Blog @ MoreWhat.com

About as funny as the Dennis Kucinich remark about praying to God to be called on, Bill Richardson tried some humor with a two for one pitch.

“Senator Obama provides change and Senator Clinton experience. With me, you get both,” Governor Richardson stated. “We’re going to need change to become energy independent. We’re going to need experience to deal with foreign leaders. I’ve met already with most of them. All my life I’ve been a diplomat and from day one I will be ready.”

With the other Democratic candidates softening their Iraq surrender positions, why does Governor Richardson’s claim of dual skill sets oppose the wisdom that an abrupt withdrawal of American forces from Iraq would send the country into chaos and put US troops at higher risk? A contradiction on its own and certainly when paired with the report below.

Analysis: An assured Richardson brings his‘A’ game in Iowa debate
By Steve Terrell | The New Mexican
August 19, 2007
Governor gets aggressive, takes rival presidential candidates to task on Iraq
Could it be that early morning is the best time for Gov. Bill Richardson to debate?

Understandably, a source from New Mexico supports Governor Richardson’s performance in Sunday’s ABC Democrats Debate. It does not, however, make sense to take a long shot on war strategy while touting your experience in foreign affairs and other executive tasks. Even among his rivals there are no longer any takers on the surrender as fast as you can mentality.

Richardson Stands Out In Latest Democratic Debate
The governor broke from his competitors by calling for a quick and complete U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq in the next 6 to 8 months. But all of the other Democratic candidates said Richardson’s plan was too ambitious and it would not work.

Probably not the kind of standing out you would want to do especially when it is wrong. Mistakes are piling up for Bill Richardson as noted in the excerpts/links below.

Richardson on Richardson
By Steve Terrell | The New Mexican
September 25, 2005
George W. Bush had A Charge to Keep. John Kerry had A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America. John Edwards had Four Trials. Richard Nixon had Six Crises. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has Between Worlds: The Making of an American Life

While much of the 348 pages consists of Richardson justifying his political actions, there are moments in which he admits mistakes.

It is admirable that one would be honest enough to admit mistakes. But at the rate that Richardson is racking them up his demonstrated skill for being President is overpowered by his propensity for mistakes. He declared in the debate that he believes he’s been averaging one mistake each week. But the mistake below is probably one caused by pandering. Say what you feel and when criticized by the audience stumble around for a day on damage control. Like criticizing Obama for what he say’s on foreign policy, Richardson suffers from the same lack of discretion that would be equally detrimental in foreign and domestic affairs.

August 10, 2007, 7:34 pm
Richardson Clarifies Gay Gaffe
By Michael Falcone
After stumbling through a question at a forum Thursday night about whether people choose to be gay or are born that way, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson spent part of the day trying to regain his footing by reaching out to prominent members of the gay and lesbian community.

Mr. Richardson’s initial response — “it’s a choice” — angered many gay rights activists who hold the opposite view. After the forum, the Richardson’s campaign issued a statement essentially taking back the remark.

Of the Democratic candidates, Richardson is the most extreme on the Iraq war presently while no one objected to Edwards speaking for the group saying they all would leave Iraq. What that means is all but Richardson have come to understand the Democrats surrender now strategy is not working. But the flimsy kabuki dance being performed by Dems on Iraq signals their across the board refusal to protect this nation through strength rather than appeasement.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama stuck in a narrative not his own
August 18, 2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton is rigid, cautious and steely. Barack Obama is dangerously inexperienced. John Edwards is a narcissistic hypocrite. Joseph R. Biden Jr. can’t express a thought in less than 25 minutes. Christopher J. Dodd is making sense but nobody’s paying attention.

But, then again, Rudolph W. Giuliani is hot-tempered and not particularly solicitous of civil liberties. Mitt Romney is a flip-flopping opportunist. John McCain is a doomed defender of the Iraq war. Sam Brownback is a hopeless religious conservative. Mike Huckabee is too, except that he’s lost a lot of weight, has a wicked sense of humor and, because of his second-place finish in last week’s (utterly meaningless) Iowa straw poll, might not be the dead-man-walking everyone thought he was.

David Shribman is executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

David Shribman has it all figured out. All the candidates are worthless. At first glance it may appear that way. But his initial observations, while entertaining, have a tendency to lean one way…..left.

The first candidate described by Shribman is Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic poll leader who receives his least critical if not highest praise of all the candidates listed. Rigid, cautious and steely may be somewhat vague but not critical. Obama is dangerous, Edwards a hypocrite with Biden and Dodd shown as generally inept. Any guess on who Shribman favors but is concealing in ambiguous adjectives? Nice try on an attempt to appear objective….NOT.

Every description of the GOP field is derogatory with the possible exception of Huckabee. He is called a hopeless religious conservative and given a backhanded compliment on his performance in the Iowa Straw Poll. Less that 2nd place finish in a contest panned by many, Shribman calls him a ‘dead-man-walking.’

Shribman tries to be stealthy with his appraisal of Clinton to hide the favoritism. He bashes the remainder of the Democratic field and the entire GOP field focusing the remainder of the piece on what Barack Obama should do. All that from the Executive Editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette showing a left-leaning bias and not so cleverly hidden endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Who says the press is biased?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

By Michael Bowman
Washington
15 August 2007

Bowman report (mp3) - Download 776k audio clip
Listen to Bowman report (mp3) audio clip

A new poll of likely U.S. voters shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton maintaining her frontrunner status among Democratic voters in next year’s presidential race, with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading the Republican field. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports from Washington.

The Quinnipiac University poll shows Senator Clinton with 36 percent backing among Democrats, up one percent from a survey in June, with strong support among women and working class voters. Illinois Senator Barack Obama is holding steady in second place, at 21 percent, and is favored among Democrats with college degrees.

Former Vice President Al Gore, who has stated he has no intention of running for office, polled third with 15 percent support, ahead of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards at nine percent.

Mrs. Clinton may lead the Democratic field, but the news is not all positive for the one-time first lady, according to the head of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute, Maurice Carroll.

“Trailing her is a big ‘Hillary hostility’ factor which does raise questions, feeds those doubts about [whether she] can win in November [in next year’s election],” he said. “Forty-eight to 43 percent, Americans tell the poll they have a favorable impression of her. But 43 is a big number, the negative side, and that is the highest of any of the candidates.”

Months ago, some analysts predicted that Senator Obama, whose father was Kenyan, would eventually receive overwhelming backing from black and other minority voters. But the Quinnipiac poll shows no such trend to date, with Senator Clinton doing well among all racial and ethnic groups within the Democratic Party.

Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani leads with 28 percent support, up one percent from June. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney comes in second with 15 percent, followed by actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson with 12 percent and Arizona Senator John McCain with 11 percent. Mr. Thompson has yet to formally announce his candidacy.

Carroll notes that Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion and favors legal rights for homosexual couples - positions that do not endear him with the socially-conservative base of the Republican Party. But he says the former mayor has one great strength that propels him to the top of the Republican field:

“It’s 9/11. Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York City when the terrorists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center. His performance then in rallying the city, reassuring the city - and to an extent the nation, earned him all sorts of plaudits and that is his big pitch. Of those who are for him, more than a third cited his performance after 9/11, his anti-terrorist credentials,” he said.

How would top Democratic and Republican contenders fare if the presidential election were held today? The Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary Clinton edging Rudy Giuliani 46 to 43 percent, and a draw between Giuliani and Barack Obama at 42 percent each. The poll did not pose a hypothetical match-up of Mitt Romney against a Democratic challenger.

Such polls provide only a snapshot of public opinion at the time they are conducted. The first contest of the presidential primary season is still months away, in January, and the general election is more than a year off.

The Romney Vision: Seeing Is Believing - The Romney Agenda Trumps Dem Liberal Debate Pandering

Tuesday, Jul 24, 2007

“[Democrats] think about big government, big taxes and Big Brother. That’s the same course Europe has taken over the last couple of decades that has led to a level of growth far below our own.” – Gov. Mitt Romney (Lisa Rossi, “Romney Blasts Obama, Others,” The Des Moines Register, 7/21/07)

Romney’s Vision Of A Stronger Defense Vs. Defeatist Democrats

Gov. Romney Stresses The Importance Of Winning In Iraq And Defeating Radical Islam Globally. “The congressional debate in Washington has largely, and myopically, focused on whether troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, as if these were isolated issues. Yet the jihad is much broader than any one nation, or even several nations. … The jihadist threat is the defining challenge of our generation and is symptomatic of a range of new global realities.” (Gov. Mitt Romney, “Rising To A New Generation Of Global Challenges,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007)

But Sen. Hillary Clinton Claims The U.S. Has Already Lost In Afghanistan To Al Qaeda And Bin Laden. SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: “We’ve got to figure out what we’re doing in Iraq, where our troops are stretched thin, and Afghanistan, where we’re losing the fight to al Qaeda and bin Laden.” (CNN/YouTube, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

While Sen. Barack Obama Would Jump At The Chance To Meet With Dictators In Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba And North Korea. YOUTUBE QUESTION: “…would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” … SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.” (CNN/YouTube, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

Romney’s Vision Of A Stronger Economy Vs. Tax-And-Spend Democrats

Gov. Romney Believes Lower Taxes Lead To A Stronger American Economy. GOV. MITT ROMNEY: “Raising taxes will slow down the economy, will make it more and more difficult to create jobs here. It’s the wrong direction. The right direction is always to bring tax rates down. If you believe that the strength of America flows from government, then you want more taxes. But if you believe that the strength of America flows from the American people, you want to hold their taxes down for themselves and for the employers that employ them.” (Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes,” 4/4/07)

But Sen. Joe Biden Would Raise Taxes, Rolling Back The Bush Tax Cuts. SEN. JOE BIDEN: “First of all, change the tax structure. We are giving people tax breaks who don’t need it. The top 1 percent got an $85 billion a year tax break. It is not needed. My dad used to have an expression — don’t tell me what you value; show me your budget. And the budget we have here is we all dance around it. We need more revenue to be able to pay for the things the governor and everybody else talks about. And there’s only one way to do it. You either raise taxes or take tax cuts away from people who don’t need them. I’d take them away from people who don’t need them.” (CNN/YouTube, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

While Sen. John Edwards Would Create A Big Government-Run Health Insurance Program, Paid For By Taxpayers. SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: “No, because the only way to provide universal coverage is to mandate that everyone be covered. But I want to say, you know, I came out with a universal plan several months ago. A couple of months later, Senator Obama came out with a plan. He’s made a very serious proposal, and I’m not casting aspersions on his plan. I think it’s a very serious proposal. It just doesn’t cover everybody. The only way to cover everybody is to mandate it.” (CNN/YouTube, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

Romney’s Vision Of Stronger Families Vs. Out-Of-The-Mainstream Democrats

Gov. Romney Believes A Stronger American Family Leads To A Stronger America. GOV. MITT ROMNEY: “How is the American family made stronger? With marriage before children. With a mother and a father in the life of every child. With healthcare that is affordable and portable. With schools that succeed. With taxes that are lower. And with leaders who strive to demonstrate enduring values and morality.” (Gov. Mitt Romney, Presidential Announcement, Dearborn, MI, 2/13/07)

But Sen. Barack Obama Supports Sex Education For Kindergarteners, And Wrongly Claimed That Gov. Mitt Romney Does, Too. CNN’s ANDERSON COOPER: “Senator Obama, Mitt Romney has accused you this week of saying that 5-year-old children should be getting sex education. Was he right?” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Ironically, this was actually a proposal that he himself said he supported when he was running for governor of Massachusetts. … I’ve got a 9-year-old daughter and a 6-year-old daughter. And I want them to know if somebody is doing something wrong to them, encroaching on their privacy, that they should come talk to me or my wife. And we’ve had that conversation, but not every parent is going to have that conversation with their child, and I think it’s important that every child does, to make sure that they’re not subject to the sexual predators.” (CNN/YouTube, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

- In Fact, Sen. Obama Specifically Called For Sex-Ed In Kindergarten, Which Gov. Romney Did Not Support. “The Romney campaign is saying there is a difference here. Kevin Madden, Romney’s national spokesman says, ‘Obama specifically advocated sex-ed for small children in kindergarten.’ Undaunted today, Romney said the following in South Carolina about Obama: ‘Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten.’” (David Brody, “Kindergarten Cop: Romney Versus Obama,” CBN’s The Brody File, www.cbn.com/CBNnews/198676.aspx, Posted 7/19/07)

- The Legislation Sen. Obama Voted For In Illinois Went Even Further – Calling For STD Prevention To Be Taught In Kindergarten. Illinois Senate Bill 99, which Obama supported in the 93rd Assembly (2003-2004), reads, in part: “…whenever such courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K through 12, then such courses also shall include age appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.” (IL General Assembly Website, www.ilga.gov/legislation/, Accessed 7/24/07)

What does it say when an ordinary citizen asks a candidate a question and a feeble attempt to address the concern gets no real play from the media? It is not hypercritical to refer to a candidate’s answer as feeble. There is nothing more important in the world of politics than competing for the most powerful job on the planet. It should be expected that a candidate be schooled, trained, prepared and in every way up to the task. The stakes are high and the history of such events reflects the development of the machinery and mechanisms in place and commonly used to transform ordinary human beings into a meticulously crafted and tested examples of Presidential leadership. A candidate must be able to ‘bring it’ at a debate. If you do not have game there, where will you?

This exchange between an ordinary citizen and Senator Chris Dodd is an example of a poke and hope candidate. When the citizen turns in a performance superior to the candidate, it is obvious that decades of time invested in politics for the candidate provided little in terms of ‘bringing it’. Got game? Got milk? Got anything?

COOPER: Our first question tonight is Zach Kempf in Provo, Utah.

QUESTION: What’s up? I’m running out of tape; I have to hurry.

So my question is: We have a bunch of leaders who can’t seem to
do their job. And we pick people based on the issues they that they
represent, but then they get in power and they don’t do anything about
it anyway.

You’re going to spend this whole night talking about your views
on issues, but the issues don’t matter if when you get in power
nothing’s going to get done.

We have a Congress and a president with, like, a 30 percent
approval rating, so clearly we don’t think they’re doing a good job.
What’s going to make you any more effectual, beyond all the platitudes
and the stuff we’re used to hearing? I mean, be honest with us. How
are you going to be any different?

COOPER: Senator Dodd, you’ve been in Congress more than 30
years. Can you honestly say you’re any different?

DODD: Well, I think so.

First of all, thank you for inviting us here in The Citadel.
It’s great to be here at this wonderful college, university.

Certainly, I think it’s a very important question one ought to be
asking because, while hope and confidence and optimism are clearly
very important, I think experience matters a great deal — the
experience people bring to their candidacy, the ideas, the bold ideas
that they’ve championed over the years, whether or not they were
successful in advancing those ideas and able to bring people together.

DODD: I’m very proud of the fact that, over my 26 years in the
Senate, I’ve authored landmark legislation, the Family and Medical
Leave Act, child care legislation, reform of financial institutions.

In every case, those are new ideas, bold ideas, that I campaigned
on and then were able to achieve in the United States Senate by
bringing Republicans as well as Democrats together around those
issues.

That’s what’s missing, more than anything else, I think, right
now, is the ability to bring people together to get the job done.

COOPER: But if someone really wants a change, are you the guy to
give it to them?

DODD: Well, I think they ought to look back. Speeches are easy
to make and rhetoric is easy to expose here. But I think the idea of
looking back and saying, “What have you done?” –if you want to get a
good idea of where someone is going to lead or how they’re going to
lead, I think it’s very appropriate to say, “What have you done? Show
me. Demonstrate to me the ability to get these things done that
you’ve championed in the past.”

The first sentence in Dodd’s reply is a real confidence builder. He says, ‘ Well, I think so’, in response to whether or not he is really any different to other politicians. He says he thinks experience matters a great deal. Of course you would if your definition of experience simply means time spent in the Senate and in this case 26 years. In addition Dodd enlightens us that ‘the ideas, the bold ideas that they’ve championed over the years, whether or not they were
successful…’. Maybe he was referring to that famed Family Medical Leave Act. When Dodd says he has authored legislation do you really believe he actually put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard? How about the likelihood that staff or other resources actually composed the legislation and the Senator merely presented the work of others upon his direction?

Below is some publicly available information from which you can draw your own conclusions. But the conclusion at this blog is that Dodd is credited with sponsoring and introducing what may be companion legislation in the Senate in 1989 on the same date House legislation was introduced. Major actions recorded on both pieces show the Senate portion shelved as the House version was unable to overcome Presidential veto. President Bush 41 was in office and the GOP majority did not happen until 1994.

The legislation was again introduced by others in 1993 during Clinton’s first month and passed. So how much did Dodd really have to do with this bill?

Senator Dodd, this was a look back and no compelling evidence was found to indicate your bringing people together or championing bold ideas had any results. Mentioning a vague, brief list of accomplishments that cannot be effectively challenged without a great deal of effort by others is a lame presentation. Not real prepared for debates, are you Senator? If you are this unprepared for a debate and offer no convincing evidence of your qualifications, why would anyone vote for you as President?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

H.R.770
Title: To entitle employees to family leave in certain cases involving a birth, an adoption, or a serious health condition and to temporary medical leave in certain cases involving a serious health condition, with adequate protection of the employees’ employment and benefit rights, and to establish a commission to study ways of providing salary replacement for employees who take any such leave.
Sponsor: Rep Clay, William (Bill) [MO-1] (introduced 2/2/1989) Cosponsors (151)
Related Bills: H.RES.388, S.345
Latest Major Action: 7/25/1990 Failed of passage in House over veto. Status: On passage, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 232 - 195 (Roll no. 262).

MAJOR ACTIONS:
2/2/1989 Introduced in House
4/13/1989 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 101-28, Part I.
4/27/1989 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. H. Rept. 101-28, Part II.
5/1/1989 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on House Administration. H. Rept. 101-28, Part III.
5/10/1990 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 237 - 187 (Roll no. 107).
6/14/1990 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.
6/29/1990 Presented to President.
6/29/1990 Vetoed by President.
7/25/1990 Failed of passage in House over veto: On passage, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 232 - 195 (Roll no. 262).

S.345
Title: A bill to grant employees family and temporary medical leave under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (introduced 2/2/1989) Cosponsors (24)
Related Bills: H.R.770
Latest Major Action: 7/13/1989 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 154.

AJOR ACTIONS:
2/2/1989 Introduced in Senate
7/13/1989 Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Kennedy without amendment. With written report No. 101-77.
7/13/1989 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 154.

H.R.1
Title: To grant family and temporary medical leave under certain circumstances.
Sponsor: Rep Ford, William D. [MI-13] (introduced 1/5/1993) Cosponsors (170)
Related Bills: H.RES.58, H.RES.71, S.5
Latest Major Action: 2/5/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-3.

Latest Major Action: 2/5/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-3. MAJOR ACTIONS:
1/5/1993 Introduced in House
2/2/1993 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 103-8, Part I.
2/2/1993 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. H. Rept. 103-8, Part II.
2/3/1993 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 265 - 163 (Roll no. 22).
2/4/1993 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate in lieu of S. 5 with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 71-27. Record Vote No: 11.
2/5/1993 Signed by President.
2/5/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-3.

S.5
Title: A bill to grant family and temporary medical leave under certain circumstances.
Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (introduced 1/21/1993) Cosponsors (46)
Related Bills: H.R.1
Latest Major Action: 2/4/1993 Senate floor actions. Status: Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Voice Vote.

Latest Major Action: 2/4/1993 Senate floor actions. Status: Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Voice Vote. MAJOR ACTIONS:
1/21/1993 Introduced in Senate
1/27/1993 Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Kennedy without amendment. With written report No. 103-3. Minority views filed.
2/4/1993 Senate floor actions: Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Voice Vote.

H.RES.58
Title: Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1) to grant family and temporary medical leave under certain circumstances.
Sponsor: Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] (introduced 2/2/1993) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.1
Latest Major Action: 2/3/1993 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 259 - 164 (Roll no. 13).

H.RES.71
Title: Relating to the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1) to grant family and temporary medical leave under certain circumstances.
Sponsor: Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] (introduced 2/4/1993) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.1
Latest Major Action: 2/4/1993 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 247 - 152 (Roll no. 29).

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Committees of Correspondence, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hillary Rodham Clinton accused Barack Obama of being ‘naive and irresponsible’ for his position on Iran and that he would open talks with them. She said she would not talk with them in the first year of being President but suggested ‘low level’ talks from State. She added Obama would know those things if he had the experience she did. This contradicts the calls by the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, including other Democratic party candidates Senator Joe Biden and Senator Chris Dodd as reported here yesterday. But Clinton did not extend her criticism to anyone but Obama.

A new report from the Washington Post indicates Clinton’s campaign advisers thought they won the argument while this blog indicated they may have exposed their campaign’s first flaws. And the Obama camp is not letting this go yet. They returned fire with Clinton’s vote authorizing the use of military force in Iraq as ‘naive and irresponsible’. Whether you support the troops and victory in Iraq or don’t support the troops and favor surrender, it has been mentioned here often that most in Congress did not review the available information on the resolution before voting. Obama’s appraisal has merit for those who did not perform due diligence for an informed vote. Supporting victory or surrender does not change the fact that there were mistakes made before going to war but an obligation to Iraq exists regardless of that fact. The point is, being poorly informed and therefore making an uninformed decision does not relieve the parties from the obligation produced by the decision. That is why the decision should be made more carefully.

That said, in the report from the Washington Post, Biden and Dodd weigh in and essentially echoed the point from this blog yesterday. That in calling Obama ‘naive and irresponsible’ she was including the rest of the Democratic leadership and specifically, Biden and Dodd. It is fair to say that Biden and Dodd were not impressed. So much for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s claim of superior experience. This latest flap is a rookie mistake by Clinton. Yesterday this blog characterized Clinton’s manipulation of the debate question as bush league. It was and she is.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For Clinton and Obama, A Debate Point Won’t Die

By Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 27, 2007; A08

A debate moment that might have quickly come and gone has erupted into the sharpest battle of the Democratic nominating contest, with Sen. Barack Obama yesterday comparing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s position on meeting with the leaders of hostile states to the adamant refusal of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, 4 Time Father?, Pirate’s Cove, Nuke’s news and views, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern Dreams, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

ABC news calling Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ‘naive and irresponsible’ criticism of Barack Obama her campaign’s first attack on her closest rival may also indicate the first flaws in her campaign. In November 2006 the House and Senate Democratic leadership called for the Bush Administration to hold direct talks with Iran. Both Senator Biden and Senator Dodd, two current Presidential candidates, are quoted as favoring talks with Iran. While the debate discussion between Obama and Clinton specifically addressed whether the talks should be a first year task and Clinton expressed her belief that lower level diplomacy was the initial smart move, calling Obama out for not specifying this proves nothing. Clinton may have sent mixed messages on this topic as the transcript indicates with this quote, ‘And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way.’ High level, low level, direct or indirect talks are all components of the diplomatic game but the majority of discussions in the press over many months have focused on the Bush Administration’s earlier refusal to talk to ‘evil’ nations on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Generally the argument against that refusal to talk was one of talk versus no talk and the details were largely ignored.

Is Hillary Rodham Clinton also calling the House and Senate Democratic leadership naive and irresponsible? There seems to be little difference in Barack Obama’s take on talking to Iran and those of Biden and Dodd. Senator Dodd offered this assessment on talking to Iran, “When it comes to protecting our security, we must be as willing to wage diplomacy as we have been willing to wage war,” said Mr. Dodd. “Robust, muscular and direct negotiations are not gifts to our enemies. These are essential tools of avoiding conflict and securing peace and security.” Senator Biden favored the talk approach as well while the Bush Administration held that ceasing development of the nuclear program in Iran was a condition of opening talks. For Clinton to specify a detail not in the original question and then criticize Obama’s answer is bush league. And it represents the suggestion some flaws may be appearing in the Democratic front runner’s armor.

From a NYT’s interview in March 2007, Hillary Rodham Clinton is less specific on Iran. ‘ Certainly, the willingness to engage Iran and Syria could possibly lead to some changes that would be beneficial to the overall structure of the situation we confront. ‘ How’s that for saying nothing? Holding your opponents to higher standards than you do for yourself is not simply unfair but misleading. Is it is okay for Clinton to be vague while criticizing her opponents on details?

More Clinton vagueness was displayed in the March interview. ‘And we’re more than happy to continue to support them. As I said, I wouldn’t do away with a support role for us, I would be more than willing to do that. I certainly, if they are moving in the right direction, I would continue aid, and I would try to get the neighbors to behave and support them.

And if we have a track with Syria and a track with Iran, we might be able to create some momentum for some more stability.’

In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed a diplomatic approach similar to the one for which she criticizes Obama. ‘ We need to return to patient diplomacy, backed by military strength and informed by American values.’ ……… ‘ The Administration tells Iran and Syria they’re responsible for helping keep the peace but won’t talk with them about how to do it. We continue to deny evident reality, proceeding with few or no allies and precious little direct communication with people who matter. No wonder the American people think that we are adrift.’

And also in the speech Clinton abandons the signature mantra of the Democratic party. ‘ In Iran as well, this Administration outsourced its policy to the British, the French and the Germans. Meanwhile, the Iranian so-called moderates we ignored were pushed out of power and the extremists went merrily forward; now we are left hoping that those same moderates we wouldn’t talk to can regain control. Hope is not a policy. ‘

Clinton had more to say about talking to Iran. ‘ We have to keep all options on the table, including being ready to talk directly to Iranians should the right opportunity present itself. Direct talks, if they do nothing else, lets you assess who’s making the decisions — what their stated and unstated goals might be. ‘

The text of the speech above was found at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s website. So who is naive and irresponsible now? She calls out Obama on foreign relations and diplomacy citing herself as the candidate with the goods to do the job. She also draws attention to her own inconsistencies from previous statements. And she includes nearly her entire party in her criticism based on positions held by Congressional leadership and others. What does this say about the Democratic party and the candidate advertised as the front runner in their offerings for President in 2008? And how does this apply to Pelosi and the trip to Syria, speaking of naive and irresponsible.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Azamatteroprinciple - A new blog dedicated to fighting pork barrel spending, The Pet Haven, Right Voices, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

You can give credit to Senator Chris Dodd for one thing. He says he would not accept an offer to run for Vice President. He added he would rather remain a Senator. At least until Dick Cheney, Vice President is not a job anyone would want. Ok, you have a chance to be your party’s default nominee after one or two terms. But surviving as the butt of jokes and demeaning tasks over four or eight years can reduce your appeal as a Presidential candidate. So Dodd may be working under conventional wisdom that only those who do not win Presidential nominations accept an invitation as a Vice Presidential candidate.

But it begs the question is Senator Dodd conceding his long shot chances at a Presidential nomination? Making the comment about Cheney, while not far off the mark, sounds like sour grapes. Cheney is certainly criticized but is also credited at being the most influential VP in history. Dodd may feel he doesn’t have enough game to win his party’s nomination, be offered the door prize or outperform Cheney if he was VP. So many candidates for 2008, it would be nice to know what they were thinking before throwing the hats in the ring. It would also be nice to know what their trigger is for throwing in the towel. It would save us all a bit of time and effort.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Dodd says he’d decline vice presidency if offered

July 17, 2007, 5:16 PM EDT
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ Christopher Dodd says he would rather keep his seat as Connecticut’s senior senator than accept an offer to become vice president on another contender’s ticket.

Dodd, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in an interview aired Tuesday that Republican Vice President Dick Cheney “ruined the job.”

For the final list on the Senate No Amnesty Scorecard comes the worst group of Senators of all. Not only did they favor amnesty but did not even have the presence of mind to vote on each cloture roll call. There are probably more excuses available to address not voting than there are Senators. It is just one of those problems that does not have a valid excuse. If a member of Congress only missed one vote during their stay in office a pass might be in order. There is one member listed here that missed all four votes. It is reported he is ill and unable to vote. Based on the report we should wish a speedy recovery and make no comment on the missing votes in this case.

But the most telling item on this list is that five of the eight members on the worst of the amnesty scorecard are Presidential candidates for 2008. No, the I’m campaigning excuse doesn’t fly. Of all the dastardly things Congress can implement there should be a valid method for registering a vote so no one misses. Not voting is worse than voting badly.

So you may wish to consider all the lists and as mentioned before a summary of what Senators should stay or go will follow this post. You may also want to use this particular list in deciding on a candidate for President in 2008. Is it not interesting that the only GOP member on this list is ‘running’ for President and represents a border state. That, of course, would be Senator John McCain who says he missed his $10 million dollar fund raising goal for the 2nd quarter.

Oh well, here’s the list.

(D-DE) Biden Presidential candidate
(D-IL) Obama Presidential candidate
(D-CT) Dodd Presidential candidate
(D-NY) Clinton Presidential candidate
(D-FL) Nelson
(R-AZ) McCain Presidential candidate
(D-MA) Kerry
(D-SD) Johnson not voting due to illness

.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Friday, June 29, 2007
New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination is viewed as politically liberal by 47% of American voters. While that’s down from 55% a month ago, it’s still higher than the percentage of voters who see her major opponents as politically liberal. Just 42% say that former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is politically liberal while 41% say that label applies to Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

from MoreWhat.com:
This is strange enough but the entire report at Rasmussen rates how conservatives, ‘moderates’ and liberals view the Queen of Cringe in terms of political leanings. It would be more accurate to rank her as not conservative, moderate or liberal. HRC is not concerned with the agenda of any political persuasion. She is only concerned about HRC. To say whatever is deemed necessary to enter the White House is it. There is no other agenda. Get in the White House and try to rule the planet HRC style.

For 2008, the GOP in Congress is probably going to lose some more members in light of events since the midterms. The Democratic majority has been so pitiful since the midterms they will lose some members also. Net effect, to early to tell who will be the majority next time.

For President, your choices on the Dems side are too risky. No explanation should be necessary in terms of HRC. The personal and political history are enough of a reason for an informed voter to reject Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Barack Obama has some staunch support from a wide audience it is probable he will not be able to win enough key states to win the nomination. Plus it is his first time out and coupled with the limited experience chances are slim. Edwards and Richardon will suffer from fund raising difficulties indicating their limited support. Edwards will do better than Richardson in the first primary or two. But they will both fail.

So your only choice is on the GOP side of the world. McCain’s bid is essentially over though he denies it and never really got started after a pathetic open with little attention paid to fund raising. Alienating deep pocket contributors from the past and taking hard stands on Iraq and illegal immigration were the stake in the heart. Giuliani will likewise succumb to liberal attitudes and history shortcomings after an intense attempt to rebuild his image and look Presidential. Brownback and others will go the way of most 2nd tier candidates and the final contest will be between Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. If Thompson’s strategy does not betray him he may have an edge over Romney. If the success of his strategy does not launch him to the stars after the annoying delays of an announcement, if it ever comes, Romney may have won enough from early spending, continued fund raising success and victories in the early states to make it a convention fight for the nomination.

Barring a massive scandal or two on either side of the Presidential race for 2008, Romney or Thompson will likely face Clinton or Obama in the election. The Dems will lose again and begin the mourning and another allegation of voting fraud and a stolen election. The GOP victor will face a first term with another slim Democratic majority in Congress. But the GOP members of Congress will have seen the error of their party ways and provide even more difficulties for the Dems and retake the majority in the midterms following the 2008 election.

Go ahead, suggest that this is not a probable outcome over the next few years.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1639 )
Vote Number: 235 Vote Date: June 28, 2007, 11:04 AM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number: S. 1639
Measure Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 46
NAYs 53
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs —46
Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs —53
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

June 16, 2007(The Nation)
This column was written by Lakshmi Chaudhry.

“I love [Hillary Clinton] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her!” exclaimed Nora Ephron in a 1993 Newsday interview. Three years later, she told the Wellesley class of 1996, “Understand: Every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you.” Come late 2006, however, Ephron was the one on the attack as one of the self-described “Hillary resisters” — those who believe that “she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn’t really take a position unless it’s completely safe,” as she wrote on her Huffington Post blog, “who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can’t stand her position on the war, who don’t trust her as far as you can spit.”

The benefit of a long campaign season is ample time to vet the candidates and convince the uninformed about people like Hillary Rodham Clinton. Given enough time, everyone will come around and understand the Clinton legacy and the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton is not good for the United States.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It sounds good but like most commitments or campaign promises reality is a President is not a King. A President cannot simply say this is what will be done and it happens. To be fair, all candidates will at some point make similar announcements. It is just part of the game. Now it is the public’s responsibility to test the candidates on such statements rather than nod in agreement or sneer in opposition.

This latest press release by Rudy Giuliani’s camp may indicate he is feeling pressure via the polls and his campaign’s exposure in the media or lack of same. What would have made this an historic proclamation by a candidate is if Rudy had addressed how he would actually get this done or what obstacles he sees in pursuing this grand plan.

Like ‘5. I will impose accountability on Washington.’ How many times have we heard that one? Currently the Democratic majority has claimed victory on draining the swamp (Pelosi) yet the ethics legislation requiring an outside entity to oversee compliance with ethics is suffocating in committee. The bill itself is a joke. The independent status of the ethics body will be entirely under the control of Congress. So, Rudy, how would your effort achieve any more success? Be specific. And offering tax breaks to solve health care issues is totally lame. That is not the problem. The mechanisms that drive the economics of health care is the problem. You get the idea, right?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

06-12-2007

Rudy Giuliani Unveils Twelve Commitments to the American People

During a speech at the Old Bedford Town Hall in New Hampshire today, Mayor Rudy Giuliani announced Twelve Commitments to the American people, a bold vision aimed at moving America forward through change and reform, overcoming new challenges and increasing accountability in Washington.

Rudy’s Twelve Commitments are based on the principles of giving people more freedom, more power, and more responsibility over their own lives, while protecting our nation, strengthening our economy, and improving the quality of life.

“I believe America solves its problems best from strength, not weakness, and from optimism, not pessimism,” Giuliani said. “My Twelve Commitments are a promise to this generation and generations to come that we will keep the American dream alive. I believe it’s the kind of leadership and common sense accountability the American people need in Washington.”

Mayor Giuliani will travel the country this summer to detail each of his Twelve Commitments.

The Twelve Commitments:

1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
5. I will impose accountability on Washington.
6. I will lead America towards energy independence.
7. I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
8. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
9. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
10. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
11. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
12. I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

It has been rather quiet lately on the campaign front. Oh sure, there are the obligatory reports that typically repeat what has already been said like this one is doing, but little else of any new significance is out there. Probably signs of a long campaign season or there is just nothing dramatic to report.

The opinion here is the GOP still has three announced primary contenders and one or two second tier candidates with Gingrich in his own words unlikely to jump in and Fred Thompson expected to announce on July 11 before an appearance on national TV.

The Dems have the two for one Clinton campaign. Buy Hillary Rodham Clinton and get William Jefferson Clinton for free. Take a flyer on Barack Obama or John Edwards or waste your vote on one of the others. The only entertainment that could come from the left is if Al Gore threw his hat in the ring. How’d that be for handing the Clinton’s a little payback. While there are no Al Gore fans at this website, being the only Dem to not benefit from an association with the Clinton gang, anyone could find humor in Al trying to exact some revenge by spoiling the Clinton conspiracy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Romney, Clinton Secure Strong N.H. Leads in Recent Polls

By - Beth LaMontagne
(June 11, 2007)
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney continues to widen his lead in the New Hampshire polls over rivals U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. A Franklin Pierce/WBZ poll conducted after the New Hampshire Republican presidential debate shows 27 percent of likely Republican primary voters would cast a ballot for Romney, 18 percent for Giuliani and 17 percent for McCain.

While this is a significant leap for Romney, who received the support of 22 percent of respondents in a similar poll conducted in March, the most drastic change was in Giuliani and McCain’s numbers. Three months ago, 29 percent of likely Republican voters said they supported the senator from Arizona. In the same poll, Giuliani was neck-and-neck with McCain, with 28 percent supporting the former mayor.

We all know that political matters can rarely be taken at face value. The saga developing over S. 1348, a so-called bipartisan compromise bill claimed to be immigration reform, is proving to be the evidence that the White House and Congress are incapable of abandoning special interest or ignoring election politics. This senate bill is more accurately characterized the amnesty bill as those referred to as the ‘architects’ (Kyl, Graham, Kennedy and McCain) all seem to favor amnesty.

This is the first of what may be a series of reviews on this week’s amnesty battle. On Tuesday June 5, there was a vote on an amendment proposed by GOP Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado. If one takes the amendment at face value, it appears to be a fair request to not give preferential treatment to those who enter the US illegally. For the moment, this post will skip over the visa dilemma for now. Except to say there are plenty of flaws with how that item is treated also.

Senator Kyl tried to appear opposed to amnesty when the Senate took up this matter after the 2005 House vote which passed HR 4437. During the debate in the Senate then, Cornyn and Kyl were sending mixed signals. This time Kyl is given credit for spearheading this effort to provide amnesty. And he voted against this amendment. This would be an example of why things cannot be taken at face value. The big question mark on Kyl should be changed to calling him in favor of amnesty. And that would not be a good thing.

Below is the Allard amendment description. After that is the roll call results which tell much of the story.

Allard Amdt. No. 1189; To eliminate the preference given to people who entered the United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas.

Not Voting - 6

Brownback (R-KS)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Four Presidential candidates for 2008 again declined to vote on the issue of illegal immigration. Apparently for them, political considerations are more important than doing their jobs and going on the record. As much as one can find fault with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her support of amnesty, to be fair, at least she voted this time. The no vote list is next.

NAYs —62

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

The usual suspects voted against the amendment that claims to remove preferential treatment for illegals. The most notorious or significant among the no votes are:
Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Chambliss, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Domenici, Feinstein, Graham, Hagel, Kennedy, Kerry, Kyl, Leahy, ….. all hell, they are all significant and notorious. These people do not have the best interest of American citizens in their agenda. Not like that is a big surprise but it should be pointed out again.

Now for the yes votes and what it may mean.

YEAs —31

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

One item worth mentioning here is the Missouri Senators, Bond and McCaskill, are on the record as opposing amnesty and being strongly in favor of strong border security and control over illegal immigration. Yes, they are in the ‘yes’ column for this amendment. Cornyn is on this list whereas Kyl is on the ‘no’ vote side. What does that tell you? This list is something to consider when trying to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Stay tuned and keep contacting your elected reps on this issue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com