Mood:  spacey

Gallup Finds Kooks on Gas Price Conspiracy

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There's a story in USA Today that is actually an AP story. (Laughing) It's just laughable. Folks, it's not worth getting all upset about. "Many Americans look for political manipulation as gasoline prices plunge - There is no mystery or manipulation behind the recent fall in gasoline prices, analysts say. Try telling that to many motorists. Almost half of Americans believe the plunge at the pump has more to do with politics and the November elections, than economics. Retired farmer Jim Mohr of Lexington, Ill., rattled off a tankful of reasons why pump prices may be falling, including the end of the summer travel season and the fact that no major hurricanes have disrupted Gulf of Mexico output. 'But I think the big important reason is Republicans want to get elected,' Mohr, 66, said while filling up for $2.17 a gallon. 'They think getting the prices down is going to help get some more incumbents re-elected.' According to a new Gallup poll, 42% of respondents agreed with the statement that the Bush administration 'deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall's elections.' Fifty-three percent of those surveyed did not believe the conspiracy theory; 5% said they had no opinion. Not surprising, almost two-thirds of those who suspect President Bush intervened to bring down energy prices before Election Day are registered Democrats, according to Gallup."

They're totally nuts, and I think the nuts have now infected the Drive-By Media. Where do they find these people? How do they do it? How does Gallup go out and find the world's dumbest people to talk to? I'll tell you. Maybe they did steal my kook test and they gave all these poll respondents my kook test to see if they qualify. For crying out loud, how many months ago were these same people were whining and moaning and complaining about the price going up?

I didn't see any stories back then about Democrats, Gallup polls surveying Democrats who say, yeah, I think the price going up, that's a trick. The Bush administration is -- I mean -- well, wait a minute. I take it back. There were stories that thought Bush was colluding with the oil companies, with Cheney and Halliburton and all. Now the price is going down. By the way, the world oil price is still below $60. I'll tell you what, if you kooks out there want a conspiracy theory, let me give you a believable one. (Laughing) Oh they make my day every day. Here's a believable conspiracy. The Saudis are flooding the market because they know that if Democrats are elected, United States is going to pull out of the Middle East, and they're going to be overthrown by bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. That's a legitimate fear they've got. So the Saudis are flooding the market to make sure -- No, they could flood the market. The Saudis are nowhere near their top production. OPEC as a unit may be. And of course how does this square with Hugo Chavez?

I mean, Hugo Chavez would have to be part of this conspiracy, too, and Hugo Chavez is the newest honorary Democrat. But for all these prices to be coming down, Hugo Chavez would have to be part of this conspiracy to lower prices for the November election. You people on the left, I'll tell you, we in talk radio, we hosts, there always have been kooks who call. They usually believe in psychics or Area 51 or UFOs, that sort of stuff, fake moon landings. But you people take the cake. I mean, I've been in this business since 1967, and I have never encountered the daily march to utter madness and insanity than I am seeing on the American left. And I've never seen this kind of desperation. This National Intelligence Estimate, wait 'til you see how this thing boomerangs on these people. It is going to be like a slingshot between their buttocks, folks. I am telling you -- (laughing) -- they're going to be walking around leaking like they need some Depends or something. They are so full of it, they're going to have the whole little thing popped. I'm still amazed that they actually try to do a story about people being mad that gas prices are falling.

END TRANSCRIPT
 
Read the Background Material...
(USAToday: Many Americans look for political manipulation as gasoline prices plunge)
 
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Rush Limbaugh.com ** Gallup Finds Kooks on Gas Price Conspiracy

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 1:13 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  silly

NYC Mulls Ban on Trans Fats in Eateries

NEW YORK -- Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.

The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.

Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.

Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.

"Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.

He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.

The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts.

Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy.

"It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient," Frieden said. "No one will miss it when it's gone."

A similar ban on trans fats in restaurant food has been proposed in Chicago and is still under consideration, although it has been ridiculed by some as unnecessary government meddling.

The latest version of the Chicago plan would only apply to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million, a provision aimed exclusively at fast-food giants.

A few companies have moved to eliminate trans fats on their own.

Wendy's announced in August that it had switched to a new cooking oil that contains no trans fatty acids. Crisco now sells a shortening that contains zero trans fats. Frito-Lay removed trans fats from its Doritos and Cheetos. Kraft's took trans fats out of Oreos.

McDonald's began using a trans fat-free cooking oil in Denmark after that country banned artificial trans fats in processed food, but it has yet to do so in the United States.

Walt Riker, vice president of corporate communications at McDonald's, said in a statement Tuesday that the company would review New York's proposal.

"McDonald's knows this is an important issue, which is why we continue to test in earnest to find ways to further reduce (trans fatty acid) levels," he said.

New York's health department had asked restaurants to impose a voluntary ban last year but found use of trans fats unchanged in recent surveys.

Under the New York proposal, restaurants would need to get artificial trans fats out of cooking oils, margarine and shortening by July 1, 2007, and all other foodstuffs by July 1, 2008. It would not affect grocery stores. It also would not apply to naturally occurring trans fats, which are found in some meats and dairy.

The Board of Health has yet to approve the proposal and will not do so until at least December, Frieden said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration began requiring food labels to list trans fats in January.

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives.

"Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year," he said. "The federal government should have done this long ago."

Access North Ga. ~ Assoc. Press - David B. Caruso ** NYC Mulls Ban on Trans Fats in Eateries

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:31 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 12:48 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

Anxious Dems eye power of the purse on Iraq

By Bob Cusack

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win control of the House next year, but his main goal in 2007 does not fall within his panel’s jurisdiction.

“I can’t stop this war,” a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.

But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?”

Rangel’s views on funding the war are shared by many of his colleagues -- especially within the 73-member Out of Iraq Caucus.

Some Democratic legislators want to halt funding for the war immediately, while others say they would allocate money for activities such as reconstruction, setting up international security forces, and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

“Personally, I wouldn’t spend another dime [on the war,]” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

Woolsey is among the Democrats in Congress who are hoping to control the power of the purse in 2007 to force an end to the war. Woolsey and some of her colleagues note that Congress helped force the end of Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it.

Democrats in the House and Senate are united in their effort to conduct more oversight of the Bush administration’s management of the Iraq war, but are not on the same page on how to fund it.

While the Senate could switch hands, political analysts say the House is more likely to flip.

Having lost the last two elections in part because of national security issues, Democratic leaders have been reluctant to spell out their exact Iraq war funding strategy.

“I don’t think the Democratic leadership should put that out at the moment,” Woolsey said.

But Democratic leaders will be under tremendous pressure from campaign donors and activists to take bold steps on Iraq should they be setting the legislative agenda in the 110th Congress.

“If we have the majority, it’ll be because of Iraq,” said Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii).

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democrats have called for a reduction in troops to begin no later than the end of 2006, but as Speaker, she could have significant power over troop levels in 2007.

“[Pelosi] has consistently stated that Congress must ensure that our troops have the resources they need,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hamill.

Some Democratic congressional candidates have not embraced their leadership’s position of a troop withdrawal timetable in Iraq and conservative Democratic members in the House and Senate could also prove problematic in close budget and appropriations votes.

The Out of Iraq Caucus represents less than 40 percent of Democrats in the House. However, the group consists of many senior lawmakers, including a one Democratic leader, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), eight who are in line to chair panels, the next head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), and eight appropriators.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and the most outspoken Democrat on withdrawing from Iraq, has said he will mount a bid for majority leader should Democrats win the House in November. His bill to redeploy forces from Iraq has 105 cosponsors.

Still, Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), who has a bill seeking to prohibit funds to deploy armed forces to Iraq, says Democrats “have various positions on the war” and is skeptical that leadership will adopt an approach similar to his legislation.

He noted that his bill does not have many cosponsors (it has 18), and said despite the influential members of the Out of Iraq Caucus, “we all have one vote.”

Republicans are quick to portray talk of withdrawal as a “cut-and-run” strategy as they seek to mock Democrats on homeland security weeks before Nov. 7.

The Bush administration has previously indicated that it presumes that Democrats may attempt to cut off funding for the war if they win control of Congress next year. But the political battle over the war may be fiercer than some White House officials anticipate.

According to a report in The Washington Post last month, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino asked, “How would they force the president to withdraw troops? Yell?”

Battling the White House on the war would be challenging, Democrats say, but they would be emboldened by the election results and Bush’s standing as a lame-duck president with low approval ratings.

Abercrombie stressed that Democrats are not going to sever funding for the troops. Cutting off funding is “easy to say and another thing to do,” according to Abercrombie.

What’s more like likely, he said, is to fund the conflict in a way that will end the war by reallocating money to new initiatives.

“We’re going to continue to give the troops everything they need,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

A House Democratic leadership aide said, “The bottom line is that should Democrats regain the House, Democrats will leave no soldier left behind in Iraq. As long as there’s soldiers in the battlefield, funding will continue.”

If Democrats control Congress, that funding likely would have strings attached. Most Senate Democrats backed a nonbinding measure earlier this year crafted by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) that called for troops to begin to withdraw from Iraq, but the amendment did not set a withdrawal deadline. Another amendment offered by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) set a redeployment of troops to be substantially completed by July 1, 2007 was soundly defeated, attracting only 13 votes. The Levin amendment fell short as well, garnering 39 votes.

Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), a Democratic leader in line to become the House Budget Committee chairman if Democrats win control of the House, said last month that he does not favor an immediate withdrawal: “I think we should tell the Iraqis that we’re not going to pull out immediately. We’re seeking still some positive outcome. We won’t leave them in a lurch, but at the same time, we’re not going to be there indefinitely or forever…” Spratt is in a challenging race to keep his seat this fall.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, declined to comment for this article.

The Hill ~ Bob Cusack ** Anxious Dems eye power of the purse on Iraq

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 4:49 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  celebratory

Senior militant 'killed in Iraq'

British forces have killed a senior al-Qaeda fugitive in a raid on a house in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, security sources say.

Officials named the dead man as Omar al-Farouq, a top lieutenant of Osama Bin Laden in south-east Asia.

Farouq was captured in Indonesia in 2002 but escaped from a US military prison in Afghanistan last year.

Security sources say although he was hiding in Basra, al-Qaeda was not known to be actively operating in the area.

British military spokesman Maj Charlie Burbridge said Farouq, whom he called a "very, very significant man" had been tracked across Iraq to Basra.

He said about 200 troops surrounded the house, from where they came under fire.

A gun battle erupted and Farouq was killed in the exchange.

Maj Burbridge said there was apparently nobody else in the building and there were no further casualties.

Prison escape
Born in Kuwait of Iraqi parents, Farouq is believed to have joined al-Qaeda in the early 1990s and trained in Afghanistan.

He became a top lieutenant of Osama Bin Laden in south-east Asia and he is believed to have been planning a series of bomb attacks on US embassies there when he was arrested in Indonesia in 2002.

In what the BBC's Jim Muir describes as a considerable embarrassment for the US, Farouq and three others escaped from the US military prison at Bagram airbase in Kabul last year.

He even appeared in a video on an Arab TV station to boast about it.
"They will not be able to stop the march of jihad" - Omar al-Farouq, February 2006

On the Net: Profile: Omar al-Farouq --- BBC News ** Senior militant 'killed in Iraq'
Related: Gen. Michael V. Hayden: 5,000 Terrorists Killed or Captured
News Max.com ~ Ronald Kessler ** 5,000 Terrorists Rolled Up: Hayden

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 1:09 AM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 26 September 2006 1:18 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

IAEA commissioner falls into water tank at Czech nuclear plant

Jihlava, South Moravia -- A US commissioner from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) emerged unharmed after falling into a water tank at the Dukovany nuclear power plant on Friday.

The daily Mlada fronta Dnes reported Friday that commissioners training at the facility were moving around the plant in a group. One of them, however, left the group and fell into the tank. The water in the tank was not radioactive.

A spokesman for the plant told MfD that the commissioner admitted he had made a mistake. "The rules say that no one is allowed to leave the group," the spokesman said.

The water tank is used in the process of loading and unloading nuclear fuel. Although the water was not in contact with any nuclear fuel during the training, the commissioner was examined to make sure he was not contaminated with radioactivity.

The Prague Daily Monitor ~ CTK News Service - Czech News Agency
** IAEA commissioner falls into water tank at Czech nuclear plant

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 11:21 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 25 September 2006 11:46 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  spacey

I'M REVVING MAD

Cops claim driver's engine noise was a racist threat

A driver spent two nights in jail after being accused of "revving his car in a racist manner".

Mechanic Ronnie Hutton, 49, yesterday described his court ordeal which finally ended when prosecutors dropped the allegation of racism.

But he was still convicted of a breach of the peace for revving the engine of his £25,000 Lotus. Witnesses claimed he had been trying to intimidate a Libyan couple on the pavement.

Ronnie, of Stirling, claims he was only revving the powerful V8 engine to avoid another £15,000 repair bill.

But off-duty Chief Inspector Eoin Jenkins thought he was targeting Muslim Isam Maigel and his wife Hana Saad. And when Jenkins, now retired, confronted Ronnie he was told to "fuck off".

On Thursday, at Stirling Sheriff court, the Crown ditched the racist part of the charge but Sheriff Andrew Cubie convicted Ronnie of breach of the peace and fined him £150.

Last night, he said: "To be convicted for revving my car in a busy street is hard to take. Does this mean anyone driving a noisy car in Scotland is now a criminal?"

Following the row last September, police officers arrived at Ronnie's home and asked him to come with them to talk about the incident. He ended up being kept in a cell for two nights before being taken to court where he was released without charge.

He complained to the fiscal and the new charges surfaced months later. He said: "The police kept me in custody over the weekend because I made the mistake of swearing at a senior officer."

In court, Mr Maigel, 28, then a student at Stirling Uni, said: "The driver came alongside and was trying to annoy us by revving his engine very, very loudly."

Using an interpreter, Hana Saad, 23, said he had degraded them "maybe because we are Muslim".

Ronnie claims he was only trying to prevent the repeat of a engine problem had had suffered earlier with the Esprit.

He said: "I've had problems with the Lotus since I bought it. I paid £15,000 for a new engine in 2003.

"As soon as I started the car the oil pressure light wouldn't go out. I accept I revved the engine - it's a V8 twin turbo and is noisy and frightening.

"I would openly apologise to this couple. I am not a racist."

He is now considering an appeal against his conviction - and also plans to sell the Lotus. He said: "It has been nothing but trouble."

He tried to annoy us by revving his engine very loudly, claimed Isam Maigel

Email The UK Sunday Mail: r.findlay@sundaymail.co.uk.
UK Sunday Mail ~ Russell Findlay ** Cops claim driver's engine noise was a racist threat

GREAT! now we have to worry about "Hate revving"
Good thing he wasn't riding a Harley.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 4:40 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 25 September 2006 4:54 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Lifestyles of Lear Jet liberals

Limousine liberals, move over. You've been out-glammed by Lear Jet liberals who burn beaucoup fossil fuels in the sky as they soar around the planet fighting global warming.

Last week, they flew to their Mecca, the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York City. For the left-leaning and loaded, this is the meeting that has it all -- the mega-rich paying to be seen caring about poor people and the environment, while posing for photos with former President Bill Clinton.

You see, they care so much more about the environment than President Bush because they support the Kyoto global-warming pact, which they believe would save the planet from greenhouse gases, if only Bush had not rejected it. (Never mind that Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the pact, probably because senators voted 95-0 for a resolution rejecting any treaty that exempted China and India.)

Forget that Kyoto has the depth of a cowboy movie set. The storefronts look like a general store and saloon, but when actors walk through the door, there's nothing there. The overwhelming majority of industrialized nations that signed on to Kyoto amid much fanfare haven't cut their greenhouse gases. In June, the United Nations reported that only two Western European signatories -- Britain and Sweden -- are on target to meet their greenhouse-gas reduction targets, which call for a worldwide reduction of 5 percent below 1990 levels in 2012.

Spain is spewing more than 40 percent above its 1990 levels. Canada is 30 percent over. By comparison, Dubya's America looks good -- emitting 16 percent more greenhouse gases than in 1990.

No wonder Lear Jet liberals love Kyoto: it allows them to look like they really, really care about the environment -- and have their contrails, too.

The big news of the CGI was an announcement by Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Atlantic Airways, that he would donate $3 billion over 10 years -- his personal profits from his airline and train businesses -- to global-warming research. That's more money than I'll ever see, or spend on R&D, so bully for Branson. Still, it should be noted that Branson said some of the money will go back to his own corporations' research. That's not quite charity.

Besides, Branson hails from a country where some enviros believe flying is worse than a mega-SUV. The Bishop of London recently referred to flying abroad on holiday as "a symptom of sin."

Europeans are acutely aware of the effect flying has on one's carbon footprint. Flying is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gases in the U.K. As the Guardian reported, greenhouse-gas emissions from flying more than doubled from 1990 to 2004 to 5.5 percent of the U.K.'s emissions. It would not surprise me if some day Britain legislates a limit on short flights -- say, London to Edinburgh or Paris, trips you can make in a car or train about as fast as flying. That would be bad news for Virgin Express.

In California, Branson has a soul mate in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Critics hit the governator for signing global-warming bills while owning four Hummers, but his biggest green sin is dibs on a private plane.

Flying is my biggest item in my carbon footprint calculation and I don't own a jet. Flying is probably the biggest personal polluter for people who fly roundtrip more than 10 times a year. So, all those Hollywood stars who preen about their Priuses can see themselves as eco-virtuous only by ignoring their plane travel.

They are in a pickle. How can they be beautiful people if they don't jet to an island for a week or two of eco-tourism?

E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.
San Francisco Chronicle ~ Debra J. Saunders ** Lifestyles of Lear Jet liberals
Related: Front Page Mag.com ~ Anne Henderson **
Profiles in Left-Wing Hypocrisy, Gore travels to promote his film in a private jet

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:51 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  cheeky

THE HATE TRAP

DEMS SHOULD RECALL THE PRICE '90S GOP PAID

The leftist and liberal throng who cheered Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez at a Harlem church Thursday, a day after he called President Bush "the devil," are just the latest sign of a real problem for the Democratic Party and the nation: Bush-hate is now the opiate of the party's base.

A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. Such deep hatred is bad news for the country at a time when America needs to bridge the partisan divide. It's also bad news for the Democrats, who risk repeating the Republicans' mistakes of a decade ago, driving away the centrists they need to regain power or going too far if they do manage to win.

Fox's question was revealing: "Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" Democrats said "not," 51 percent to 40 percent - where the public at large wanted success by almost two to one.

In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people - suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies - detest George W. Bush.

When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it's hard to see why independents - hardly right-wing zealots - hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn.

In fact, the fury against to Bush has reached unprecedented levels, even compared to the animosity among Republicans to his predecessor. Not long ago, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that "strong disapproval" of Bush was 10 points higher than that recorded for Bill Clinton at any point during his presidency, including his impeachment. (That wasn't during a war, either.)

Of course, Bush and the Republicans have helped stoke the anger with their own hardball partisanship under Clinton and during this presidency. And there is plenty in Bush's record that a loyal opposition can legitimately criticize.

Yet if Bush does fail - for instance, if Iraq spirals into civil war or the economy slides into recession - then America is in trouble. Making progress on these key issues, like others facing the country, will require bipartisan solutions, not political finger-pointing.

But even from a strictly electoral perspective, Democrats can't afford to gloat as disaster strikes. They need to be seen as a credible alternative. They are not one now. Democrats lead in generic House polls because the Republicans' popularity has slumped, but their own ratings remain almost equally dismal, making their lead a fragile one.

Hate is a fatal response in American politics. It leads to irrational, sectarian, and self-defeating behavior. Republicans, their base consumed by hatred for then-President Bill Clinton, showed this in 1998. Their impeachment drive pushed Clinton's polls into the stratosphere, yielding unprecedented mid-term gains for the Democrats.

In today's polarized environment, Democratic candidates feel pressure to respond to their angry voters to avoid the fate of centrist Senator Joseph Lieberman. He lost his Connecticut primary to a blog-powered anti-war newcomer, Ned Lamont. But the positions such candidates take may leave them out of the mainstream and unelectable. Lamont is discovering this in his general election rematch with Lieberman, who is running as an independent.

Some say a little anger is needed to fire up the Democratic base. Reality check: the Democratic base is just two-fifths of the electorate and liberals number just one voter in five. Yet the independent and moderate voters the Democrats must win over to regain a majority are repelled by candidates who pander to rageful supporters with tunnel vision. . Of course, Bush and the Republicans may have dug themselves a deep enough hole to let Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress anyway. Discontent over Iraq, the deficit, gas and health care costs, and other issues, is very real and very deep.

Yet a vengeful, subpoena-wielding, overreaching Democratic congressional majority could be just the thing to keep the White House in the hands of the other party in 2008. Ask the Republicans. It's another lesson they learned the hard way, in 1996.

Craig Charney, president of Charney Research, a New York polling firm, was senior analyst on President Clinton's 1996 re-election polling team.
NY Post ~ Craig Charney ** The Hate Trap

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:24 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 25 September 2006 3:28 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Things you might have missed in Clinton's Fox News tirade

I think that old adage about angering your opponent and he will reveal himself was proven true today on Fox News Sunday. At least it is true when your opponent is weak minded. Here are some revealing tidbits that might go unnoticed about Clintax’s appearance on Fox News Sunday that reveal Clinton truths.

1) The claim that because the FBI or CIA would not "certify" (meaning I sign off on) that Bin Laden was behind the Cole bombing that some how prevented him from do something. By the time of the Cole Bin Laden had already declared war on America and had taken responsibility for numerous attacks on America, reasonable suspicion was more than enough to go on in order to launch attacks. This proves the assertions made in the ABC docudrama "Path to 9/11" (Clinton wanting to cover his own ass before doing anything) to be true.

2) Clintax kept insisting that we read Richard Clarke’s ”factual’ book. Which Fox News Sunday was kind enough to share a quote from which said in essence that Clinton bombed in response to the Embassy attacks but that public response to the bombings was negative so he didn’t bomb anymore. (maybe someone can locate this quote from Clarke’s book?). This goes to show that Clinton is not a Leader but a manipulator and that Bush is a true leader. Bush has endured withering criticism, languishing poll numbers and constant barrage of anti-Bush hatred and world condemnation but still does what he thinks it right and what he has to do to protect America. Clinton stopped bombing someone he said he believed to be a great threat just because of some polling data. This proves a long standing belief that Clinton was driven by polls not what he thought was right.

3) Clintax is just another Left Wing Kook, when confronted with a legitimate question he dropped into discussions of conspiracy theories and spooky Cabals. Saying that Chris Wallace is doing the "vast right wing conspiracy" bidding, he is only doing it because they will be criticized because Rupert Murdoch gave money to his Global Initiative and so forth. This is the same type of left-wing kookery that spawns the “Bush did 9-11” conspiracy. This goes to prove the long held belief that Clinton is really just not very smart and has serious psychological issues.

4) The last time Bill Clintax angrily wagged his finger he was fibbing. I believe this is a psychological trait of his. When confronted with the truth that puts him in a bad light he reacts with anger and self-righteousness as a defense mechanism, anger to cover failings. Remember this is exactly the way he acted toward all of the women who accused him of anything. You can almost hear him saying that to Hillary "I can't believe you would accuse me of fooling around!!" Angry denial of fact another Clinton truism.

5) He repeatedly brought up the 9-11 commission report to support his comments yet called it a “political document” . Which is it Bill, the truth or political truth. If it is political truth why should we believe the things you want us to and disbelieve the ones you don’t? I guess it depends on what your definition of truth is.

And finally, asking simple questions doesn't amount to a "right wing hit piece"... reality slap in the face, libtard.

Related: NY Sun ** Documents Show Sandy Berger Nixed Clinton Attacks on bin Laden
Washington Times ~ James G. Lakely ** Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report
RICHARD CLARKE: "...there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."
Fox News ~ March 24, 2004 ** Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
Also at: Washington Times ** Excerpts from the August 2002 press briefing by Richard A. Clarke

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:56 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 25 September 2006 3:02 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  special

Mandwell Patterson recently left the administration of Republican Mayor Janet Creighton to go into private business. He said he was turned off by Democrats after being approached by a party member who suggested affirmative action got him into college. “I don’t need affirmative action to succeed,” he said. “The first thing they (Democrats) see is my color.”

Blacks cite opportunity in supporting GOP

CANTON -- Her years as a councilwoman, business owner and community activist have made Wilma Lipkins the grande dame of Stark County’s black Republicans.

“Years ago, I was a Democrat,” said Lipkins, who operated a hair salon for nearly 40 years. “I realized you need two sides.”

Lipkins regularly opens her well-appointed home on Tuscarawas Street E to the Ohio Republican Council, whose members say their party has more to offer blacks than the Democrats, whom they claim take minorities for granted.

In 2004, President Bush slightly increased his black support to 11 percent, up from a historic low of 9 percent in 2000. Bush’s stances on abortion, gay marriage and faith-based initiatives appeal strongly to some black Christians, who tend to be socially conservative regardless of their political affiliation.

Lipkins is now mentoring the next generation of local black Republicans, including Fred Moore Sr. and Mandwell Patterson.

“I brought them together because they had the goods,” she said. “Hopefully, they can draw other young men.”

Both men lost Canton City Council races as Republicans in 2003.

Both say they’re attracted in part by the conservative social agenda of the GOP. And both say Democrats take black voters for granted.

“I looked at the Democratic party and didn’t like what I saw,” said Moore, who said Democrats don’t campaign in black neighborhoods because they assume they have the black vote sewn up. He said the party also supports a welfare state that’s broken.

Patterson began examining the GOP as a political science student at the University of Dayton and only recently left the administration of Republican Mayor Janet Creighton to go into private business. He said he was turned off by Democrats after being approached by a party member who suggested affirmative action got him into college.

“I don’t need affirmative action to succeed,” he said. “The first thing they (Democrats) see is my color.”

“Democrats boast about what they do, and the average black person has bought into that when, actually, they’ve given blacks very little,” he added.

Patterson said he was raised by a single mother who emphasized the importance of education. He said he keeps an old booklet of food stamps to remind him of how far he’s come.

LOCAL AND NATIONAL HISTORY
“They’re saying Democrats take advantage, but Republicans have ignored us completely,” countered Demeatrious St. John, president and co-founder of the Stark County Black Caucus, a group that provides support to minority Democratic candidates.

“I understand that Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were Republican. I understand most Democratic politicians in the South back then were racists. But there was a shift in this country in the 1950s and 1960s, when Democrats were standing up for the rights of African-Americans.”

Like his GOP counterparts, however, St. John said that until recently, Stark County Democrats took the black vote for granted.

“With the candidacies of (Canton council members) Thomas West and Kelly Zachary, we saw an opportunity to get involved,” he said. “We now have more African-Americans on the (Democratic) executive committee than at any time in history. ... Are there white Democrats in this town who would rather we disappear? Absolutely. But there also are Democrats like Johnnie Maier, Allen Schulman and Randy Gonzalez who encourage us every day.”

Nationally, blacks and the GOP have a long history. Ex-slave and abolitionist Douglass took part in the GOP’s organizational meeting in 1854. Until the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, black voters were staunchly Republican, due in large part to Abraham Lincoln.

But grassroots Republicans did little to support blacks during the Civil Rights movement, and the shift toward the Democratic Party began in earnest with the candidacy of John F. Kennedy. Following President Kennedy’s death, President Lyndon B. Johnson made civil rights his platform.

In 1968, the Republican National Committee adopted what became known as the “Southern Strategy.” Designed to fuel white resentment over integration and busing, it further alienated blacks. In July, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman admitted that the strategy was exploitative and cost the party decades of black support.

CHANGE COMING?
Nate Pope worked for GOP Govs. George Voinovich and Bob Taft as a regional manager for the Ohio Lottery Commission. At the invitation of Stark County Republican Organization Chairman Curt Braden, Pope became a county committee chairman in the precinct that includes Jackson Township.

Nationally, “I see a change coming,” Pope said. “People are beginning to realize the part politics plays in their lives.”

Pope said President Bush’s recent speech before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is indicative of change.

Bush and the organization’s national leadership have butted heads. One of the first acts of the organization’s new president, retired business executive Bruce Gordon, was to invite Bush to speak to the group, something Bush had declined to do for five years.

During the speech in July, Bush promised to renew the Voting Rights Act, which he did.

And Patterson pointed to Bush’s hiring record.

“He’s had the most diverse Cabinet, ever; more than Bill Clinton. Whether or not I’ve liked some of his policies, he’s put more people of color in high positions than any other sitting president. It’s OK to ask the Democrats ‘What have you done for me lately?’”

BLACKWELL AND LOCAL POLITICS
The gubernatorial campaign of Ken Blackwell has galvanized some local black Republicans. It’s one of three high-profile national races that have some political observers calling 2006 the “Year of the Black Republican.”

Patterson said minorities leery of Blackwell because he is a Republican need to “do your homework and see what he has done in his career.”

“He’s been somebody I can look up to,” he said. “He’s still a black man in the Republican Party. That isn’t easy.”

St. John, who cut his teeth on Cleveland politics as an intern for Democratic Mayor Carl Stokes, said minority representation is needed in both parties.

“We can’t afford to be a one-party people,” he said. “Just being a Democrat doesn’t mean we’ll support you.”

But neither will St. John support Blackwell because he’s black. “Mandwell believes what he says. I respect him,” St. John said. But “Ken Blackwell is an opportunist.”

Upon becoming Stark County Republican chairman in 2000, Curt Braden said he reached out to black clergy to inform them of upcoming events, a relationship spurred in part by President Bush’s faith-based initiative.

One of those clergymen is the Rev. Robert Dye, pastor of St. Paul AME Church in Canton. A lifelong Republican, Dye was among a contingent of black pastors who met with Blackwell this summer during a campaign stop in Canton.

The Pittsburgh native acknowledged being a black Republican pastor is not the most popular thing to be.

“People have said, ‘You’re crazy; you don’t what you’re doing,’ ” he said.

He maintains the Republican Party must be more sensitive to the grassroots issues that affect minorities, such as poverty, and although he personally supports Blackwell, Dye acknowledges that his candidate has an uphill fight.

“I think he has a chance, but he’s carrying baggage from the last administration,” he said.

Angela Woodson, political director for Blackwell’s Democratic opponent, Ted Strickland, said Blackwell’s high-profile campaign is symptomatic of the GOP’s problems. Unlike Republicans, she said, Democrats make a concerted effort to recruit black, Latino and women candidates.

“I’m waiting for Republicans to wake up and realize that all politics is local, and for them to encourage African-Americans to run for commissioner, or clerk of court, or a judicial post,” she said. “What’s real to us is our states and hometowns. ... Until the Republican Party starts making local efforts, they won’t make many inroads with African-Americans.”

LEAVING THE GOP
For most of his adulthood, Robert F. Fisher was one of Stark County’s most prominent black Republicans. The former safety director for Mayor Stanley Cmich said he became disillusioned with the party with the emergence of Ronald Reagan.

“They (GOP) ran the moderate and liberal wing out of the party,” Fisher said.

He parted with Reagan’s hard-line stance on affirmative action and other policies, and he criticized President George H.W. Bush for appointing Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Thomas personally benefited from affirmative action, Fisher said, then condemned it.

But for Fisher, the most egregious sin of the GOP was the “Willie Horton” ad -- which used the image of a black killer released from prison -- during the elder Bush’s campaign for president in 1988.

“That was so overtly racist ... . I just couldn’t live with it,” Fisher said.

But unlike their national counterparts, Fisher said, Republicans at the state and local levels tend to be elected based on performance, not ideology. He said he supports Republican Mayor Janet Creighton, whom he calls a good friend.

“There’s no ‘conservative’ way to run a police department, or pick up the garbage,” he said. “People are going to reward you or defeat you based on how well you do that.”

His advice for the national GOP?

“Forget about the issues of faith and religion,” he said. “There’s no place, in my opinion, in the national debate about abortion, gay marriages. Those are state and individual issues. We need to talk about Social Security and the federal budget; about balancing defense spending against domestic spending, and (maintaining) the safety net.”

WHEN DID THE SUPPORT FADE
How can the GOP attract more blacks?

“I don’t think Ken Blackwell is the way to get it back,” said Lorenzo Morris, a professor of political science at Howard University.

Morris said the ideology embraced by Blackwell -- a self-described “Ronald Reagan Republican” -- has consistently lost the GOP support in the black community.

Blacks aligned themselves with Republicans early on because of rejection by Southern Democrats during the Civil War, he said. They remained with the GOP through the early years of the New Deal, and many held back from Democrats until 1936, Morris said, because “they were waiting to see if Roosevelt’s policies fit his rhetoric.”

Even as late as 1956, Morris said, 40 percent of blacks still voted Republican. The majority of blacks voted Democratic in 1960 for John F. Kennedy’s “symbolic, if not substantive leadership.”

Into the ’60s, he added, 20 percent of blacks remained Republican, particularly in states such as Ohio and New York, which had liberal and moderate Republicans.

Then came Reagan.

“When Reagan came in, there was a big drop to less than 10 percent,” Morris said. Bush Senior saw a slight uptick, “but the biggest dip came under Bush Junior’s first term. So, when the numbers increased by about 2 percent in his second term, the Republicans celebrated like it was the revolution.”If the GOP expects to capture more black support, Morris said, it must “let the moderate Republicans have more of a say.”

“The white Lincoln Chafees will get more black voters than the black Ken Blackwells,” he said.

The Canton, OH Repository ~ Charita M. Goshay ** Blacks cite opportunity in supporting GOP

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:03 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 24 September 2006 2:31 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink