/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Hutchinson give Pawlenty advice

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/28/2006

I thought that this was interesting. It is independent candidate for Governor, Peter Hutchinson, giving advice to Governor Tim Pawlenty about the upcoming State of the State speech. Like what is in it or not I think it is an interesting read.
Don't make it too political. You have made a big deal out of the technicality that you have not "officially" started campaigning...

Don't give us a list of all the ways Minnesota is No. 1. You have been doing this a lot. Granted, it is good news. But it makes people think that you are trying to gloss over our challenges and that you don't understand why so many Minnesotans are anxious about the future...

Don't explain the difference between a tax and a fee. People have heard it -- they don't believe it. They know the price of government has been rising since you took office...

Don't make any pledges -- the last one did not work out so well.
The article was not just a list of "don't" items.
Do show people that you know the facts of life -- as they do. Show that you know that:

• Only 23 percent of our ninth-graders become college graduates. That might be better than most states, but makes us the tallest Pygmy compared with the world-class competitive giants we face...

• Highway congestion is growing at the third-fastest rate in the country -- leaving us alone, stuck in our cars, frustrated.
Sadly Peter's analysis is great but the solutions are a little questionable.
Do tell us about Minnesota's possibilities. President John Kennedy wanted to go to the moon. What do you believe about Minnesota's future? After three years, we are still wondering. Consider the following as a start. (I know these are big, hairy, audacious goals -- but if leaders don't show us the way, who will?) How about:

• Doubling the odds that our ninth-graders will become college grads -- that, more than anything else, will fire up our economic engine. + 2

• World-class health at the lowest cost in the nation; better health, better care for every Minnesotan -- that will get this job-killer off our backs. - 2 [I think this is a hidden request for universal health care, hence the point loss, but it could simply be a call for a reform in health care regulations. For that I need to see the reform proposals to add points back.]

• Reliable investment in reliable transportation/transit -- so that being stuck is not our only choice. - 3 [how about roads, roads and roads...which the Governor ran on]

• Reducing Minnesota's dependence on oil (+1), repairing damage to the environment (-2), reinforcing economic competitiveness (+2), and reversing the pollution of our lakes and streams (-1 [reversal, OK, but I fear this is a tree hugging code for more environmental regualtions].
All in all it was a good letter. Maybe this will help push Pawlenty back to the right.
***** 4 refutations and clarifications *****

Glenn Beck mentions KTLK for no reason

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/28/2006

For no reason whatsoever Glenn Beck mentions KTLK at the top of Hour 2.

Just thought I'd spread the "joy".
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Baseball League Opening Day

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/28/2006

The Beginner's Luck Baseball League 2006 season is going to open this weekend. The first two weeks of the season will be run this coming weekend.

You can check out the league through it's blog-site.

Run your own team!! Be the general manager you have always known you could be.

PS--Members of the league should know that the above mentioned blog will be where all of the updates will be given.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Monday, February 27, 2006

Endorsement in the 6th

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/27/2006

I have met the 4 candidates a few times. The two that have been on the top of my list are two people that I believe are real while you talk to them. Phil Krinkie and Jay Esmay. I like both of them as people and could work on either of their campaigns without any internal conflict. The difference at this point for me is Jay's commitment to his word...as I have witnessed directly. I believe all 4 candidates can carry various parts of the GOP platform well, I believe that 3 candidates carry the conservative platform well and I believe that 2 of them, Krinkie and Esmay, have more of the necessary intangibles to win.

I have made my decision on who to support. Jay Esmay, I stand with you.

I agree with much of his platform. While I disagree strongly with some of his positions as articulated at the GOP Forum in November, those positions are a small percentage of the whole platform. Even with those that I disagree I have to admit his ideas for reform are creative and have a purpose. His ideas for term limits moved me from anti-term limits to his position.

Since we first interviewed all 5 candidates in August, wait, I take that back. Rewind even further.

When I first heard all 5 candidates speak at the BPOU convention back in April of 2005 I wondered if he could win. He was very rough around the edges and seemed to lack a certain necessary tact or respect for the quality of his opponents. The talk amongst the delegates was just that.

In August and September when we interviewed him I noticed a maturing of Jay as a candidate, but I still wondered if it could be fast enough to be credible as a candidate.

The November Forum proved me wrong. Jay Esmay has been a very fast study of being a credible candidate, a strong candidate and a candidate with integrity. By November he had matured beyond token candidate. He is formidable (or formidible, I do not care).


Electability and intellectual consistency are among these. Straight answers are a big factor to me and I believe to the average voter as well. That was one of the reasons Ventura did so well in 1998...straight answers. If you want examples of straight answers versus qualified answers go read the November GOP Forum recap.

Up until this past Sunday I could not decide between Jay and Phil. The fact that Jay stuck out his commitment to our show this past Sunday told me that he is willing to reach directly to all of the voters now. He spoke with any of the patrons at JP's Grille & Bar (which grew as the event drew on). I watched him move not just to hold his commitment to the event but a desire to reach anyone...not just "delegates"...who by the way, may not even be delegates after next Tuesday.

How impacting was Jay's presence? Many people were asking me for more information about him. People wanted to know how to support him.

All of this from this past Sunday are part of the intangibles that I believe will make the difference in the race for the endorsement. Great candidate, great platform and willing to meet not only with the delegates but all of the voters.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Straw Poll and the GOP

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/27/2006

Why is Harold Shudlick being treated differently by the Kennedy supporters? My first cynical answer is because Kennedy supporters have put principles behind partisanship. I honestly cannot see any other reason.

Harold Shudlick is in all honesty a token candidate. He has less than stellar knowledge of the candidate process and only a few C-notes in his campaign bank account. By all rights I would not support his candidacy over Kennedy's. But I do believe he should be given the same treatment as every single GOP contender. Let the delegates decide. And given all things otherwise considered Kennedy would come out on top.

However, the GOP has decided to treat Kennedy as if he was the only person running for the office.

This is a direct slap in the face to the delegates who wanted more control of their own party.

Andy tries to address the lack of a straw poll by posting:
FYI - Straw Polls

MN Law on Caucuses - Straw Polls

Subd. 2a. Preference ballot. Prior to the opening of nominations for the election of permanent offices and delegates, a ballot must be distributed to permit caucus participants to indicate their preference for the offices of president of the United States or governor. The results of preference voting must be reported to the secretary of state immediately upon conclusion of the voting, in the manner provided by the secretary of state. The secretary of state shall provide the appropriate forms to the party for reporting the results.

Governor & President only!
I actually remember having other straw polls when I first moved to the state. Then I reread the statute he quoted and thought more about my conversations to the GOP last week. What he is talking about is the state requirement. The party is still able to require a straw poll as well...something they have chosen not to do.

Why is this an issue? Because the whole point of the caucus and delegate system is to give active party members a say in the direction of their party. By the powers that be (and tacitly the candidates that stand to benefit by these shenanigans) doing these subtle but effective methods of eliminating competition they make the entire endorsement process a sham as well. The illusion of unanimity will be given which would be false. How can the party know if the support was unanimous if they shut out opposition?

Now I mentioned as a comment to Andy's post that what he quotes is only the state requirement and the party can also require a straw poll (and in this case it would be proper).

The response?
You know the Party could also educate people on this:
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/202A/16.html

Subd. 2. Agreement with party principles. Only
those persons who are in agreement with the principles of the
party as stated in the party’s constitution, and who either
voted or affiliated with the party at the last state general
election or intend to vote or affiliate with the party at the
next state general election, may vote at the precinct caucus.

Tony you have no openly vowed to work against or refuse to vote for the 2 top GOP candidates now. That could be something your fellow caucus attendees take issue with, and they could have you removed from delegate consideration and/or disallowed to vote that night.
Yep, I will say that if the GOP candidates are not up to standard I will not vote for them. If they behave contrary to what they campaigned on (Pawlenty) I will campaign for the more conservative (Jeffers).

He continues:
And I can tell you from someone who is openly Pro-Kennedy, the state party is staying out of it. At every single state party function, both Kennedy & Shudlick are given time if one is. Carey has been overly careful in this matter, when the DFL is rapidly siding behind Klobuchar more every day.
What the party has done is actually very slimey...to shut Shudlick out they package many of Kennedy's appearances as Congressman Kennedy. This is NOT unique to this race. Party's across the country do this to shut out opponents. Nonetheless it is underhanded.

He continues:
This wait until the primary/endorsement before we get 100% officially behind Kennedy is actually hurting us. Kennedy is attacked everyday by the left in MN (and sadly by you too) and the state Party cannot defend him without someone, somewhere hyperventilating about it. And fund raising, come on, that is the most important part of it. It is suicide to expect to raise 12 plus million dollars in 2 months.
What is right should be what reigns...not what is convenient. What if Ramstad decided to jump into the race? Besides, are you telling me that giving Kennedy opponents within the party equal access and treatment is THAT threatening? Especially from Shudlick?

Basically what Andy is saying here is that 100% support is required and shutting out/shouting down any opposition is acceptable in order to acheive that. I disagree. If there is a challenger let the process work.

The other thing that Andy is saying without saying it is the process (endorsement) is simply a rubber stamp. What must happen is that delegates and party members MUST fall in line with the wishes of the party insiders (because the party is not openly doing this, remember) or "they could have you removed from delegate consideration and/or disallowed to vote". Powerful message...which is EXACTLY what is wrong with the kingmaking mentality. Let the process work and everyone will accept it. Circumvent the process and the facade of unanimity will be challenged.
Have you met Shudlick yet? Makes Kennedy’s early days look down right shakespearic. And this new guy, read his issues page. RINO doesn’t begin to describe him.

NATIONAL DEBT — $8 Trillion dollars and rising

NATIONAL SECURITY – Terrorism rampant – war’s unending

REFORM – momentum for full scale reform has never been greater

MEDICAL CARE – Escalating costs, de-escalating care

SOCIAL SECURITY – the rapidly eroding safety net

ENERGY – soaring costs, declining resources, global warming – train wreck ahead

That sound very conservative to you? You complain that Kennedy isn’t right enough for you? You think a guy who is openly against everything you stand for is worth costing us momentum in an election?
Ah, I understand now. You MUST be conservative in order to be given fair treatment by the frontrunner and the party. Whoops, that is not true...remember how Grams' supporters (few as there were) were maligned as well. You must be the annointed in order to be allowed fair and equal treatment by the party.

For the record here is Shudlick's platform:
Issues to Embrace

• More freedom for American Citizens
• Lower taxes
• Safer Streets
• Protect American jobs
• Pursue energy independence
• Secure borders
• Less government
• When it comes to trade issues, protect state and national sovereignty
• Traditional American Values
• English as official U.S. Language
• Work to defeat Terrorist, Insurgents, and Islamo-facists
• Stronger Laws to reduce voter fraud and
identity theft
• Protect farmers, laborers, and business
• Unfunded suggestions
• Better management of foreign interactions
& aid
• Control Illegal Immigration/Asylum
• Support Affordable Healthcare
So, why again does Uldrich's platform matter in shutting him out? If platform is what matters should you not be jumping up and down to let Shudlick have equal access as a candidate?
Tony, this is one of those times that you should think about what is best for defeating the Democrats, not making your point that you are right.
Fortunately that is Right vs Wrong. Look again at what is being requested. I need to put aside principles of equality of access and fairness, put aside my belief in a strong delegate system for the sake of partisanship. Tempting, but no.
I ask you to please tone it down. When the DFL wonks quote you, and you take pride in it, that makes me question exactly what you are trying to accomplish.
The party is run by partisans and partisans too often forget their principles. I am trying to get the party to remember the principles that they claim to stand for. Equality, fairness and integrity...none of which are being displayed in this scenario. Yep, that the DFL is paying enough attention to quote me is something to take note of...because they are actually standing up (for their own partisan reasons) for equality. I am driven by principles...and as a recovering scum-bag it is a long road...and NOT by the very blinded vision of partisanship. Partisanship as a driving force leads to mistakes like electing Judi Dutcher as a GOP Auditor. Partisanship leads to the hypocrisy that surrounds the apologists for the possible money laundering by Tom DeLay. Partisanship leads to the hypocrisy of the right in whole Harriet Miers ordeal (telling Democrats the President gets to appoint whomever he wants for 6 years and then reversing course when Miers was nominated). Partisanship leads to hypocrisy regardless of party and I will not be led by it. Keep in mind that partisanship would have had Reagan remain a Democrat. Partisanship for the sake of the party is a horrible principle to be led by.
Sure I’ve been known to get off the reservation from time to time, but I never really meant serious harm. I am a bit afraid that you’d be willing to accept losses in November, just to prove your point.
I'm willing to accept losses in November for what is RIGHT. I will not put partisanship above principles and beliefs. If I am off the reservation for expecting the party to walk the "equal access" walk then I stand off the reservation proudly and firmly. And if by standing up for what is right the reservation leaves me entirely I am fine with that.

********** UPDATE **********
Figured I should add Shudlick's platform in the message since one of the foundations of justification used for shutting out opposition is Uldrich's not being conservative enough.
***** 3 refutations and clarifications *****

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Good politicians gone bad

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/25/2006

Tomorrow we will be broadcasting from JP's Grille & Bar in Sauk Rapids, MN. The event was to be Race to the Right Answers, No Politics Edition. On November 12 I originally discussed this event with the candidates and they all agreed to it. On January 29th I sent an e-mail to all four GOP 6th District Candidates reminding them of the event which by that time was confirmed by Phil Krinkie's, Michele Bachmann's and Jay Esmay's campaign. As of 14 February all four candidates campaigns had confirmed tomorrow's event.

Before I continue I will provide the e-mail addresses of the campaigns so YOU can contact them with your own comments.
Michele Bachmann: info@michelebachmann.com
Jay Esmay: JayEsmay@cs.com
Jim Knoblach: info@jimknoblachforcongress.com
Phil Krinkie: info@krinkieforcongress.com
Now, the event itself is a remote broadcast desinged to give the candidates meet-and-greet time without the pressure of watching every phrase. This was a chance to show potential delegates and voters that they are people, not just politicians.

I should add at this point that all four candidates were also confirmed for an in-studio debate on March 19th.

On February 19th (one week before the previously confirmed event) I received the following from Krinkie's campaign:
"I double checked on the Feb. 26 event and Phil has another commitment so will not be able to attend that date. I am still checking on his calendar for the 19th."
Today in mid-afternoon (less than 24 hours from the event) I received phone calls from Knoblach's campaign indicating that "something else came up" and calls from Bachmann's campaign that she was going to speak at a church in Wyoming about gay marriage.

Very poor form on behalf of both of those campaigns. I am deducting points from the scoreboard from each of these three.

Knoblach: It is time to be 100% upfront about Knoblach and our show. Knoblach was confirmed to be interviewed on 8/14/05. He no showed. No phone call, no e-mail and no explanation...absolutely no-showed. We took the blame saying that we mixed the signals. When we rescheduled on 9/4/05 we again took the blame even though the error was 100% his own. We did an event on 2/4/06 (we recorded it for future use on 2/12/06) and all of the candidates were tentatively informed of this in November and given an exact date in early January via phone. Knoblach, despite around 8 voice mails never returned a single call. He finally called back a week after the air date of the event and apologized. He blamed the absence on "crossing signals". I bit my tongue, but you actually have to return a phone call in order to get "crossed signals". During that conversation he also confirmed his appearance for tomorrow. He also said he was "excited" and "looking forward" to the event.

I suppose it is not a surprise that he is again no-showing. We have been more than fair to his campaign but this disrespect for the listeners of St Cloud, for us and the obvious high level of disorganization leads me to several conclusions. One, a Congressional seat and the demands of a district of that size are well above his capability. Two, his inability already to maintain a schedule with any type of reliability leads to the belief that he is inaccessible ALREADY...imagine how much more inaccessible he will be if he wins. I want a Congressman that is easily accessible and it is becoming clear that Knoblach is not that person. I have concluded that I cannot support a Knoblach campaign...and I am not holding my breath that he will actually show up for the in-studio debate. For these no-shows and poor level of accountability I deduct 4 points for each no show and more if he ducks out of the debate. The disrespect of a cancellation less than 24 hours prior deserves an additional penalty of 2 1 points (the original confirmation was for the whole event, we got part of the confirmation so I restored part of the deduction). That is a total deduction of 14 11 points (restoring 2 points for a partial attendance and 1 point from the last-minute-cancellation deduction)

Bachmann: I was going to keep this under my hat even though I was very put-off by it. I figured that it was a story not worthy of mention if Bachmann eventually showed up. When approached back in August about this late-February event Bachmann agreed. I reminded her in November and her tune changed drasticly (I wonder if it had anything to do with her perception of her performance at the GOP Forum on that day). She instead said that she would rather phone in her portion. I explained briefly that a phone-in would neither be effective for her or functionary in the format. She then said that "Sundays are very bad. We do not schedule anything on Sundays. Can you move your show instead to Saturday?" "No, I do not think our station manager would let us move our show to Saturday for the sake of one event." She replied, "Well, Sundays are bad." and she walked away.

I'm sorry, Sen. Bachmann, you are running for Congress against three other very capable candidates. Your availability, especially 3 1/2 months out, should be pretty wide open. And considering your lack of name recognition in the western part of the 6th you should be grateful to be asked on the only talk station in St Cloud. For this incident (which I have heard from many other insiders is typical behind the scenes treatment) I think she is less likely to be an electable candidate. This makes me deduct 3 points.

Her campaign called me this past Thursday to confirm her attendance tomorrow and get directions (I thought Sundays were bad). I again received another call this morning for directions. It was then about 5 hours later that her campaign called to cancel. Less than 24 hours is behavior I find to be beneath even the typical politician. I do not want to send this kind of deceit to Washington. This puts her further away from my support and I must deduct points for the deception of confirmation, requesting directions and then cancelling all so close to the date of the event. (5 points deducted)

The scheduling conflict comes from a speech in a church in Wyoming about gay marriage. Hmm, I thought Sundays were bad. First, the excuse that her Senate office gave was the scheduler of her Senate calendar did not syncrhonize calendars with her campaign scheduler. This is either a lie or horrific organization. Either way points are deducted (- 3). Second, as I talked with the person on her campaign that called me I found out that the Chruch Stumping Speech was put on the schedule AFTER she committed to our event. (- 2...this is unacceptable in my view). Third, this Church Stumping is on her Senate calendar...which means that it was very possible to move the speech to another day when the conflict was found. Especially since the session has not yet started. This shows to me she places a higher priority on stumping in her Senate district (though able to be rescheduled) than on getting to know the rest of the district and its delegates she hopes to represent. This poor judgement makes her less electable in my opinion and thus I am deducting 2 points. Finally, when the GOP whines about Kerry or Edwards giving stump speeches in churches I expect them to do the same when Bachmann does the same. Yes, it is under the guise of her Senate duties but it is obviously only a facade. The hypocrisiy is worthy of a deduction of 4 points and using a church for politics is an obvious blurring of church & state (2 points).

Total deduction: 20 points. Of all of the blunders in the GOP 6th she seems to handle them the worst.

Krinkie: All of the notifications for Krinkie's campaign were earlier. I was dealing more directly with Krinkie's campaign because he was the frontrunner for my endorsement. I was going to be a precint representative for his campaign. This means we were on the schedule much more immediately. In fact, the correspondance was through my personal e-mail instead of my e-mail through the show.

At least Krinkie's campaign gave us notice of the cancellation one week prior to the event. That and the fact that this was the first time there has been any problem with the Krinkie campaign helps to mitigate some of the deductions. When his campaign notified me they were cancelling I asked what bumped us. I received no response whatsoever. I had to call other people within the campaign to find out that he was meeting with delegates in this area at the same time and this time was the only time they could meet. While delegates right now may not be delegates after the March 7th caucuses I can understand the need to meet with them. I also understand that they are in this western portion of the district which is where Krinkie needs to get some name recognition. All in all the strategy of cancelling an event in the same area might not be as good I at least can understand it. However, it is still a fact that there is an issue with maintaining scheduled and confirmed commitments. For this I must deduct 3 points. I also called him personally and and the campaign manager who both seemed to be under the impression that there was not a conflict at all.

The other reason to deduct points is that one of two things happened. This other meeting was scheduled at the time we were notified of Krinkie's cancellation. This would seem to lead everyone on his calendar to feel wary of being bumped at any second. OR this other meeting was scheduled more than a week ago which means the campaign failed to resolve the conflict immeidately. Either practice I find to be poor and so I am deducting 3 points.

That is a total deduction of 6 points.

Esmay: It should be expected that someone holds their commitments. Keeping your word should not be treated as extraordinary. It seems, sadly, in the midst of politicians keeping your word IS extraordinary. Thank you Jay Esmay for keeping your commitments. Integrity here must be rewarded, and I do so by adding 5 points.

********** UPDATE **********
The event went on. I have to be honest. Jim Knoblach DID show up for the first half hour of the event. For this I am restoring the points that were previously deducted for not showing up at this event.

The event by the way...well, it was our first remote, it was a drastically oversold crowd (there were far fewer people than we were told to expect) and the candidate no-shows altered immensely the format of what we were planning. By the grace of God my recording of the show failed.

My sincere thanks to Jay Esmay for sticking out the whole event...and it does get reward as you will see later. My thanks also to Jim Knoblach for showing up. You did keep your word for the most part...I hope that we do not encounter anymore scheduling issues again.
***** 2 refutations and clarifications *****

Thursday, February 23, 2006

John Uldrich for US Senate?

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/23/2006

The race for GOP nomination of Senate just picked up another candidate. John Uldrich is looking to pick up the GOP nomination.

What will the party do now? How will Kennedy and Shudlick react?
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

The Port problem

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/22/2006

I know the story...but there is too much of the puzzle missing for me to be comfortable. The Ports are being sold to a state-owned company. The state owner happens to be the United Arab Emirates. The reaction has been fierce and almost entirely in opposition. Why? Much of the howling has very little substance behind the howls. My gut reaction is to also be opposed to the idea but I MUST hear some of the other side. I have a feeling that the more I look into this story the more it will be like the Harriet Miers ordeal: a bunch of bitching with no honest justification.

It seems my hunch so far is confirmed by The American Princess.
It’s not like turning over any port operations to anyone even remotely tied to terrorism sounds like a Peachy Keen Doris kind of idea, but in the end, the opposition to the deal is acting on a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that the country is Arab (a little xenophobic if you ask us), and in the interest of their own pet projects—particularly the private businesses that are paying for their flights to Hawaii. Until someone comes up with a better reason for opposing this deal than “two of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE,” like say, a business-or-security-related one, we’re totally hanging with George,

The Wall Street Journal is on the case for us:
Some of us are scratching our heads all right, but we're wondering why Mr. Graham and others believe Dubai Ports World has been insufficiently vetted for the task at hand. So far, none of the critics have provided any evidence that the Administration hasn't done its due diligence. The deal has been blessed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multiagency panel that includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security.
Why, indeed? Well, the two basic contentions are, UAE is a “terrorist-supporting nation” and “we can’t turn over control to a foreign business!” both of which are ill-supported, and would not serve to deter a rationally-minded person from engaging in the deal.
More from the WSJ article:
Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

In a telephone interview yesterday, Kristie Clemens of U.S. Customs and Border Protection elaborated that "Customs and Border Protection has the sole responsibility for the cargo processing and cargo security, incoming and outgoing. The port authority sets the guidelines for the entire port, and port operators have to follow those guidelines." Again, nothing in the pending deal would affect that arrangement.

The timing of this sudden uproar is also a tad suspicious. A bidding war for the British-owned P&O has been going on since last autumn, and the P&O board accepted Dubai's latest offer last month. The story only blew up last week, as a Florida firm that is a partner with P&O in Miami, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., filed a suit to block the purchase. Miami's mayor also sent a letter of protest to Mr. Bush. It wouldn't be the first time if certain politicians were acting here on behalf of private American commercial interests.

Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair.
So far the reactionaries are losing my support and I'm leaning towards supporting Bush on this one.

Any help would be appreciated.
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

How to stop a government shut down

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/22/2006

How to prevent another government shut is an intriguing question. Should prevention through new laws even be considered?

The way I see it there are three options. Do nothing leaving a shut down possible. Change the law so that all budgets remain the the previous year's rates during a shutdown. Change the law so that all budgets increase to a certain pre-determined rate in the event of a shutdown.

I can accept the status quo. But I would prefer a change from this. The "pressure" to get a deal done results in bad legislation (health impact "fee").

Worse is the option to make the budget raise automatically. I certainly do not like this idea. It means that there will be a growing budget regardless of what happens, regardless of circumstances and in the event of a desperate need to cut the budget a stalemate in the legislature would make things even worse.

The final option is one Governor Pawlenty is proposing.
This year, the leaders want to create a law that would allow the state temporarily to continue paying bills at the previous year's level even if they fail to pass a new budget. Federal lawmakers and many states already have such laws, generally known as continuing resolutions.
I mentioned already why I like this. Pawlenty gets points for this reform effort that is also fiscally straight (+1--I will give more if he actully gets out and pushes for this forcefully instead of lobbing out ideas).

What troubles me is the Speaker's response...more his justification.
House Speaker Steve Sviggum said he's got some doubts about the worth of a state continuing resolution law.

"It's not the answer to everything," said the Kenyon Republican. "What it says is: You don't have to make a decision. There is no pressure — there's no force to make a decision."
Forced decisions, as I have already mentioned, lead to bad decisions. Legislators are not responsible enough to handle forced decisions...they panic to easily with generally bad results.

So, while I can live with the status quo I would prefer something better. Better in this case is what the Governor is proposing.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

AFSCME more concerned with the letter than the person

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/22/2006

The news over the weekend is that the employee union that represents those who work with Amy Klobuchar pleaded to the state body of that union to NOT endorse Amy Klobuchar.
The local union representing the staff of Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar is asking its parent group, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, not to endorse her in her bid for the U.S. Senate.

Jim Appleby, an assistant Hennepin County attorney and local union president, said in a letter to union leaders this month that Klobuchar had denigrated lawyers at her office publicly and privately, taken credit for their work and "created a hostile work environment."

The two-page letter said Klobuchar's management style had resulted in increased grievances and that she used successfully prosecuted cases to give the public the false impression that she was actively involved in those cases.
At least that organization understands what an endorsement is: the vouching for a person to help people (and members) understand quickly what that person is like. It has been abused by some (AFSCME state, for example) as a rubber stamp to assert party identification.

The AFSCME parent group's response was to say generaly that their endorsement has little to do with the person they are endorsing and more to do with the party they are a member of.

Klobuchar's response was to marginalize the complaint.
Klobuchar said the focus of the discontent seemed to be last year's contract negotiations and the charge that she did not support a wage increase for those employees.
And Appleby replied:
"It's about how our people are treated in the workplace," he said.

He said the union also asked that Klobuchar be denied endorsement in 2002, when she was running for re-election. That request was ignored, he said.

Mike Furnstahl, a veteran prosecutor with the violent-crimes unit, said the purpose of the letter was not to "derail" Klobuchar's campaign.

"This isn't by any stretch of the imagination an anti-Amy campaign. This is about concerns investigators have had over the last seven years," he said.
Now ask yourself this: How can someone be taken seriously when they advocate for "worker's issues" when their very own subordinates are first hand witness to the lack of respect for the workers?
Eliot Seide, executive director of AFSCME Council 5, said he was taking the local's concerns "very seriously" and planned to meet with members. But there are larger issues in a U.S. Senate race than employer-employee relationship.

"The next U.S. senator will not be a direct employer of our people. But that person will make policy decisions on whether to invest or disinvest in health care, education, transportation, child care -- things Americans need," Seide said.
See, what the endorsement is saying is character, principle and honesty do not matter. They are willing to endorse anyone as long as there is the "D" after the candidate's name. They have no standards for their endorsement and as a result their endorsement should be discarded by all not only for this race but for future races as well.

If we see for this race there is not integrity standard for AFSCME's endorsement it is reasonable to conclude that future endorsements are tainted by the same empty process. A much more empowering action for the future would to have heeded the advice of the local (her very own employees) and withhold any endorsement of Klobuchar. It also would have shown that the union actually does respect the workers instead of the machine. I cannot say I am surprised by AFSCME, but disappointed in the further proof that unions are irrelevant and public employee unions are unnecessary.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Names becoming politicians

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/22/2006

I have said a few times with regards to Coleen Rowley that entering a political race makes you a politician and unless you are very careful you also lose your credibility on everything before you entered the race.

Rowley has been held up as an expert on the field of intelligence (and ethical decision making). Prior to her entering the political field it would be hard to question such laurels being thrown at her. After her behavior of late (here, here, here, here, here, here...you get the idea) her credibility as anything beyond a person seeking political office is gone. I even believe her whistleblower memo was an effort to make a name for herself with the possibility of running for political office in mind.

A great article in the Washington Post explains how Patty Wetterling has completed her transformation from public figure to party hack.
There was immediate speculation about what Mrs. Wetterling would do after she withdrew from the Senate race. The state's Democratic attorney general, and the frontrunner for the party's nomination for governor in 2006, asked her to be his running mate. When she had withdrawn from the congressional race almost a year before, she had also promised Mr. Tinklenberg unequivocally that she would not be a candidate for Congress. Much to the surprise of many Democrats, including friends and supporters, however, she announced she would re-enter the 6th District race. Her Republican opponents were delighted, as was the state Republican Party. Mr. Tinklenberg and his supporters are outraged, having worked months to build support and raise funds for his candidacy. He immediately declared he would stay in the race and made Mrs. Wetterling agree to abide by the party endorsing convention.

The result has been a profound deflation of Patty Wetterling's political reputation. Mr. Tinklenberg stated that "she is now just another politician." Republicans were even stronger in their criticism, and Democratic strategists in Minnesota and Washington are appalled at what could become a lost opportunity. Having contributed to her Senate campaign, Mr. Tinklenberg only half-jokingly pointed out that he may be the only candidate this year who is having his own money being used against him.
I think her decision to run in the 6th is a bad move and I hope it backfires for a number of reasons.

(1) Sweeping aside her word for personal political gain is politics as usual but a trend I would like to see undone. Wetterling, while wrong on most issues, had the opportunity to reverse the crooked politician stereotype. (BTW, being a partisan hack does not make someone crooked.)

(2) Backfiring on her will help to send a message to other "names" that wish to run for office...don't do it for your name alone. Neither Wetterling or Rowley are thought to have any measurable grasp on issues beyond their one narrow scope. While I am not very fond of "professional politicians" I feel that the average candidate should be more informed than the average person. I know, that is not a very high bar of "being informed", oddly enough neither of these women pass that low bar.

(3) Karma. Tinklenberg has made a number of comments about his own money being used against him. He took Wetterling at her word on two counts. He contributed to her Senate campaign and he started a campaign of his own. It is arguable that without Wetterling's word neither of these actions would have occurred. There has been sufficient time for Wetterling to make at least a gesture of reconciliation on this matter. (It is too late to get credit for this now!) She should have either returned the donation from Tinklenberg to Wetterling's campaign or made a similar contribution to his campaign.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Another debate set up

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/22/2006

I have just received confirmation from Elwin Tinklenberg's campaign that they will participate in a DFL 6th CD Candidate Debate on April 2, 2006 at 1PM (in studio). Still unheard from is the Patty Wetterling campaign.

For the full list of events you can click here.

Still unanswered are requests to Amy Klobuchar's campaign. Now considering the hell that the Democrats gave Dick Cheney for going on ONLY FoxNews I expect DFL candidates to come on our show. They changed the standard to the expectation of going into "hostile" media venues and that is the standard I will hold them to.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Where do they stand on the stadium

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/22/2006

Call your legislators and find out where they are. I will update this post if you send to me the results of your conversations/e-mails (anonymous submissions will not be included). (Look them up if you need: House and Senate.)

Of the legislators I will be talking to I will ask:
1) Can you support any public financing of a Twins, Vikings or Gophers stadium?
2) Can you support any bill that includes an exception to a referrendum?
3) If you are not decided yet what needs to happen to gain your support?

I will also post who has been contacted but not returned the calls.

At this point I have left messages for:
Sen Michael Jungbauer (R) 48
Rep Tom Hackbarth (R) 48A
Rep Mark Olson (R) 16B
Sen Michele Bachmann (R) 52
Rep Ray Vandeveer (R) 52A
Rep Matt Dean (R) 52B
Rep Jim Knoblach (R) 15A
Sen Tarryl Clark (DFL) 15
Rep Bud Heidgerken (R) 13A

Answered so far:
Rep Sondra Erickson (R) 16A--Twins--against tax dollars, can support a bill for a locality tax ONLY IF the locality gets to vote for it. Gophers--prefer they stay in the Metrodome and have it renovated for them, but she is not sure. Vikings--against the recent/current bills. Bottom line is "No" to public financing, "No" to state money and localities must be allowed to hold a referrendum.

Sen Betsy Wergin (R) 16--Gophers--supports a stadium but understands the valid concerns on both sides. Twins & Vikings--opposes any public funding except the localities and only if those residents get to vote on the taxes.

Rep Larry Haws (DFL) 15B--Gophers--funding seems to be so far 60% private, 40% public and potential other revenues. Stadium proposal is not integrated with other University requests but should be. Must be a long term commitment from the state. Twins--come in w/ very good packages to be paid for by local taxes. Perpich built some soccer fields, etc and Blaine wants development. They want to avoid citizen vote. They want to "change the rules". Would be unfair for non-residents to have a vote on their tax increase. "Reverse referrendum" may be an option. Bottom line (mostly) is that for Twins and Vikings, not opposed to localities paying for it but the locals should be allowed to vote. He does articulate that an exception can be supported if (1) there is a very good reason for not letting the local residents vote as it would be unfair to other localities that were required to vote and (2) all of the localities' legislators stand up unanimously and vocally saying they take responsibility for representing the locality on accepting the tax increases and accept the consequences.

Rep Jim Abeler (R) 48B. Legislative Asst said that a response may not be forthcoming for a few reasons. First the time constraints upon him and second he is not decided. It seems that Rep Abeler was going to offer a letter to his constituency announcing his position on the Twins proposal but then the package changed. This indicates to me that he is willing to (1) allow public financing for a stadium and (2) willing to consider an exception to the referendum requirement. Personally I have a feeling that the other reason I may not get a response is that he is leaning towards pro-stadium and looking to see what cover the Governor or others in the caucus can give. That pure speculation and I do not know him...I am just assessing this from my brief conversation with is L.A.

More to come.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Stadium deal very likely

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/22/2006

Any Republican that votes for the stadium deal will not get my "party loyalty". Any Republican that votes to circumvent any citizen vote will have me supporting any opponent of theirs.

That include the moderate known as Tim Pawlenty.

Why? Because the stadium vote (Twins, Vikings and even to a large degree the Gophers) is support of many bad things.

One, it is support of big government spending.
Two, it is support of a very bad intervention of government into the private sector.
Three, it is practice of very bad fiscal management.
Four, it is the embracing of one form of social spending without a clear, honest and exact articulation of why other forms of social spending should not be engaged in. What is the "bright line" difference?

I thought the Republicans were supposed to be about smaller government. I thought they were supposed to be for a division between government and private business. Remember, by government favoring the Twins in any manner the government is choosing to be against other private businesses. Perhaps the state, using some of the same lines of thinking by pro-stadium people, should bail out Northwest. The state should have built the Mall of America and should help build their expansion.

Worse than all of that is the route they are considering...circumventing the voters.
Pawlenty on Tuesday reiterated a position he staked out previously: He would prefer Hennepin County voters get the opportunity to accept or reject a ballpark sales tax in a referendum, but he will not insist on it.

"It's not a deal-breaker if the Legislature puts the bill on my desk without it," he said of a ballot issue.
...
The referendum is undeniably the sticking point for passage of the bill. The Twins and the Hennepin County Board — the team's partner in the $508-million project — seek to skirt a ballot issue on the 0.15 percent county sales tax (3 cents on a $20 purchase) that would pay for three-quarters of the stadium in the Warehouse District of Minneapolis.

State law calls for a referendum on new local sales, but it allows exclusions, which have been obtained in the past by St. Paul and Minneapolis for city projects. Ballpark supporters want the exclusion because they contend a ballot issue would create delays and greater expense, while opponents say supporters' real fear is that residents would vote it down.
There is a requirement to allow the people to decide whether their taxes should go up or not. The Republicans always champion the rhetoric of letting the people decide on their own tax hikes...and here is the chance for them to put their money where their mouth is.

See, principles are not worth anything if you do not stick to them when it is against you. It is easy to stand for (or against) something when it does not impact something you love. Those positions are not principles. They are principles when the impact is against you...THEN you are standing with your principles.

There is no question that I am against PUBLIC financing of any stadium (including the Gophers...they chose to tear down a good stadium, let their alumni pay to rebuild a campus stadium). And, yes, the position would adversely affect me. I love baseball. It is my favorite sport. But my philosophical positions should not be compromised because the positions could deprive me of being able to watch live Major League Baseball. That is the spineless position.

Now you may ask why I am focusing this venom only toward the GOP. Because the DFL positions typically are anti-business, anti-private property, pro-government hand in everything, pro-big government, pro-social spending and fiscal irresponsibile. This vote falls in line with most of their beliefs (though does promote 'corporate welfare' which then should cause a slight schism).

I expected better of the MN-GOP and have become increasingly disappointed. I really am finding less reason to support 95% of the incumbants of any party.

Congratulations Minnesota GOP, you have pushed me towards a modified term limits point of view!
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Coronations of candidates

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/21/2006

One thing that is really turning me off from voting in the 2006 Senate race is the attitude of both parties while putting on an assault against grass roots delagate input (which in turn is a slap in the face of any hint of democracy).

In the one party, the DFL, the powers that be have done what they can to keep any real competition out of the race. The powers want Amy Klobuchar and they have been doing what they can to marginalize the existance of any other candidate (specifically Ford Bell). Yes, I believe the term "kingmaker" applies.

In the other party, the GOP, the powers that be have explicitly acted to deny any challenger from having any opportunity to reach any voter. Mark Kennedy supporters have been very active in chasing away (or at least the perception is that people are being chased away) and denigrating those who potentially would support anyone else (i.e. Rod Grams).

I find the whole practice comical and despicable. However if any candidate falls because of that pressure I think they may not have been a strong enough candidate. So as long as the parties or the state does not treat the challengers differently I would not say anything.

Then I happened upon a posting by The First Ring that boiled my blood.
With Kennedy holding $2,660,518 cash on hand compared to Shudlick’s whopping $125 and the GOP deciding not to hold any straw poll during the March caucuses, it’s unlikely Shudlick’s effort to be the race’s insurgent is going to gain any traction.
Please correct the record if this is not true. This is, in my view, 100% unethical and a great way to slap the delegates in the face. Who determined that the GOP would not hold a straw poll? THAT person I want to have on the radio show for intense scrutiny...if they dare.

I was a solid Kennedy supporter BEFORE he announced for Senate. I was planning on volunteering a lot of time and energy. But then the supporters really turned me away as rumors boiled that Grams was considering a run. Hmm, I thought, maybe I'll just volunteer a little bit, bumper sticker on my car and a lawn sign in the yard. Then came the Kennedy (and Pawlenty) supporters and their empty pulp regarding the GOP Chair race. At that point I decided that my party loyalty in that race was lost because of the actions of the party regarding that race. No volunteering from me outside of the radio show and the blog.

Now comes the straw poll news. I find this so disgusting that my support for Kennedy is deeply shaken. (Hence my adjusting the scoreboard down 5 points.)

The Kennedy supporters (some of whom I consider friends) have done nothing but engage in personal attacks on Harold Shudlick. (Sound familiar?) I have yet to hear any credible reason to 100% shut out any challengers from the GOP endorsement. The ugliness that the GOP is engaged in about this, and Kennedy's silence (-2) makes me wonder what they are truly afraid of. Yep, I penalize Kennedy for being silent throughout this whole ordeal. Does he benefit by being silent? Yep. Is it right to remain silent? No.

I have one quote for you, Congressman Kennedy. If you or your staff understand the whole context of it then I do not doubt you will speak up AGAINST what the GOP is doing to Shudlick.

"I paid for this microphone."

The quote came from someone who would have benefited from silencing others but the speaker stood up for what was right, not what was self-beneficial.

********** UPDATE **********
I have been trying to find out how exactly the decision within the MN GOP was made to not have a straw poll. Doug McGregor at the GOP office said he would track down someone to answer some questions on this topic and possible come on the March 5th show to defend this as well.

********** UPDATE **********
Welcome to the readers of DFLers.org. However, I hope you re-read my post and realize that the quote on DFLers.org was abbreviated in a way that altered the meaning. What Kennedy supporters did to Grams supporters I do find "comical and despicable"...this is not my view on Kennedy. The end of the misquote ("I find this so disgusting that my support for Kennedy is deeply shaken") has to do with the GOP shutting out Harold Shudlick and Kennedy's silence in the whole thing is what has shaken my support for Kennedy.

Being mean to opponents (like Rowley to Kline or Kennedy supporters to Grams) is the way politics goes. I find it deplorable in some instances (when the heat is blatantly false like in Rowley's case). In the end, if candidates run from a race where they are being attacked like that I say, "Guess they weren't strong enough" no matter how despicable I think the attacks were.

What I find immoral and unethical and counter-democratic is to actually alter the system to prevent other opponents fair access. That is what the GOP is doing by not requiring precincts to hold a straw poll. I'm telling you right now that I will ask for one (in my wonderfully persuasive yet dramatic way) in my caucuses and rhetorically pressure the other precincts to do the same. Yes, the results may be unanimous but the point is not the results but the access.

To the authors of DFLers.org: This posting had so much "blistering" in it that you honestly did not have to misrepresent the text.
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

MLB took a name they did not own

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/21/2006

I find this amusing.
The team without a home or owner might also not have a name.

According to a report in The New York Times on Tuesday, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted a request for federal trademark registration on the name Washington Nationals to Bygone Sports last week. The Cincinnati-based company, which specializes in historic trademarks and sports apparel, applied for the trademark in September 2002.
Good for Bygone Sports. I mean, I think the practice of guessing names of coming sports teams is scummy, but hey, it is legal and there is a risk that the invested-upon name will not be used after all. For that risk should be reward.
According to the Times, Major League Baseball, aware of Bygone Sports' claim to the Washington Nationals name, thought it had reached an agreement with the company for the name's rights when the franchise was moved from Montreal in 2004.

"We believe we own the name and the rights," John McHale Jr., a baseball executive vice president, told the Times. "We struck a deal prior to the announcement with the people who claimed they owned the name, and we've been fighting to get that agreement enforced. They didn't live up to the agreement."

However, Roger Kaplan, an attorney for Bygone Sports, told the Times that although baseball contends an oral agreement was reached Nov. 12, 2004 -- 10 days before the team was renamed -- the sides had actually only reached a preliminary agreement.

"All the terms and conditions had not been fully discussed," he said.

Kaplan also contends that baseball and Bygone Sports had not put the agreement in writing and had agreed not to be bound by an agreement until it was in writing.
So far I have to say I am on Bygone's side...and I believe their version of the story also.
Both baseball and Bygone Sports sued, and the case landed in federal court, where it will be determined if there is an enforceable agreement. If the lawsuit goes forward, a trial is scheduled to begin April 3 -- the day the Nationals open their second season in Washington.

Neither baseball nor Bygone Sports dispute that the company raised its asking price for the rights from $130,000 to $1.5 million. Bygone Sports also asked for four tickets to the Nationals' opener last season and a $10,000 advertising credit on MLB.com.
Well, if Bygone is correct I see no reason why they should not be entitled to raise the asking price...they should demand royalties on the merchandise already sold!!
"For two weeks after the team was named, Bygone was prepared to move forward on the original amount," Kaplan told the Times.

But negotiations collapsed, and both sides filed suit.

Baseball sued in June, claiming that although Bygone Sports had applied for the rights two years prior to the team's move, the company wanted to "turn a quick, undeserved profit" by seeking trademark registration rights. In its countersuit in July, Bygone Sports accused baseball of not researching the name to know that someone else had claimed it.
What? Undeserved profit? What makes it undeserved? Is there something wrong with a quick profit? Well, as long as it is legal, I mean.
If the case proceeds and the judge rules for Bygone Sports, baseball would then have to decide whether to rename the team, because it would not be able to sell apparel and other paraphernalia with the Nationals name on it.

"You wouldn't be able to go to the ballpark and buy a shirt or cap with the team name on it," Kaplan told the Times.

"I think it's likely that we would change if we're not correct," McHale told the Times.
Like I said, unless they come to an agreement if the courts rule for Bygone Sports (which I think is the fair thing) they should sue also for royalties.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Some evil thoughts I agree with

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/21/2006

I got these from a friend through e-mail. I have to say, I agree with them so I am posting it here.
I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers.
The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America. Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America; and see what happens...Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door.

Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.

I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, that is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! ARE YOU LISTENING MARTHA BURKE?

I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion.

I have the right "NOT" to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.

When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability.

I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen, you should have to speak English!

My father and grandfather didn't die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come over and disrespect ours.

I think the police should have every right to shoot your sorry a-- if you threaten them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the word "freeze" or "stop" in English, see the above lines.

I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business.

We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedoms, so that decades later they could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document; and open to their interpretations.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.

I know pro wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television. That doesn't stop you from watching them.

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more.
If it ticks you off, go and invent the next operating system that's better, and put your name on the building.

It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid; and smack their little behinds when necessary, and say "NO!"

I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't pretend they are a political statement. And, please, stay home until that new lip ring heals. I don't want to look at your ugly infected mouth as you serve me French fries!

I am sick of "Political Correctness." I know a lot of black people, and not a single one of them was born in Africa; so how can they be "African-Americans"?
Besides, Africa is a continent. I don't go around saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was from Europe.
I am proud to be from America and nowhere else

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!
OK, I agree with most of it...I'm not on board with the wrestling thing.
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Sunday, February 19, 2006

JP's Grille and Bar Event

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/19/2006

Next Sunday we are having the Race to the Right Answers--No Politics Edition. All of you are welcome to come.

It is at JP's Grille & Bar in Sauk Rapids, MN from 1PM - 3PM. (In fact, we just found out that our boss will be there too...so a big turnout will be very beneficial!!)

It will be trivia games and should be a lot of fun. I am working on a way to have audience participation as well...and NO POLITICS!! What a nice break that will be.

The "contestants" will be Rep. Jim Knoblach, Sen. Michele Bachmann and Jay Esmay.

I was just notified that Rep. Phil Krinkie will not be in attendance after all...less exposure for him in a part of the district that he really needs to get exposure in.

So come on out and have some fun!
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

A new plank to my platform

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/19/2006

I was going through some tapes of our older shows and came across an idea that I would love to see happen.

I hate campaign promises that are not followed through on. I hate politicians that regularly say one thing when they get home and do another when they end up in St Paul or Washington.

How can that be fixed? I think it would be great if politicians created bills that are actually about the promises of the other members. When each session starts all of elected officials would face bills that encapsulated their campaign words.

Think about the effects...almost all of them would be good. In fact I cannot think of any bad side effects.

First, Campaign promises will be made more carefully. Why? For the obvious reason that the politicians will have to face their promises immediately in the next session. If the plan was a good one then the allies will bring the bill forward and if it is something unpopular the opponents will do it.

Second, Because OTHER people will put the politicians promises/plans into writing for their own gain the proposals will be ushered forward quickly. No longer will politicians be able to get away with promising a reform, not doing anything with it, promising reform again 2 years later and 2 years later and so on. How long have politicians been promising welfare reform and tax reform and...how long will it be before they actually try to do it?

Third, Politicians who make comments like "bring the troops home now" or candidates who say they would "rather fight the war on terror here at home than abroad" will be able to put their votes where their mouths are. Wild assertions and claims and insane or irresponsible proposals will diminish or the candidates will be made the folly they deserve to be made into when they are forced to vote against thier own words.

No, it is not trying to silence debate. It is trying to make people accountable for what they say...more responsible for their words. THAT is better for debate and discussion.

So, please, can we get some politicians to start holding each other accountable?
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Friday, February 17, 2006

IMP co-host is running for Senate

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/17/2006

According to Inside Minnesota Politics lastest release:
Peter Idusogie today announced his intention to run for the US Senate seat being vacated by Mark Dayton.

In an exclusive interview with Wendy Wilde on Inside Minnesota Politics, Idusogie said he will run as an independent candidate "independent of the Democratic Party, independent of the Republican Party, and independent of the Independence party".
Yeah, he fits perfectly in the radical wing of the Democrat party but two weeks ago treated Ford Bell's attack against "kingmaking" as ridiculous expectations. Basically Idusogie said Bell should not be surprised by the kingmaking and should accept it. So it is no surprise that Idusogie is running as an "independent".
Inside Minnesota Politics Producer Mike McIntee issued the following statement:

"To avoid even the appearance of any conflict of interest, Peter and I have decided it is best that he no longer host Inside Minnesota Politics. However, the podcast will continue with its mission to report on Minnesota politics including interviewing candidates, and tackling those tough issues we face today in our democracy.
"Like any other US Senate candidate, Peter will be welcome as an occasional guest at the Inside Minnesota Politics microphone.

"I'm happy to report that long-time radio talk show host Wendy Wilde has agreed to help out with hosting the show. Wendy most recently was the morning host on Air America Minnesota and before that worked for WCCO-AM.
"I thank Peter for the inspiration he has brought our podcast listeners and me. I look forward to maintaining the high level of quality Peter has brought to Inside Minnesota Politics with the help of the incredibly knowledgeable and talented Wendy Wilde."
I have been blasting this little show for two reasons. First their brazen efforts to shut down debate, especially to take them to task, through threatening phone calls and lawsuit threats. Second, they claim to be "fair and balanced" but are far from that. They are, in essence, lying to the listeners intentionally with the purpose of political advantage.

And to further emphasise the point of their biased nature look who is replacing Idusogie: the shrill liberal extremist Wendy Wilde. Let us be very honest about her sole talent: hackery. And that does NOT include factuality or truth.

Interesting developments.
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Simulation league blog is up

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/17/2006

The simulation league is getting closer. The blog is blbaseball.blogspot.com (for beginner's luck baseball). The directory is up and it would be good to help facilitate trades if an e-mail address were submitted.

Cruise the stat pages which start at baseball.racetotheright.com/league.htm.

If you have any questions about how to read the ratings let me know.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Thursday, February 16, 2006

WMD Smoking Gun

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/16/2006

Do you think the Left will admit they were incorrect? Remember all the hand-wringing about "he won't even admit his mistakes"? Will they do the same or will they find/create reasons that this does not prove anything, or even start in the direction of proving anything.

What is this?
ABC News obtained the tapes from Bill Tierney, a former member of a United Nations inspection team who translated them for the FBI. "Because of my experience being in the inspections and being in the military, I knew the significance of these tapes when I heard them," says Tierney. U.S. officials have confirmed the tapes are authentic, and that they are among hundreds of hours of tapes Saddam recorded in his palace office.
...
The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about weapons of mass destruction programs from U.N. inspectors well into the 1990s. In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program — a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.

At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.

"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."
Now, is it not true that the Left has been droning on about there being NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Me personally I have been saying that the amount of time wasted at the United Nations gave Iraq plenty of time to hide, destroy or ship to friendly nations anything they had. (Has anyone yet found out what was in those three freighters that left Iraq just before we went in?)
A spokeswoman for John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, said information contained in the transcriptions of the tapes was already known to intelligence officials.
Hmm, you mean the intelligence community knows things that the general public does not know? Interesting. I thought it was not possible for the public to know less than the White House, CIA, FBI, etc. I mean, how else could the Left continue saying with such confidence that there were NO weapons of mass destruction and continue on about "faulty intelligence"? Is it not at least within the realm of possibility that the rap of "faulty intelligence" is accepted so that the good intelligence (and its sources) can be kept secret?

Now these tapes are a bit old. What can be said about that?
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, says the tapes are authentic and show that "Saddam had a fixation on weapons of mass destruction and he had a fixation on hiding what he was doing from the U.N. inspectors." Hoeckstra says there are more than 35,000 boxes of such tapes and documents that the U.S. government has not analyzed nor made public that should also be translated and studied on an urgent basis.
Yep, it does show a fixation. And why would some who lived with such blatant disregard for the UN be expected to not pursue fixing the fixation?

There is the other side of the issue to also consider.
"Intelligence community analysts from the CIA, and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that, while fascinating, from a historical perspective the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their post-war analysis of Iraq's weapons programs nor do they change the findings contained in the comprehensive Iraq Survey group report," she said in a statement.
Fair enough point...but I think that is a lazy answer as it does not address the fixation. It also does not address the repeated violations previously.

How is that Saddam would violate UN resolutions constantly EXCEPT this ONE time? This time he actually did get rid of all of his chemical & biological weapons and quit pursuing nuclear weapons. This ONE time he actually was pursuing nuclear technology for ONLY energy purposes.
Charles Duelfer, who led the official U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction after the war, says the tapes show extensive deception but don't prove that weapons were still hidden in Iraq at the time of the U.S.-led war in 2003. "What they do is support the conclusion in the report, which we made in the last couple of years, that the regime had the intention of building and rebuilding weapons of mass destruction, when circumstances permitted."
A couple of key things there. The Left ignores the "intetion of building and rebuilding" part. They also fail to answer WHERE did these weapons suddenly disappear to? There is no denying that Iraq had them, where did they go? (And what the hell was on those freighters?) The Right seems to glance over the fact that these weapons were not found. Now the WMD assertion was NOT the only reason given for going into Iraq (a lie that the Left intentionally perpetuates) so it is not highly relevant, but it is nonetheless a fact. (Can we please check those freighters?)

Iraq was not THE threat, they were the location of the threat thus making them A threat. The threat moved and is hiding with other enemies.

The answer. I think Saddam got rid of the WMD evidence before we went into the country. Which means that some other country has them (Syria is my guess, maybe even somehow Iran). That is what the UN's role was...delaying us from getting in there to stop the threat.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Media suck I hope they wither away

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/16/2006

I am sick of the Cheney shooting story. There is a very real tragedy. "That man", "the victim"...the man Cheney shot whose name most people cannot provide, was shot. Harry Whittington is his name for those of you who are too insensitive to actually mention him in any fashion besides his actual name.

Now the latest issue is that Cheney spoke out in an interview with FoxNews.

I'm not kidding. The Democrats now are criticizing Cheney for doing an interview with Fox News.
"Now that he feels forced to talk, he wants to restrict the discussion to a friendly news outlet, guaranteeing no hard questions from the press corps," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said in a statement.
Shut up already, please. Is this really any different from other politicians who pick and choose where they will be interviewed? No.

Remember, Amy Klobuchar has yet to respond to invitations to be interviewed or be in a debate on our conservative talk show. Where is the scandal over that? This is the media and the Democrats absolutely desperate for any scandal that they are now grasping at anything...even fabrications.

The man is in the middle of a tragedy...in his personal life, mind you. Remember that distinction from the sympathizers? "Who cares what he did in his PERSONAL life?" And in the midst of the personal tragedy the media and the Democrats are making unreasonable demands of him. "Notify the specific chosen media prior to notifying the property owners and the family of Harry Whittington. On top of that crass course of action a hostile envrionment must be sought for a public address."

Give me a break.

This whole ordeal is proving a few things that people have been saying for a long time.

First, the media are absolutely heartless AND biased. Here they are ignoring the responsibility of a human being to make the proper notifications PRIOR to making a tragedy open to the public. Yes, Cheney is a part of the public, but Whittington is not. His family deserves to be notified first hand by his hunting group...not by the headline news network hyenas. I would venture so far as to say that jounalists for the most part have no true humanity within them.

Second, the Left have nothing positive to say...at all. They are latching on the most ridiculous assertions, demanding the most cold-hearted courses of action and a double standard that is indefensible. They would have NEVER demanded Gore to answer questions in a press conference amongst the media "elite" for their own egos to be met. "See, we're important, we are being given the stories."

Third, the mainstream media is becoming more and more irrelevant. They should wither and dry a quick death. Because some of the truly hoodwinked people in this country really do not understand how horrible the media actually are the death will be a slow, writhing and torturous death. That is fine with the execption of the fact that we all will have to suffer more of this insufferable agonizing fiction the MSM present as news. Bias is shown in the very fact they parade the Hunting Accident as among the top stories for nearly a week now is proof that they are not reporting NEWS as it comes in, but engaged in agenda-driven editorializing through the constant reporting of accident over other stories (like the fact that a smoking gun about WMD was found). Bias is found in the fact that the media is whining about the delay between the accident and GIVING the story to the media (pales in time and magnitude when compared to the approx. 30 hours the Clinton administration waited to report Vince Foster's suicide). Bias is found in the fact that the news being reported is a (created) controversy regarding the choice of network by Cheney to actually speak about the incident to the public.

Fourth, the Democrats have truly become tragedy whores. The basic whine from them is that Cheney did NOT treat this incident as politics as usual which would have required him to report to the media first and everyone else be damned. The Democrats were trying to make a political issue of another tragedy. I say another because Katrina, Sheehan, King's funeral...you get the idea.

These are the truths that are ACTUALLY coming out of this Hunting Accident. They are ugly truths, but they are truths.

If you are wondering why politics is such a horrible and broken segment of our society just look at these truths...and you can find them behind EVERY SINGLE TRAGEDY.
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

40,000 hits

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/15/2006

Last night (around 9:30 PM) the blog reached 40,000 hits. Thank you to the person in Hampton Inn in Munster, Indiana for the 40,000th hit.

Next stop...50K.

********** UPDATE **********
Thank you to Dan S for the hit. And thanks for correcting me on the state. If I could read I would be so much better at this stuff.
***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Simulation League starting date announced

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/14/2006

The simulation league will be starting up again!!

This coming weekend I will install the infrastructure. There will be a blog for the league. I am hoping to get a few webpages up for the league as well. Some of the information in the team files will be updated, etc. etc. etc.

The new season (2006, as it turns out) will begin the following Saturday, 2/25/06.

The new blog will be announced as soon as everything is set up (by next Monday).

Are you ready for some BASEBALL.
***** 2 refutations and clarifications *****

Welcome back Mike McIntee

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/14/2006

When people go on the attack with fabricated "facts" and then are afraid to stand up to the scrutiny I get angry. When people hold themselves up as "fair" or "balanced" but are the antithesis of those terms I call them out.

What is more slime-infested is when those types of people threaten others with lawsuits with the sole intent of preventing actual discussion on their lies. Worse than that is when those same people lurk in the shadows in an attempt to gather more for their idiotic lawsuit threats.

So, with great pleasure I would like to announce the presence of Mike McIntee, liberal hack and lurker.

Mike, just be a man and ASK for what you are looking for.
c-69-180-175-3.hsd1.mn.comcast.net (Comcast Cable Communications Holdings Inc)

Minnesota, Eagan, United States,
February 7th 2006 06:09:19 PM Race To The Right
No referring link
February 7th 2006 06:10:12 PM Always Right, Usually Correct
www.blogger.com/profile/5297459
February 9th 2006 07:30:53 PM Always Right, Usually Correct: More evidence...IMP are hacks
www.mnspeak.com/mnspeak/aggregator/index-chron.cfm
February 10th 2006 08:20:37 AM Race To The Right
No referring link
February 10th 2006 08:21:16 AM Always Right, Usually Correct
No referring link
February 11th 2006 04:20:15 PM Always Right, Usually Correct
No referring link
February 14th 2006 08:19:17 AM Always Right, Usually Correct
No referring link
February 14th 2006 08:19:51 AM Race To The Right
No referring link
February 14th 2006 08:20:36 AM Always Right, Usually Correct: Angry Democrats trying to spin away the image
www.r2tr.blogspot.com/
Sigh, the sham of IMP continues, I guess.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Monday, February 13, 2006

Gore in Saudi Arabia

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/13/2006

Al Gore gave a speech in Saudi Arabia to an audience that was mostly Saudi. You can decide how damaging to the United States the speech was. I want to focus on something else.
Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."
Indiscriminately? You mean the authorities just grabbed any Arab off the streets and locked them up? Can I get some of the sources for this claim? I mean, seriously, how irresponsible is this claim? Indiscriminately rounded up Arabs is quite a claim and knowing how much the media hates all things Bush I am surprised this was not broadcast somehow...especially on CBS.
"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."
WAIT A DAMN MINUTE!! It has been the idiots like Michael Moore who have blasted Bush for maintaining relations with Saudi Arabia...going so far as to even fabricate ties to the terrorists simply because everyone involved was Saudi. Now we have Gore saying there is not ENOUGH being done to foster the friendship?

We need to be very clear. There are countries out there that are not our friends and should not be until they undergo a monumental change. Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea are among them. The very fact that we treat Saudi Arabia like a quasi-friend is endangering our own security. And preaching that we need to be MORE of a friend to them is irresponsible.

Irrespsonible speech. That seems to have become a standard for Al Gore.
***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****