Mood:  caffeinated

By Tim O'Brien, Staff writer -- Click byline for more stories by writer.

U.S. Rep. John Sweeney brought in a legal big gun to aid his effort to blast two political ads off the airwaves.

Attorney E. Stewart Jones Jr. fired off a letter to local TV stations Thursday, asking them to remove the ads from MoveOn.org. The ads depict Sweeney with his hand tinted red and claim he's been "caught red-handed" accepting donations from defense contractors.

"The MoveOn.org advertisement is demonstrably false, irresponsibly misleading and clearly defamatory," Jones wrote to the stations.

"I know that you are well aware that as an FCC licensee you have an obligation to exercise your independent editorial judgment and refuse to air such deliberately false statements. You also have a duty to avoid being a party to libelous, reckless, wanton or negligent character assassination and defamation of any individual, public or private, including (a) congressman."

Sweeney is running for re-election in the 20th Congressional District against Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand. MoveOn.org, a liberal organization known for targeting Republicans, is paying for the ads.

Earlier this week, Sweeney's campaign mailed a similar letter. The Republican National Congressional Committee also protested the ads, one of which says Sweeney supported hiring Halliburton as a contractor and approved $8.8 billion unaccounted for in Iraq. The missing funds were from Iraqi oil revenue, his staff has said, and Congress does not vote to hire individual contractors.

Sweeney voted to create the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction to investigate contractor fraud in Iraq, Jones wrote.

Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's Washington, D.C., director, said the letter is meant to intimidate stations.

"It looked like a cookie-cutter letter the Republicans have sent to stations all over the country," he said. "Every place we place ads, it doesn't matter what it says, they send out nasty letters with big words trying to use the clout of the congressman."

Jones' letter stops short of saying legal action would be taken if the ads continue to run.

"It's certainly in discussion," the attorney said. "The question is would the action be directed at MoveOn.org or with the media outlets?"

Since the ad is running in other congressional districts, Jones said, legal actions may be taken against MoveOn.org nationally.

Steve Baboulis, vice president and general manager for WNYT, said he passed the letter along to the station's attorney.

"The ad he references in his letter is not the ad that is running," Baboulis added.

There are two "caught red-handed" ads, one of which depicts dump trucks unloading cash in Iraq. While Sweeney and the National Republican Congressional Committee have complained that ad is riddled with errors, the ad WNYT is airing targets Sweeney's acceptance of cash from defense contractors.

Both ads, however, use the "caught red-handed" theme, which Jones wrote falsely implies Sweeney has done something illegal.

Rene LaSpina, president and general manager for WTEN, said it, too, has only been asked to run one ad and it is not the one that makes charges regarding missing money in Iraq. Still, she said, the station chose not to run the other ad.

"I'm not running it -- not because of Stew Jones," she said.

The station's counsel had advised against airing it, LaSpina said.

"It had the potential to be defamatory," she said. "It was pretty close to the line."

Matzzie of MoveOn.org said he appreciates the extra attention the letters have generated.

"That's the ironic thing. Every time they send out a threatening letter, it prompts a news story," he said. "It provides value to our ads.

The "Red-Handed" Ad
Tim O'Brien can be reached at 454-5096 or by e-mail at tobrien@timesunion.com.
Albany Times Union ~ Tim O'Brien ** Sweeney's attorney goes after TV ads

About time someone takes Moveon to task.
I bet by tomorrow they play the Dixie Chicks "our free speech is being trampled on" card.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:01 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 28 August 2006 1:46 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  spacey

HuffPo Poster (NOT Commenter) Pines For Another 9/11 To Force American "Regime Change"

I don't even know what the hell to say to this.

Extensively excerpted so I don't get accused of selectively editing its vileness -- and to preserve a record of it after the inevitable bowlderization.

If Huffington wants to sue, fine, bring it on. Let's publicize the shit you're running on that lunatic site of yours.

I Hope And Pray We Don't Get Hit Again-BUT.....

I hope and pray we don't get hit again, like we did on September 11. Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much.

If I somehow knew an attack was coming, I wouldn't pause for a second to report it in order to prevent it from occuring.

But on the other hand, I remind myself that without the ultimate sacrifice paid by 400,000 U.S. soldiers in World War II, tyranny could well have an iron grip on the world, and even on this nation.
If the Nazis had prevailed, tens, if not hundreds of millions more would have been killed.

That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings. An entirely hypothetical yet realpolitik calculus that is ugly, and cold-hearted but must be posited:

What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the "he's kept us safe" revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate and be in a position to:

Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;

Be in a position to elevate the party's chances for a regime change in 2008. A regime change that would:

[typical laundry list of liberal fantasias omitted]

I am not proud of myself for even considering the notion that another terror attack that costs even one American life could ever be considered anything else but evil and hurtful. And I know that when I weigh the possibility that such an attack- that might, say, kill 100- would prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from dying who otherwise would- I am exhibiting a calculating cold heart diametrically opposed to everything I stand for as a human being. A human being, who, just so you know, is opposed to most wars and to capital punishment.

But in light of the very real potential of the next two American elections to solidify our growing American persona as a warlike, polluter-friendly nation with repressive domestic tendencies and inadequate health care for so many tens of millions, let me ask you this. Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history:

If you knew us getting hit again would launch a chain of transformative, cascading events that would enable a better nation where millions who would have died will live longer, would such a calculus have any moral validity?

Any at all?

Thanks to Michael G and Stace, who actually tipped me before, but I saw Michael's email first.

UPDATE: Now screencapped. If a goddamned word of this gets changed, up they go.
Ace of Spades HQ ~ Ace ** HuffPo Poster (NOT Commenter) Pines For Another 9/11 To Force American "Regime Change"

The most important thing to a libtard: More abortions!
We needs another terrorist attack so Bush can look like a failure. Then we will take control of the government to ensure the willy-nilly killing of unborn babies continues in America.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:01 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 28 August 2006 12:56 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Flagging will and white flags

One way to measure how the world has changed in the last five years is to consider the extraordinary address to his nation by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Sept. 19, 2001. Pakistan was one of just three countries (along with "our friends the Saudis" and the United Arab Emirates) to recognize the Taliban -- and, given that the Pakistanis had helped create and maintain them, they were pretty easy to recognize.

President Bush, you'll recall, had declared you're either with us or with the terrorists -- which posed a particular problem for Gen. Musharraf: He was with us; but everyone else in his country was with the terrorists, including his armed forces, his intelligence services, the media, and a gazillion and one crazy imams.

Nonetheless, with U.S. action against Afghanistan on the horizon, he went on TV that night and told the Pakistani people this was the gravest threat to the country's existence in more than 30 years. He added he was doing everything to ensure his brothers in the Taliban didn't "suffer," and that he had asked Washington to provide some evidence this bin Laden chap had anything to do with the attacks but so far they had declined to show him any.

Then he cited the Charter of Medina (which the Prophet Muhammad signed after an earlier spot of bother) as an attempt to justify assisting the infidel and said he had no choice but to offer the Americans use of Pakistan's airspace, intelligence networks and other logistical support. He paused for applause and after the world's all-time record volume of crickets chirping and said thank you and goodnight.

That must have been quite the phone call he got from Washington a day or two earlier. And all within a week of September 11. You may remember during the 2000 campaign an enterprising journalist sprung on then Texas Gov. George W. Bush a sudden pop quiz of world leaders. Mr. Bush, invited to name the leader of Pakistan, was unable to. But so what? In the third week of September 2001, the correct answer to "Who's Gen. Musharraf?" was "Whoever I want him to be." And, if Gen. Musharraf didn't want to play ball, he would wind up as the answer to "Who was leader of Pakistan until last week?"

Do you get the feeling Washington's not making phone calls like that anymore? If you go back to September 2001, it's amazing how much the administration made happen in just a short time. For example, within days it had secured agreement with the Russians on using military bases in former Soviet Central Asia for intervention in Afghanistan. That, too, must have been quite a phone call. Moscow surely knew that any successful Afghan expedition would only cast their own failures there in an even worse light -- especially if the Americans did it out of the Russians' old bases. And yet it happened.

Five years later, the U.S. seems to be back in the quagmire of perpetual interminable U.N.-brokered EU-led multilateral dithering, on Iran and much else. The administration that turned around Gen. Musharraf in nothing flat now offers carrots to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After the Taliban fell, the region's autocrats and dictators wondered: Who's next? Now they figure it's a pretty safe bet nobody is.

What's the difference between September 2001 and now? It's not that anyone "liked" America or that, as the Democrats like to suggest, the country had the world's "sympathy." Pakistani generals and the Kremlin don't cave to your demands because they "sympathize." They go along because you've impressed upon them that they've no choice. Gen. Musharraf and company weren't scared by America's power but by the fact that America, in the rubble of September 11, had belatedly found the will to use that power. It is notionally at least as powerful today but in terms of will we're back to Sept. 10: Nobody thinks America is prepared to use its power. And so Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Mr. Ahmadinejad and wannabe "strong horses" like Baby Assad thumb their noses with impunity.

I happened to be in the Australian Parliament for Question Time last week. The matter of Iraq came up, and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer thwacked the subject across the floor and over the opposition benches in a magnificent bravura display of political confidence culminating with the gleefully low jibe that, "The Leader of the Opposition's constant companion is the white flag."

The Iraq war is unpopular in Australia, as it is in America and in Britain. But the Aussie government is happy for the opposition to bring up the subject as often as it wishes to because Mr. Downer and his prime minister understand very clearly that wanting to "cut and run" is even more unpopular. So in the broader narrative it's a political plus for them: unlike Mr. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, they've made the issue not whether the nation should have gone to war but whether the nation should lose the war. That's not just good politics, but it's actually the heart of the question.

Of course, if Mr. Bush sneered that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi's constant companion is the white flag, they would huff how dare he question their patriotism. But, if you can't question their patriotism when they want to lose a war, when can you?

At one level, the issue is the same as it was on September 11, 2001: American will and national purpose. But the reality is worse -- for (as Israel is also learning) to begin something and be unable to stick with it to the finish is far more damaging to your reputation than if you had never begun it in the first place.

Nitwit Democrats think anything that can be passed off as a failure in Iraq will somehow diminish only Mr. Bush and the neoconservatives. In reality -- a concept with which Democrats seem only dimly acquainted -- it would diminish the nation, and all but certainly end the American moment.

In late September 2001, the administration taught a critical lesson to tough hombres like Gen. Musharraf and Russia's President Vladimir Putin: In a scary world, America can be scarier. But it's all a long time ago now.

Mark Steyn is the senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc. Publications, senior North American columnist for Britain's Telegraph Group, North American editor for the Spectator, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Washington Times ~ Mark Steyn ** Flagging will and white flags

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:01 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 28 August 2006 11:24 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Death Squad Leaders Captured 

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A roadside bomb killed a U.S. Soldier north of Baghdad on Monday, and the American military announced the capture of two alleged death squad leaders as U.S. and Iraqi authorities step up efforts to stem rampant sectarian violence.

President Bush, meanwhile, served notice that he would not change course or flinch from debate about the unpopular war in Iraq as he campaigns for Republicans in the fall congressional elections. In fact, he suggested that national security and the economy should be the top political issues, and criticized the Democrats' approach on both.

Many Democrats want to leave Iraq "before the job is done," Bush told reporters in Washington.

"I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done," he said, but "if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned," he added.

The two men accused of leading death squads were captured Sunday in southern Baghdad during simultaneous raids.

Both suspects "exercise control over all death squad cell activity" in the Sunni districts of Dora and Sahha and the predominantly Shiite Abu D'Shair in Baghdad, the military said in a statement.

It also accused one of the men of torturing and killing Iraqis in a Shiite mosque in the capital, although no details were provided. Four other suspicious individuals were detained during the operation, it said.

Some 12,000 U.S. and Iraqi forces are being deployed in the capital as part of a security crackdown on a surge of insurgent attacks and sectarian bloodshed.

A separate military statement said a U.S. Soldier died Monday when the vehicle in which he was riding was struck by a roadside bomb.

The death came a day after two Marines and a sailor, assigned to the Regimental Combat Team 7, died in fighting in the province of Anbar, the stronghold of the Sunni Arab insurgency west of Baghdad.

At least 2,610 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

In other violence, a person was shot to death in the northern city of Mosul.

But Iraqis generally enjoyed a rare day of relative peace as they returned to Baghdad's streets after a weekend vehicle ban during a Shiite religious commemoration that was disrupted by sniper attacks on pilgrims in another episode of sectarian bloodletting.

The Iraqi government said 20 people were killed by snipers who hid in buildings and sprayed bullets into Shiite religious processions Sunday. The U.S. military, however, said only five people were killed. The discrepancy in the toll could not be immediately reconciled.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, thanked the armed forces for preventing major attacks. "We condemn strongly the terrorists attacks committed by the terrorists against innocent civilians," he said in a statement.

"The success of the army and the security forces in preventing the terrorists from killing (a larger number of) innocent people - although some fell as martyrs - reflects the rising power of the armed forces," he said.

Many people made special efforts to watch the televised opening of Saddam Hussein's trial for the killings of tens of thousands of Kurds nearly two decades ago.

"I'm happy to see justice taking its course today," said Haider Kadhim, 28, the owner of an electronics shop in Baghdad, a city that suffers from chronic power shortage.

Kadhim said he bought five gallons of gas for his generator to ensure electricity to watch the trial, which was broadcast on all local channels with a 20-minute delay to ensure that sensitive portions with security implications could be censored.

Also Monday, Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said Iraq plans to build several new oil refineries and upgrade existing ones to start exporting gasoline and other byproducts by 2010. But he acknowledged that insurgent attacks on pipelines remain a serious problem.

Al-Shahristani said Iraq plans to increase the production of crude oil from about 2 million barrels per day to the prewar level of 3 million barrels per day by the end of the year. He did not elaborate.

The largest of the new refineries - to be located in central Iraq - will be completed by 2009 or 2010, al-Shahristani said during a meeting with members of the parliament's economic committee.

Iraq, a founding member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, sits atop the world's third-highest proven reserves. Its estimated 115 billion barrels are exceeded in OPEC only by Saudi Arabia and Iran.

But it is facing severe fuel shortages because of the dilapidated state of its refineries, sending the black market price of gas as high as $4 per gallon. The official price is $1 per gallon.

Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
Military.com ~ Associated Press ** Death Squad Leaders Captured

"if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned,"
^ awesome quote

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:16 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

A Negotiation with Islamo-Fascism

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, the Muslims began a crusade years and years and years ago, and the Catholic Church didn't do anything about it for a hundred years. The Catholic Church got in gear and beat it back, but it took a long, long time. All the time they're trying to talk to them. All the while they're trying to negotiate. All the while they're trying to come to a mutual understanding. It's dangerous because these are people that genuinely want to wipe us out, and there's a significant portion of our population that does not realize that. Look it, let me try another analogy with you. Let's say that we're going to negotiate with -- pick a terrorist group -- Al-Qaeda. What's Al-Qaeda's sworn mission? (See, you gotta have courage to admit this, though.)

Al-Qaeda's sworn mission is to kill us. That is the mission of militant Islam. It's to wipe out infidels, and we are the worst of all because we are Christian and we are Western. Okay. We're going to negotiate with these people. Their starting point is: you're dead. "We're not stopping 'til you're dead."

What's our counter? Do we say, "Uh, okay. How about, will you let us live for 50 years?"

"No. We're going to wipe you out in 30."

"Okay, well, uh, will you only take an arm from each of us for the first 50 years?"

"Nope. We're going to kill you all as soon as we can."

"No, no, no, no. That's not fair! We're negotiating with you. Will you settle for two arms and let us live?"

"Nope. Our mission is to kill you, infidel."

"Okay, uh, how about an arm and a leg and let us live for 50 years?"

"No! We are not compromising."

"Okay, how about if you kill half of us, the Republicans? If we give you the Republicans, will you --"

"No! We are going to kill all of you."

My point is, where do you negotiate with this? How do you negotiate with people whose objective is to kill you, Ms. Blumner? I'm sorry. I know it's a hard, cold reality we all have to face here, ladies and gentlemen.

"Well, how about if we let you have the Republicans and Mel Gibson?"

"No, we are going to kill every one of you, and you will be first."

That's how John Kerry would do it. How do you negotiate with that, folks? On what threshold or basis is there reason for any kind of settlement?

END TRANSCRIPT

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Rush Limbaugh.com ** A Negotiation with Islamo-Fascism

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:58 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 23 August 2006 1:07 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  cool

Glaciers 'shrinking for 100 years'
From correspondents in Copenhagen, Denmark

Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study published today, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.

Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.

"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, said.

Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 per cent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight metres per year," Mr Yde said.

"We studied 95 per cent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said.

The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985.

"A three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930, and the increase recorded since 1995 has sped up the ice melt," he said.

The effect of the rising temperatures in the 1920s and 1930s was "visible dozens of years later, and that of the 1990s will be (visible) in 10 or 20 years," Mr Yde said, adding that he expected Greenland's glaciers to melt even faster in the future.

The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is "the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further," he said.

The Australian ~ Agence France-Presse ** Glaciers 'shrinking for 100 years'

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:33 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  silly

Stuart Middle School teacher burns U.S. flags in class

Lesson causes uproar in Jefferson

By Chris Kenning  Feedback: What should Jefferson County Public Schools do?

A Stuart Middle School teacher has been removed from the classroom after he burned two American flags in class during a lesson on freedom of speech, Jefferson County Public Schools officials said.

Dan Holden, who teaches seventh-grade social studies, burned small flags in two different classes Friday and asked students to write an opinion paper about it, district spokeswoman Lauren Roberts said.

A teacher in the school district since 1979, Holden has been temporarily reassigned to non-instructional duties pending a district investigation. The district also alerted city fire officials, who are conducting their own investigation.

"Certainly we're concerned about the safety aspect," Roberts said, along with "the judgment of using that type of demonstration in a class."

Pat Summers, whose daughter was in Holden's class, said he was among more than 20 parents upset about the incident at school yesterday. Holden apparently told the students to ask their parents what they thought about the lesson, he said.

"She said, 'Our teacher burned a flag.' I'm like, 'What?' " Summers said. "When I was (at the school) at 8 a.m., the lobby was filled with probably 25 or 30 parents" who were upset, he said.

Holden could not be reached yesterday for comment.

Roberts said the flag burning did not appear to be politically motivated, based on an interview with Holden.

Summers said no advance notice had been given to parents, nor were school administrators aware of Holden's plans, Roberts said.

Stuart sixth-grader Kelsey Adwell, 11, said students were abuzz about the incident yesterday.

"They just can't believe that a teacher would do that -- burn two American flags in front of the class," she said. "A teacher shouldn't do that, even though it was an example."

Kentucky has a statute last amended in 1992 making desecration of a national or state flag in a public place a misdemeanor, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that flag desecration is protected speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky said the federal ruling would trump the state statute.

Congress has tried unsuccessfully to prohibit flag burning with a constitutional amendment. The latest attempt failed in the Senate this year.

Beth Wilson, director of Kentucky's ACLU, said the district is allowed to decide what's instructionally appropriate.

But "if a school is masking their objections to flag burning under the guise of safety, it raises questions about freedom of speech and academic freedom," she said. She said her group would monitor the case but did not plan to get involved at this point.

Regardless, school board member Pat O'Leary said the flag burning was unnecessary and could have offended some students, including those in military families.

"A teacher doesn't do that," he said. "It's just disrespectful."

Rebecca Creech, a Stuart sixth-grader, said she also thought it was "wrong."

Ginny Adwell, Kelsey's mother and the school's PTA president, said some parents who called for Holden to be fired were "going a little bit overboard" and should remember that the teacher was trying to provoke thought.

Brent McKim, president of the Jefferson County Teachers Association, said Holden has "been teaching for many years, and has by all accounts a good teaching record. It was not a political statement and was meant to illustrate a controversial issue. To fire someone because of that would be inappropriate," he said. "It wasn't like he was taking one side or another."

McKim said he was gathering facts that would determine whether the district was justified in removing Holden from the classroom.

In 2001, a teacher in Sacramento, Calif., faced suspension for using a lighter to singe a corner of an American flag in class.

The teacher later was fired, but district officials cited numerous acts of poor judgment and disregard for superiors.

Post a Comment   View All Comments

Reporter Chris Kenning can be reached at (502) 582-4697. Louisville Kentucky Courier-Journal ~
Chris Kenning ** Stuart Middle School teacher burns U.S. flags in class

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 4:00 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 22 August 2006 4:26 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  cool

GOP Fundraising Outpaces Democrats

WASHINGTON -- Republicans trying to hold onto the House raised $12.5 million in July, outpacing Democrats by a 3-to-1 margin but leaving the GOP just $1 million ahead in cash on hand.

The influx of money -- largely from political action committees -- gives Republicans a slight advantage more than two months before the November elections. Democrats hope to gain 15 seats to seize control of the House.

The NRCC has raised $70 million so far and has $34.1 million in the bank. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $4.2 million in July, taking the group's total to $81 million this cycle and $33 million cash on hand.

"Our phenomenal fundraising in July is the product of our members' hard work and the support of Americans who want leaders with a record of accomplishment and a positive vision moving forward," Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement. "It stands in sharp contrast to the Democrats, who spent the month of July raising dollars by exploiting the deaths of U.S. soldiers."

Democrats lagged behind Republicans by $6.4 million in July 2004, a gap it has narrowed to about $1 million this cycle. Most of the GOP's income -- $9 million of the $12.5 million -- came from political action committees.

"Americans demand change from the Republican status quo in Washington and they're speaking with their pocket books, in record numbers," said Bill Burton, a DCCC spokesman.

In the Senate, the Democrats' campaign organization enjoys a $14.5 million advantage in cash on hand. The party needs to gain six seats to win majority control.

"The upshot is that we have the financial resources we are going need," said Phil Singer, a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman. "We can get our message out to voters."

The DSCC raised $4.2 million during July, outpacing its GOP counterpart's $3.3 million. It also raised $77.2 million so far this cycle and has $35.1 million in the bank.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has raised $65.9 million this cycle and has $20.6 million on hand.

The National Republican Senatorial Campaign, meanwhile, said the national effort is only part of the midterm spending.

"As of the end of the quarter, our incumbents they're targeting had a $24 million cash advantage," said committee spokesman Brian Nick. "We're right where we need to be."

Breitbart.com ~ Associated Press - Philip Elliott ** GOP Fundraising Outpaces Democrats

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:26 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  cheeky

GENERATIONS

The Fertility Gap

Liberal politics will prove fruitless as long as liberals refuse to multiply.

The midterm election looms, and once again efforts begin afresh to increase voter participation. It has become standard wisdom in American politics that voter turnout is synonymous with good citizenship, justifying just about any scheme to get people to the polls. Arizona is even considering a voter lottery, in which all voters are automatically registered for a $1 million giveaway. Polling places and liquor stores in Arizona will now have something in common.

On the political left, raising the youth vote is one of the most common goals. This implicitly plays to the tired old axiom that a person under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart (whereas one who is still a liberal after 30 has no head). The trouble is, while most "get out the vote" campaigns targeting young people are proxies for the Democratic Party, these efforts haven't apparently done much to win elections for the Democrats. The explanation we often hear from the left is that the new young Democrats are more than counterbalanced by voters scared up by the Republicans on "cultural issues" like abortion, gun rights and gay marriage.

But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.

Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies.

The fertility gap doesn't budge when we correct for factors like age, income, education, sex, race--or even religion. Indeed, if a conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the conservative. Some believe the gap reflects an authentic cultural difference between left and right in America today. As one liberal columnist in a major paper graphically put it, "Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation." It would appear
liberals have been quite successful controlling overpopulation--in the Democratic Party.

Of course, politics depends on a lot more than underlying ideology. People vote for politicians, not parties. Lots of people are neither liberal nor conservative, but rather vote on the basis of personalities and specific issues. But all things considered, if the Democrats continue to appeal to liberals and the Republicans to conservatives, getting out the youth vote may be increasingly an exercise in futility for the American left.

Democratic politicians may have no more babies left to kiss.

Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," forthcoming from Basic Books.
Opinion Journal.com ~ Arthur C. Brooks ** The Fertility Gap

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:50 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 22 August 2006 4:03 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  silly

'The Assassination Of Rush Limbaugh'

RUSH FOR PUBLICITY

Talk Titan Again Used To Sell Books?

Borrowing a page from Al Franken, a Texas- based author apparently hopes that associating himself with talk titan Rush Limbaugh will send units flying off of bookstore shelves. Is it a mere marketing gimmick, or dream come true for El Rushbo's many enemies?

With his new political thriller The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh, author Tom Layne will soon find out whether placing into book form this longtime fantasy of some lefties will quickly propel him onto the bestseller lists.

After looking at the two preview chapters available online, it's hard to get a sense of the plausibility of the novel's story line. Here's a brief excerpt:

As Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, it was McCoff’s job to see that a democrat was the next occupant of the White House. He replied, "He’s got to be nearing retirement age. Maybe we’ll just get lucky, and he’ll go away quietly."

Jacquiline Hill inserted herself into the conversation. “I’ve heard him say that he never intends to retire, that he’ll probably die behind that damned EIB microphone.” She was, in addition to being Edmund’s wife of thirty-five years, the senior United States Senator from Mississippi.

“We should be so lucky,” Governor Hill said.

“Maybe it’s time to stop leaving things to luck,” she suggested, her emerald green eyes angry, narrow slits.

If McCoff or Governor Hill took her words seriously, neither of them showed it.

McCoff said, “Why can’t we find a liberal talk show host to counter his venom?”

“Oh for Christ’s sake, Jerry, who would you suggest?” asked the governor, waving his arms about wildly. “Mario Cuomo tried it. Sam Donaldson tried it. Hell, Al Gore tried back in 2004 to establish a liberal TV network and the liberal Air America radio network. We all know how that turned out.” Edmund Hill was fifty-nine years old, looked ten years younger. He was slim, fit, and handsome with wavy blond hair and gold-hazel eyes. He had attended Ole Miss, graduating Magna Cum Laude, and then topped his class at Mississippi Law but never practiced the profession, going instead immediately into politics. His enemies, as well as a few of his friends, liked to say that he had never held an honest job.

Senator Hill added, “Even if we could find someone, Limbaugh is too far ahead of us. The only way to have a fair chance is to start even. That means getting that son-of-a-bitch off the air.” The Hills and most liberal democrats insisted that Rush Limbaugh had been the main reason Al Gore had not defeated George W. Bush handily in 2000, and they were convinced that Limbaugh was responsible for W’s re-election victory over John Kerry and for Jeb Bush’s narrow victory over Hillary Clinton in 2008 and his humiliation of her in 2012.

“Even if we found a way to get him off the air, Sean Hannity or some other right-winger’d take his place,” offered McCoff, as he finished his gin and tonic and set the glass on the coaster before him on the coffee table.

“No,” the governor said, “not even Hannity could take Limbaugh’s place. Besides, if we could figure out a way to get Limbaugh off the air, we could do the same to Hannity or Savage or Boortz or any of the other right-wingers.” Governor hill stepped over to the bar, a refurbished Empire period cabinet, and poured himself another bourbon and water. He didn’t offer to make another drink for either his wife or his guest.

Despite a frequent unwillingness to even consider non- fiction titles from conservatives, Layne's Limbaugh novel was apparently a top priority for the New York Times. From reviews posted at the book's website:

"The perfect election-year thriller. A cleverly sinister blend of suspense, politics, organized crime, and America's #1 talk radio host. The who, how and why are so skillfully conceived, then mixed with fact and fiction, that the unthinkable becomes frighteningly plausible. An exhilarating ride with plenty of twists and surprises.” -- New York Times Book Review

“The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh by Tom Layne is an engaging and suspenseful novel about the coming struggle of the American Democratic party and the relentless political power embodied by the Republicans. Featured in the year 2015, The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh is about two immigrant families and their historical clashing as one of them was immediately taken by the right wing political spectrum and the other eased into the Democratic Party's enraged discontent. Very highly recommended reading, The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh is a gripping fictional tale of who, what, how and why Limbaugh’s assassination took place.” -- Midwest Book Review

"A cabal of high-ranking Democrats plots to kill Rush Limbaugh...[a] political thriller...a devious plot...Ambitious." -- Kirkus Discoveries

For the reviewers, one question: if it were instead called "The Assassination of Al Franken", would you be so quick with the glowing reviews? It certainly appears that Mr Layne knows how to get the mainstream media's attention.

Franken - Moore photoshop: Pete at IHillary

The Radio Equalizer ~ Brian Maloney ** 'The Assassination Of Rush Limbaugh'

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:01 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 21 August 2006 12:43 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink