th at 6:00 PM
Where? 6 Lounge: 7316 E. Stetson Dr. Scottsdale, AZ
Who can attend? All Professionals (free admission)
Who will be speaking? J.D. Hayworth, Radio Personality and Former U.S. Congressman
Randy Pullen, Arizona Republican Party Chairman
CLICK HERE to view the evite and RSVP
The purpose of the Republican Professionals networking events is to link together like minded professionals into a monthly happy hour where they can network, socialize, synergize, and hear directly from their local and statewide Republican leaders. The Republican Professionals Association was started in Phoenix, Arizona and has already spread to other cities.
For more information on this event, please email info@RepublicanProfessionals.org
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Thompson calls for stop to Iranian leader's visit
Thompson calls for stop to Iranian leader's visit
11:10 PM CDT on Thursday, September 20, 2007
By GROMER JEFFERS Jr. / The Dallas Morning News
gjeffers@dallasnews.com
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said Thursday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be allowed into the country, much less at the World Trade Center site, when he travels to New York next week to address the United Nations.
"I know there would be ramifications in the United Nations" if the U.S. refused to let Mr. Ahmadinejad into the country, Mr. Thompson said during a brief news conference at Dallas Love Field. "I would deny this character a visa. What's he going to do, visit there to get pointers for his own activities? I wouldn't let him in the country."
Mr. Thompson said the Iranian regime was a threat to Americans and should be dealt with accordingly.
"They've been killing Americans here and there all over the world for some time," he said. "They're doing so in Iraq today."
On Thursday, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said he would not allow Mr. Ahmadinejad anywhere near Ground Zero. The chance of a diplomatic showdown appeared to lessen when Mr. Ahmadinejad said he would abide by the decision.
But before the decision was announced, Mr. Thompson said a visit to the site by the Iranian would be a very bad idea.
"It's an insult to the America people and the civilized world," Mr. Thompson said. "He should not be allowed within miles of Ground Zero. In fact he shouldn't be allowed in the United States of America."
Mr. Thompson said he would "ratchet up" sanctions against Iran and help Iranians overthrow their government.
Mr. Thompson was in Dallas for a fundraiser, the end of a two-day Texas tour.
11:10 PM CDT on Thursday, September 20, 2007
By GROMER JEFFERS Jr. / The Dallas Morning News
gjeffers@dallasnews.com
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said Thursday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be allowed into the country, much less at the World Trade Center site, when he travels to New York next week to address the United Nations.
"I know there would be ramifications in the United Nations" if the U.S. refused to let Mr. Ahmadinejad into the country, Mr. Thompson said during a brief news conference at Dallas Love Field. "I would deny this character a visa. What's he going to do, visit there to get pointers for his own activities? I wouldn't let him in the country."
Mr. Thompson said the Iranian regime was a threat to Americans and should be dealt with accordingly.
"They've been killing Americans here and there all over the world for some time," he said. "They're doing so in Iraq today."
On Thursday, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said he would not allow Mr. Ahmadinejad anywhere near Ground Zero. The chance of a diplomatic showdown appeared to lessen when Mr. Ahmadinejad said he would abide by the decision.
But before the decision was announced, Mr. Thompson said a visit to the site by the Iranian would be a very bad idea.
"It's an insult to the America people and the civilized world," Mr. Thompson said. "He should not be allowed within miles of Ground Zero. In fact he shouldn't be allowed in the United States of America."
Mr. Thompson said he would "ratchet up" sanctions against Iran and help Iranians overthrow their government.
Mr. Thompson was in Dallas for a fundraiser, the end of a two-day Texas tour.
Fred Thompson toured Dell on Wednesday.
Another presidential hopeful made his way to Austin this week. Former Tennessee Sen. and Law & Order actor Fred Thompson toured Dell on Wednesday.
The computer company has invited all the presidential candidates to visit one of their plants, but so far, only Thompson has accepted the invitation.
Dell officials said they want to let politicians know of needed changes in patent and tax laws in order for companies to keep manufacturing in the United States.
Thompson agrees.
"What we might do in terms of policies in this country, tax policies and things like that, to make it easier for companies to keep their business here," said Thompson.
When Thompson went to the Driscoll for a reception later, he didn't receive as many warm welcomes.
Ron Paul supporters protested outside, saying Thompson's voting record goes against freedom.
The computer company has invited all the presidential candidates to visit one of their plants, but so far, only Thompson has accepted the invitation.
Dell officials said they want to let politicians know of needed changes in patent and tax laws in order for companies to keep manufacturing in the United States.
Thompson agrees.
"What we might do in terms of policies in this country, tax policies and things like that, to make it easier for companies to keep their business here," said Thompson.
When Thompson went to the Driscoll for a reception later, he didn't receive as many warm welcomes.
Ron Paul supporters protested outside, saying Thompson's voting record goes against freedom.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
PHOENIX Officer Shooting Suspect Deported Last Year
PHOENIX Officer Shooting Suspect Deported Last Year
Officer Dies Of Gunshot Wound; Police Shoot, Kill Suspect
PHOENIX -- The man suspected of killing a Phoenix police officer Tuesday was an illegal immigrant who had been deported last year, immigration officials said.
Erik Jovani Martinez, 22, was deported to Mexico on March 3, 2006 after he was convicted on a theft charge, according an Immigration Services spokesman.
Phoenix police shot and killed Martinez, who was suspected of shooting
and killing an officer, carjacking a vehicle and taking a man hostage.
IMAGES: Officer Killed; Suspect Dead In Carjacking Confrontation
"It is an unfortunate situation I have to inform you that the City of
Phoenix has suffered another tragedy," said Mike Frazier, assistant police chief.
"We lost an officer who was killed in the line of duty," Frazier said.
VIDEO: Acting Phoenix Police Chief Mike Frazier Announces Officer's Death
Police said two officers, Nick Erfle and Rob Rodarme, stopped two women and a man who were jaywalking near 24th Street and Thomas Road around 8:30 a.m.
Police said the officers asked the three for identification and learned
the man, who identified himself as 24-year-old Anthony Sanchez, had a misdemeanor warrant out for his arrest. Phoenix police Sgt. Joel Tranter later
said Anthony Sanchez was one of many aliases used by Martinez, who was wanted in Tucson on a shoplifting charge.
Tranter said Martinez gave an alias because he was trying to conceal a felony warrant out for his arrest. The warrant was filed in Maricopa Superior
Court and was for aggravated assault.
Erfle walked back to Martinez and began to arrest him, Tranter said. Rodarme was nearby with the two women.
A physical confrontation quickly ensued and Martinez pulled a handgun
and fired multiple shots, Tranter said. One of them struck Erfle.
see more at http://www.kpho.com/news/14141284/detail.html
.
.
Officer Dies Of Gunshot Wound; Police Shoot, Kill Suspect
PHOENIX -- The man suspected of killing a Phoenix police officer Tuesday was an illegal immigrant who had been deported last year, immigration officials said.
Erik Jovani Martinez, 22, was deported to Mexico on March 3, 2006 after he was convicted on a theft charge, according an Immigration Services spokesman.
Phoenix police shot and killed Martinez, who was suspected of shooting
and killing an officer, carjacking a vehicle and taking a man hostage.
IMAGES: Officer Killed; Suspect Dead In Carjacking Confrontation
"It is an unfortunate situation I have to inform you that the City of
Phoenix has suffered another tragedy," said Mike Frazier, assistant police chief.
"We lost an officer who was killed in the line of duty," Frazier said.
VIDEO: Acting Phoenix Police Chief Mike Frazier Announces Officer's Death
Police said two officers, Nick Erfle and Rob Rodarme, stopped two women and a man who were jaywalking near 24th Street and Thomas Road around 8:30 a.m.
Police said the officers asked the three for identification and learned
the man, who identified himself as 24-year-old Anthony Sanchez, had a misdemeanor warrant out for his arrest. Phoenix police Sgt. Joel Tranter later
said Anthony Sanchez was one of many aliases used by Martinez, who was wanted in Tucson on a shoplifting charge.
Tranter said Martinez gave an alias because he was trying to conceal a felony warrant out for his arrest. The warrant was filed in Maricopa Superior
Court and was for aggravated assault.
Erfle walked back to Martinez and began to arrest him, Tranter said. Rodarme was nearby with the two women.
A physical confrontation quickly ensued and Martinez pulled a handgun
and fired multiple shots, Tranter said. One of them struck Erfle.
see more at http://www.kpho.com/news/14141284/detail.html
.
.
Friday, September 21, 2007
McCain Rallies For 'No Surrender'
McCain Rallies For 'No Surrender'
By Josh Voorhees, Aiken Standard
September 18, 2007
Article Excerpt
Looking to rally support for an unpopular war, Sen. John McCain and his presidential campaign turned to a group of potential voters Monday that needed little convincing.
Making his first campaign stop of the final day of his week-long "No Surrender" tour, the GOP presidential hopeful held a morning rally for supporters and veterans at VFW Savannah River Post 5877.
"We have a strategy that is succeeding," he told the gathering of roughly 200, most with strong ties to the United States military, who showed for the morning's veterans appreciation breakfast and rally.
The former Navy pilot's three-state tour through the early primary proving grounds of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina launched early last week in an effort to build support for the war in Iraq before what will likely be a heated debate on the issue begins in Congress this week.
McCain called on supporters to help convince his colleagues in Washington that despite the war's current unpopularity, the U.S. soldiers must be given a chance to win.
"A date for withdrawal ... is a date for surrender," he said.
While his week-long tour has placed McCain back in the national spotlight - something his campaign had struggled to accomplish since financial difficulties and a mass exodus of campaign staff caused problems earlier this year - his campaign appeared to be making an effort to keep most of the focus at the event on the war and not McCain's bid to succeed George W. Bush as president.
The dark blue stickers worn by campaign staff and handed out to supporters boasted simply the words "No Surrender," with the senator's name noticeably absent.
By Josh Voorhees, Aiken Standard
September 18, 2007
Article Excerpt
Looking to rally support for an unpopular war, Sen. John McCain and his presidential campaign turned to a group of potential voters Monday that needed little convincing.
Making his first campaign stop of the final day of his week-long "No Surrender" tour, the GOP presidential hopeful held a morning rally for supporters and veterans at VFW Savannah River Post 5877.
"We have a strategy that is succeeding," he told the gathering of roughly 200, most with strong ties to the United States military, who showed for the morning's veterans appreciation breakfast and rally.
The former Navy pilot's three-state tour through the early primary proving grounds of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina launched early last week in an effort to build support for the war in Iraq before what will likely be a heated debate on the issue begins in Congress this week.
McCain called on supporters to help convince his colleagues in Washington that despite the war's current unpopularity, the U.S. soldiers must be given a chance to win.
"A date for withdrawal ... is a date for surrender," he said.
While his week-long tour has placed McCain back in the national spotlight - something his campaign had struggled to accomplish since financial difficulties and a mass exodus of campaign staff caused problems earlier this year - his campaign appeared to be making an effort to keep most of the focus at the event on the war and not McCain's bid to succeed George W. Bush as president.
The dark blue stickers worn by campaign staff and handed out to supporters boasted simply the words "No Surrender," with the senator's name noticeably absent.
At Tour's End, McCain Is On The Rise
At Tour's End, McCain Is On The Rise
By Dan Nowicki , The Arizona Republic
September 18, 2007
Article Excerpt
CHARLESTON, S.C. - Sen. John McCain implored veterans and cadets at one of America's most famous military colleges to oppose any premature troop withdrawal from Iraq, concluding a weeklong "No Surrender" tour that could fuel his resurgence in the presidential race.
McCain, R-Ariz., timed the series of rallies in key primary states to coincide with Capitol Hill's Iraq war debate, which is expected to start this week.
"We are trying to say to the American people, 'We understand your sorrow, we understand your frustration,' " McCain told approximately 1,000 people gathered at the Citadel. "We know that, for a long time, this war was mismanaged, and we know that an enormous sacrifice has already been made. ...
"But we know also that the region will deteriorate into chaos and genocide if we leave."
McCain delivered the same message last week at stops across Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. ...
McCain still trails GOP front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, but a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll reflected a gain of 9 percentage points for McCain from last month.
Other polls also indicate that McCain's standing has improved. A CBS News/New York Times survey had him up 6 points while a USA Today/Gallup poll said he had risen 4 percentage points. ...
Playing to his strengths
McCain's No Surrender tour returns the spotlight to a debate in which he is solidly aligned with conservatives: the Iraq war and the battle against terrorism.
"In places like South Carolina, it's going to put the war upfront again and keep the immigration issue off the front pages," said Kyle Longley, an Arizona State University expert on Southern politics and foreign policy who taught at the Citadel.
"I think that plays to his advantage. Plus, I think he's getting a bump because he's gone back to being the insurrectionist, the outsider or person who is going to stir things up." ...
During the rally, former President George H.W. Bush echoed McCain's determination through a videotaped message. "The bottom line is we must persevere," said Bush, the father of President Bush. "We must not surrender. We must not quit and run away. God bless our troops and everyone involved in the No Surrender rally."
Uniformed cadets mixed with other military veterans and McCain fans in the packed Citadel ballroom. Several carried hand-written signs reading, "It's not politics ... it's patriotism." ...
"We all really do respect his military service," said Scott Barlow, a 19-year-old Citadel sophomore from Georgia who has yet to choose a candidate in next year's presidential election, the first in which he is eligible to vote.
McCain is known as one of the earliest and strongest supporters of President Bush's ongoing surge strategy, but McCain also repeatedly points out from the stump that for years he relentlessly criticized the way the White House conducted the war.
For years, he called for additional troops. He often denounces former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as one of the worst ever in the post.
Despite past mistakes, McCain maintains that the United States cannot abandon the Iraq mission or even set a specific date for withdrawal without buoying the spirits of terrorists and encouraging Iran's regional ambitions.
"I agree with Senator McCain," said Charles Furtado, 47, a 1982 Citadel graduate from Beaufort, S.C., and retired Marine who served in the Gulf War and in Iraq. "It's ugly. People are frustrated, but we've got to finish it. We started it, and we've got to see this thing through." ...
Please click here to read the entire article.
By Dan Nowicki , The Arizona Republic
September 18, 2007
Article Excerpt
CHARLESTON, S.C. - Sen. John McCain implored veterans and cadets at one of America's most famous military colleges to oppose any premature troop withdrawal from Iraq, concluding a weeklong "No Surrender" tour that could fuel his resurgence in the presidential race.
McCain, R-Ariz., timed the series of rallies in key primary states to coincide with Capitol Hill's Iraq war debate, which is expected to start this week.
"We are trying to say to the American people, 'We understand your sorrow, we understand your frustration,' " McCain told approximately 1,000 people gathered at the Citadel. "We know that, for a long time, this war was mismanaged, and we know that an enormous sacrifice has already been made. ...
"But we know also that the region will deteriorate into chaos and genocide if we leave."
McCain delivered the same message last week at stops across Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. ...
McCain still trails GOP front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, but a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll reflected a gain of 9 percentage points for McCain from last month.
Other polls also indicate that McCain's standing has improved. A CBS News/New York Times survey had him up 6 points while a USA Today/Gallup poll said he had risen 4 percentage points. ...
Playing to his strengths
McCain's No Surrender tour returns the spotlight to a debate in which he is solidly aligned with conservatives: the Iraq war and the battle against terrorism.
"In places like South Carolina, it's going to put the war upfront again and keep the immigration issue off the front pages," said Kyle Longley, an Arizona State University expert on Southern politics and foreign policy who taught at the Citadel.
"I think that plays to his advantage. Plus, I think he's getting a bump because he's gone back to being the insurrectionist, the outsider or person who is going to stir things up." ...
During the rally, former President George H.W. Bush echoed McCain's determination through a videotaped message. "The bottom line is we must persevere," said Bush, the father of President Bush. "We must not surrender. We must not quit and run away. God bless our troops and everyone involved in the No Surrender rally."
Uniformed cadets mixed with other military veterans and McCain fans in the packed Citadel ballroom. Several carried hand-written signs reading, "It's not politics ... it's patriotism." ...
"We all really do respect his military service," said Scott Barlow, a 19-year-old Citadel sophomore from Georgia who has yet to choose a candidate in next year's presidential election, the first in which he is eligible to vote.
McCain is known as one of the earliest and strongest supporters of President Bush's ongoing surge strategy, but McCain also repeatedly points out from the stump that for years he relentlessly criticized the way the White House conducted the war.
For years, he called for additional troops. He often denounces former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as one of the worst ever in the post.
Despite past mistakes, McCain maintains that the United States cannot abandon the Iraq mission or even set a specific date for withdrawal without buoying the spirits of terrorists and encouraging Iran's regional ambitions.
"I agree with Senator McCain," said Charles Furtado, 47, a 1982 Citadel graduate from Beaufort, S.C., and retired Marine who served in the Gulf War and in Iraq. "It's ugly. People are frustrated, but we've got to finish it. We started it, and we've got to see this thing through." ...
Please click here to read the entire article.
McCain Gets Credit For Consistency
McCain Gets Credit For Consistency
The Orangeburg Times And Democrat
September 20, 2007
ISSUE: John McCain's campaign
OUR VIEW: Senator consistent in message about war
U.S. Sen John McCain went from presumptive nominee to sagging candidate. Now the Arizona senator's GOP presidential campaign is showing signs of life. ...
McCain is focusing on key early states in the primary process, making South Carolina a popular stop. Importantly, he here has the support of a majority of the GOP establishment.
More important, however, is the McCain message. Saying he favors exiting Iraq at the earliest feasible time, the senator has been steadfast in stating a pullout at this point would lead to chaos in Iraq and destabilization of the region. It would amount to a major American defeat. ...
In the war's first years, McCain was a consistent administration critic. He echoes that today, saying the Bush team badly mismanaged the war. He says that as much as anything is why Americans have become disillusioned with the battle.
McCain concluded the tour at The Citadel Monday night by imploring veterans, cadets and a wide demographic range of supporters to oppose any plan for a premature troop withdrawal from Iraq. ...
Give McCain credit for consistency. He has not shied away from supporting the war even when his popularity numbers were plummeting. His campaign may never regain the stature accorded it by prognosticators when the '08 presidential politicking began, but McCain is not surrendering. If the Iraq situation can be improved in the coming months, or at the very minimum does not deteriorate, McCain might well be back in the ball game.
The Orangeburg Times And Democrat
September 20, 2007
ISSUE: John McCain's campaign
OUR VIEW: Senator consistent in message about war
U.S. Sen John McCain went from presumptive nominee to sagging candidate. Now the Arizona senator's GOP presidential campaign is showing signs of life. ...
McCain is focusing on key early states in the primary process, making South Carolina a popular stop. Importantly, he here has the support of a majority of the GOP establishment.
More important, however, is the McCain message. Saying he favors exiting Iraq at the earliest feasible time, the senator has been steadfast in stating a pullout at this point would lead to chaos in Iraq and destabilization of the region. It would amount to a major American defeat. ...
In the war's first years, McCain was a consistent administration critic. He echoes that today, saying the Bush team badly mismanaged the war. He says that as much as anything is why Americans have become disillusioned with the battle.
McCain concluded the tour at The Citadel Monday night by imploring veterans, cadets and a wide demographic range of supporters to oppose any plan for a premature troop withdrawal from Iraq. ...
Give McCain credit for consistency. He has not shied away from supporting the war even when his popularity numbers were plummeting. His campaign may never regain the stature accorded it by prognosticators when the '08 presidential politicking began, but McCain is not surrendering. If the Iraq situation can be improved in the coming months, or at the very minimum does not deteriorate, McCain might well be back in the ball game.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Flake-Gutierrez Amnesty Bill
House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Flake-Gutierrez Amnesty Bill
Last Thursday the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held a hearing on the Flake-Gutierrez amnesty bill (H.R. 1645, otherwise known as the STRIVE Act). Chairwoman Zoë Lofgren (D-CA) began the hearing by stating she was personally disappointed when the Senate failed to enact "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation over the summer and vowed to continue working on this issue. Ranking Member Steve King (R-IA) decried the Flake-Gutierrez as amnesty and urged the witnesses to simply acknowledge that fact so that the debate could proceed openly.
The hearing had two panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of Congressmen Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Joe Baca (D-CA), Ray LaHood (R-IL), and Brian Bilbray (R-CA). The Second panel consisted of policy experts (including FAIR's Government Relations Director) and individuals involved in the immigration reform debate. Interestingly, Congressman Flake immediately acknowledged the unlikelihood that the bill would move this year or even before the next election. He then disputed Congressman King's claim that the bill was an amnesty and said the bill was not comparable to the 1986 amnesty because of the fines and other requirements. He argued that the definition of amnesty was an "unconditional pardon" and that this legislation represented nothing of the sort. Congressman Bilbray retorted that rewarding illegal activity was nothing if not amnesty and a sure-fire way to encourage more of it was to pass mass amnesty legislation such as the Flake-Gutierrez bill.
From the second panel, much attention was given to two witnesses, Mr. Tony Wasilewski and Mr. Eduardo Gonzales, both legal immigrants whose wives had been deported. Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) — who is both a Member of the Subcommittee and an author of the legislation — attempted to portray these individuals as examples of how the current system is unfair to aliens who violate the law. Julie Kirchner, Director of Government Relations at FAIR, argued that a legitimate immigration system is not one that rewards illegal aliens, but instead encourages those who come to the U.S. legally and wait patiently for years in their home countries in order to have their chance to live the American dream.
Last Thursday the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held a hearing on the Flake-Gutierrez amnesty bill (H.R. 1645, otherwise known as the STRIVE Act). Chairwoman Zoë Lofgren (D-CA) began the hearing by stating she was personally disappointed when the Senate failed to enact "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation over the summer and vowed to continue working on this issue. Ranking Member Steve King (R-IA) decried the Flake-Gutierrez as amnesty and urged the witnesses to simply acknowledge that fact so that the debate could proceed openly.
The hearing had two panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of Congressmen Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Joe Baca (D-CA), Ray LaHood (R-IL), and Brian Bilbray (R-CA). The Second panel consisted of policy experts (including FAIR's Government Relations Director) and individuals involved in the immigration reform debate. Interestingly, Congressman Flake immediately acknowledged the unlikelihood that the bill would move this year or even before the next election. He then disputed Congressman King's claim that the bill was an amnesty and said the bill was not comparable to the 1986 amnesty because of the fines and other requirements. He argued that the definition of amnesty was an "unconditional pardon" and that this legislation represented nothing of the sort. Congressman Bilbray retorted that rewarding illegal activity was nothing if not amnesty and a sure-fire way to encourage more of it was to pass mass amnesty legislation such as the Flake-Gutierrez bill.
From the second panel, much attention was given to two witnesses, Mr. Tony Wasilewski and Mr. Eduardo Gonzales, both legal immigrants whose wives had been deported. Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) — who is both a Member of the Subcommittee and an author of the legislation — attempted to portray these individuals as examples of how the current system is unfair to aliens who violate the law. Julie Kirchner, Director of Government Relations at FAIR, argued that a legitimate immigration system is not one that rewards illegal aliens, but instead encourages those who come to the U.S. legally and wait patiently for years in their home countries in order to have their chance to live the American dream.
"Mexico Does Not Stop at Its Border," Declares President of Mexico
"Mexico Does Not Stop at Its Border,"
Declares President of Mexico
On Sunday, September 9, Mexican President Felipe Calderon attacked efforts by the United States to exercise control the border, asserting that "Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico." While this bizarre claim was ignored by members of the Bush Administration, various others in Washington attempted to decipher its meaning. Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives Wednesday, Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) read Calderon's "saber-rattling words" as "a renewed call by Mexico to colonize the United States." Meanwhile, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) issued a statement goading the Mexican president: "Perhaps Calderon should take a refresher course on geography, because Mexico does in fact end at the Rio Grande. . . ."
President Calderon also attacked what he termed "unilateral" measures by the United States government to enforce its immigration laws and vowed to redouble efforts on behalf of Mexican immigrants. "I'm sure the people of Mexico would be extremely grateful if Calderon showed as much concern over the well being of Mexicans unlucky enough to still live there as he does for the people who have successfully fled his country," responded Representative Tancredo.
Declares President of Mexico
On Sunday, September 9, Mexican President Felipe Calderon attacked efforts by the United States to exercise control the border, asserting that "Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico." While this bizarre claim was ignored by members of the Bush Administration, various others in Washington attempted to decipher its meaning. Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives Wednesday, Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) read Calderon's "saber-rattling words" as "a renewed call by Mexico to colonize the United States." Meanwhile, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) issued a statement goading the Mexican president: "Perhaps Calderon should take a refresher course on geography, because Mexico does in fact end at the Rio Grande. . . ."
President Calderon also attacked what he termed "unilateral" measures by the United States government to enforce its immigration laws and vowed to redouble efforts on behalf of Mexican immigrants. "I'm sure the people of Mexico would be extremely grateful if Calderon showed as much concern over the well being of Mexicans unlucky enough to still live there as he does for the people who have successfully fled his country," responded Representative Tancredo.
Mexican Trucks Start Hitting the U.S. Highways
Mexican Trucks Start Hitting the U.S. Highways
On Thursday, September 6, the Bush Administration began granting authority to Mexican trucks to travel U.S. highways under a one-year pilot project. (http://www.dot.gov/) Pursuant to an agreement reached by the Bush Administration with Mexico in February, up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican trucking companies that have met certain safety, licensing and other requirements will be allowed to operate anywhere in the country. (Department of Transportation Briefing, February 23, 2007) While this agreement was to go into effect within 60 days after it was announced, Congress delayed its implementation in May by adding a provision to the Iraq War emergency supplemental appropriations bill requiring the Department of Transportation Inspector General to report on the safety of the program before it could proceed. (See P.L. 110-28 § 6901)
The first Mexican trucking company allowed to travel inside the United States is Transportes Olympic of Nuevo Leon, which says it plans to use two trucks to carry goods within the U.S. Transportes Olympic sent its first truck across the Texas border early Saturday morning, where it underwent an inspection and then departed for North Carolina. (Houston Chronicle, September 8, 2007) Another 37 Mexican firms are presently set to obtain the U.S. driving permits. (Bloomberg, September 7, 2007.)
The pilot project with Mexico marks the first time Mexican trucks will be allowed to transport goods outside of a twenty-five mile border zone since the North American Free Trade Agreement authorizing this cross-border travel went into effect in 1994. The expansion of Mexican trucking under NAFTA was halted when then-President Bill Clinton refused to allow Mexican trucks to travel beyond a 25-mile border zone citing highway safety. In 2001, a NAFTA tribunal ordered the U.S. government to open all of its highways to Mexican trucks despite safety concerns. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
Opposition to the Administration's decision to push ahead with the Mexican Trucking pilot project is growing in various corners. Last week, dozens of truckers let by the Teamsters plus anti-illegal immigration activists protested the trucking program near San Diego's Otay Mesa border crossing, holding signs that read 'NAFTA Kills' and 'Save American Highways.' (ABCNews September 6, 2007) In a written statement, Teamsters union General President Jim Hoffa criticized the Administration, calling the pilot project an "illegal program" that was "announced under the cover of darkness." Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), declared the project to be "another attack on the working people of the United States." (Bloomberg, September 6, 2007)
The Bush Administration defended the Mexican Trucking program, insisting it has imposed rigorous safety protocols in the program, including drug and alcohol testing for drivers done by U.S. companies. However, in a recent report, the DOT Inspector General said the Administration had no coordinated plans for checking trucks and drivers participating in the test program, and that the motor carrier safety group needed to do more to help enforce the English requirement for drivers. (Associated Press, September 8, 2007)
The Teamsters, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen took further action to block the pilot program last week by filing a lawsuit seeking an injunction. Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the petition. The Teamsters, the Sierra Club and other groups said they would continue their legal fight to stop the program because of "serious safety, environmental, smuggling and security concerns." (New York Times, September 9, 2007) Interestingly, Teamsters Spokesman Leslie Miller said American truckers were most concerned about sharing the roads with potentially unsafe Mexican vehicles, not the potential of increased competition from lower-wage workers. "We have nothing against Mexican truck drivers; it's the companies that exploit them that we oppose," she said. "We're absolutely not ready for this." (New York Times, September 9, 2007)
Opponents of the program are also hoping Congress will intervene. The House version of the Transportation Department Appropriations bill contains language that would halt the project on public safety grounds. The legislation comes before the Senate next week. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
On Thursday, September 6, the Bush Administration began granting authority to Mexican trucks to travel U.S. highways under a one-year pilot project. (http://www.dot.gov/) Pursuant to an agreement reached by the Bush Administration with Mexico in February, up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican trucking companies that have met certain safety, licensing and other requirements will be allowed to operate anywhere in the country. (Department of Transportation Briefing, February 23, 2007) While this agreement was to go into effect within 60 days after it was announced, Congress delayed its implementation in May by adding a provision to the Iraq War emergency supplemental appropriations bill requiring the Department of Transportation Inspector General to report on the safety of the program before it could proceed. (See P.L. 110-28 § 6901)
The first Mexican trucking company allowed to travel inside the United States is Transportes Olympic of Nuevo Leon, which says it plans to use two trucks to carry goods within the U.S. Transportes Olympic sent its first truck across the Texas border early Saturday morning, where it underwent an inspection and then departed for North Carolina. (Houston Chronicle, September 8, 2007) Another 37 Mexican firms are presently set to obtain the U.S. driving permits. (Bloomberg, September 7, 2007.)
The pilot project with Mexico marks the first time Mexican trucks will be allowed to transport goods outside of a twenty-five mile border zone since the North American Free Trade Agreement authorizing this cross-border travel went into effect in 1994. The expansion of Mexican trucking under NAFTA was halted when then-President Bill Clinton refused to allow Mexican trucks to travel beyond a 25-mile border zone citing highway safety. In 2001, a NAFTA tribunal ordered the U.S. government to open all of its highways to Mexican trucks despite safety concerns. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
Opposition to the Administration's decision to push ahead with the Mexican Trucking pilot project is growing in various corners. Last week, dozens of truckers let by the Teamsters plus anti-illegal immigration activists protested the trucking program near San Diego's Otay Mesa border crossing, holding signs that read 'NAFTA Kills' and 'Save American Highways.' (ABCNews September 6, 2007) In a written statement, Teamsters union General President Jim Hoffa criticized the Administration, calling the pilot project an "illegal program" that was "announced under the cover of darkness." Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), declared the project to be "another attack on the working people of the United States." (Bloomberg, September 6, 2007)
The Bush Administration defended the Mexican Trucking program, insisting it has imposed rigorous safety protocols in the program, including drug and alcohol testing for drivers done by U.S. companies. However, in a recent report, the DOT Inspector General said the Administration had no coordinated plans for checking trucks and drivers participating in the test program, and that the motor carrier safety group needed to do more to help enforce the English requirement for drivers. (Associated Press, September 8, 2007)
The Teamsters, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen took further action to block the pilot program last week by filing a lawsuit seeking an injunction. Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the petition. The Teamsters, the Sierra Club and other groups said they would continue their legal fight to stop the program because of "serious safety, environmental, smuggling and security concerns." (New York Times, September 9, 2007) Interestingly, Teamsters Spokesman Leslie Miller said American truckers were most concerned about sharing the roads with potentially unsafe Mexican vehicles, not the potential of increased competition from lower-wage workers. "We have nothing against Mexican truck drivers; it's the companies that exploit them that we oppose," she said. "We're absolutely not ready for this." (New York Times, September 9, 2007)
Opponents of the program are also hoping Congress will intervene. The House version of the Transportation Department Appropriations bill contains language that would halt the project on public safety grounds. The legislation comes before the Senate next week. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
FRED THOMPSON: FIRST LOBBYIST FOR PRESIDENT
FRED THOMPSON: FIRST LOBBYIST FOR PRESIDENT
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on September 10, 2007.
There’s a new first in the 2008 presidential campaign.
We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.
But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.
Thompson was a lobbyist for 20 years before he was elected to the Senate, representing the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association, the deposed Haitian President Aristed and the National Planning & Reproductive Health Association.
Although Fred bills himself as strongly against government interference and handouts, he also lobbied for Westinghouse in its bid for government subsidies for a nuclear power plant in Oak Ridge. After retiring from the Senate in 2002, Thompson went back to lobbying, earning $750,000 since then from Equitas, the British insurance company that wants to limit payments to the families of those who died due to asbestos exposure.
Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.
Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.
But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms. Aside from Thompson, there’s his wife, Jeri, who worked for the PR/lobbying giant Burson-Marsteller and law firm/lobbyists DLA Piper after she met Fred. Then there’s Ken Reitz, a senior campaign adviser, who works for 360Advantage — owned by two lobbying firms Burson-Marsteller and Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Reitz is the former CEO of Burson and became famous for creating the National Smokers Alliance — a faux grassroots group opposing tobacco regulation that was funded by the tobacco companies.
Fred’s first campaign manager, Tom Collamore, was a former tobacco lobbyist. He is one of the many Thompson staffers who was shown the door after disagreeing with Mrs. Thompson. Fred’s chief counselor is Michael Toner, an adviser to Bryan Cave Strategies, which represents Shell Oil and other corporations. Then there’s Tom Daffron, COO of the Jefferson Consulting Group that lobbies on homeland security issues. Ed Gillespie, co-founder of the Quinn Gillespie & Associates lobbying firm is also a close adviser.
Then there are the bundlers and donors. Public Citizen identified six Thompson bundlers as registered lobbyists, but the number associated with lobbyists significantly increases when the names of employees of lobbying firm, who are not necessarily registered lobbyists, are added:
Bundler/Lobbyists (amounts collected are not available)
• Richard F.Hohlt, a lobbyist for tobacco, nuclear energy, Chevron, and Fannie Mae
• Rachael Jones Hensler, lobbyist for the Nickles Group
• William Hilleary, lobbyist, Sommerstein, Nasy & Rosenthal
• Robert L. Livingston, lobbyist, The Livingston Group
• W. Timothy Loche, lobbyist, Smith-Free Group
• David Lugar, lobbyist, Quinn Gillespie
• Mach F. Mattingly, lobbyist
• Tom Collamore
• Michael Toner
Registered Lobbyist Contributors:
• Katie Huffard
• Chris Lamond
• Jeffrey Bloemaker
• Patrick O’Donnell
• William Timmons
• William Hilleary
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
Other:
• Johanna Hardy, Dir., Legislative Affairs, Rolls Royce
• Kirk Clinkenbeard, Potomic Advocates
• John Dowd, partner Akin, Gump which has lobbying practice
• Sarah Newman, employee, Cassidy and Associates
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.
Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on September 10, 2007.
There’s a new first in the 2008 presidential campaign.
We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.
But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.
Thompson was a lobbyist for 20 years before he was elected to the Senate, representing the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association, the deposed Haitian President Aristed and the National Planning & Reproductive Health Association.
Although Fred bills himself as strongly against government interference and handouts, he also lobbied for Westinghouse in its bid for government subsidies for a nuclear power plant in Oak Ridge. After retiring from the Senate in 2002, Thompson went back to lobbying, earning $750,000 since then from Equitas, the British insurance company that wants to limit payments to the families of those who died due to asbestos exposure.
Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.
Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.
But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms. Aside from Thompson, there’s his wife, Jeri, who worked for the PR/lobbying giant Burson-Marsteller and law firm/lobbyists DLA Piper after she met Fred. Then there’s Ken Reitz, a senior campaign adviser, who works for 360Advantage — owned by two lobbying firms Burson-Marsteller and Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Reitz is the former CEO of Burson and became famous for creating the National Smokers Alliance — a faux grassroots group opposing tobacco regulation that was funded by the tobacco companies.
Fred’s first campaign manager, Tom Collamore, was a former tobacco lobbyist. He is one of the many Thompson staffers who was shown the door after disagreeing with Mrs. Thompson. Fred’s chief counselor is Michael Toner, an adviser to Bryan Cave Strategies, which represents Shell Oil and other corporations. Then there’s Tom Daffron, COO of the Jefferson Consulting Group that lobbies on homeland security issues. Ed Gillespie, co-founder of the Quinn Gillespie & Associates lobbying firm is also a close adviser.
Then there are the bundlers and donors. Public Citizen identified six Thompson bundlers as registered lobbyists, but the number associated with lobbyists significantly increases when the names of employees of lobbying firm, who are not necessarily registered lobbyists, are added:
Bundler/Lobbyists (amounts collected are not available)
• Richard F.Hohlt, a lobbyist for tobacco, nuclear energy, Chevron, and Fannie Mae
• Rachael Jones Hensler, lobbyist for the Nickles Group
• William Hilleary, lobbyist, Sommerstein, Nasy & Rosenthal
• Robert L. Livingston, lobbyist, The Livingston Group
• W. Timothy Loche, lobbyist, Smith-Free Group
• David Lugar, lobbyist, Quinn Gillespie
• Mach F. Mattingly, lobbyist
• Tom Collamore
• Michael Toner
Registered Lobbyist Contributors:
• Katie Huffard
• Chris Lamond
• Jeffrey Bloemaker
• Patrick O’Donnell
• William Timmons
• William Hilleary
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
Other:
• Johanna Hardy, Dir., Legislative Affairs, Rolls Royce
• Kirk Clinkenbeard, Potomic Advocates
• John Dowd, partner Akin, Gump which has lobbying practice
• Sarah Newman, employee, Cassidy and Associates
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.
Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?
IOWA VS. AMERICA
IOWA VS. AMERICA
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 12, 2007.
In America, Hillary Clinton holds a solid and enduring 15- to 20-point lead over Barack Obama, who, in turn, enjoys a 2-to-1 advantage over John Edwards, who languishes in third place. But in Iowa, Edwards is often in first place in the polls and, at best, Hillary is locked in a three-way tie with her rivals.
In America, Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the Republican field by 10 points while Fred Thompson edges past the ill-fated Mitt Romney and the snakebit John McCain. But in Iowa, it is all Romney all the time as the former Massachusetts governor, riding a wave of paid television ads, has first place all to himself and has been atop the Iowa polls for four or five months. Meanwhile, Arkansas’s former governor, Mike Huckabee, way down in the national polls, is surging in Iowa and now boasts 14 percent in the polls. Ahead of McCain, he is challenging Thompson and Giuliani in the first-in-the-nation caucuses.
So which is reality? Is it the relatively stable national leads of Hillary and Rudy, or the three-way tie on the Democratic side in Iowa and the Romney romp among the state’s Republicans?
The theory is that with the obsessive national focus on the presidential race, which started as soon as the ballots were counted in 2006, the early states no longer are the only ones to get an overdose of the campaign early on. Thus they will conform, some say, to the national trends before long. But Edwards’s enduring strength and Romney’s surge in Iowa may challenge this conventional wisdom.
Edwards’s strong showing in Iowa is largely an historical artifact, the product of his efforts there in 2004 and the assiduous attention he has paid to the state ever since. As such, it’s probable that his strong performance will be overtaken by the national perception that the race is really between Hillary and Obama. As the two national front-runners begin to run ads in Iowa, they should be able to leave Edwards behind. Indeed, there is no reason not to expect Hillary to surge into the lead in Iowa as she already has in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
But on the Republican side, the situation is more problematic. Romney’s surge is entirely Rudy Giuliani’s fault. Ineptly, his campaign chose not to advertise early on in Iowa and ceded the airwaves to Romney. Anxious to display the largest cash on hand, Giuliani made a possibly fatal mistake in letting Romney get a large and sustained lead in the first caucus state.
It remains to be seen whether Rudy and/or Thompson can play catch-up and challenge Romney in Iowa. If Mitt Romney wins in Iowa, he can probably expect to prevail in New Hampshire, where he is also well ahead.
It is one of the media’s blind spots that, while it discounts the performance of a presidential candidate in his home state (Tom Harkin, for example, got no bounce from winning in Iowa in 1992), it does not realize that, in media terms, Massachusetts and New Hampshire might as well be the same state. Most of the Granite State’s residents watch Boston television at night and are used to seeing ex-Gov. Romney in their living rooms on the nightly news, giving him an edge as significant as if it were his home state. In 1992, Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas won the New Hampshire primary and the media accepted it at face value, as they are likely to do if Romney prevails.
If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, will anti-Mormon prejudice and his flip-flop-flip on abortion bring him down, or will he cruise to the nomination?
It is also possible that something else is going on in Iowa. Jaded by the massive amounts of money spent in the state by presidential aspirants, Mike Huckabee seems to be developing a unique appeal as the candidate without money. As he said before the Ames straw poll, where Romney wrote out $35 checks for any of his supporters who wished to pay the obligatory poll tax and vote, “I can’t afford to buy you. I can’t even afford to rent you.” Huckabee’s second-place 18 percent finish at Ames might give an indication of a broader surge behind his candidacy as his electric personality, warm wit and sincere spirituality attract Republicans in droves. (In Texas, California Congressman Duncan Hunter may have shown a similar strength, winning the straw poll with 40 percent of the vote.)
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 12, 2007.
In America, Hillary Clinton holds a solid and enduring 15- to 20-point lead over Barack Obama, who, in turn, enjoys a 2-to-1 advantage over John Edwards, who languishes in third place. But in Iowa, Edwards is often in first place in the polls and, at best, Hillary is locked in a three-way tie with her rivals.
In America, Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the Republican field by 10 points while Fred Thompson edges past the ill-fated Mitt Romney and the snakebit John McCain. But in Iowa, it is all Romney all the time as the former Massachusetts governor, riding a wave of paid television ads, has first place all to himself and has been atop the Iowa polls for four or five months. Meanwhile, Arkansas’s former governor, Mike Huckabee, way down in the national polls, is surging in Iowa and now boasts 14 percent in the polls. Ahead of McCain, he is challenging Thompson and Giuliani in the first-in-the-nation caucuses.
So which is reality? Is it the relatively stable national leads of Hillary and Rudy, or the three-way tie on the Democratic side in Iowa and the Romney romp among the state’s Republicans?
The theory is that with the obsessive national focus on the presidential race, which started as soon as the ballots were counted in 2006, the early states no longer are the only ones to get an overdose of the campaign early on. Thus they will conform, some say, to the national trends before long. But Edwards’s enduring strength and Romney’s surge in Iowa may challenge this conventional wisdom.
Edwards’s strong showing in Iowa is largely an historical artifact, the product of his efforts there in 2004 and the assiduous attention he has paid to the state ever since. As such, it’s probable that his strong performance will be overtaken by the national perception that the race is really between Hillary and Obama. As the two national front-runners begin to run ads in Iowa, they should be able to leave Edwards behind. Indeed, there is no reason not to expect Hillary to surge into the lead in Iowa as she already has in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
But on the Republican side, the situation is more problematic. Romney’s surge is entirely Rudy Giuliani’s fault. Ineptly, his campaign chose not to advertise early on in Iowa and ceded the airwaves to Romney. Anxious to display the largest cash on hand, Giuliani made a possibly fatal mistake in letting Romney get a large and sustained lead in the first caucus state.
It remains to be seen whether Rudy and/or Thompson can play catch-up and challenge Romney in Iowa. If Mitt Romney wins in Iowa, he can probably expect to prevail in New Hampshire, where he is also well ahead.
It is one of the media’s blind spots that, while it discounts the performance of a presidential candidate in his home state (Tom Harkin, for example, got no bounce from winning in Iowa in 1992), it does not realize that, in media terms, Massachusetts and New Hampshire might as well be the same state. Most of the Granite State’s residents watch Boston television at night and are used to seeing ex-Gov. Romney in their living rooms on the nightly news, giving him an edge as significant as if it were his home state. In 1992, Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas won the New Hampshire primary and the media accepted it at face value, as they are likely to do if Romney prevails.
If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, will anti-Mormon prejudice and his flip-flop-flip on abortion bring him down, or will he cruise to the nomination?
It is also possible that something else is going on in Iowa. Jaded by the massive amounts of money spent in the state by presidential aspirants, Mike Huckabee seems to be developing a unique appeal as the candidate without money. As he said before the Ames straw poll, where Romney wrote out $35 checks for any of his supporters who wished to pay the obligatory poll tax and vote, “I can’t afford to buy you. I can’t even afford to rent you.” Huckabee’s second-place 18 percent finish at Ames might give an indication of a broader surge behind his candidacy as his electric personality, warm wit and sincere spirituality attract Republicans in droves. (In Texas, California Congressman Duncan Hunter may have shown a similar strength, winning the straw poll with 40 percent of the vote.)
DEMS' GREAT SENATE HOPES
DEMS' GREAT SENATE HOPES
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Democrats may hold up to 57 U.S. Senate seats after the 2008 election - almost enough to block a Republican filibuster and likely enough to assure passage of most of the Democratic program.
Last week was a bad one for the GOP. Longtime Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) announced that they wouldn't seek re-election in '08, joining Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) in voluntary retirement. Add to that Sen. Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) involuntary retirement.
Republicans may well lose the Warner seat - Sen. George Allen lost in '06 to Democrat Jim Webb in Virginia. The most likely Democratic candidate, ex-Gov. Mark Warner, probably can't be beaten.
The Colorado seat is likely to go Democratic, too. The strongest GOP candidates aren't running; ex-Rep. Bob Schaffer will likely face off against the Democrats' Rep. Mark Udall. With major Hispanic immigration, Colorado has become more and more blue: Witness the election of Democrat Ken Salazar to the Senate in '04.
The GOP should hold Nebraska and Idaho. Only popular ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey could win Nebraska for Democrats, and he'd have to leave his job at the New School University. Idaho's in play only if Craig recants his resignation and stays in office until his term is up in '08.
But four other GOP incumbents are in big danger next year. Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith boasts a job approval below 50 percent. He's already the only Republican senator on the West Coast.
Nearly as endangered a species is the New England Republican. Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine face '08 jeopardy, too. Sununu narrowly defeated ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in '02; she might well win in '08. In the American Research Group poll, she beats Sununu by 57 percent to 29 percent; in the University of New Hampshire poll, it's 54-38.
Collins will face a tough challenge from Democratic Rep. Tom Allen. Her support of the Iraq War will likely cost her in Maine, one of the most liberal states.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Democrat-turned-Republican Sen. Norm Coleman faces a tough fight for his second term. He has backed the war and opposed abortion, unpopular positions in liberal Minnesota. His approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, with only 43 percent having a favorable opinion of him. And it looks like he won't be lucky enough to draw comedian Al Franken as his opponent after all: Attorney Mike Ciresi will likely beat Franken in the Democratic primary.
Finally, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) may be under federal indictment by next November. The FBI recently raided his home in a bribery scandal. His seat would likely stay Republican, but might slip away.
The GOP might pick up some Democratic seats, too - as long as the presidential race is not a Democratic landslide. Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) could all be in danger. And Joe Biden (D-Del.) may retire. But, in a Democratic year, all these seats may be safe.
If the Republicans lose Virginia, Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota - and pick up no new seats - the Democrats will have 57 votes in the Senate (counting Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who votes with them). It's enough to let a new Democratic president have her way legislatively without too much trouble.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Democrats may hold up to 57 U.S. Senate seats after the 2008 election - almost enough to block a Republican filibuster and likely enough to assure passage of most of the Democratic program.
Last week was a bad one for the GOP. Longtime Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) announced that they wouldn't seek re-election in '08, joining Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) in voluntary retirement. Add to that Sen. Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) involuntary retirement.
Republicans may well lose the Warner seat - Sen. George Allen lost in '06 to Democrat Jim Webb in Virginia. The most likely Democratic candidate, ex-Gov. Mark Warner, probably can't be beaten.
The Colorado seat is likely to go Democratic, too. The strongest GOP candidates aren't running; ex-Rep. Bob Schaffer will likely face off against the Democrats' Rep. Mark Udall. With major Hispanic immigration, Colorado has become more and more blue: Witness the election of Democrat Ken Salazar to the Senate in '04.
The GOP should hold Nebraska and Idaho. Only popular ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey could win Nebraska for Democrats, and he'd have to leave his job at the New School University. Idaho's in play only if Craig recants his resignation and stays in office until his term is up in '08.
But four other GOP incumbents are in big danger next year. Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith boasts a job approval below 50 percent. He's already the only Republican senator on the West Coast.
Nearly as endangered a species is the New England Republican. Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine face '08 jeopardy, too. Sununu narrowly defeated ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in '02; she might well win in '08. In the American Research Group poll, she beats Sununu by 57 percent to 29 percent; in the University of New Hampshire poll, it's 54-38.
Collins will face a tough challenge from Democratic Rep. Tom Allen. Her support of the Iraq War will likely cost her in Maine, one of the most liberal states.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Democrat-turned-Republican Sen. Norm Coleman faces a tough fight for his second term. He has backed the war and opposed abortion, unpopular positions in liberal Minnesota. His approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, with only 43 percent having a favorable opinion of him. And it looks like he won't be lucky enough to draw comedian Al Franken as his opponent after all: Attorney Mike Ciresi will likely beat Franken in the Democratic primary.
Finally, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) may be under federal indictment by next November. The FBI recently raided his home in a bribery scandal. His seat would likely stay Republican, but might slip away.
The GOP might pick up some Democratic seats, too - as long as the presidential race is not a Democratic landslide. Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) could all be in danger. And Joe Biden (D-Del.) may retire. But, in a Democratic year, all these seats may be safe.
If the Republicans lose Virginia, Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota - and pick up no new seats - the Democrats will have 57 votes in the Senate (counting Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who votes with them). It's enough to let a new Democratic president have her way legislatively without too much trouble.
THE DARK SIDE OF HILLARY CLINTON'S HEALTH CARE PLAN
THE DARK SIDE OF HILLARY CLINTON'S HEALTH CARE PLAN
The public face of Hillary Clinton's new health care plan is sunny, filled with choices for consumers and bright with promises for better health care for all. But a close examination of the proposal alongside other initiatives of Sen. Clinton in the past few years reveals a dark side she wants to hide from public view until after the election is over.
In her program, she speaks of how health care is the right of every "American" — but she has a rather expansive definition of "American." In 2005, Hillary co-sponsored legislation in the United States Senate to offer free health insurance, under the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years. So, those who have dodged the immigration cops for five years successfully would be rewarded not only with legal status and a path to citizenship, but with immediate free health care for their children.
Indeed, when Democrats and liberals speak of the 50,000,000 uninsured Americans, more than one fifth of those are illegal immigrants. Thus, about one in five of the beneficiaries of her program for universal health insurance are illegal aliens. (Illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large segment of the uninsured population because legal immigrants and citizens who live in poverty are eligible for Medicaid, but illegal immigrants are not.)
Would Americans like to reward those whose only connection to our country is that they flouted our laws to come here with free health insurance for themselves and their children? Doubtless Hillary knows the answer is no, so she is determined to hide that aspect of her plan from the public.
Hillary speaks of the importance of stopping health insurance companies from raising premiums on those who are sick. But she does not mention the inevitable flip side of her proposal — to raise premiums on those who are well. On the one hand, she would cover all those with chronic conditions with low cost health insurance and, on the other, would stop insurance companies from "cherry picking" healthy and young people for their insurance plans. The net effect would be a major increase in health insurance premiums for the vast majority of Americans.
In effect, her plan would turn "insurance" into "subsidy." The concept of insurance is that one pays a relatively low premium to guard against catastrophic expenses that are outside of our ability to meet financially. But Hillary's program would really be nothing more than a cash transfer from the healthy to the sick, not an insurance program at all.
Hillary says that her program would provide "universal" coverage for all. In order to achieve universality, one must make the program compulsory. The bulk of the uninsured do not want to have to pay for insurance. They are healthy and don't want the added burden of health insurance. That is why about half of those who are eligible for free or low cost insurance under the State Child Health Insurance Program have not signed up. Their parents don't want to.
So Hillary's program, as she freely admits, would require health insurance as a pre-condition of employment. Not having health insurance would be a violation just as driving a car without automobile insurance is illegal. The resulting coercion would force millions to pay for coverage they do not want and feel they don't need. But to pay for her national program, Hillary needs everyone to be covered so she can use their revenues to subsidize the coverage of those who are ill.
But the main defect of Hillary's program is that it leaves out any attempt at cost control. With health care absorbing 16 percent of our economy, Bill Clinton's warnings of economic disaster if its share of our national income passed 12 percent back in 1993 sound almost quaint today. Cost control is a vital part of any plan for universal coverage. Indeed, without it, extending coverage just offers a blank check to patients and providers which would drive even higher the share of our economy that goes to health care.
It was Hillary herself who explained this concept to Dick in 1993. The reality has not changed. Hillary will be forced to control costs as the implicit and vital element of any health care reform. This control of costs belies her contention that she would leave the health care system untouched except to extend coverage to those who now lack it. Because she would need to limit utilization and lower costs, she would be forced to ration health care and to impose government mandated and controlled managed care on all Americans.
For the first time, the word "no" would come into our system. Do you need open heart surgery? Are you a poor risk because of smoking or diabetes or age? No longer would the bureaucrat at the other end of the phone say "we won't pay for it" or "you don't need it" or "we can't fit you in at our facility." The answer would simply be no — even if you pay for it yourself, you may not have one. It is this type of coercion that drives Canadians over the border to the U.S. in search of medical options denied them at home under their socialized medical structure. Now it would operate on both sides of the border.
Finally, Hillary seeks to finance the system by ending tax breaks for the wealthy, by which she means any household with $250,000 or more in income. Never mind that she has spent that money several times over. But why use income taxes to finance her system? Why not do what Democrats and Republicans are now pushing in Congress — to finance it by raising cigarette taxes? That way we get a double impact: higher tobacco prices cut smoking, particularly among teenagers, and reduce health costs and the revenues pay for her expansion of the system. The current Congress is passing legislation to raise cigarette taxes 61 cents per pack to pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. Why not raise them $2 per pack to raise the $110 billion Hillary says her health care proposal will need?
In selling her program, Hillary seems to imply that she was under the hypnotic control of her advisers (presumably Ira Magaziner) in 1993 when she designed her previous health care reform. Now she says she is in charge. "I'm the decision maker now," she told The New York Times. "I have a plan that is 100 percent my plan." But what was the 1993 initiative but her plan, concocted in secret and foisted in toto on a Congress which wouldn't pass it?
Now she says she would not "have approached [health care reform] in the same way" as she did in 1993. Now she will be informed by "a greater dose of humility and empathy and understanding of what it takes to get things done in our political system."
That and a determination to conceal the true implications of her proposal until after she is elected.
The public face of Hillary Clinton's new health care plan is sunny, filled with choices for consumers and bright with promises for better health care for all. But a close examination of the proposal alongside other initiatives of Sen. Clinton in the past few years reveals a dark side she wants to hide from public view until after the election is over.
In her program, she speaks of how health care is the right of every "American" — but she has a rather expansive definition of "American." In 2005, Hillary co-sponsored legislation in the United States Senate to offer free health insurance, under the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years. So, those who have dodged the immigration cops for five years successfully would be rewarded not only with legal status and a path to citizenship, but with immediate free health care for their children.
Indeed, when Democrats and liberals speak of the 50,000,000 uninsured Americans, more than one fifth of those are illegal immigrants. Thus, about one in five of the beneficiaries of her program for universal health insurance are illegal aliens. (Illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large segment of the uninsured population because legal immigrants and citizens who live in poverty are eligible for Medicaid, but illegal immigrants are not.)
Would Americans like to reward those whose only connection to our country is that they flouted our laws to come here with free health insurance for themselves and their children? Doubtless Hillary knows the answer is no, so she is determined to hide that aspect of her plan from the public.
Hillary speaks of the importance of stopping health insurance companies from raising premiums on those who are sick. But she does not mention the inevitable flip side of her proposal — to raise premiums on those who are well. On the one hand, she would cover all those with chronic conditions with low cost health insurance and, on the other, would stop insurance companies from "cherry picking" healthy and young people for their insurance plans. The net effect would be a major increase in health insurance premiums for the vast majority of Americans.
In effect, her plan would turn "insurance" into "subsidy." The concept of insurance is that one pays a relatively low premium to guard against catastrophic expenses that are outside of our ability to meet financially. But Hillary's program would really be nothing more than a cash transfer from the healthy to the sick, not an insurance program at all.
Hillary says that her program would provide "universal" coverage for all. In order to achieve universality, one must make the program compulsory. The bulk of the uninsured do not want to have to pay for insurance. They are healthy and don't want the added burden of health insurance. That is why about half of those who are eligible for free or low cost insurance under the State Child Health Insurance Program have not signed up. Their parents don't want to.
So Hillary's program, as she freely admits, would require health insurance as a pre-condition of employment. Not having health insurance would be a violation just as driving a car without automobile insurance is illegal. The resulting coercion would force millions to pay for coverage they do not want and feel they don't need. But to pay for her national program, Hillary needs everyone to be covered so she can use their revenues to subsidize the coverage of those who are ill.
But the main defect of Hillary's program is that it leaves out any attempt at cost control. With health care absorbing 16 percent of our economy, Bill Clinton's warnings of economic disaster if its share of our national income passed 12 percent back in 1993 sound almost quaint today. Cost control is a vital part of any plan for universal coverage. Indeed, without it, extending coverage just offers a blank check to patients and providers which would drive even higher the share of our economy that goes to health care.
It was Hillary herself who explained this concept to Dick in 1993. The reality has not changed. Hillary will be forced to control costs as the implicit and vital element of any health care reform. This control of costs belies her contention that she would leave the health care system untouched except to extend coverage to those who now lack it. Because she would need to limit utilization and lower costs, she would be forced to ration health care and to impose government mandated and controlled managed care on all Americans.
For the first time, the word "no" would come into our system. Do you need open heart surgery? Are you a poor risk because of smoking or diabetes or age? No longer would the bureaucrat at the other end of the phone say "we won't pay for it" or "you don't need it" or "we can't fit you in at our facility." The answer would simply be no — even if you pay for it yourself, you may not have one. It is this type of coercion that drives Canadians over the border to the U.S. in search of medical options denied them at home under their socialized medical structure. Now it would operate on both sides of the border.
Finally, Hillary seeks to finance the system by ending tax breaks for the wealthy, by which she means any household with $250,000 or more in income. Never mind that she has spent that money several times over. But why use income taxes to finance her system? Why not do what Democrats and Republicans are now pushing in Congress — to finance it by raising cigarette taxes? That way we get a double impact: higher tobacco prices cut smoking, particularly among teenagers, and reduce health costs and the revenues pay for her expansion of the system. The current Congress is passing legislation to raise cigarette taxes 61 cents per pack to pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. Why not raise them $2 per pack to raise the $110 billion Hillary says her health care proposal will need?
In selling her program, Hillary seems to imply that she was under the hypnotic control of her advisers (presumably Ira Magaziner) in 1993 when she designed her previous health care reform. Now she says she is in charge. "I'm the decision maker now," she told The New York Times. "I have a plan that is 100 percent my plan." But what was the 1993 initiative but her plan, concocted in secret and foisted in toto on a Congress which wouldn't pass it?
Now she says she would not "have approached [health care reform] in the same way" as she did in 1993. Now she will be informed by "a greater dose of humility and empathy and understanding of what it takes to get things done in our political system."
That and a determination to conceal the true implications of her proposal until after she is elected.
new method to promote your political blog........
interesting new method to promote your political blog........
how will this John Reese's new venture be treated by Google / Adwords ?
very exciting new ideal
new blogrush
www.blogrush.com/r29559027
get traffic tfor your blog
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Poenix area Arizona to report illegals tips Hotline 602-876-4154
to report illegal aliens in the Phoenix / Mari Copa county area
MCSO Enforcement Hotline 602-876-4154
MCSO Enforcement Hotline 602-876-4154
Monday, September 17, 2007
Polling Shows Mr. Undecided Leads GOP Race
Polling Shows Mr. Undecided Leads GOP Race
Monday, September 17, 2007 10:02 AM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
As many as 26 percent of likely Republican voters in key states have not decided which candidate will get their vote in 2008.
That conclusion comes from ccAdvertising, which conducts polls for a range of candidates and members of Congress.
“Undecided is winning,” Gabriel Joseph III, president of ccAdvertising, tells me. “The largest group of voters are people who just haven’t made up their minds yet.”
According to ccAdvertising’s latest poll, Rudy Giuliani challenges Mr. Undecided. Giuliani leads with support from 25.5 percent of those who say they will vote in Republican caucuses or primaries in California, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, and South Carolina. Th next three candidates are essentially tied — Fred Thompson with 15.4 percent, Mitt Romney with 14.2 percent, and John McCain with 13.2 percent. Final results will be released Wednesday.
Most pollsters do not emphasize how many people are undecided. Given that recent presidential elections have been won by a margin of 5 percent of the tally or less, the number of undecided votes spotlights how ephemeral polls are.
Confirming that, pollster Joseph notes that polls are nothing more than a quick snapshot of voter sentiment. In fact, he says that polls right now mostly measure name recognition.
“What you’re seeing at this point is a popularity contest,” Joseph says. “The polls are measuring name-awareness. I believe that people are telling our surveys who they’re going to vote for by what they hear. Whether it’s good or bad right now, all they do is hear the names. Fred Thompson’s name has been bandied about a lot. People have heard Fred Thompson, Fred Thompson, Fred Thompson. So they’re more likely to say they’ll vote for him.”
Romney campaign operatives have been banking on Joseph’s take. They point out that in the states where they have focused their efforts — Iowa and New Hampshire — Romney is winning. But only 64 percent of Americans have heard of him.
On the other hand, John McCain’s name recognition is 87 percent, according to a Gallup Poll, and the fact that McCain has been going down in the polls suggests that more than name recognition is at stake. Just before he declared his candidacy, Thompson’s name recognition was a surprisingly low 56 percent.
Early presidential front-runners litter the political landscape — Elizabeth Dole, Howard Dean, and Edward M. Kennedy, to name a few. But it’s not in the interests of either political reporters or pollsters to emphasize their uncertainty in calling the horse race.
On top of these considerations, polling has been facing growing voter concerns about privacy.
“Pollsters right now are struggling to get people to respond to their surveys,” Joseph says. “Because fewer and fewer people are responding to their surveys, two things are happening: They’re going back to a pre-existing survey base — people that have answered before, will answer again. Number two, because when they get somebody willing to talk to them, they want to gather a lot of other data at the same time, the surveys are getting longer.”
When surveys become longer, fewer people complete them, and the results are not counted. So, Joseph says, polls are becoming less reliable as more responses are discarded. Joseph’s company asks a limited number of questions over the telephone using a computerized voice-recognition system for calling people.
“We have the databases and the speed to just keep going until we get the number of respondents that our company and our clients need,” Joseph says.
“What we are doing is measuring what people’s attitudes are today,” he says. “And right now, Mr. Undecided is the winner.”
Alan Greenspan’s Confusion
Alan Greenspan may have been a great Federal Reserve Board chairman, but his take on national security issues seems confused at best. First, Bob Woodward reported last week that Greenspan’s new book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" refers to what Greenspan calls the “politically inconvenient” fact that the Iraq war was “largely about oil.”
Subsequently, Woodward interviewed Greenspan, who said it was he who believed that removal of Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan told Woodward for a Washington Post story. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
Now, in a Wall Street Journal interview, Greenspan says he is puzzled over President Bush’s and Vice President Cheney’s continued advocacy of aggressive anti-terrorism policies that he says have the effect of curtailing civil liberties. If there had been additional terrorist attacks in the U.S. after Sept. 11, he said, “Cheney’s and Bush’s view would be now far more prevalent" in the U.S. But “when events changed, they held the views that they previously held.” He added that while he doesn’t like their stance, “I don’t know what should have been done otherwise” because he lacks the access to classified information that they have.
It doesn’t require a security clearance to know that al-Qaida and its franchises are plotting to wipe out the U.S. As FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has told me, bin Laden and his terrorist group desperately want to obtain nuclear devices and explode them in American cities, especially New York and Washington, D.C.
The primary reason we have not been attacked in more than six years is Bush’s aggressive policies and the hard work of the FBI and CIA, which constantly roll up plots and terrorists. Thus, the fact that we have not been attacked points to the success of Bush administration policies. Presumably, if Greenspan’s home alarm system never went off, he would drop the service because events had changed, and he no longer perceived a threat from intruders.
If Greenspan had applied the same heads-in-the-sand approach to the economy, we would be in big trouble.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of NewsMax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-ma
Monday, September 17, 2007 10:02 AM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
As many as 26 percent of likely Republican voters in key states have not decided which candidate will get their vote in 2008.
That conclusion comes from ccAdvertising, which conducts polls for a range of candidates and members of Congress.
“Undecided is winning,” Gabriel Joseph III, president of ccAdvertising, tells me. “The largest group of voters are people who just haven’t made up their minds yet.”
According to ccAdvertising’s latest poll, Rudy Giuliani challenges Mr. Undecided. Giuliani leads with support from 25.5 percent of those who say they will vote in Republican caucuses or primaries in California, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, and South Carolina. Th next three candidates are essentially tied — Fred Thompson with 15.4 percent, Mitt Romney with 14.2 percent, and John McCain with 13.2 percent. Final results will be released Wednesday.
Most pollsters do not emphasize how many people are undecided. Given that recent presidential elections have been won by a margin of 5 percent of the tally or less, the number of undecided votes spotlights how ephemeral polls are.
Confirming that, pollster Joseph notes that polls are nothing more than a quick snapshot of voter sentiment. In fact, he says that polls right now mostly measure name recognition.
“What you’re seeing at this point is a popularity contest,” Joseph says. “The polls are measuring name-awareness. I believe that people are telling our surveys who they’re going to vote for by what they hear. Whether it’s good or bad right now, all they do is hear the names. Fred Thompson’s name has been bandied about a lot. People have heard Fred Thompson, Fred Thompson, Fred Thompson. So they’re more likely to say they’ll vote for him.”
Romney campaign operatives have been banking on Joseph’s take. They point out that in the states where they have focused their efforts — Iowa and New Hampshire — Romney is winning. But only 64 percent of Americans have heard of him.
On the other hand, John McCain’s name recognition is 87 percent, according to a Gallup Poll, and the fact that McCain has been going down in the polls suggests that more than name recognition is at stake. Just before he declared his candidacy, Thompson’s name recognition was a surprisingly low 56 percent.
Early presidential front-runners litter the political landscape — Elizabeth Dole, Howard Dean, and Edward M. Kennedy, to name a few. But it’s not in the interests of either political reporters or pollsters to emphasize their uncertainty in calling the horse race.
On top of these considerations, polling has been facing growing voter concerns about privacy.
“Pollsters right now are struggling to get people to respond to their surveys,” Joseph says. “Because fewer and fewer people are responding to their surveys, two things are happening: They’re going back to a pre-existing survey base — people that have answered before, will answer again. Number two, because when they get somebody willing to talk to them, they want to gather a lot of other data at the same time, the surveys are getting longer.”
When surveys become longer, fewer people complete them, and the results are not counted. So, Joseph says, polls are becoming less reliable as more responses are discarded. Joseph’s company asks a limited number of questions over the telephone using a computerized voice-recognition system for calling people.
“We have the databases and the speed to just keep going until we get the number of respondents that our company and our clients need,” Joseph says.
“What we are doing is measuring what people’s attitudes are today,” he says. “And right now, Mr. Undecided is the winner.”
Alan Greenspan’s Confusion
Alan Greenspan may have been a great Federal Reserve Board chairman, but his take on national security issues seems confused at best. First, Bob Woodward reported last week that Greenspan’s new book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" refers to what Greenspan calls the “politically inconvenient” fact that the Iraq war was “largely about oil.”
Subsequently, Woodward interviewed Greenspan, who said it was he who believed that removal of Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan told Woodward for a Washington Post story. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
Now, in a Wall Street Journal interview, Greenspan says he is puzzled over President Bush’s and Vice President Cheney’s continued advocacy of aggressive anti-terrorism policies that he says have the effect of curtailing civil liberties. If there had been additional terrorist attacks in the U.S. after Sept. 11, he said, “Cheney’s and Bush’s view would be now far more prevalent" in the U.S. But “when events changed, they held the views that they previously held.” He added that while he doesn’t like their stance, “I don’t know what should have been done otherwise” because he lacks the access to classified information that they have.
It doesn’t require a security clearance to know that al-Qaida and its franchises are plotting to wipe out the U.S. As FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has told me, bin Laden and his terrorist group desperately want to obtain nuclear devices and explode them in American cities, especially New York and Washington, D.C.
The primary reason we have not been attacked in more than six years is Bush’s aggressive policies and the hard work of the FBI and CIA, which constantly roll up plots and terrorists. Thus, the fact that we have not been attacked points to the success of Bush administration policies. Presumably, if Greenspan’s home alarm system never went off, he would drop the service because events had changed, and he no longer perceived a threat from intruders.
If Greenspan had applied the same heads-in-the-sand approach to the economy, we would be in big trouble.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of NewsMax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-ma
Stand up against defeat
Senator Clinton said recently that believing General Petraeus' testimony requires a 'willing suspension of disbelief.' I think it willingly suspends disbelief to not repudiate an advertisement run by a radical left wing organization that impugns and dishonors the integrity of a man who has served his nation with dedication all of his life. If you're not tough enough to repudiate a scurrilous, outrageous attack such as that, then I don't know how you're tough enough to be President of the United States.
I am prepared to be Commander-in-Chief and tough enough to face the challenges presented by a dangerous world. In fact, I'm the only candidate in this race prepared to be Commander-in-Chief from day one.
The choice we are presented with could not be more clear. Will we continue to support our new strategy in Iraq and the fight against Islamic extremists, as I've long advocated, or will we surrender in disgrace as the Democrats want us to do? For four years I've fought for more troops in Iraq, fought for the right strategy, and I will not give up the fight today as we are finally making progress on the ground. I will lead.
Right now I'm traveling through Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina talking about the success of the surge and countering the shameless propaganda being put forth by the extreme left, and I need your financial support to continue. I believe it is critical for voters to hear the truth about this new strategy and the success of our troops in Iraq, and your help will allow me to continue bringing this message to voters.
Unlike my opponents in the Democratic Party, I have absolutely no trouble denouncing this ad for what it is - an ill-informed, partisan attack ad that has no place in this serious debate about the safety and security of our nation.
America needs serious leaders ready to stand up to the tough challenges facing our nation. I'm running for President of the United States because I am prepared to lead and I understand the grave threats our nation must face.
I am out on the road, on the No Surrender Tour, spreading this message of support for our troops and support for the surge, and I need your help to get this message out. With your support, I will continue to stand strong.
Sincerely,
John McCain
I am prepared to be Commander-in-Chief and tough enough to face the challenges presented by a dangerous world. In fact, I'm the only candidate in this race prepared to be Commander-in-Chief from day one.
The choice we are presented with could not be more clear. Will we continue to support our new strategy in Iraq and the fight against Islamic extremists, as I've long advocated, or will we surrender in disgrace as the Democrats want us to do? For four years I've fought for more troops in Iraq, fought for the right strategy, and I will not give up the fight today as we are finally making progress on the ground. I will lead.
Right now I'm traveling through Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina talking about the success of the surge and countering the shameless propaganda being put forth by the extreme left, and I need your financial support to continue. I believe it is critical for voters to hear the truth about this new strategy and the success of our troops in Iraq, and your help will allow me to continue bringing this message to voters.
Unlike my opponents in the Democratic Party, I have absolutely no trouble denouncing this ad for what it is - an ill-informed, partisan attack ad that has no place in this serious debate about the safety and security of our nation.
America needs serious leaders ready to stand up to the tough challenges facing our nation. I'm running for President of the United States because I am prepared to lead and I understand the grave threats our nation must face.
I am out on the road, on the No Surrender Tour, spreading this message of support for our troops and support for the surge, and I need your help to get this message out. With your support, I will continue to stand strong.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)