California Conservative

Test

I received an e-mail from Howard Dean concerning John McCain’s now infamous “100 years” statement. The e-mail reads:

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He’s said it, and it’s on tape.

But his campaign hates that he was caught. They’ve viciously attacked anyone who reminded the American people that he said it, including me. They’ve said that those who reference the 100 years comments are “deliberately misleading voters.”

So we’ve taken John McCain’s own words — video of him saying that 100 years would be “fine with me” — and made a TV ad. There’s no confusion, no distortion, no misleading – it’s John McCain, on tape, for voters to judge on their own./

So, what does the ad show? a small fraction of the entire quote:

QUESTION FROM AUDIENCE: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years..

McCAIN: Maybe a hundred….That’d be fine with me.

The audio is then followed by a shot of two soldiers being blown up. Just for fun, lets look at the full quote:

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

So, Mr. Dean. Let me get this straight. Taking of 8 words out of an 88 word response, splicing them together, while dropping the remainder of the sentence, and tacking on video of a soldier being injured (which was addressed in the original answer) isn’t misleading? Okay, lets try the shoe on the other foot.

Original quote from Obama’s “monumental” speech on race:

I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man….Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans“.

Okay, now lets see what our non-misleading spliced, out of reference quote looks like next to some clearly appropriate pictures:

Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) has introduced legislation that would require that online and catalog purchases be subject to a sales tax. Called the “Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act”, the legislation would create a uniform tax rate that online and catalog retailers would be required to collect and dispense to the government. Personally, I’m disappointed that a Republican would support such legislation, and with Democrats in control of the Congress it’s very likely that this will become law.

From my reading, the bill will serve two primary purposes. The first generally is to promote “fairness”. The second is, in my opinion, for the sole purpose of increasing goverment revenue.

Regarding the so-called “fairness”, I would hardly consider this legislation “fair”. In fact, I would consider this proposition somewhat unfair to those who have invested in technology and have used innovation to create success–the very principals that have made America the economic leader of the world. The internet brought about great wealth and prosperity for America in the 90s as many people utilized new technology to fill new markets. I think the government should maintain policies that encourage these types of pursuits rather than stifling them. In effect, this legislation would harm those who have innovated, all in the name of government income.

In support of his legislation, Sen. Enzi states, on his website, that if “electronic commerce continues to grow as predicted, other taxes, such as income or property taxes, will have to be increased to offset the lost revenue to state and local governments.” I have difficulty believing this statement, considering last month the IRS realized record tax income concomitant with decreased taxation!

So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record

Time and time again we see decreased taxation leading to economic prosperity. As a Republican I would expect Sen. Enzi to understand this.

Cross-Posted at The Gentle Cricket

John Murtha’s temper got the best of him when Mike Rogers challenged the need for another pile of pork delivered to Murtha’s district. Now Mike Rogers is poised to get the better of him, too. Here’s the details of the incident:

Mr. Rogers said Mr. Murtha confronted him on the House floor Thursday night, vowing to block federal money for his district, according to a draft of the motion.

“I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever,” Mr. Murtha allegedly told Mr. Rogers in a “loud voice.” He referred to the pet projects lawmakers often tuck into large spending bills.

“This is not the way we do things here,” Mr. Rogers replied. “Is that supposed to make me afraid of you?”

“That’s the way I do it,” Mr. Murtha said.

Murtha’s been ladling out pork for so long that he sees himself as the gatekeeper of defense pork. He snapped when Rogers, a former special agent in the FBI, challenged the need for $23 million going to the NDIC:

“We are a nation at war, and when we find wasteful spending we must stop it. This comes down to a choice between spies catching terrorists or pork barrel spending in a congressional district,” Mr. Rogers said in a news release. (more…)

In two recent articles for the National Review, Bruce Bartlett recommended that conservatives pledge their support for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primaries. His rationale is that the Republicans do not stand a chance in the 2008 election, and conservatives should thus focus on ensuring that the most conservative Democrat receive the Democratic nomination. “To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative”, he says. Saying that “Hillary Clinton is the most conservative” is like saying that Cindy Sheehan is the most attractive amongst herself, Helen Thomas, and Madeleine Albright.

In principle I would not necessarily disagree with his stance. It may be wiser to promote the most liberal democrat, in hopes that this would dissuade moderates towards the Republican candidate in the general election. However, such tactics are only relevant if you believe that the election has already been won by the Democrats. I do not believe this is the case.
(more…)

Yesterday on Meet the Press Senator Joe Biden had some choice comments that deserve attention.

MR. RUSSERT: But make no mistake about it, the bill that you voted for authorized the president to go to war.

SEN. BIDEN: It allowed the president to go to war. It did not authorize him to go to it. You make it sound like it said, “Mr. President, go to war.” It said, “Mr. President, don’t go to war.” It said “go to the United Nations. Mr. President, don’t go to war, try to get a deal here. Mr. President, get the inspectors back in. Mr. President, tell us that that’s what you’re about to do. And, Mr. President, if all else fails, you have authority to use force.” That’s what it said.

These are interesting statements. He says to “go to the United Nations”…the same UN that unanimously issued Resolution 1441, threatening Iraq to disarm? Biden says “get the inspectors back in”. The same inspectors that Saddam hadn’t complied with? The same inspectors that President Clinton and others said Iraq had failed to comply with and had interfered with?

In fact, reviewing Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq shows nothing of the sort. It states nothing about inspectors, except to say “Whereas Iraq…attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities”, and “Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council” and “Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660″. This all seems to indicate the willingness to proceed with military efforts.

Furthermore, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002states the same. This resolution provided authorization as follows:

AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

This sounds pretty clear to me, and it should to Senator Biden to…after all, he voted for it.

Mr. Biden, in the early stages of his presidential bid, is doing his best to distance himself from his earlier statements and his vote.

Cross Posted at The Gentle Cricket

After SB 840, the bill within the California State Legislature that would socialize medical coverage within the state, was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, Senate Pro Tem Don Perata (D) is proposing a plan that would tax businesses and individuals in order to pay for health care for the poor. The plan is different from SB 840, in that it only provides the free-ride health care to the poor. All employees and employers (even those who already pay for their own care) would be required to pay into (read: “be taxed into”) a system that would provide the care for the uninsured.

When presenting his proposal, Sen. Perata stated

There would be an employer contribution and an employee contribution. If you want to call that mandates, yes. There’s no free ride

For clarification purposes, he means no free ride for businesses and individual tax payers. By definition, it is a free ride for those receiving the free medical care.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has already stated his dedication to tackling the Health Care issue in 2007 and in his next term. Though he has not issued any details of his plans, he has expressed his opposition to socialized medicine, as well as any plans that would increase taxes.

I will be watching this legislation closely.

Cross-Posted at The Gentle Cricket

I received the following email from:

CONGRESS.ORG WEEKLY UPDATE November 20, 2006
CONGRESSMAN: “BRING BACK THE DRAFT”
TELL PRES. BUSH AND CONGRESS WHAT YOU WOULD BE THANKFUL FOR CONGRESSMAN CHARLES RANGEL PROPOSES MILITARY DRAFT

Incoming Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charles Rangel proposes reinstating the military draft for everyone over 18 to bolster troop levels and deter Congress from getting into further wars. Write to Congress and President Bush to share your views. We will tabulate the views daily and display them on Congress.org.

I Support Bringing Back the Draft

I Oppose Bringing Back the Draft

What did I write? I think that my readers have an idea…

I support reinstating the draft.

America would benefit from this two ways…

1) We would have the forces to sustain the War against Terrorism at home and abroad; National Guard = Home, Active Duty = Abroad

2) Our youth may stop being so narcicistic, self-centered, and anti-military.There will be no colleges to go to if Radical Islam has it’s way in America.They will all be Mosques…

Rightfielder Out

Cross-posted at Rightfielder

The CBO is reporting bad news for tax-raising Democrats across the country:

The federal budget estimate for the fiscal year just completed dropped to $250 billion, congressional estimators said Friday, as the economy continues to fuel impressive tax revenues. The CBO’s latest estimate is $10 billion below CBO predictions issued in August and well below a July White House prediction of $296 billion. The improving deficit picture (Bush predicted a $423 billion deficit in his February budget) has been driven by better-than-expected tax receipts, especially from corporate profits, CBO said.

Remember Democrats saying that “we can’t afford Bush’s tax cuts” in 2001? These figures prove that we couldn’t afford not to pass them. It isn’t just the moral thing to do. It’s the fiscally intelligent thing to do, too.

Indulge me as I vent on a pet peeve of mine: How do these forecasters stay employed if they’re seemingly always underforecasting revenues? If I had a dollar for each time I read the term “better-than-expected” in articles about the various economic reports, I’d be rich and then some.

Technorati Tags: Budget Deficit, CBO, Tax Cuts

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog