Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Fundraising Numbers
So, the reports are in, and they are dismal in some cases- most especially, the Governor's race where Pawlenty has almost double what Hatch does.
This comes during a stream of criticism on the way the Hatch campaign is being run, most noticeable its lack of presence anywhere, as well as its lack of actual campaigning. The Hatch's campaign response has always been- we're raising money and near the limit. This apparently was a lie. So we're stuck.
The Hatch campaign's general strategy, as they've continually communicated to us, is to go almost completely media. How is that going to work when the Gov can buy twice as many ads? I sure hope Hatch is going to be smart about when he buys ad time- TV news programs, American Idol ads, and most importantly- Daily Show and Adult Swim ads. That’s right; hit the youth right where they are needed. If not, Pawlenty will just cover up Hatch's ad buys with twice as many in the same time slots.
Another interesting piece from the article:
Hatch's DFL primary opponent, state Sen. Becky Lourey, cited "database difficulties" and did not meet the Monday deadline for disclosure. Penalties for tardiness do not begin until the end of the week.
Lourey's campaign forewarned in a press release that the reports would show a debt for her campaign rather than cash on hand. Lourey is one of three long-shot challengers to the major-party endorsees.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this, but it does go to show that a lot of the rumors swirling during the convention- ala that Lourey was out of money were more then likely true. Go rumors!
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Not my DFL
This is not my DFL.
The DFL's tactics this year have been varried- I completely agree and love the extra staff, focus on house races, and teh big push- but the rest of their tactics have me worried.
1) Lawsuits. That seems to be what is taking up the majority of the DFLs time and money an energy. Every day it seems like I am reading a new lawsuit in the news from the DFL. None of them successful. Frankly, I want to win elections, but I don't want to do it in court. This tactic is disgusting. We need to stop, put that money into other things, and focus where its needed. Perhaps that is one of the problems with having a lawyer as chair?
2) Negativity: I get daily press releases from the DFL- sometimes two or three a day. Out of a week of 21 press releases, maybe one is something positive about one of the DFL candidates. Everything else is negative. Oh, Anderson did something wrong, oh look Pawlenty still sucks. Shocker! But c'mon. Lets start touting OUR candidates. The tactic of- vote for me because I'm not him didn't work in 2004 and its not going to work in 2006. Its time to start building up ourselves, rather then tearing down.
3) Ignoring Hatch. Klobuchar seems to be winning. In fact. She is winning very solidly. Hatch on the other hand, is in trouble. Its a neck and neck race right now, but who are the DFL staffers out there for? Klobuchar.
I went doorknocking this weekend in our big weekend push- I was given Klobuchar lit to hand out, but absolutely no lit for Hatch. The field staffer had Klobuchar lawn signs. But none for Hatch. The Field staffer had Klobuchar talking points, but none for Hatch. The problem is, Klobuchar is pulling away while Hatch isn't.
If we don't start focusing on Hatch, we'll lose the ticket. If hatch doesn't win, I don't see Ritchie or Otto winning. We may take the AG's spot because its traditionally been ours, but other then that, we run a great risk of losing the executive branch.
Its time for the DFL to put its money where its mouth is- Focus on grass roots, positivity, and most imporantly, the actual top of the ticket, Mike Hatch. Without this- we'll take back the house, retain the senate., but we'll get Vetos straight for the next two years. I don't want that, and hopefully neither do they.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Republican Ad misleads
The Republican National Committee's latest Internet ad says "the facts speak for themselves," but it twists a few of them.
It rewrites history when it claims Republicans "created the Department of Homeland Security," which the White House actually resisted for nearly nine months before giving in to bipartisan pressure. It gives Republicans credit for a law reorganizing intelligence agencies, which actually passed the House with more Democratic votes than Republican.
The video twists the words of prominent Democrats when it says they are "against terrorist surveillance" and "against terrorist interrogation," when what they are actually saying in the ad is that they are against illegal eavesdropping and against abusing prisoners.
It says Democrats are "against the Patriot Act," and many are, but the fact is most Democratic senators voted for reauthorizing it earlier this year after demanding and getting some civil-rights protections.
Analysis
This ad first appeared on the RNC home page Aug. 18. It uses lines of attack we expect to see repeated frequently between now and election day. It says "terrorists are watching" what Democrats say, then contrasts that with the "Republican record since 9/11."
| RNC Wed Ad: Fighting Terrorists Where They Recruit, Train and Plot ... So We Don't have to Fight them here |
Rewriting History I:
Department of Homeland Security
The ad claims Republicans "created the Department of Homeland Security." In fact, as we noted before, the Bush administration spent nearly nine months in 2001 and 2002 rejecting calls for the cabinet-level department.
The President created a White House Office of Homeland Security in October 2001, headed by an assistant to the President but with no direct management authority over security agencies. Soon after, a Democrat, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, introduced one of the first bills calling for a full, cabinet-level department. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said on March 20, 2002 that a Cabinet-level agency was not needed.
Ari Fleischer: So creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is, creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything . The White House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies, wherever they are.
Rewriting History II:
Intelligence Re-organization
The ad also claims that Republicans "Strengthened and Reformed America's Intelligence Agencies," referring to legislation that actually came through a broadly bipartisan effort.
The National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 passed the Senate 89 to 2, with one Democrat and one Republican voting against. It passed the House by a vote of 336 to 75, and most of those who voted for it were Democrats while most of those opposing it were Republicans. President Bush acknowledged the bipartisan nature of the bill when he signed it Dec. 17, 2004 by including both Sen. Lieberman and Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California among those he credited, as well as Democratic former congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission. That commission, also bipartisan, and also initially resisted by the White House, had urged the reorganization.
Twisting Words I:
"Against Terrorist Surveillance"
The ad shows Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont saying "I look at the illegal wiretaps. . . . I think we should have said that was wrong." Then it superimposes the words "Against Terrorist Surveillance."
That mischaracterizes what Lamont actually said. The words are from Lamont's July 7 debate with Sen. Lieberman. Even in the clip shown in the RNC ad Lamont didn't say he was against surveillance, only against the way President Bush ordered National Security Council eavesdropping without judicial orders. That's made clearer in the full transcript , which shows that Lamont prefaced the snippet we see here by saying "We have a President who is acting as if he is above the law right now."
Whether Bush's NSA program is legal, as the White House says, or not, as US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled last week, is a matter still being litigated. But the fact is that it was illegality to which Lamont objected, not surveillance.
Twisting Words II:
"Against Terrorist Interrogation"
The ad shows Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois denouncing alleged mistreatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, and then superimposes the words "Against Terrorist Interrogation." But Durbin wasn't objecting to interrogation. Durbin actually was objecting to such things as keeping prisoners chained up in their own excrement, as described by an appalled FBI official who had reported witnessing that and other abuses.
Durbin is shown on the Senate floor August 2, 2004, holding a recently released email from a FBI official (whose name had been redacted) summarizing what the official witnessed:
FBI E-mail: On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been there for 18 to 24 hours or more.
The official also described seeing a prisoner nearly lying unconscious in a cell in which air conditioning had been turned off and the temperature was well over 100 degrees, next to a pile of the prisoner's own hair, adding, "He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night."
Unless the RNC means to endorse such treatment of prisoners as essential to "interrogation" it is mischaracterizing what Durbin said.
A Half-Truth:
Against the Patriot Act
The ad says in print that Democrats are "Against the Patriot Act," which is only partly true. Most Democrats in the House did indeed oppose the Patriot Act in its present form, but not the large majority of those in the Senate. It is true that 156 House Democrats opposed renewing the Patriot Act in the form it went through the House on July 21, 2005. And it is also true that nearly 2/3rds of House Democrats also voted against the addition of some civil-rights measures on March 7, 2006 that were part of a compromise allowing passage in the Senate. Mostly the Democrats said the measures didn't go far enough, so based on the latter vote we judge it is fair to say that at least 124 House Democrats are against the act in its present form, and that 66 support it.
But it's a different story in the Senate, where only 9 Democrats and Independent Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont voted against final passage of the Patriot Act renewal, while 34 Democrats voted in favor.
For the record, the measures that were added included one allowing recipients of a law-enforcement request for business records to challenge a gag order preventing them from talking about it. Another removed a requirement that recipients of national security letters, which are like subpoenas but do not require court approval, disclose the name of any attorney they consult or intend to consult. Another ensures that libraries operating in traditional roles and not as Internet service providers are not subject to national security letters
Reid's Misleading Boast
Incidentally, one of those voting for Patriot Act renewal was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who is shown in the ad boasting, "We killed the Patriot Act." Reid did say that but, obviously, he chose his words poorly. In fact, Democrats hadn't killed the act; they had only blocked it with a filibuster while demanding some additional civil-rights protections, some of which Republicans later agreed to add. Reid's words are grossly misleading, but that's Reid's fault and not the RNC's. This clip has become a staple of Republican advertising and we suspect we haven't seen the last of it.
-by Brooks Jackson, with Justin Bank, James Ficaro and Emi Kolawole
Sources
“Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer,” Transcript. 19 Mar. 2002.
“President Bush signs Homeland Security Act,” Transcript. 25 Nov. 2002.
“President Establishes Office of Homeland Security,” The White House. 8 Oct. 2002.
Sandler, Michael. "Deal Clears Way for Anti-Terrorism Law," CQ Weekly. 10 Mar 2006.
U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Vote No. 216.
U.S. House, 108th Congress, 2nd Session. House Vote No. 544.
"Liberman, Lamont Spar in Conn. Primary Debate," Transcript. 7 July 2006.
"President Signs Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act," Transcript. 17 Dec. 2004.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Bomb in a pop bottle? Unlikely
Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?
Analysis The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air;
And a loud voice came forth out of the temple of Heaven,
From the throne, saying, "It is done!"
--Revelation 16:17
Binary liquid explosives are a sexy staple of Hollywood thrillers. It would be tedious to enumerate the movie terrorists who've employed relatively harmless liquids that, when mixed, immediately rain destruction upon an innocent populace, like the seven angels of God's wrath pouring out their bowls full of pestilence and pain.
The funny thing about these movies is, we never learn just which two chemicals can be handled safely when separate, yet instantly blow us all to kingdom come when combined. Nevertheless, we maintain a great eagerness to believe in these substances, chiefly because action movies wouldn't be as much fun if we didn't.
Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories. So, The Register has got to ask, were these guys for real, or have they, and the counterterrorist officials supposedly protecting us, been watching too many action movies?
We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner - all easily concealed in drinks bottles - and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane.
Or at least that's what we're hearing, and loudly, through the mainstream media and its legions of so-called "terrorism experts." But what do these experts know about chemistry? Less than they know about lobbying for Homeland Security pork, which is what most of them do for a living. But they've seen the same movies that you and I have seen, and so the myth of binary liquid explosives dies hard.
Better killing through chemistry
Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together.
First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.
But let's assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you've got them on hand.
Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.
It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate - especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation - to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.
Easy does it
Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.
After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.
The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.
We believe this because a peer-reviewed 2004 study (http://www.technion.ac.il/~keinanj/pub/122.pdf ) in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) entitled "Decomposition of Triacetone Triperoxide is an Entropic Explosion" tells us that the explosive force of TATP comes from the sudden decomposition of a solid into gasses. There's no rapid oxidizing of fuel, as there is with many other explosives: rather, the substance changes state suddenly through an entropic process, and quickly releases a respectable amount of energy when it does. (Thus the lack of ingredients typically associated with explosives makes TATP, a white crystalline powder resembling sugar, difficult to detect with conventional bomb sniffing gear.)
A little humor
but i thought I would add another to the pot- so please enjoy http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
NW just got worse...
Booklet upsets employees
By ZACHARY FRANZ
Bismarck Tribune
For some Northwest Airlines employees about to be outsourced, a
handbook issued by the airline adds insult to injury.
The book, "Restructuring Q&A and Employee Support," has been given
to some Northwest ground crews, and includes information on
outsourcing and what options are available ot employees.
A Bismarck Municipal Airport union steward found one part of the
book galling.
That section offers advice on how to cope with job loss. A list of
101 money-saving ideas suggests they ask friends and family for hand-
me-down clothes or ask a doctor for free samples of their
prescription drugs. Idea No. 46 - "Don't be shy about pulling
something you like out of the garbage."
Also included is an advertisment for a real estate agent, in case
laid-off workers need to sell their homes, and tips on how to keep a
positive attitude after losing a job.
"It's so patronizing,
so pathetic. They would have been better off not saying anything
than giving us this."
Jackie Diebel, another Northwest employee at Bismarck Municipal
Airport, agrees.
"When I first read it on Friday, I was outraged,"she said. "I was
just absolutely furious. I went home and cried."
The information to which Dalzell and Diebel referred came from an
outside company, and wasn't intended to be insulting, Northwest
spokesman Roman Blahoski said.
"In putting that book together, we were just trying to provide the
employees with as much information as possible. Not everything in
there is going to be applicable to every employee,"he said.
Update
Big whoop- It is still lying. I'm just calling a square a square. If a democrat did this, MDE would be up in arms, but I guess we know who the dishonest ones are.
In other news: I just got back from vacation, I will post a post-endorsement recap tomorrow evening with some pictures
Friday, August 11, 2006
The Lying Continues...
In the most recent deception by Republicans, candidates in Rochester for State legislature have put re-elect on their lawn signs, despite not being incumbents. From the Rochester Post-
This is just a blatant disregard for the truth. This is just further evidence that Republicans will go to any lengths, including open deception, to win elections. This rovian tactic will do nothing but confuse voters and cause havoc on election day, as voters attempt to remember who is the incumbent, and who isn't.The complaint accuses Jeff Anderson, a GOP candidate for state House seat 27B, and Patrick Oman, a Mower County Attorney candidate, of using political lawn signs that urge voters to "re-elect" them even though they are not incumbents.
Defenders of the two candidates say the lawn signs are perfectly legal and appropriate. They argue that Anderson and Oman once held the positions they are now seeking and, therefore, are legitimately running for re-election.
The complaint has implications for House 30A in Rochester, currently held by DFL Rep. Tina Liebling. Her GOP opponent, Carla Nelson, also uses lawn signs that ask voters to "re-elect" her. Nelson was a state representative from 2002 until she was defeated by Liebling in 2004.
The artcle continues as one of the GOPers defends himself, claiming that he means by re-elect, to elect him again, even though its not the same position--
Oman, who has been elected Mower County Attorney three times, defended the use of his "re-elect" signs.
"As far as I'm concerned, I'm not claiming to be the incumbent. I've never claimed to be the incumbent, but I am asking to be re-elected, because it means to elect again, and they did it three times," Oman said
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Kennedy's Ad gets lambasted
In his second and most recent TV ad, U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kennedy portrays himself as a Republican congressman who "crosses party lines," who opposed President Bush on one of his signature initiatives and who has co-sponsored bills with more than half of the Democrats in Congress.
We all know that individual claims, over his time in congress may be slightly true, he has been an extreme partisan. The tribune continues:
His voting record shows that during his years in Congress, Kennedy has seldom disagreed with Bush or voted against the Republican Party line.
During 2001-2005, Kennedy has voted along with the majority of Republicans on about 95 percent of all partisan votes, according to the "party unity" measure, as tracked by Congressional Quarterly (CQ), a nonpartisan publication that focuses on Congress. The party unity figures for 2006 aren't available yet.
So Mr. Bi-partian voteswithhis party 95% of the time, will you look at that? Huh... i guess honesty isn't one of his claims.
With Congress locked in an era of polarization and partisanship, scores in the 90s are common in both parties. Still, in four of the five years, Kennedy's party unity score was higher than the median among House Republicans. Twice, he was near the top of the GOP caucus in voting the party line.
In an interview Tuesday, Kennedy said that measuring how often he votes with other Republicans or in agreement with the Bush administration position in no way proves that he lacks independence.
"I have firm principles upon which I stand," he said. "I research every issue, come to a conclusion and act based on those convictions. And whether that happens to line up with one party or the other is a function of they've reached the same conclusion I have. But I independently reached the conclusion."
The only research that I can figure he does is to talk to the republican congressional campaign and then votes based on what they tell him to do. With one of the highest records of voting with bush in congress twice in 4 years how can we believe his bipartisan claims?
Kennedy continued to make outrageous claims when, in the commercial he started touting his record of cosponsorship of bills with Dems-
So no one tracks these statistics. Should we just trust Kennedy's words? honestly? With the rest of his lies? Keep checking for updates throughout the day on this ad, as the Star Tribune and other blogs comment, I'll keep updating."I would always take a study of voting record over bill sponsorship; there's just no comparison," said political scientist Steve Smith. A member of Congress can sponsor bills for a number of reasons, including to make himself look good heading into a tough election, said Smith, who lives in Minnesota but teaches at Washington University in St. Louis.
"Rep. Kennedy's congressional colleagues do not care about what bills he sponsors. They care a great deal about how he votes," said Smith, who specializes in Congress.
Kennedy said that he didn't know the number but that he doubted very many members of Congress could match his record of attracting 102 different Democrats as co-sponsors on his bills.
That claim couldn't be verified because no one tracks that statistic. None of the Congress experts interviewed for this story had ever heard of anyone citing such a statistic.
Kline's first Ad
The US Chamber of Commerce is running a pro-seniors ad for John Kline, arguing he is saving social security and a number of other lies.
It ran during the price is right this morning (Yes, ok, I watch the price is right, sue me).
I will try to find a copy of it and link it here.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Republicans Attempt to Unmask NorthernDebater
| Date: | Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:14:32 -0400 (EDT) |
| From: | "Deb Roschen"  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by earthlink.net. Learn more |
| To: | "northerndebater@yahoo.com" |
| Subject: | Subpoena |
I am the campaign manager for Steve Drazkowski (GOP candidate for SDThis email is attempting to use my blog, as a tool for both censorship and to obtain my name and address so they can unmask me and fight against me personally.
28). We have a hearing with the Office of Adminstrative Hearings on
8/28/06. Daniel Nelson of the Senate Caucus is on trial for the production
of the slander mailing of Drazkowski from April of this year. Nelson
actually used a title from you blog and presented it as coming from the
Winona Daily News. This is against the law. We need to subpoena the
visitor log from you blog. I need your name and address to do so.
Please forward ASAP. Thanks!
InkRedible Screen-Printing
For those of you who don't remember the name here- I made a post about a newspaper article several months ago- about a republican candidate who was being accused of abusing his daughter.
Several times now this candidate has contacted me through e-mail, asking me to help him out, refusing to explain over e-mail. Now they are sending me e-mails entitled supoenas, It is once again up to sleezy republicans to continue the assault on free speech.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]