Posts Tagged ‘Kyl’
Arizona Republic reporter Dan Nowicki writes that Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl oppose the sales tax increase that the legislature referred to the May 18 election ballot.
I’m not surprised. Both McCain and Kyl have been pretty darn solid on not raising taxes.
What is more surprising, as I have blogged before, is that a Republican Governor is supporting a tax increase, particularly in this economic environment.
Predictably, the Yes on 100 crowd “couldn’t be more disappointed.”
Eh, what do you expect? Did you really think that two Senators with fairly consistent “A” ratings from National Taxpayer’s Union would support a tax increase?
It was a great speech, from the stand point of delivery, timing and cadence. And it was flat out terrible in substance. More on that later.
I need to get this off my chest, as a former Congressional staffer that has seen 20-some State of the Union speeches (I know, I know, this wasn’t a SOTU, but it may as well have been – most people couldn’t tell the difference), and a few in person, it drives me absolutely nuts to see Members of the House and Senate line up along the aisle to get a chance to shake the President’s hand, and more importantly, be seen by the folks back home. I know a little about the job of a Congressman, and I think it is a total and utter waste of time for grown men and women, with important responsibility, to go to the floor of the House hours and hours beforehand and sit on the aisle for their chance to get their mug on TV. Blah!
By the way, what was up with Pelosi’s horrendous puke green outfit? Good grief, you are going to be seen by tens of millions of people for more than an hour and you wear that?!?
Do you think there is any specific reason that White House Chief of Staff sat next to Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano?
Ok, back to text. Great delivery. The Democrats in Congress were a little over-anxious with the applause. A standing ovation for Obama saying “nobody messes with Joe”? Really? I suppose they were really, really excited to have a Democrat talking to them, so I won’t hold it against them.
I am really starting to tire of the phrase, “while the cost of action will be great, the cost of inaction will be far greater.” I just don’t see how inaction could actually cost more than the $3 trillion+ that action will cost.
Obama seemed a little defensive about “helping banks”. He must be hearing from some of his left-wing base about that and the polling must not look good (yes they poll EVERYTHING) “It’s not about helping banks about helping people.”
Obama was also very, very good at blaming Bush without sounding whiney. Phrases like, “it reflects the stark reality of what we have inherited… a trillion dollar deficit, a financial crisis and a costly recession.”
The discussion of energy, health care and education were a little sparse on specifics, but lots of lofty rhetoric. One line that gave me a chill up and down my spine (and not in a good way) was:
So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.
That scares me. Because when Obama says health care reform, he means government-run, government-managed health care. Fewer choices, rationed care, less quality of life. Please, Mr. President, we really CAN wait for that, we prefer to wait – at least for my lifetime.
I was stunned by this line:
I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.
Do you really think you can get away with such a demonstrably false claim, Mr. President?
The speech ended very well with a nicely written last paragraph:
And if we do – if we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis; if we put our people back to work and restart the engine of our prosperity; if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, “something worthy to be remembered.”
That is as close to Reagan as Obama got. Not bad.
A highlight was Sen. Jon Kyl on the Fox News affiliates calling into question Obama’s claim about the “inherited deficit.” He had a chart and everything – I had a flashback to Ross Perot – and it made me proud he was on message, willing to tell the truth.
If you missed Jindal’s response, read it, it is superbly written. But he doesn’t have quite the speaking ability of the President.
Meet Richard Sales. He is a 24-year-old wunderkind and the brains behind some of the best political web ads in the nation. He is proof that smarts, technological know-how and a great sense of humor can change the debate in political campaigns.
I met Richard during the 2006 election cycle when we used him to produce web ads for the Arizona GOP Party Victory operation. He produced a number of ads against Sen. Jon Kyl’s opponent, Jim Pederson.
In this last cycle, Sales produced hundreds of ads for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. A sample is below. The kid has creative genious, and he also composes most of the music for the ads. Not bad for a twenty-something guy with a laptop, a keyboard and a great imagination, locked away in a basement to wreak havoc on unsuspecting candidates.
Here is Sale’s description of this ad:
“The Kerry camp flipped out when they saw this. If we had hit Kerry in a regular press release, no one would have noticed or cared. But because this was on YouTube, we got a reaction out of him, throwing him off message for days. Using humor and pop culture references really helped this ad cut through the clutter of normal web videos — not to mention the strategic thumbnailing of Britney Spears also helped. The New York Times, HotAir.com,and National Review featured it on their sites.”
Here are a couple more.
And this one, which I linked to a couple weeks ago.
Last Friday, the Yellow Sheet Report, which is the equivalent of an “inside the beltway publication” for the Arizona capital, reported that Arizona GOP Chairman Randy Pullen claimed that the Arizona Delegation was “neutral” in his race against Lisa James for Chairman. Huh?
I’ve known Randy for a number of years, and we have a cordial relationship, and, just as I have said to newly-elected Maricopa County GOP Chairman, Rob Haney, if Pullen is reelected, I’ll work on finding common ground. In the meantime, I strongly support Lisa James.
But even as a James partisan, I’m taken aback by Pullen’s comment. It’s a whopper so big that it isn’t even remotely believable. Usually, if you are going to push the envelope, you at least have an envelope to push. What mystifies me is why Pullen would say something so demonstrably inaccurate.
McCain, Kyl, Shadegg and Flake have been open about their support for Lisa James, and Trent Franks is officially neutral. So maybe Pullen believes that Franks is the entire delegation.
Yesterday, Lisa James put out a statement from Kyl:
“I support Lisa James for Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party because she will provide the leadership to increase Republican voter registration, raise funds, recruit candidates and execute a successful get out the vote effort.”
I second Senator Kyl’s comments. I have seen Lisa in action, and know her capabilities. I’ve done enough major get-out-the-vote efforts, fundraising, grassroots organizing and messaging to recognize who gets it and who doesn’t.
Lisa James gets it, and would be a great asset as GOP Chairman going into the 2010 election.