[][][][]
There are now 51 volunteers in 21 states, contacting their Senators and Congressmen with the questions about their policies and poisitions.
How about you? Congress owes accountability to the voters, but hides behind a difficult process. You can make a difference, and let your Congressman know you pay attention.
Please email me at drummond@ev1.net to volunteer to contact your Congressman! And thanks for your participation!
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Friday, February 04, 2005
Dean's Not Done
...
It certainly appears that Dr. Howard Dean is about to get himself elected Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Many on the Right are elated with this news, believing it will ensure election losses and abject humiliation for the Democrats for years to come. I'm not so sure that Conservatives should be complacent about this turn of events, or that they should assume this means great things for the GOP.
No, in no way do I consider Howard Dean an honorable man. His conduct during the Presidential campaign was unacceptable, exemplified by his hinting that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks. The man does not pursue honor as we know the word. But it must be acknowledged that Dean is innovative, from using the web to build a fast-rising grass-roots campaign, to very strong fund-raising, to setting the tone all the Democrats found themselves taking in the race. Imagine how the 2004 race might have gone, if a more sober voice had spoken for the Democrats. It's a bitter pill for Democrats to accept that Howard Dean hurt their chances as a party in the Presidential campaign, but it's sobering to consider what his fund-raising and rhetorical skills can do for the Democratic Party.
In 2006, there will be Mid-Term elections again. And for all the clear advantage the GOP owns now, that election is the next clear goalpost for the Democrats; 32 Senate Seats will be up for a vote, along with the House. The Democrats have apparently begun to deal with the fact that America won the War in Iraq, just as they did in Afghanistan, so expect the Dems to complain about the cost, in lives or money depending on the occasion, while suggesting at every turn that President Bush and the Republicans are defending foreign nations at the cost of ignoring crisis in America. I would almost bet money, that "Nightline" will have a series on political issues in 2006 with just that tagline?
Anyway, Dean seems to have gotten the POTUS chase out of his system, certainly well ahead of Kerry and the other Donkey BobbleHeads. This means he will clear the decks by Summer for building networks of support for Senate runs. make no mistake, Senate Control is the key goal for the DNC; it's tough but doable, and if they gain control in the Senate, they can short-circuit Bush's last 2 years, making the GOP look mortal as they gear up for the White House chase in 2008.
Dean coming to power also means the obvious bets for the Dem nominee in 2008 are off the table, fallen to the floor and being kicked around like Pee Wee Herman in a biker bar. Hillary will want to make a run in 2008, as we all know, but with Dean in charge at the DNC, she'll have to do it in opposition to her own party leadership. Hillary can make that happen, but it also means that Dean will get the chance to get his own protege in the mix early, and that blows the race wide open, in terms of platform as well as money. Remember this also happened in 1992, where Bill Clinton came out of absolutely nowhere to claim the Dem's nod. Organization and Party Discipline can work to the GOP's strength, but they will have to be ready for a Democrat like they haven't seen before. That could lead to another George McGovern, or it could lead to a completely new type of Democrat.
Fortunately for the Conservatives, there is also the personality of Howard Dean in play. This is the man, after all, who recently declared "I hate the Republicans and all they stand for", not thining through how that would play out to people who disapprove of categorical hatred and prejudice. Dean's love of radically liberal policies will be interesting to see in action; either Dean will have to find a way to bring mainline Democrats to support a Left-wing agenda, or else he will have to rein in his personal predilections in support of a more moderate platform. I can see either course taking place.
All in all, the horizon has changed, and if nothing else, Wowie Howie promises to add spice to the next four years.
It certainly appears that Dr. Howard Dean is about to get himself elected Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Many on the Right are elated with this news, believing it will ensure election losses and abject humiliation for the Democrats for years to come. I'm not so sure that Conservatives should be complacent about this turn of events, or that they should assume this means great things for the GOP.
No, in no way do I consider Howard Dean an honorable man. His conduct during the Presidential campaign was unacceptable, exemplified by his hinting that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks. The man does not pursue honor as we know the word. But it must be acknowledged that Dean is innovative, from using the web to build a fast-rising grass-roots campaign, to very strong fund-raising, to setting the tone all the Democrats found themselves taking in the race. Imagine how the 2004 race might have gone, if a more sober voice had spoken for the Democrats. It's a bitter pill for Democrats to accept that Howard Dean hurt their chances as a party in the Presidential campaign, but it's sobering to consider what his fund-raising and rhetorical skills can do for the Democratic Party.
In 2006, there will be Mid-Term elections again. And for all the clear advantage the GOP owns now, that election is the next clear goalpost for the Democrats; 32 Senate Seats will be up for a vote, along with the House. The Democrats have apparently begun to deal with the fact that America won the War in Iraq, just as they did in Afghanistan, so expect the Dems to complain about the cost, in lives or money depending on the occasion, while suggesting at every turn that President Bush and the Republicans are defending foreign nations at the cost of ignoring crisis in America. I would almost bet money, that "Nightline" will have a series on political issues in 2006 with just that tagline?
Anyway, Dean seems to have gotten the POTUS chase out of his system, certainly well ahead of Kerry and the other Donkey BobbleHeads. This means he will clear the decks by Summer for building networks of support for Senate runs. make no mistake, Senate Control is the key goal for the DNC; it's tough but doable, and if they gain control in the Senate, they can short-circuit Bush's last 2 years, making the GOP look mortal as they gear up for the White House chase in 2008.
Dean coming to power also means the obvious bets for the Dem nominee in 2008 are off the table, fallen to the floor and being kicked around like Pee Wee Herman in a biker bar. Hillary will want to make a run in 2008, as we all know, but with Dean in charge at the DNC, she'll have to do it in opposition to her own party leadership. Hillary can make that happen, but it also means that Dean will get the chance to get his own protege in the mix early, and that blows the race wide open, in terms of platform as well as money. Remember this also happened in 1992, where Bill Clinton came out of absolutely nowhere to claim the Dem's nod. Organization and Party Discipline can work to the GOP's strength, but they will have to be ready for a Democrat like they haven't seen before. That could lead to another George McGovern, or it could lead to a completely new type of Democrat.
Fortunately for the Conservatives, there is also the personality of Howard Dean in play. This is the man, after all, who recently declared "I hate the Republicans and all they stand for", not thining through how that would play out to people who disapprove of categorical hatred and prejudice. Dean's love of radically liberal policies will be interesting to see in action; either Dean will have to find a way to bring mainline Democrats to support a Left-wing agenda, or else he will have to rein in his personal predilections in support of a more moderate platform. I can see either course taking place.
All in all, the horizon has changed, and if nothing else, Wowie Howie promises to add spice to the next four years.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
The Genius of George W. Bush - Restated
****
We are at War. This is an obvious statement, yet a fact lost on a surprising number of people, especially in the media and the Democratic Party. And the war is no small matter, either, but a true World War in every meaningful sense. And it’s not World War Three, either, but number Six.
World War One did not, in fact, begin between Austria and Serbia in 1914 as many people believe, but between the Empires of England and France in the 18th Century. Simply put, France held more territory, with Canada to the North and Louisiana (and in the Caribbean) to the South of England’s little strip on the East Coast of what is now the USA, while England ruled the waves with an unstoppable navy. A series of conflicts during that time all have in common the fight for control of influencing the New World. Spain, the Netherlands, and Russia also took part in the fracas, but were soon forced to accede to a place behind the French/English domination. The First World War ended with the defeat of Napoleon, subsequent as well to Britain’s loss to the United States in what we call “The War of 1812”.
World War Two was an action that, amazingly, many people don’t even recall as a war. Pirates rose from the development of shipping routes, seizing boats the way carjackers take cars today. They reached their heyday in the late 17th Century, and died out as navies began to protect important vessels, but the pirates were canny, and some were able to reach Letters of Marque, agreements to act as ‘privateers’, auxiliary navy ships hired for the harassment of a nation’s trade shipping. This is W2, because Britain hired a lot of these in 1812 to harass the United States, but immediately after the war, entered into negotiations with the US for an alliance to rid the oceans of pirates, especially slave traders. This treaty was especially offensive to Southern states, which considered slavers legitimate shippers of goods, and the treaty therefore a clear example of oppression by the North against the South. During the American Civil War, pirates were again hired by both Britain and France as privateers, but once the war was over, again the American and European governments united to wipe out piracy on the open sea. Between 1875 and 1992, open sea piracy became virtually unknown.
World War Three was the European-based war from 1914 to 1918, though it also sparked the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the White Counter-Revolution of 1920.
World War Four was the truly global conflict, which began with Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1936, and Japan’s invasion of China in 1937, and so convinced Hitler that there was no effective force to stop his own fascist campaigns.
World War Five was the Cold War, which the Left would now like to pretend they fought, though that was not at all the case. WW5 is remarkable for the fact that this was the first war where the entire world could have been destroyed, yet it was managed with relatively little damage and few casualties, given the stakes. The Left in the United States acted as a 5th Column against the Constitution and American values, but fortunately their strength and influence was not enough to gain control of a major political party, until Ronald Reagan had already beaten the Soviets in a masterful handling of economic and military initiatives the Soviets could not possibly match.
We are now engaged in World War Six. It’s a true World War, as Terrorism threatens every nation on the globe. We know this, because of the insidious effect of the Taliban’s control in Afghanistan, and state-sponsored Terrorists holding policy positions in many Middle East governments. Just as Fascism and Communism, in their day, enjoyed support from people who really should have known better, there are millions today who accept Terrorism as a political measure, unaware that this is a diet of poison, with no final result but death. Strangely, while many world leaders oppose Terrorism in theory, few indeed understand the threat of Global Terrorism, and the truly appalling possibilities which would become reality, were WMD to be gained by such groups, or a major government to be controlled by one of them. Fortunately, just as Hitler undid his own opportunities and successes through his own madness, the leaders of the extant major Terrorist groups have blown significant opportunities through their own arrogance and foolishness, but we cannot count on this continuing forever. And just as people had to understand the prescience of Winston Churchill in his crisis, so today people need to recognize that President George W. Bush has the only effective vision and plan and resources and fortitude for this time. This is why Tony Blair sided with Bush, and why world leaders, even as they complain about his methods, hold back from interfering with the mission; they know Bush is doing the hard work, without which we would have seen repeats of 9/11 in Paris and Berlin by now, as well. European leaders are used to doing what looks good in a campaign, but Bush is doing what protects the United States, and by extension, the World.
I bring all this up, because the Democrats still don’t seem to grasp what is going on, and that’s too bad for them. In 1932, Americans sensed the need for drastic change, and went with Franklin Roosevelt. The GOP refused to face this fact, and so lost again in 1936 and 1940. By 1944 the world remained in crisis, and people knew they could depend on FDR, so they kept him in the White House. Republicans understood that sense by then, and rebuilt their party to deal with the new Reality, so that in 1952, they were ready to reclaim some portion of the national leadership. The Democrats today are much like those Republicans in 1933; still in denial, they are unwilling to take the hard steps back to responsible politics, because the early steps would include admitting Dubya was and is right. Until they get that part into their heads and hearts, they will remain noisy and unstable, but they will also remain out of power, unless the Republicans prove greater fools somehow. It’s a losing game, to base your hopes on the notion that your opponent will somehow fail badly enough to make you look good in comparison, but for now that defines the Democrat’s strategy.
But the war continues, with higher stakes than most people know, though many sense that truth. I hope that one day soon, the Democrats will return to sanity, and the United States will again have two strong political parties, devoted to the liberty and freedom and security of her people.
We are at War. This is an obvious statement, yet a fact lost on a surprising number of people, especially in the media and the Democratic Party. And the war is no small matter, either, but a true World War in every meaningful sense. And it’s not World War Three, either, but number Six.
World War One did not, in fact, begin between Austria and Serbia in 1914 as many people believe, but between the Empires of England and France in the 18th Century. Simply put, France held more territory, with Canada to the North and Louisiana (and in the Caribbean) to the South of England’s little strip on the East Coast of what is now the USA, while England ruled the waves with an unstoppable navy. A series of conflicts during that time all have in common the fight for control of influencing the New World. Spain, the Netherlands, and Russia also took part in the fracas, but were soon forced to accede to a place behind the French/English domination. The First World War ended with the defeat of Napoleon, subsequent as well to Britain’s loss to the United States in what we call “The War of 1812”.
World War Two was an action that, amazingly, many people don’t even recall as a war. Pirates rose from the development of shipping routes, seizing boats the way carjackers take cars today. They reached their heyday in the late 17th Century, and died out as navies began to protect important vessels, but the pirates were canny, and some were able to reach Letters of Marque, agreements to act as ‘privateers’, auxiliary navy ships hired for the harassment of a nation’s trade shipping. This is W2, because Britain hired a lot of these in 1812 to harass the United States, but immediately after the war, entered into negotiations with the US for an alliance to rid the oceans of pirates, especially slave traders. This treaty was especially offensive to Southern states, which considered slavers legitimate shippers of goods, and the treaty therefore a clear example of oppression by the North against the South. During the American Civil War, pirates were again hired by both Britain and France as privateers, but once the war was over, again the American and European governments united to wipe out piracy on the open sea. Between 1875 and 1992, open sea piracy became virtually unknown.
World War Three was the European-based war from 1914 to 1918, though it also sparked the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the White Counter-Revolution of 1920.
World War Four was the truly global conflict, which began with Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1936, and Japan’s invasion of China in 1937, and so convinced Hitler that there was no effective force to stop his own fascist campaigns.
World War Five was the Cold War, which the Left would now like to pretend they fought, though that was not at all the case. WW5 is remarkable for the fact that this was the first war where the entire world could have been destroyed, yet it was managed with relatively little damage and few casualties, given the stakes. The Left in the United States acted as a 5th Column against the Constitution and American values, but fortunately their strength and influence was not enough to gain control of a major political party, until Ronald Reagan had already beaten the Soviets in a masterful handling of economic and military initiatives the Soviets could not possibly match.
We are now engaged in World War Six. It’s a true World War, as Terrorism threatens every nation on the globe. We know this, because of the insidious effect of the Taliban’s control in Afghanistan, and state-sponsored Terrorists holding policy positions in many Middle East governments. Just as Fascism and Communism, in their day, enjoyed support from people who really should have known better, there are millions today who accept Terrorism as a political measure, unaware that this is a diet of poison, with no final result but death. Strangely, while many world leaders oppose Terrorism in theory, few indeed understand the threat of Global Terrorism, and the truly appalling possibilities which would become reality, were WMD to be gained by such groups, or a major government to be controlled by one of them. Fortunately, just as Hitler undid his own opportunities and successes through his own madness, the leaders of the extant major Terrorist groups have blown significant opportunities through their own arrogance and foolishness, but we cannot count on this continuing forever. And just as people had to understand the prescience of Winston Churchill in his crisis, so today people need to recognize that President George W. Bush has the only effective vision and plan and resources and fortitude for this time. This is why Tony Blair sided with Bush, and why world leaders, even as they complain about his methods, hold back from interfering with the mission; they know Bush is doing the hard work, without which we would have seen repeats of 9/11 in Paris and Berlin by now, as well. European leaders are used to doing what looks good in a campaign, but Bush is doing what protects the United States, and by extension, the World.
I bring all this up, because the Democrats still don’t seem to grasp what is going on, and that’s too bad for them. In 1932, Americans sensed the need for drastic change, and went with Franklin Roosevelt. The GOP refused to face this fact, and so lost again in 1936 and 1940. By 1944 the world remained in crisis, and people knew they could depend on FDR, so they kept him in the White House. Republicans understood that sense by then, and rebuilt their party to deal with the new Reality, so that in 1952, they were ready to reclaim some portion of the national leadership. The Democrats today are much like those Republicans in 1933; still in denial, they are unwilling to take the hard steps back to responsible politics, because the early steps would include admitting Dubya was and is right. Until they get that part into their heads and hearts, they will remain noisy and unstable, but they will also remain out of power, unless the Republicans prove greater fools somehow. It’s a losing game, to base your hopes on the notion that your opponent will somehow fail badly enough to make you look good in comparison, but for now that defines the Democrat’s strategy.
But the war continues, with higher stakes than most people know, though many sense that truth. I hope that one day soon, the Democrats will return to sanity, and the United States will again have two strong political parties, devoted to the liberty and freedom and security of her people.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Power Players
[][][]
[][]
[]
As you know, I am in the middle of a project I call "Calling Congress", and having sent faxes and/or e-mails to every member of the House and Senate, I'm working on the next steps. Those steps include organizing volunteers to contact their Districts' Representatives and States' Senators, and I am also visiting the web sites of various members, to see if I can glean useful policy and position statements there.
But as anyone who has studied Congress knows, the real power (unless you're the Senate Majority Leaders/Speaker of the House) is in the Committees. And that is where I direct your attention today.
The House of Representatives has twenty "Standing" Committees, plus one "Permanent Select" Committee, which run the 44 House sub-Committees.
The Senate has seventeen "Permanent" Committees, plus two "Select" Committees, plus one "Special" Committee, which run the 68 Senate sub-Committees.
But not all Committees are created equal, and for our purposes, there are twelve which I want to direct attention to. In the Senate, they are the Appropriations, Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Intelligence, and Judiciary Committees. In the House, they are the Armed Services, Appropriations, Homeland Security, International Relations, Judiciary, Intelligence, and Ways and Means Committees. I'm also not going to go into all the members, because these committees are sometimes packed. I do want to note some of the 'celebrities', the names that should ring a bell and indicate the tone of party leadership.
So, starting with the Committees with same-name partners in the other half of the Bi-Cameral Congress, here are some of the names to notice:
APPROPRIATIONS
Senate:
Thad Cochran, Chairman
Robert Byrd, Ranking Member
Arlen Specter, Member
Pete Domenici, Member
Richard Shelby, Member
Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Member
Patrick Leahy, Member
Tom Harkin, Member
Barbara Mikulski, Member
Byron Dorgan, Member
Richard Durbin, Member
House:
Jerry Lewis, Chairman
David R. Obey, Ranking Member
Jesse Jackson (D-Il), Member
HOMELAND SECURITY
Senate:
Susan Collins, Chairman
Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Member
Pete Domenici, Member
John Warner, Member
Mark Dayton, Member
Frank Lautenberg, Member
House:
Christopher Cox, Chairman
Bennie Thompson, Ranking Member
Bobby Jindal, Member
INTELLIGENCE
Senate:
Pat Roberts, Chairman
John D. Rockefeller, Ranking Member
Orrin Hatch, Member
Trent Lott, Member
Chuck Hagel, Member
Dianne Feinstein, Member
Evan Bayh, Member
Barbara Mikulski, Member
House:
Peter Hoekstra, Chairman
Jane Harman, Ranking Member
JUDICIARY
Senate:
Arlen Specter, Chairman
Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member
John Cornyn, Member
Tom Coburn, Member
Edward Kennedy, Member
Joseph Biden, Member
Dianne Feinstein, Member
Charles Schumer, Member
Richard Durbin, Member
House:
James Sensenbrenner, Chairman
Henry Hyde, Member
Lamar Smith, Member
Jeff Flake, Member
Sheila Jackson Lee, Mamber
Robert Wexler, Member
FOREIGN/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Senate:Richard Lugar, Chairman
Joseph Biden, Ranking Member
Chuck Hagel, Member
George Allen, Member
Lamar Alexander, Member
John Sununu, Member
Mel Martinez, Member
Christopher Dodd, Member
John Kerry, Member
Russell Feingold, Member
Barbara Boxer, Member
Barack Obama, Member
House:
Henry Hyde, Chairman
Jeff Flake, Member
Ron Paul, Member
Katherine Harris, Member
Ted Poe, Member
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES
Duncan Hunter, Chairman
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS
Bill Thomas, Chairman
Charles Rangel, Member
Jim McDermott, Member
There they are, the stars the parties count on for legislative leadership. Let's keep them in mind as we discover their positions on the key questions.
[][]
[]
As you know, I am in the middle of a project I call "Calling Congress", and having sent faxes and/or e-mails to every member of the House and Senate, I'm working on the next steps. Those steps include organizing volunteers to contact their Districts' Representatives and States' Senators, and I am also visiting the web sites of various members, to see if I can glean useful policy and position statements there.
But as anyone who has studied Congress knows, the real power (unless you're the Senate Majority Leaders/Speaker of the House) is in the Committees. And that is where I direct your attention today.
The House of Representatives has twenty "Standing" Committees, plus one "Permanent Select" Committee, which run the 44 House sub-Committees.
The Senate has seventeen "Permanent" Committees, plus two "Select" Committees, plus one "Special" Committee, which run the 68 Senate sub-Committees.
But not all Committees are created equal, and for our purposes, there are twelve which I want to direct attention to. In the Senate, they are the Appropriations, Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Intelligence, and Judiciary Committees. In the House, they are the Armed Services, Appropriations, Homeland Security, International Relations, Judiciary, Intelligence, and Ways and Means Committees. I'm also not going to go into all the members, because these committees are sometimes packed. I do want to note some of the 'celebrities', the names that should ring a bell and indicate the tone of party leadership.
So, starting with the Committees with same-name partners in the other half of the Bi-Cameral Congress, here are some of the names to notice:
APPROPRIATIONS
Senate:
Thad Cochran, Chairman
Robert Byrd, Ranking Member
Arlen Specter, Member
Pete Domenici, Member
Richard Shelby, Member
Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Member
Patrick Leahy, Member
Tom Harkin, Member
Barbara Mikulski, Member
Byron Dorgan, Member
Richard Durbin, Member
House:
Jerry Lewis, Chairman
David R. Obey, Ranking Member
Jesse Jackson (D-Il), Member
HOMELAND SECURITY
Senate:
Susan Collins, Chairman
Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Member
Pete Domenici, Member
John Warner, Member
Mark Dayton, Member
Frank Lautenberg, Member
House:
Christopher Cox, Chairman
Bennie Thompson, Ranking Member
Bobby Jindal, Member
INTELLIGENCE
Senate:
Pat Roberts, Chairman
John D. Rockefeller, Ranking Member
Orrin Hatch, Member
Trent Lott, Member
Chuck Hagel, Member
Dianne Feinstein, Member
Evan Bayh, Member
Barbara Mikulski, Member
House:
Peter Hoekstra, Chairman
Jane Harman, Ranking Member
JUDICIARY
Senate:
Arlen Specter, Chairman
Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member
John Cornyn, Member
Tom Coburn, Member
Edward Kennedy, Member
Joseph Biden, Member
Dianne Feinstein, Member
Charles Schumer, Member
Richard Durbin, Member
House:
James Sensenbrenner, Chairman
Henry Hyde, Member
Lamar Smith, Member
Jeff Flake, Member
Sheila Jackson Lee, Mamber
Robert Wexler, Member
FOREIGN/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Senate:Richard Lugar, Chairman
Joseph Biden, Ranking Member
Chuck Hagel, Member
George Allen, Member
Lamar Alexander, Member
John Sununu, Member
Mel Martinez, Member
Christopher Dodd, Member
John Kerry, Member
Russell Feingold, Member
Barbara Boxer, Member
Barack Obama, Member
House:
Henry Hyde, Chairman
Jeff Flake, Member
Ron Paul, Member
Katherine Harris, Member
Ted Poe, Member
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES
Duncan Hunter, Chairman
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS
Bill Thomas, Chairman
Charles Rangel, Member
Jim McDermott, Member
There they are, the stars the parties count on for legislative leadership. Let's keep them in mind as we discover their positions on the key questions.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Calling Congress Update
..[]
This morning, I submitted the final e-mail to contact every member of the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, and the Office of the President and Vice-President of The United States, including the 20-question letter the readers at Polipundit selected.
I will print results as they happen, including responses of note. So far, all I've seen are Auto-replies, though the tone of some of them is interesting.
I will also be visiting the websites of these Congressmen and Senators, to determine their positions on the issues from their posts.
This morning, I submitted the final e-mail to contact every member of the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, and the Office of the President and Vice-President of The United States, including the 20-question letter the readers at Polipundit selected.
I will print results as they happen, including responses of note. So far, all I've seen are Auto-replies, though the tone of some of them is interesting.
I will also be visiting the websites of these Congressmen and Senators, to determine their positions on the issues from their posts.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Iraq is Not Vietnam ... Or America
[][]
[][]
Iraq has held its first free elections, ever. That needs to be said right up front, because that event is the salient point for everything positive to come in the region for the next decade. If you don't understand that essential fact, or if you are still unwilling to accept it for the crucial catalyst it is, don't bother reading the rest of this article, because you just won't get it.
That said, it's important to recognize that mistakes have been made, on both sides of the aisle in U.S. Politics, about what has happened in Iraq, and what it all means to have deposed Saddam Hussein and set up a functional, if as yet unsteady, democratic republic. It's important to observe, as Bill Roggio noted today, that Al Qaeda was unable to stop the election, or even slow it down to any effective degree. But it's also crucial to recognize that the new government of Iraq does not yet have a face; Allawi was the Interim Prime Minister, after all, and even Ghazi al-Yawer is just a temp. Until we know who is running the Sovereign Iraqi government, we can't really say what course that nation is set.
Then again, it would be a great fool, who would think the U.S. is going to just leave Iraq in the hands of an indecisive or mendacious politician; the Marines have bought Iraqi freedom in blood, and the President is of a mind like their own.
That's part of why Iraq is not Vietnam. It never was, actually. Vietnam is an Asian coastal country, was a Soviet vassal state in the North, and was influenced by the Communist government of China, if only in its hatred for it. Vietnam was also abused by the French government which considered it no more than property, a colony in name and a commodity in purpose. The U.S. was restricted by a foolish treaty with France, collaboration with a corrupt indigenous regime, and a people who considered the Americans to be enemies in both intent and actions.
In comparison, the Iraqis recognized the United States as a fair partner, eager for their freedom even more than its own advantage. The U.S. acted with a free hand, and for the noble purpose or expelling a tyrant, and hunting down murderers. Even those Iraqis suspicious of U.S. motives, saw advantage in cooperation with the Marines; the choice was always clear - the old way of Arab cronyism and traditional corruption, or the chance of freedom and self-determination offered by the Americans. The terrorists came from outside the country, as increasingly it became obvious that only Iraqis who hated Americans were the old Baathists who had lost everything.
Of course, there are many other factors to Iraq's condition. For one thing, where Vietnam was a proxy being manipulated by both China and the USSR to take the US military down a peg and establish regional hegemony in the subcontinent, Iraq is not a proxy but extremely vital in its own right. The "War for Oil" people got the idea partly right, but it was the Islamist lust for Iraq's refining capacity which motivated a dozen terrorist groups to establish bases in Iraq, not any corporate greed on America's part; as a reminder, check out gas prices in 2003 and now.
But all of this is beside the point. An appalling number of people do not understand Arab History, but then again, not that many people have a firm grasp of US History. In the case of Iraq, the simplest way to cover the basics, is to touch on the milestones:
* Islam is much more than a religion. Most of the region converted to Islam under Mohammed and his successors in the 7th and 8th Centuries, not only in faith but in government. 'Jihad' was as much regime change as religious expansion. That remains a major influence in Arab politics, as Secular government is largely seen as opposition to Sharia, or Islamic law.
* Following the death of Mohammed in 632 AD, a number of sects rose in dispute over the authority in Islam. This led to a system of Caliphates, a combination of religious and secular authority which was set up on a quasi-national scale.
* In the late 11th Century, an Islamic order of Assassins rose, from which the word itself is derived. The Hashashin originally served one Hassan i Sabbah, who used his religious charisma to dictate murder on demand, especially of his political opponents. The Ismaili (as they were also called) found the use of terror an effective tool to sway governments and influence. This is not only important as an early instance of political terrorism, but it is also important to understand the stature of Baghdad in Islamic commerce and politics; an urban center not only represented a financial resource, but all aspects of life, as merchants found it necessary to travel to the cities, and so did pilgrims on the Haaj, and all manner of nomads. The region of Iraq, therefore, has a long history in the Arab world of influence and trade.
* The Ottoman Empire, which lasted from the 14th through the early 20th Centuries, was an interesting mix of secular and religious authority, with clear divisions between the Mosques and Palaces. It's worth noting that the Ottoman Empire ran the Arab World with relatively little dissent, falling generally to outside interference from Europe. It's not far-fetched to say that the instability which Iraq has known since 1914, was brought about in large part by French and German colonial policies.
* Following World War I, Britain and France found themselves divvying up territory in the Middle East, with Britain drawing the boundaries for Iraq. Britain also attempted to establish a protectorate in Iran, but found its hands full with a rebellion that killed 450 British soldiers and over 10,000 Iraqis in 1920. In short, the artificial boundaries and severing of cultural and tribal ties led to many uprisings, largely by outraged Kurds, until World War 2.
* In World War 2, Iraq was already a major petroleum refining source, and as such was coveted by all parties. If you recall those impressive tank battles, you may recall that it was no coincidence that Rommel and Montgomery were so determined to control that space of territory.
* After World War 2, the U.S. set up governments in a number of places, but pretty much left the Middle East as it had been set up, which is to say, as the various meddlers arranged. Iraq had technically been independent since 1932, but remained under Britain's protection through World War 2. When Britain pulled out troops in 1946, the Soviet Union moved in. Supposedly, the USSR was "protecting" Iran and Iraq from Kurdish uprisings, which also led to Soviet occupation of Iran (albeit briefly; Truman demanded the Soviets leave Iran on threat of atomic bombing, and the Soviets puleld out of Iran, but not Iraq). The Soviets set up a proxy state in Iraq, which lasted in various degrees until the first Gulf War in 1991.
* The Baath Party came to power originally in Syria as a militant Socialist movement, and remains in firm control of that country. The Baathists took control in Iraq in 1963, and a young thug named Saddam Hussein earned his spurs as a torturer and enforcer through the party. Saddam assassinated the figurehead President and took his place in 1979, invading Iran shortly thereafter.
* The U.S. did provide arms to Iraq during the early part of the Iran-Iraq War, but stopped when it was discovered that the Iraqis were using dual-use chemicals to make Chemical Weapons. Bearing in mind the threat posed by the Revolutionary Islamofascists at the time (the 1979-81 U.S. Embassy Hostage siege was a good example of Iran's new style of diplomacy), backing an enemy of radical Islam was not unwise, although the U.S. was quick to close the supplies when the nature of Hussein's tactics became apparent. It's important to recognize, also, that when the U.S. stopped selling weapons to Iraq, the USSR, France, and Germany stepped up their supplies. Those contracts continued to the 2003 invasion.
What this means, in total, is that Iraq has not enjoyed anything like true Sovereignty, much less a representative government. The initial cynicism to the U.S. invasion was understandable, especially given the many promises made in the past. But the Interim government has done a good job so far, and the U.S. forces have done a great job or restoring confidence in basic services. The 72% estimated turnout in the weekend elections proves the courage and hope of the Iraqi people, as well as the absolute determination not to miss this chance at freedom on every level. Protests against regimes in Iran, Syria, and Egypt show that the rest of the Arab world is watching, and learning the same lessons.
President Bush is certainly not perfect. But his purpose in invading Iraq was not at all the selfish or vindictive sort his enemies have claimed, and his success there will be the cornerstone to further accomplishments in th eregion, provided his successor does not lose his nerve or forget the ideals due the people of Iraq.
There is also good cooperation between the different political parties, so far, in Iraq, and there is a good lesson for America's politicians to learn. The one way in which Iraq could end as our war in Vietnam ended, is if the weak and cowardly gain office and run away with the job unfinished. That is how Iraq and America differ. In Iraq, the cowardky wear masks and use guns to subvert Democracy. Here they run for office and use speeches to tear down support for the effort, and pretend solidarity while using slander to hide their corruption.
As Iraq learns Democracy from America, we should in turn learn Courage and Fortitude from Iraq.
Insh'Allah.
[][]
Iraq has held its first free elections, ever. That needs to be said right up front, because that event is the salient point for everything positive to come in the region for the next decade. If you don't understand that essential fact, or if you are still unwilling to accept it for the crucial catalyst it is, don't bother reading the rest of this article, because you just won't get it.
That said, it's important to recognize that mistakes have been made, on both sides of the aisle in U.S. Politics, about what has happened in Iraq, and what it all means to have deposed Saddam Hussein and set up a functional, if as yet unsteady, democratic republic. It's important to observe, as Bill Roggio noted today, that Al Qaeda was unable to stop the election, or even slow it down to any effective degree. But it's also crucial to recognize that the new government of Iraq does not yet have a face; Allawi was the Interim Prime Minister, after all, and even Ghazi al-Yawer is just a temp. Until we know who is running the Sovereign Iraqi government, we can't really say what course that nation is set.
Then again, it would be a great fool, who would think the U.S. is going to just leave Iraq in the hands of an indecisive or mendacious politician; the Marines have bought Iraqi freedom in blood, and the President is of a mind like their own.
That's part of why Iraq is not Vietnam. It never was, actually. Vietnam is an Asian coastal country, was a Soviet vassal state in the North, and was influenced by the Communist government of China, if only in its hatred for it. Vietnam was also abused by the French government which considered it no more than property, a colony in name and a commodity in purpose. The U.S. was restricted by a foolish treaty with France, collaboration with a corrupt indigenous regime, and a people who considered the Americans to be enemies in both intent and actions.
In comparison, the Iraqis recognized the United States as a fair partner, eager for their freedom even more than its own advantage. The U.S. acted with a free hand, and for the noble purpose or expelling a tyrant, and hunting down murderers. Even those Iraqis suspicious of U.S. motives, saw advantage in cooperation with the Marines; the choice was always clear - the old way of Arab cronyism and traditional corruption, or the chance of freedom and self-determination offered by the Americans. The terrorists came from outside the country, as increasingly it became obvious that only Iraqis who hated Americans were the old Baathists who had lost everything.
Of course, there are many other factors to Iraq's condition. For one thing, where Vietnam was a proxy being manipulated by both China and the USSR to take the US military down a peg and establish regional hegemony in the subcontinent, Iraq is not a proxy but extremely vital in its own right. The "War for Oil" people got the idea partly right, but it was the Islamist lust for Iraq's refining capacity which motivated a dozen terrorist groups to establish bases in Iraq, not any corporate greed on America's part; as a reminder, check out gas prices in 2003 and now.
But all of this is beside the point. An appalling number of people do not understand Arab History, but then again, not that many people have a firm grasp of US History. In the case of Iraq, the simplest way to cover the basics, is to touch on the milestones:
* Islam is much more than a religion. Most of the region converted to Islam under Mohammed and his successors in the 7th and 8th Centuries, not only in faith but in government. 'Jihad' was as much regime change as religious expansion. That remains a major influence in Arab politics, as Secular government is largely seen as opposition to Sharia, or Islamic law.
* Following the death of Mohammed in 632 AD, a number of sects rose in dispute over the authority in Islam. This led to a system of Caliphates, a combination of religious and secular authority which was set up on a quasi-national scale.
* In the late 11th Century, an Islamic order of Assassins rose, from which the word itself is derived. The Hashashin originally served one Hassan i Sabbah, who used his religious charisma to dictate murder on demand, especially of his political opponents. The Ismaili (as they were also called) found the use of terror an effective tool to sway governments and influence. This is not only important as an early instance of political terrorism, but it is also important to understand the stature of Baghdad in Islamic commerce and politics; an urban center not only represented a financial resource, but all aspects of life, as merchants found it necessary to travel to the cities, and so did pilgrims on the Haaj, and all manner of nomads. The region of Iraq, therefore, has a long history in the Arab world of influence and trade.
* The Ottoman Empire, which lasted from the 14th through the early 20th Centuries, was an interesting mix of secular and religious authority, with clear divisions between the Mosques and Palaces. It's worth noting that the Ottoman Empire ran the Arab World with relatively little dissent, falling generally to outside interference from Europe. It's not far-fetched to say that the instability which Iraq has known since 1914, was brought about in large part by French and German colonial policies.
* Following World War I, Britain and France found themselves divvying up territory in the Middle East, with Britain drawing the boundaries for Iraq. Britain also attempted to establish a protectorate in Iran, but found its hands full with a rebellion that killed 450 British soldiers and over 10,000 Iraqis in 1920. In short, the artificial boundaries and severing of cultural and tribal ties led to many uprisings, largely by outraged Kurds, until World War 2.
* In World War 2, Iraq was already a major petroleum refining source, and as such was coveted by all parties. If you recall those impressive tank battles, you may recall that it was no coincidence that Rommel and Montgomery were so determined to control that space of territory.
* After World War 2, the U.S. set up governments in a number of places, but pretty much left the Middle East as it had been set up, which is to say, as the various meddlers arranged. Iraq had technically been independent since 1932, but remained under Britain's protection through World War 2. When Britain pulled out troops in 1946, the Soviet Union moved in. Supposedly, the USSR was "protecting" Iran and Iraq from Kurdish uprisings, which also led to Soviet occupation of Iran (albeit briefly; Truman demanded the Soviets leave Iran on threat of atomic bombing, and the Soviets puleld out of Iran, but not Iraq). The Soviets set up a proxy state in Iraq, which lasted in various degrees until the first Gulf War in 1991.
* The Baath Party came to power originally in Syria as a militant Socialist movement, and remains in firm control of that country. The Baathists took control in Iraq in 1963, and a young thug named Saddam Hussein earned his spurs as a torturer and enforcer through the party. Saddam assassinated the figurehead President and took his place in 1979, invading Iran shortly thereafter.
* The U.S. did provide arms to Iraq during the early part of the Iran-Iraq War, but stopped when it was discovered that the Iraqis were using dual-use chemicals to make Chemical Weapons. Bearing in mind the threat posed by the Revolutionary Islamofascists at the time (the 1979-81 U.S. Embassy Hostage siege was a good example of Iran's new style of diplomacy), backing an enemy of radical Islam was not unwise, although the U.S. was quick to close the supplies when the nature of Hussein's tactics became apparent. It's important to recognize, also, that when the U.S. stopped selling weapons to Iraq, the USSR, France, and Germany stepped up their supplies. Those contracts continued to the 2003 invasion.
What this means, in total, is that Iraq has not enjoyed anything like true Sovereignty, much less a representative government. The initial cynicism to the U.S. invasion was understandable, especially given the many promises made in the past. But the Interim government has done a good job so far, and the U.S. forces have done a great job or restoring confidence in basic services. The 72% estimated turnout in the weekend elections proves the courage and hope of the Iraqi people, as well as the absolute determination not to miss this chance at freedom on every level. Protests against regimes in Iran, Syria, and Egypt show that the rest of the Arab world is watching, and learning the same lessons.
President Bush is certainly not perfect. But his purpose in invading Iraq was not at all the selfish or vindictive sort his enemies have claimed, and his success there will be the cornerstone to further accomplishments in th eregion, provided his successor does not lose his nerve or forget the ideals due the people of Iraq.
There is also good cooperation between the different political parties, so far, in Iraq, and there is a good lesson for America's politicians to learn. The one way in which Iraq could end as our war in Vietnam ended, is if the weak and cowardly gain office and run away with the job unfinished. That is how Iraq and America differ. In Iraq, the cowardky wear masks and use guns to subvert Democracy. Here they run for office and use speeches to tear down support for the effort, and pretend solidarity while using slander to hide their corruption.
As Iraq learns Democracy from America, we should in turn learn Courage and Fortitude from Iraq.
Insh'Allah.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Liar's Letter
.
I got a letter in the mail Saturday fromCommissar Mayor Bill White, a taxpayer-funded boast by His Hypocrisance about what a great job he is doing so far. This is normal in politicians, but it still seems to me appropo for a translation in common parlance.
White is a Democrat who, savvy in such matters, has ducked that fact during his campaign to be Mayor, pretending a la senator Kerry that he has no record to consider, except that in White's case the ruse worked, and many people elected a man with a resume comprised largely of White-Out.
Bill White is a career Democrat who ran as a regular guy, hiding his work for outgoingScoundrel Mayor Lee Brown, and former President Bill Clinton. The ability to raise millions from Liberal Special-Interest Groups should have been a wake-up call, but it wasn't heard by enough people.
White's letter begins; "Andrea and I took a risk when citizens from all backgrounds helped us mount an uphill campaign to serve you as Mayor. But Houston was worth it."
Ahem. It's a bad sign when the first lie shows up in the first sentence. White spent $8.6 Million to become Mayor, and his press exposure was always that of the front-runner. The candidates with the real "uphill campaign" were anyone not named White.
White goes on; "We had bold plans to get our economy and traffic moving, make City Hall more responsive and efficient, and improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods. After a year of hard work, you know Houston is on the move."
Uh-huh, yeah, sure. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the Mayor has done anything to improve traffic, business, or accountability. The expensive train that voters rejected twice before City Council went ahead anyway, has made a name for itself, though not the sort the Mayor would brag about, and Houston is #6 on the list of cities in the nation with the worst rush-hour traffic jams. As for Business, I have not seen any rush of companies moving their Headquarters to Houston, and as for Accountability, the thuggish methods used to impose the new SafeClear program on citizens without any sort of referendum or debate in advance, and an Orwellian plan to replace cops with cameras at street intersections, again proves the Mayor's claims false.
The Mayor: "I write to share some highlights of this past year and express excitement about what we can do in 2005."
OK, I will admit this will sound cynical, but whenever a politician gets excited, that screams "Taxes!" to me.
The Mayor: "Last year our region added over 20,000 new jobs, aided by City Hall's aggressive efforts to recruit new businesses and remove barriers to the expansion of existing businesses. This helps us preserve Houston's place as America's great city of opportunity."
Many grains of salt, please, that's a lot to expect us to swallow. Let's start with the obvious: 20,000 new jobs in a "region" of over 2.16 million workers is a growth rate of 0.9%, well below anything I would brag about. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Mayor White had anything to do with business expansion in Houston. Taxes did not go down, City Hall passed no ordinances to make Houston more business-friendly, and I am unaware of even one instance in 2004 where City Hall removed a "barrier to the expansion of existing businesses". In other words, the good Mayor is still lying.
Mayor Pinnochio: "We've made City Hall more efficient and responsive by linking the pay of city employees to performance, reforming our pensions and enacting a disciplined budget which cut property tax rates."
Lie, lie, and lie. First off, while linking pay to performance is a good idea, the Mayor did not apply these rules across the board, and did not touch a single Councilman's or Mayoral aide or staff member. The pensions "reformed" were simply a matter of breaking old promises to City employees, which also touched off a rash of early retirements by firemen and policemen who would lose benefits if they stayed in. It's worth noting that the Mayor did not replace these firemen and policemen, instead closing Police Academy classes and Fire Houses in 2004. How anyone could consider that responsible is beyond me. As for cutting property tax rates, that simply did not happen. The Mayor lined up the Council to lower the growth of Property Taxes, and that in a measure which is likely to affect less than 5% of property owners, and which still allows Property Taxes to grow, and well beyond the rate of inflation.
Mayor Quimby: "You know I have fought hard to reduce the traffic nightmare by re-timing our traffic signals and speeding up road construction. And we’ve made tough decisions to enhance mobility by an improving SafeClear program, to make our freeways safer and beat gridlock."
The only person who could possibly claim that with a straight face, is a man who not only doesn't drive himself to work, but whose limousine is equipped with a flashing light and siren to ignore inconvenient traffic conditions. Here's what I know, as a commuter. In 2003, it took me an average of 48 minutes to drive to work. In 2004, it took an average of 51 minutes. I have yet to see a light in Houston timed to make traffic easier; the light that goes green at one intersection always leads to a red light at the next intersection. I suspect the City has accommodated the Mayor, but not the people. As for speeding up road construction, I'm seeing more orange barrels now than ever before, and I doubt I'm alone. As for SafeClear, how anyone can claim that a program enacted without a public vote or debate, which has already outraged thousands of citizens and led not only to threatened lawsuits by Houstonians, but also proposed State legislation to outlaw Houston imposing itself on state-owned roads, is the sheerest arrogance to me.
Mayor Whitewash goes on, but it would only serve to induce nausea in the reader; I was certainly sickened by the Mayor' idea of responsible government.
The strong of stomach can read the whole State of the City Address (or, 'I have a Greed' to be more aptly named) in the City website. But to all those coming up on a Mayoral election in the future, I'd say be warned - a candidate who hides his past is hiding his plans.
I got a letter in the mail Saturday from
White is a Democrat who, savvy in such matters, has ducked that fact during his campaign to be Mayor, pretending a la senator Kerry that he has no record to consider, except that in White's case the ruse worked, and many people elected a man with a resume comprised largely of White-Out.
Bill White is a career Democrat who ran as a regular guy, hiding his work for outgoing
White's letter begins; "Andrea and I took a risk when citizens from all backgrounds helped us mount an uphill campaign to serve you as Mayor. But Houston was worth it."
Ahem. It's a bad sign when the first lie shows up in the first sentence. White spent $8.6 Million to become Mayor, and his press exposure was always that of the front-runner. The candidates with the real "uphill campaign" were anyone not named White.
White goes on; "We had bold plans to get our economy and traffic moving, make City Hall more responsive and efficient, and improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods. After a year of hard work, you know Houston is on the move."
Uh-huh, yeah, sure. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the Mayor has done anything to improve traffic, business, or accountability. The expensive train that voters rejected twice before City Council went ahead anyway, has made a name for itself, though not the sort the Mayor would brag about, and Houston is #6 on the list of cities in the nation with the worst rush-hour traffic jams. As for Business, I have not seen any rush of companies moving their Headquarters to Houston, and as for Accountability, the thuggish methods used to impose the new SafeClear program on citizens without any sort of referendum or debate in advance, and an Orwellian plan to replace cops with cameras at street intersections, again proves the Mayor's claims false.
The Mayor: "I write to share some highlights of this past year and express excitement about what we can do in 2005."
OK, I will admit this will sound cynical, but whenever a politician gets excited, that screams "Taxes!" to me.
The Mayor: "Last year our region added over 20,000 new jobs, aided by City Hall's aggressive efforts to recruit new businesses and remove barriers to the expansion of existing businesses. This helps us preserve Houston's place as America's great city of opportunity."
Many grains of salt, please, that's a lot to expect us to swallow. Let's start with the obvious: 20,000 new jobs in a "region" of over 2.16 million workers is a growth rate of 0.9%, well below anything I would brag about. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Mayor White had anything to do with business expansion in Houston. Taxes did not go down, City Hall passed no ordinances to make Houston more business-friendly, and I am unaware of even one instance in 2004 where City Hall removed a "barrier to the expansion of existing businesses". In other words, the good Mayor is still lying.
Mayor Pinnochio: "We've made City Hall more efficient and responsive by linking the pay of city employees to performance, reforming our pensions and enacting a disciplined budget which cut property tax rates."
Lie, lie, and lie. First off, while linking pay to performance is a good idea, the Mayor did not apply these rules across the board, and did not touch a single Councilman's or Mayoral aide or staff member. The pensions "reformed" were simply a matter of breaking old promises to City employees, which also touched off a rash of early retirements by firemen and policemen who would lose benefits if they stayed in. It's worth noting that the Mayor did not replace these firemen and policemen, instead closing Police Academy classes and Fire Houses in 2004. How anyone could consider that responsible is beyond me. As for cutting property tax rates, that simply did not happen. The Mayor lined up the Council to lower the growth of Property Taxes, and that in a measure which is likely to affect less than 5% of property owners, and which still allows Property Taxes to grow, and well beyond the rate of inflation.
Mayor Quimby: "You know I have fought hard to reduce the traffic nightmare by re-timing our traffic signals and speeding up road construction. And we’ve made tough decisions to enhance mobility by an improving SafeClear program, to make our freeways safer and beat gridlock."
The only person who could possibly claim that with a straight face, is a man who not only doesn't drive himself to work, but whose limousine is equipped with a flashing light and siren to ignore inconvenient traffic conditions. Here's what I know, as a commuter. In 2003, it took me an average of 48 minutes to drive to work. In 2004, it took an average of 51 minutes. I have yet to see a light in Houston timed to make traffic easier; the light that goes green at one intersection always leads to a red light at the next intersection. I suspect the City has accommodated the Mayor, but not the people. As for speeding up road construction, I'm seeing more orange barrels now than ever before, and I doubt I'm alone. As for SafeClear, how anyone can claim that a program enacted without a public vote or debate, which has already outraged thousands of citizens and led not only to threatened lawsuits by Houstonians, but also proposed State legislation to outlaw Houston imposing itself on state-owned roads, is the sheerest arrogance to me.
Mayor Whitewash goes on, but it would only serve to induce nausea in the reader; I was certainly sickened by the Mayor' idea of responsible government.
The strong of stomach can read the whole State of the City Address (or, 'I have a Greed' to be more aptly named) in the City website. But to all those coming up on a Mayoral election in the future, I'd say be warned - a candidate who hides his past is hiding his plans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
