Archive for April, 2009

I don’t want to minimize the potential threat of the swine flu, but I’ve been trying to figure out what the big deal is.  We’re being told that it’s a “pandemic” and that we should avoid riding public transportation.  In Phoenix, a kid was diagnosed with swine flu – after he was recovered and fine (he was never hospitalized) but they have closed the school for seven days. Really?   There are probably now going to be a wave of schools closing.

So why the alarm?

According to the CDC, there are typically 20,000 deaths a year in the United States attributed to the common flu.  Given that there has only been one reported death in the U.S. from swine flu, I think we might be focusing on the wrong threat.

But if you were to watch the news or go online, you’d think the world was ending. Just look here, here, here and here for starters.

I’m just sayin’, I don’t get it.

This is the future of the American auto industry now that President Obama can dictate who will run Chrysler.  It’s the guy running Fiat (see above – remember Fiat?)  We’re far from the days of Iacocca, and no, Obama, you’re no Iacocca. Not even close.

Yet one more step in the ever-expanding march of Obama’s “hope and change” government into our lives.

The House and Senate celebrated Obama’s 100^th day in office by passing the largest federal budget in U.S. history. At a staggering $3.4 TRILLION it is $300 billion more than last year’s budget. Wow.  That is growth of government that should make former AZ Governor Janet Napolitano proud.

To give you some perspective, when I was toiling on Capitol Hill staffing my boss on the Budget committee in 1997, the federal budget was about $1.5 trillion.  As recently as 2000 the federal budget was $1.7 trillion – HALF of what passed today.  Think about that.  In nine short years we have DOUBLED the size of the federal government. That is breathtaking, and not in a good way.

The spectacle of Arlen Specter (R D – PA) switching from Republican to Democrat to save his political hide is an example of politicians gone wild.

The boys at Liberty’s Apothecary have a great treatment of this whole episode – complete with quotes from Specter a few weeks ago promising that he was not going to leave the Republican Party.

Specter has been a black mark on the GOP for years.  He only acts and sounds like a Republican in election years, and has ended up creating more problems for Republicans that he is worth.  It is no secret that I have never been fond of Specter, and this turn of events has me feeling vindicated. With friends like these…

Here is a look inside the mind of Specter as he wrote his statement:

I have been a Republican since 1966. (Well, I’ve been a Republican in name, at least) I have been working extremely hard for the Party, (trying to make it more liberal, and less like Reagan and Goldwater) for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. (Unless those points of view include lower taxes, more individual responsibility and freedom in general) While I have been comfortable being a Republican, (because I’m comfortable being a fraud) my Party has not defined who I am. (Because I’m not really a Republican and never have been) I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation. (At least in the cases when it was also best for me)

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. (Because fighting for freedom is a really wing-nut thing to do) Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats.  I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans. (Especially since Democrats are in control of the Senate and I really miss being a Chairman)

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing. (I mean, who really believes all this “free market” crap anyway?)

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. (Because polling is the most important guidepost to what I do) It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. (For some reason, people think that more government is part of the problem – they’re so small-minded) On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. (I’m such an experienced politician, that I shouldn’t have to follow the rules, laws and I can’t tolerate been held responsible for my actions by people so out of touch with reality that they actually VOTE in a Republican primary) I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania. (At least the liberal elite people of Pennsylvania)

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary. (The polling shows that I’d get killed by Pat Toomey in a Republican primary, so I’m freeing myself of the party of freedom so I can say what I really believe and Democrat voters will like me for it)

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election. (I have to sound tough, but I really, really hope Toomey doesn’t run against me)

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. (I’m sorry they are so close-minded that they don’t understand that I’m too important to have to actually defend the votes I’ve cast.  Don’t they know who I am?) I can understand their disappointment. (I don’t really understand it, because my training includes Scottish Law) I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. (Those ingrates should love me! The lobbyists in D.C. love me, why don’t Pennsylvania Republicans love me?) It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance. (I need to mention a couple Republican leaders to make this whole joke of a statement sound more serious and sincere. The truth is, those guys are suckers. They totally bought my statement last month when I said I wouldn’t leave the GOP. Ha!)

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. (I’m sure there are lots of important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate, but no one would hire me to work on any of them) I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy. (I’ve got so much seniority in the Senate I can earmark better than Jack Murtha, and do it so it doesn’t look like corruption)

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. (I’m not ready to actually campaign and explain myself to voters) Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle. (I may wait until 2011 to return those contributions, but it sounds good to offer to return them)

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. (I don’t want to actually work to do anything that is in line with the Republican platform!) The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. (If I say that enough times, they’ll eventually buy it.  Why do we even have two parties anyway?  This whole issue of having to stand for election every six years is so 18^th Century. Don’t they know that I have been anointed?) And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. (Unless they promise me lots of good stuff) For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change. (Trust me)

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America. (As long as it is best for me)

WCBS in New York is reporting that federal officials knew that having two fighter jets and Air Force One buzzing Manhattan would cause 9-11-type fears among people, but threatened local law enforcement that funds would be withheld if they warned the public.

The cost of the photo-op jaunt by Air Force One cost taxpayers more than $380,000.  Pretty expensive for a few “updated” shots of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty in the background.  What a cluster.

There is so much to say about this.  I’m thinking a lot and will update on that later today…

This was stupid.  Flying a 747 at a low altitude above and around Manhattan is bound to freak people out.  How this was ever approved is beyond me.  I suppose it’s another example of how the White House just doesn’t get it.  The war on terror is real… very real to those who lived through 9-11 in New York.  You’d think for a leftist like Obama, he’d be more sensitive.

See the video here.

DHS Secretary Napolitano has “apologized” to the American Legion for her the report by DHS that warned of various conservatives being potential terrorists.

The Saturday edition of the Arizona Republic covers the heat that Napolitano has taken for this report and a variety of clumsy moves.  Reporter Dennis Wagner called me yesterday to get my take.  I told him that I didn’t think she would resign or get fired, and that I was disturbed by her willingness to call conservatives “terrorists” while at the same time refusing to call members of Al-Queda terrorists – or to even use the words terror or terrorism.  That, I said, made me question her understanding of the true threats we face from actual terrorists.

Wagner didn’t use my central thesis, but instead some side comment.  Of course, I’m not surprised.

Still, Sean Noble, a Republican political consultant and blogger, said Napolitano’s mistakes are stunning because of her background and her position in the Obama administration.

“If she’s surprised by the criticism, then she wasn’t thinking about the level of responsibility that she has,” he said. “There is partisanship, you bet. But that’s how the game is played.”

The problem with that quote is that it’s taken out of context, and implies that I think this is all a game.  National security is not a game.  Napolitano is facing severe criticism because people are worried about her judgment. And I remain concerned.

This story covers a statement released by Congressman Shadegg.  He and I have not talked about this issue, so I was a little surprised at how similar our thinking was on this.

On March 31, there was a special election in NY-20 to fill the vacancy created by Kirsten Gillibrand’s appointment to the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton.

On election night, it was essentially a tie, and we faced weeks of counting to determine the winner.  Back then I predicted that the Republican, Jim Tedisco, would come out on top.  I was wrong.

Tedisco conceded yesterday when it became apparent that he could not make up the few hundred voted difference with few ballots remaining to count.

The closeness of this race likely means there will be a rematch in the fall of 2010.  While this gives the Democrats some bragging rights, it remained close enough that Republicans can find the silver lining.

Here is what I wrote the day before the election:

This is an absolute must-win for the Democrats – because it will be seen as a litmus test on the Democrat Congress and on President Obama.  If the Democrat candidate, Scott Murphy, doesn’t get elected, the shockwaves will be felt from San Francisco to New York to D.C. and everywhere in between.

In some ways, the Republicans couldn’t be in a better spot.  If Republican Jim Tedisco wins, the momentum will have shifted less than 100-days into Obama’s administration.  If Tedisco loses, but keeps it close (within 5 points) it will still have a lasting impact on the way the Democrats in the House and President Obama play their cards (including “card check”) going into 2010.  For Republicans, this is a win-win, as long as a “loss” is close.

Tedisco kept it plenty close enough to have an impact.  Since I wrote that on March 30, we have seen the top two Democrat priorities – cap and trade and card check – take on water and there is a virtual certainty that both are dead this year.

So, I was wrong about predicting Tedisco’s win, but I remain convinced that the close loss has helped Republicans.