This morning, the SC Times is running an editorial explaining why Rep. Michele Bachmann’s energy plan is wrong for America. The editorial is titled “Letter: Preteen has a better plan than Bachmann”. This is the epitome of despicable. It’s obvious that this preteen had help writing the letter. Here’s what I’m basing my opinion on:

Frankly, the whole act is politically motivated and short-sighted. The federal Energy Information Administration says drilling in Alaska wouldn’t be able to start until 2018 if approved today and that production wouldn’t reach its peak until 2027.

How many 12 year-olds talk about “politically motivated and short-sighted” legislation? Better yet, how many 12-year-olds know about the “federal Energy Information Administration“? Or that drilling in ANWR would take 10 years to start drilling? Or that it’d take another 9 years for it to start producing?

What are the odds that this child’s parents ‘helped’ her research this editorial? North of 95%? A point or 2 south of 100%?

Then there’s this line:

Is ruining Alaska worth about $1.35? I hope not!

Ruining Alaska by drilling on a 2,000 acre plot of land? FYI- 2,000 acres is just a bit more than 3 square miles. ANWR alone is 19,000,000 acres, which translates into 29,687.5 square miles. Alaska is 663,267 square miles. In other words, ANWR is about 4 percent of Alaska’s land mass. (continue reading post »)

Peter Brown poses a great set of questions in this WSJ editorial. Specifically, he asks whether the Democrats would rethink their governing philosophy if they lose this election. Here’s how Mr. Brown first frames his question:

After the 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 elections, Democratic leaders argued that the American people had not rejected their ideas or governing philosophy. Instead, they said, their nominee had not effectively communicated the party’s core message. It wasn’t the American people rejecting those views and values, they contended.

Two paragraphs later, here’s how he continues his argument:

These Democrats argued their politics were not out of step and there was no reason to overhaul the party message; they just needed to tinker with it around the edges and find a better communicator to make their case. That argument was perhaps more credible when Democrats were losing to Mr. Reagan, whose communications skills were without peer. But neither President Bush, George H.W. Bush nor his son George W. Bush, could win a high school debate tournament.

Politics or Presentation?

Nevertheless, it’s clear that if Sen. Barack Obama loses this November, Democrats will have to conclude that yes, in fact, their defeats are linked to their brand of politics, not their salesman’s communication skills. (continue reading post »)

There’s substantial proof that Barack Obama surrounded himself with radicals. That’s why it isn’t surprising that one of CODE PINK’s co-founders is an Obama fundraising bundler:

A co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, which has made a name for itself by interrupting hearings on Capitol Hill, is a fundraising bundler for Barack Obama. Jodie Evans has pledged to raise at least $50,000 for Obama, according the Democrat’s campaign site.

According to research being circulated by GOP sources, Evans has a record of inflammatory statements such as saying that women were better off in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, “Men are dying in their Hummers in Iraq so you can drive around in yours” and, my favorite, that the invasion of Iraq amounted to “global testosterone poisoning.”

Sen. Obama has surrounded himself with extremists, whether we’re talking about William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss III, Michael Pfleger or Jodie Evans. I didn’t know that Jodie Evans was a co-founder of CODE PINK but I’ve known forever that they’re a radical, hatemongering organization. Ms. Evans is a radical in her own right, though. Here’s what Sarah Rode wrote about Ms. Evans in Human Events: (continue reading post »)

Based on this op-ed, it’s safe to say that Geraldine Ferraro won’t be writing a check to the Obama campaign anytime soon. Here’s how she tied into the Toy Messiah:

Here we are at the end of the primary season, and the effects of racism and sexism on the campaign have resulted in a split within the Democratic Party that will not be easy to heal before election day. Perhaps it’s because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn’t an issue, but reverse racism is.

The reaction to the questions being raised has been not to listen to the message and try to find out how to deal with the problem, but rather to denigrate the messenger. Sore loser, petty, silly, vengeful are words that have dominated the headlines. But scolding and name calling don’t resolve disputes. The truth is that tens of thousands of women have watched how Clinton has been treated and are not happy. We feel that if society can allow sexism to impact a woman’s candidacy to deny her the presidency, it sends a direct signal that sexism is OK in all of society.

While I think Ms. Ferraro is being a bit melodramatic, she raises a valid point about how Sen. Obama has used words to belittle Hillary. His use of words like petty, silly and others is flippant and disrespectful. (continue reading post »)

This Hillary suppporter thinks that the DNC is treating Hillary’s supporters like second class citizens.

To say that Harriet Christian is upset is putting things mildly. when she says that “the Democrats are throwing the election away”, it was obvious that she didn’t think too highly of Sen. Obama. By the time she called Sen. Obama “an inadequate black male”, it was abundantly obvious that she wouldn’t be cutting the DNC a check anytime soon. when se said “God damn the Democrats”, I was fairly certain that she wouldn’t be on Howard Dean’s Christmas card list. When she said that “they think we won’t vote for McCain. Well I’ve got news for you. McCain will be the next president of the United States”, I’m relatively certain that Ms. Christian will be on John McCain’s Christmas card wish list.

I said here that there’s some serious divides within the Democratic Party. This is proofthat those divisions run deep and that they won’t easily be healed. The next step is the circular firing squad.

Technorati Tags: Hillary, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, DNC, Howard Dean, Harriet Christian, John McCain, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Earlier today, I said that it was ironic that Democrats had gone from the mantra of “Count every vote” in 2000 to making votes count little in 2008. Now it’s official: the DNC has voted to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations before ruling that each delegate’s vote would count as 1/2 a vote. Here’s what the AP is reporting:

Democratic party officials said a committee agreed Saturday on a compromise to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes after Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to get enough support to force their positions through.

Clinton’s chief delegate hunter Harold Ickes angrily informed the committee that Clinton had instructed him to reserve her right to appeal the matter to the Democrats’ credentials committee, which could potentially drag the matter to the party’s convention in August.

“There’s been a lot of talk about party unity, let’s all come together, and put our arms around each other,” said Ickes, who is also a member of the Rules Committee that approved the deal. “I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, hijacking four delegates…is not a good way to start down the path of party unity.”

It’s predictable that Hillary wouldn’t accept such a deal because it essentially cedes victory to Sen. Obama. That said, there’s definitely merit to her argument. Here’s what TNR is reporting on the unity front: (continue reading post »)

Based on this St. Cloud Times editorial, written by James Mogen, pro-growth capitalism is now part of the far right. Here’s how Mr. Mogen arrives at that conclusion:

Continuing to use her office for campaign activities, Rep. Michele Bachmann recently touted her support from the right-wing radical organization Club for Growth on her congressional Web site. The club is a far right-wing group made up of Wall Street financiers. You may be familiar with the group for its negative ads in 2004.

Instead of denouncing extreme groups like them, Bachmann is proud of its support and is now taking direction from the club. After the club demanded that representatives submit to their “key votes,” Bachmann opposed the recently passed farm bill, which promises to bring major support for area farmers, environmental initiatives and hungry children and families.

CFG is a “right-wing radical organization”? Based on what criteria? Mr. Mogen doesn’t give us the criteria by which he arrived at that conclusion. Instead, this is typical of his ‘logic’:

This group, like Bachmann, is far more conservative than the Minnesotans she is supposed to represent.

In fact, the club has been known to go after moderates who vote their district. The club’s support for Bachmann illustrates her own far-right positions are out of line with those of the 6th District.

Saying that Rep. Bachmann is “far more conservative than the district” she’s supposed to represent doesn’t make sense. If this were true, how did she get elected? Mr. Mogen certainly can’t honestly say that Rep. Bachmann ran as a squishy moderate, either. Anytime I hear someone speaking with this type of certitude, I worry because there isn’t room for differing perspectives. (continue reading post »)

The Republican Party isn’t the majority party here in Minnesota nor in our nation’s capital for a variety of reasons. I’d submit that the biggest reason why we aren’t the majority party is because we stopped being the party of ideas. Here in Minnesota, though, we’re taking corrective action, action that doesn’t rely on the state party.

Instead, what a group of activists have done is turned the MOB (Minnesota Organization of Bloggers) into the Activists’ News Network. Many of our state legislators stay in touch with what’s important to working class people by reading blogs like True North, Powerline, MDE, SCSUScholars, Let Freedom Ring, Ladies Logic and Shot In The Dark. Our House GOP leadership reads the blogs on a daily basis, as do their staff.

The House GOP Caucus has used this to stay in touch with what’s important with activists. That’s important because the activists/citizen journalists stay in touch with their neighbors, co-workers and friends. I can’t emphasize this point enough. If the GOP wants to return to majority status anytime soon, it has to start with listening to what the people are saying.

It’s my contention that the reason why earmarks have proliferated at the rate they have is in direct proportion to the RNC and other Beltway ‘alphabets’ not having a coherent or appealing agenda. To get an appealing agenda, the RNC must listen to the people living in the Heartland because what’s importatnt in the Heartland is dramatically different than what’s important to the Beltway’s opinion shapers. (continue reading post »)

Sen. Obama has crafted an image that he isn’t a partisan and that he’s squeaky clean ethically. This Newsweek article will quickly dispel that myth. It also might force Sen. Obama to fired his chief strategist, David Axelrod. At minimum, it’ll cause some serious embarrassment for him after he attacked John McCain on the issue of lobbyists running McCain’s campaign. Here’s what Newsweek is reporting:

When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a “California-style energy crisis” if the rate increase wasn’t approved—but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. “It’s corporate money trying to hoodwink the public,” the state’s Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then—but may soon get more scrutiny—is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama.

Last week, Obama hit John McCain for hiring “some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington” to run his campaign; Obama’s aides say their candidate, as a foe of “special interests,” has refused to take money from lobbyists or employ them. Neither Axelrod nor his partners at ASK ever registered as lobbyists for Commonwealth Edison—and under Illinois’s loose disclosure laws, they were not required to. “I’ve never lobbied anybody in my life,” Axelrod tells NEWSWEEK. “I’ve never talked to any public official on behalf of a corporate client.” (He also says “no one ever denied” that Edison was the “principal funder” of his firm’s ad campaign.) (continue reading post »)

Rep. Paul Kanjorski, (D-PA), is in deep trouble following a YouTube video showing him telling his constituents that Democrats stretched the truth about their ability to end the war during the 2006 campaign. Here’s what’s being reported on The Crypt:

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) was caught on a year-old video clip telling some of his constituents that Congressional Democrats oversold their ability to end the war during the 2006 campaign.

“We really in this last election, when I say we, the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can, the envelope. Didn’t say it, but we implied it, that we, if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war,” Kanjorski said in the video. “Now anybody who is a good student of government would know that wasn’t true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts, and people ate it up.”

Here’s the video:

The NRCC and Pennsylvania GOP both pounnced on Kanjorski’s statement. Here’s the NRCC’s statement: (continue reading post »)