Category — Gambling

Every new day brings another massive Patrick spending proposal:

The state’s decrepit park system would be spruced up, and vast tracts of open space would be preserved from development over the next five years, under a $1.4 billion bond proposal filed yesterday by Governor Deval Patrick.

But his budget guru is advertising a huge budget deficit without expanding state services:

Patrick’s top budget aide, Leslie Kirwan, has said that with no expansion in services next year, the state is already facing a shortfall of between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion.

So what’s Patrick’s game here? The state budget, already bursting at the seams, desperately needs Weight Watchers, but Patrick keeps feeding it fries. It doesn’t make a lot of sense until you consider the governor’s casino obsession:

Gov. Deval Patrick is eyeing an aggressive push to include hundreds of millions of dollars of casino revenue in his budget next month, a move that would boost pressure on lawmakers to approve casinos in a tight financial year.

You can never totally rule out the possibility that Patrick’s just a total moonbat, but it looks like he’s fomenting a budget crisis to force the legislature’s hand on the casino licensing issue. Every new dollar increases the pressure on the legislature to take the quick fix and support Patrick’s plan. No wonder relations are chilly between the corner office and the legislature. They can’t be real happy as Patrick forces them to play bad cop by making responsible decisions.

Is anybody buying Governor Patrick’s story that he carefully studied the effects of casino gambling on the state before deciding we needed 3 of them? Apparently, the Boston Globe isn’t buying it either:

Advisers to Gov. Deval Patrick urged him to enlist outside experts to check estimates about jobs and tax revenues related to bringing casinos to Massachusetts, which Patrick didn’t do before unveiling a plan to license three resort casinos.

This decision was a done deal. Patrick needed a revenue source that didn’t look like new taxes to justify kicking off the billions in additional spending he’s proposing. But, like most things in the Patrick administration, the numbers simply don’t add up.

Taking Patrick’s estimates at face value, the state gains $5 billion over 10 years. However, the governor already has 2.5 times that proposed in additional spending. And don’t forget that the state was $1 billion over budget last year. That gap was closed by dipping into the rainy day fund with little effort to control or cut spending, so expect that budget gap to keep growing.

Of course, the governor will point to the estimated 5,000 jobs created by these resorts, but last time I checked, casinos weren’t paying their hotel staff and dealers six figure salaries. This means a lot of those employees will be partaking in MA programs like the Health Connector along with adding their children to the state’s educational rolls. My guess is those costs aren’t reflected in the study or poorly understood. Additionally, the high cost of state government and social programs here makes direct comparisons with other states very tricky indeed.

When you add it all up, the $200 the governor is proposing as a rebate on your property taxes, assuming you qualify, is still going to get eaten alive by the tsunami of spending he wants to kick off. Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but the taxpayers are still going to get slammed.

Governor Deval Patrick says he’s still weighing the casino gambling issue after initially stating the decision would be made after Labor Day. My guess is the governor is in a bit of a pickle. He’s made big ticket promises on everything from beach cleaning equipment to billions for bridges, infrastructure, biotech grants, and property tax relief. Casinos seem like the natural remedy for a governor who never met a spending proposal he didn’t like. However, Indian casinos are not going to produce the same revenue stream a partnership with private industry might. And with 2 federally recognized tribes threatening to build, there won’t be a lot of room for private industry.

Maybe stalling will induce the tribes to up the state’s take, but there’s also tremendous pressure to “diversify” revenue streams. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out in the long-term.

Unnamed players allege corruption in professional tennis

Match-fixing, some of which is linked to internet gambling, is not uncommon in professional tennis, according to a damaging report in L’Equipe on Thursday.

Two elite players made the claims, under anonymity, in an interview with the French sports daily claiming they have witnessed matches being “thrown” and that they had personally been offered bribes. [snip]

What a devastating occurrence for the bottled water sipping set. The outing of Billie Jean, Martina caught carting an unlicensed firearm and Lendl fixing his teeth with a pipe wrench proved to be exceptionally déclassé. Now this bit of hooliganism will be the chatter of the tony Hamptons. First figure skating, now tennis, next will be the fouling of synchronized swimming. I can’t watch anymore.

Absolutely no shame on the part of the Libs however, the diversity crowd actually believe this is moral equivalence since they attend these matches solely to strengthen their neck muscles.

Refs on the take in bulimia ball (run down the court, throw it up), QB’s with dog fighting clubs and the Red Sox in first place, all disgraces of the first order. At least the Yankees shamed them in this series.

 Finally, the ground crew has a problem. (See Photo)

Oh, the humanity of it, all lost!

Middleborough approved the Mashpee Wampanoag casino last weekend by a vote of 2,387-1,335. But did the town get a good deal? The negotiations and approval for this billion dollar project moved at the same speed that the town might have approved another Dunkin Donuts franchise. It’s unlikely that all the impacts are truly contained in the guaranteed $11 million dollar payment.

And besides, isn’t the true benefit for the town additional revenue to provide property tax relief and better services? Let’s say the town nets a couple of million after expenses because I could see the children of casino workers significantly driving up the school budget. That’s not a lot of additional revenue to provide property tax relief or additional services in exchange for fundamentally changing the fabric of your town.

Conventional wisdom says a casino should be an economic boon for the area. However, Atlantic City casinos haven’t done much at all for the surrounding community, so I’m not sure that assumption necessarily holds true.

People should be allowed to gamble. I’ve always thought the state’s prohibition was hypocritical given its reliance on lottery revenues. But I’m not sure the town of Middleborough will benefit like they expect to under this plan.

Illegal immigrants to get ID cards in Connecticut

NEW HAVEN, Connecticut (Reuters) - As many U.S. cities and states arrest illegal immigrants in raids and toughen laws against them, a Connecticut city is offering to validate them under a controversial, first-in-the-nation ID card program.Starting Tuesday, New Haven will offer illegal immigrants municipal identification cards that allow access to city services such as libraries and a chance to open bank accounts. [snip]

North Carolina-based Americans for Legal Immigration PAC has circulated a flier in 40 states urging illegal workers to move to New Haven, said its president William Gheen.

“Maybe New Haven needs to learn, if they want the illegals, then they’ll get the illegals,” he said.

His flier, in English and Spanish, says: “Come to New Haven CT for sanctuary. Bring your friends and family members quickly.” [snip]

Fatima, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, said she is eager to apply for the card. “The ID will help me because it’s a way to be in this country and get people to know who you are, especially for people who crossed the border and lost their papers,” she said. “I feel safe here in New Haven.”

I want one of these cards; imagine, opening a bank account without a Social Security number. All sorts of income can go into this “tax sheltered” register; gambling winnings, off the books earnings and other “gray” funds.

Every WOOP (without official papers) gets official baptism in the Church of Social Ecstasy.

It’s time to lose my papers.

The state’s federally recognized Indian tribes have certainly shifted the casino debate.  The Aquinnah Wampanoag announced intentions to build a casino if their distant cousins the Mashpee Wampanoag gain approval.  Federal law mandates that both tribes be treated equally, so approval for one Indian casino is instant approval for the other.

Now here’s where it gets interesting because the Aquinnah Wampanoag own 500 acres on Martha’s Vineyard.  But guess who won’t let them build a casino: 

He said that locating a casino on the tribe’s 500 acres on Martha’s Vineyard is not feasible because of the opposition the tribe is likely to encounter on the island.

Just like the Cape Wind Project, helping out the “oppressed” Indians and environment is great as long as it doesn’t inconvenience the Vineyard’s trust funders. 

I thought this headline and the quote that follows were quite amusing:

Some worry smoking ban would force them to kick bingo habit

CONCORD, N.H. –A proposed ban on smoking in bars and restaurants has some smokers worried they’ll have to kick their bingo habit.

Players with ink daubers in one hand and cigarettes in the other are a common site at bingo halls across the state. But many fear the smoking ban under consideration by the Legislature will end that practice.

“I love to gamble. I love to smoke when I’m gambling,” said Mae Caskins, a retired police officer from Laconia who plays four nights a week. “But I’m going to have give it up. I’m not going to sit some place for four or five hours when I can’t smoke.”

Way to go New Hampshire. Your hard work will finally get Mae Caskins to kick that nasty Bingo habit.

Well it’s looking to be another amusing and exciting election year here in PRM, as Massachusetts voters reaffirm the label in results from the latest polling:

In a poll taken last week by UNH Survey Center for the Boston Globe (gee, what happened to Lou DiNatale’s work?), a majority of Massachusetts voters said they were in favor of slot machines at race tracks and would be more inclined to vote for a gubernatorial candidate who favored allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children. This is certainly not going to detract from the impression around the country that we are, um, progressive.

The two issues were highlighted, one may presume, because a slot machine bill that will determine the future of the racing business is pending in the legislature, and adoptions by gays was an issue that flared last month after the Globe reported that the state’s four Catholic bishops were planning to ask the state for permission to exclude same-sex couples as adoptive parents in adoptions by Catholic Charities, the church’s social service agency.

Of course, in the meantime, Catholic Charities announced that they would be getting out of the business.

Here are some interesting results from the polling that say much about our citizens:

–Nearly a third of all respondents said they had traveled outside Massachusetts in the past year specifically to visit a casino or gaming facility

–Democrats, women, and voters with no religious preference were more likely to say they would prefer a candidate who supported adoptions by gays, while Republicans, those with a high school education, older voters, and blacks were more likely to say they would support a candidate who opposed them.

–Voters under age 35, Republicans, and residents of Central Massachusetts — who live closest to the two big Connecticut casinos, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods — were the most likely to have visited a casino.

–Poll respondents who voted for Romney in 2002 were more likely to support a gubernatorial candidate who supported gay adoptions than one who didn’t.

–Catholic respondents (about half of the poll’s respondents) who said they would support gay adoption outnumbered opponents by 46% to 26%.

The one piece of this puzzle I find intriguing is that blacks were more likely to support a candidate who opposed gay adoption. With two Democrats running for Governor who support the idea, this is what’s called “cross-pressuring the base.”

That might matter elsewhere, but with a Republican candidate who supports abortion, gay marriage and gay adoption, the party won’t be looking for huge increases in black voter support this fall.

In one of the Big Screen’s finest works, Captain Renault (Claude Raines) bursts into Casablanca with the purpose of shutting down Rick’s (Humphrey Bogart) operation. The following exchange occurs between Rick and the Captain:

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.

In the finest spirit of such hypocrisy, here is a bit of local news that comes as absolutely no surprise to me or any number of those in the political trenches here in Massachusetts:

Representative Martin T. Meehan has gained national exposure in recent years as a champion of efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics. Now, the Lowell Democrat is poised to achieve a new distinction: He is days away from becoming the only House member in the nation with a campaign war chest that tops $5 million, with an eye on a possible run for the Senate….

…that a representative who has been at the vanguard of campaign finance reform has the largest campaign bank account in the House speaks to the huge advantages of incumbency, said Celia Wexler, vice president for advocacy at Common Cause, a government watchdog group.

I have never been one to agree much with anything Common Cause has to say (I think my legislative rating with them was around 15%), but ol’ Celia speaks da troot.

For his part, the Meely-mouthed Meehan comes glibly to his own defense:

Meehan, 49, said he agrees that elections have become too expensive, but notes that his colleagues on Capitol Hill have shown no appetite to embrace a system that would replace big-money politics with publicly financed campaigns. Until the system changes, he said, there’s no choice but to aggressively raise money to stay in Washington. He would almost certainly have to raise millions more to run for the Senate.

”Passing landmark campaign-finance legislation does not mean you raise the white flag and give up seeking higher office,” Meehan said. ”The intent was never to reduce the overall amount of money being spent, but to get people to run for office with smaller contributions.”

Interesting explanation. See, less than a month ago, Meehan joined his colleagues McCain, Feingold and Shays in submitting a brief to the United States Supreme Court in defense of the State of Vermont’s legislative proposal to do just that. Their principal argument was thus stated:

VERMONT’S CONTRIBUTION LIMITS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN SHRINK MISSOURI AND IN LIGHT OF THE DEFERENCE OWED TO THE LEGISLATIVE AND ADJUDICATIVE FINDINGS OF RECORD

Of course, this isn’t the first, or most egregious, example of political fraud to be perpetrated by the smarmy Meehan. That would be his well publicized about-face on his pledged to serve no more than four terms in the House, made when he was first running for Congress in 1992 against incumbent Chester Atkins. At that time, he avidly embraced self-imposed term limits, “railing against career politicians in Washington.” In 1995, he went so far as to write a “letter of resignation” instructing the House clerk to remove his name from the congressional record if he won a fifth term. As he rode this reform horse into his second term, he bravely held forth on the reasons for his support of this essential reform:

Furthermore, I do not believe that term limits alone will suffice to make every election cycle more competitive. For the ten years during which they would be eligible to run for reelection under H.J. Res. 2, incumbents would still be magnets for lobbyist dollars, because only they could cast meaningful votes on the future of programs dear to organized constituencies. Incumbents would also continue to dominate media coverage, not only because they are usually able to raise more money than challengers to pay for campaign commercials, but also because their actions as legislators will inevitably be the subject of nightly news programs and daily newspaper stories throughout their tenures. And term limits would do nothing to eliminate the franking privilege available to members of Congress, which enables them to communicate their opinions to constituents in an unchallenged format. Only comprehensive campaign reform can address the problem of incumbent advantage, the phenomenon which is most responsible for the public’s poor opinion of our current political system.

Unconcerned that his prescience would hold to be true even in his own case, in 2000 Meehan changed his mind, and when faced by the press, had this to say:

“I made an announcement over a year ago that I would be running,” said Congressman Meehan, 43. “Look, I can’t respond to every ridiculous assessment made. I changed my mind. I made a mistake. I’ve decided to let the people decide. If the people don’t like what I am doing, they’ll throw me out.”

That was quite a bit different than what he had to say in 1995 after the Republican controlled House defeated a term-limit amendment:

When term limits were defeated in 1995, Meehan was livid. “The whole exercise was nothing more than a big political show designed to confuse people into thinking that House Republicans really support term limits … I have always been skeptical of the legislators who claim they are for term limits but have been in office for 15 or 20 years. The best test of any politician’s credibility on term limits is whether they are willing to put their careers where their mouths are and limit their own service.”

Apparently that test does not apply to him, but that is the best test of any politician — whether he believes that the rules only apply to others. Here it is clear that Marty fails.

This eyebrow-raising news also comes after the embarrassing news that (so soon before the news of his fundraising prowess should come to light) his own Chief of Staff admitted that he had deleted “unflattering references” to his broken pledge from his Wikipedia profile. What I find interesting about this is that there has been ZERO follow-up with the Congressman, as in, for instance, this question:

“Congressman, your Chief of Staff, Matt Vogel, has admitting to overseeing the deletion of truthful but unflattering facts about your public record from the Wikipedia website. Did you have any knowledge in advance that he intended to do this?”

I’d like an answer to that question — not because I think I’d get the truth, but because it’s always fun to watch a weasel squirm.

Democrats have been viciously attacking the war in Iraq and pushing for a withdrawal of American troops for months now. Well, last night Republicans finally found their spine and forced Democrats in the House of Representatives to put their money where there mouth is by making them vote for or against an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

The result was a nearly unanimous vote, 403-3, to keep American troops in Iraq. Once again Democrats have been shown to be hypocrites who have no policy of their own other than criticizing what Republicans do.

Congratulations to House Republicans, especially Rep. J.D. Hayworth, for finally fighting back. Democrats can not be allowed to grandstand over the war any longer. Our troops deserve better, especially from congressmen who voted to send them in to harms way and now want to pull the rug out from under them.

Here is a taste of what some other bloggers are saying (in no particular order) about last night’s vote:

Rantingprofs:

I’m sorry the debate last night apparently got ugly, but I’m not at all sorry that the Republicans forced that vote. I think that vote was absolutely essential.

Without a vote, with the amount of attention Murtha’s idea was getting, it was a live thing, a real option, “divorce talk,” to refer back to an earlier post. It was being discussed as a serious proposal even though everyone knew it really wasn’t, and the longer it was treated that way the more damage it was doing. The more credibility and legitimacy it was given, the more damage it would do to troop morale, the more seriously it would be treated by the Iraqis.

The Iraqis are gambling everything on our word that this time we’ll stand by them, all the way to the end. If they see an idea like this treated seriously, what are they supposed to think? Why should they continue to risk their lives standing in line at recruit stations, not to mention standing down the bad guys, (much less risk their families’ lives doing so), why should they risk their lives working with or for us, or giving us tips, or helping us in any way — or going to vote — if they start believing we aren’t really serious? They don’t need to join the other side, but it sure might be time to do what many of the smart ones did during the Saddam time — put their heads down and try not to get noticed.

No, that vote was no “stunt” and it certainly wasn’t playing politics. It was calling people out and forcing them to say where they stood. It was lancing a rhetorical boil before it festered.

Polipundit:

Some thoughts on the Murtha madness.

First, Democrats have truly gone insane. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Democrats lost the 2002 elections arguably because of Iraq. They lost even bigger in 2004, again arguably because of Iraq. Now they’re determined to lose the 2006 elections because of Iraq.

Second, why couldn’t Murtha have had his epiphany a month ago? It would have yielded huge GOP victories in the November 8 elections.

Third, Jean Schmidt: I’ve written some mean things about her - “Hackett was a much better candidate than the uninspired, RINO Schmidt.” After yesterday’s magnificent performance, I take it all back. Will you marry me, Jean?

Fourth, Michael Moore: Democrats are all up in arms because Murtha was compared to Moore. But Michael Moore is a proud Democrat, and Democrats are proud of him. Senate Democrats trooped to the premier of Fahrenheit 9/11, one Senate Democrat and one House Democrat made cameos in the movie, and Moore was given pride of place next to Jimmuh, the killer-rabbit grappler, at John Kerry’s nominating convention. Democrats can’t have it both ways: If they lie with Moore, they can expect to get fleas.

Fifth, to the Kos Kidz: Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah. Your leaders are true cowards. Not only do they want to cut and run from Iraq; they’re too cowardly to say so on the record. Even Senate Republicans have more spine than that.

Hugh Hewitt:

Many Democrats were emotionally undon by the exercise of having to confront their own rhetoric, and the anti-war left must be stunned this morning: Only three votes? All that work? All those marches? All those posts at the fever swamp bulletin board? For three votes?

The Dems have more excuses than a teenager: It wasn’t the real Murtha resolution; it’s a terrible political trick; I will not participate in the assault on Congressman Murtha etc, etc, etc.

But the talk around the turkey this week should review that the elections in 2002, 2004 and the vote on Friday night in the House underscore the county is committed to victory in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and everywhere else the GWOT is being waged. That talk should also dwell on the profound hypocrisy of the left and its Congressional representatives, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” They only believe what they believe when the country as a whole isn’t watching. Supermen on the web, when Congress assmebled they went into their phonebooths/cloakrooms and came out as Clark Kent.

Tom Bevan at the RCP Blog:

Let’s recap what happened last night. After months of publicly berating President Bush as a liar over pre-war intel and after invoking a rarely used rule to shut down the Senate two weeks ago, Democrats are crying foul because….? Because Republicans challenged them to stop trying to have it both ways on Iraq after a leading, well-respected member of their party came out and called for the immediate withdrawal of troops.

Did the resolution contain the language the most Democrats would have liked? No. But politics ain’t beanbag (which the Dems have shown by the examples listed above) and the bottom line is that you have to win elections if you want to control the process.

That being said, you’d have to be a fool to believe there are only three Democrats in the House who support the language of the resolution offered last night to bring the troops home immediately. At the top of the list is Nancy Pelosi who, instead of voting her conscience and representing her constituents, decided to play victim and accuse Republicans of “politicizing the war” - something she’s been doing non-stop for more than two years now.

Wanting to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq doesn’t make you a coward. What does make you a coward is when you truly believe we should get our troops out of Iraq immediately, you have a chance to vote for doing exactly that, and you choose not to because you fear the political consequences of being on record revealing your position to the public. This was not a vote on some obscure provision of the budget, it was the most supremely important subject on which members of Congress have the privilege and duty to vote.

So hats off to Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York for having the courage to vote what they really believe. And shame on those who didn’t.

Blue State Conservatives:

Democrats would rather be wrong about the war, wrong about how they “support” our troops, and lie about supposedly being duped with the same evidence that the President had, than to be exposed for having the same viewpoint as our President or anyone in the GOP. It’s childish. It’s loathsome. It’s playing politics at the expense of our troops and the Dems should be ashamed of themselves. And yes, their actions are rather unpatriotic..

It seems to me that this debate should have been a rather calm and straight forward. Obviously the vast majority of the Democrats agreed with the Republicans on this issue. We should have seen a debate with a lot of heads nodding and shaking of hands right?

The dems are angry because they wanted to continue their attacks against bush without ever having to be accountable for their HONEST opinions. Now they are forced to explain why they voted to stay the course and not withdrawal. Perfect. The republicans have changed the debate. The ball is firmly in the dems court now.

Confederate Yankee:

The Democrats pulled a shrewdly calculated stunt by trotting out a hero to try to undercut the White House while the president was out of the country. House Democrats had estimated—and no one could blame them—that a Republican House, so flustered by the Democrat’s last cheap stunt, would likely drop the ball again leaving the Republicans looking awkward and foolish as Congress headed into a long holiday break.

But the Democratic plan backfired, and backfired horribly. Instead of folding as they typically do, the Republicans grew a spine, and embarrassed the neo-copperheads into voting against their own treachery in a resounding and humiliating defeat.

Kevin Aylward at Wizbang:

Public opinion polls aren’t the issue - no one is denying that America suffers from a case of war fatigue - the issue is that Democrats are have reached the point where they’ve overplayed their hand. They’ve painted themselves into a tactically loosing corner of calling for withdrawal that politically even they can’t support. Of course they figured the moribund Republicans would ignore their rantings as they had done in the past.

Democrats must know that while public opinion (as measured by polls) is is fickle and easily influenced by the media (see the Bush administration’s success in convincing the masses that Social Security was a “crisis”), Americans have absolutely no stomach for quitters.

For too long Republicans have been playing “prevent defense,” which as any football fan will tell you only prevents you from winning. Perhaps this week is a signal that instead of dropping into a two deep zone, Republicans are going to play man to man and throw in the occasional bum rush blitz. While they’re at it they might want to drop the run out the clock ground game and take to an aerial attack. If they get ahead, Republicans would be wise to play the BCS game and run up the score every chance they get…

The message is clear - “finish the job” or “cut and run.” There’s no middle ground.

Guess which side of that equation takes home the trophy?

Right-Wing & Right Minded:

Sure, they walk the walk but when it comes time to talk the talk the Left shows their true colors. For two years they’ve been bitching and moaning about how going into Iraq was wrong. How we should bring the troops home. How they’re dying for a lie. And when they finally get the chance to vote on it, they back down. The vote was 403-3 against a pullout. Only three Dems stood their ground. I actually commend them for that. They stood by their convictions while the rest tucked their tails between their legs and voted in a vein attempt to show that they actually support the troops. Too bad their own words show the truth.

Viking Pundit:

The Democrats will surely denounce the quick vote on Jack Murtha’s resolution as a stunt but, if so, it’s a good one. The Dems have been thrashing on Iraq for months now without having to define where they stand on this critical issue. They were probably hoping to leave the question open before the Thanksgiving break; now they can look forward to weeks of Tim Russert and Chris Matthews asking why, when pressed, they backed down from their own rhetoric.

Captain Ed:

403-3, the idea of immediate withdrawal gets hooted down. In another Profile in Courage, six Democrats voted “present”.

What a joke. The Republicans made the right move — instead of debating the issue through the media, they took the Democratic demands and introduced it as a resolution for debate where rhetoric actually counts, and where both sides get equal time. In the Democratic world, that equates to something vaguely unfair. They tried to hide behind a procedural block, and when that didn’t work, they screamed and hollered in support of the idea of withdrawal — and then promptly voted against it when it counted.

No honor and no shame have the Democrats in these times, to their everlasting discredit. So much for no-confidence votes. None will stand for one even when handed the opportunity on a silver platter.

JunkYardBlog:

The GOP went to the bank, took out a substantial loan and bought itself a spine tonight. The Republicans forced the Democrats to vote on withdrawing the troops from Iraq immediately, which put them in the bind of either waving the white flag or going on record as supporting keeping the troops in the field.

This was a gutsy, smart move. It’s one thing to carp from the sidelines about Bush LIED and that we should bring the troops home and so forth, but it’s quite another thing to actually vote to bring the troops home when the job isn’t finished. Since the Democrats have been screaming against the war lately, and since Democrat Rep. John Murtha had introduced a measure that would have brought the troops home, it was only fair to put that party on the record. Good for the Republicans for having the gall to force this vote.

Egyptian Blogger, Big Pharaoh:

To those democrats who call for an abrupt withdrawal: you’re stupid, period. Saigon, Beirut, and Somalia should have taught you better.

The Politburo Diktat:

Wow. Talk about not getting it. When I heard of Murtha’s statement, my heart sank. And not because some GOP politician might or might not lose an election. But because of the message it sends - to the troops, and (more importantly) to the terrorists. In the upside-down world of the Lefties, as long as it hurts George Bush, it’s good. So what if it encourages our enemies to take heart?

Murtha’s resolution is terrible. Talk about “going wobbly.” Even more so than the Senate’s move the other day, Murtha has just encouraged the terrorists.

So, what is exactly the right thing to do?.What is the most effective counter? To vote it down explicitly. Or, if Shrimp Chub Bush’s “illegal immoral war” is all wrong — then why not vote for it?

The Dems infuriate me on these matters. They are itching for George Bush’s scalp. They want it so bad they can taste it. They are about to bust. And it’s all about principle, you see? “Bush lied; people died.” So now, they have an opportunity to go on the record, demanding an immediate end to Bush’s war, but, since being so principled might expose them to some political risk, the Republicans are sneaky manipulators to propose such a vote.

QandO:

So, now that they’re on record, what will the Dems talk about over the Christmas recess? One would assume it won’t be about pulling the troops out of Iraq.

BizzyBlog:

Nice try, Dems–no sale. You’re on the record now as being against immediate troop withdrawal. Y’all know, phony-baloney polls notwithstanding, that the country is behind finishing the job professionally and leaving a representative government that can defend itself behind. You knew that a vote for the resolution would be a call-out to any and all primary and general election challengers who know where the country really stands on this. A lot more than three of you really believe that we should immediately withdraw, but you wouldn’t vote that way. Those of you who wouldn’t vote your beliefs are exactly what Jean Schmidt referred to. You cut and ran over ….. a vote.

Oh, and another thing: Have fun telling your MoveOn base during the next year that you really didn’t mean it.

I know this is a few days old but I still wanted to do a quick post on it. This is Senator John “Flipper” Kerry talking about the War on Terror:

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,” Kerry said. “As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”

Like the earlier “Global Test” comment, this is a look into how Kerry really looks at the war. On one hand he says nuclear proliferation is the most dangerous thing we face, on the other hand he thinks terrorism can be considered a nuisance. I don’t think it will just be a nuisance when one of our cities is incinerated. This man can not be allowed to run this country. It would be disastrous to just put on blinders and go back to 9/10 thinking.

Rudy Giuliani understands the threat (emphasis added):

“For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.

“I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?

“This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s — they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.

“As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’ This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion. Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not on the rise,’ it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?

The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

“It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.

“Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that’s why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite. I think that rather than being some aberrational comment, it is the core of the John Kerry philosophy: that terrorism is no different than domestic law enforcement problems, and that the best we’re ever going to be able to do is reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising with it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?

“This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made – significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we’re going to face up to terrorism and we’re going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There’s no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there’s no reason to tolerate organized crime.

“So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we’ve talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn’t understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it’s just a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does.”