David Cote, Chairman of the South Kingstown Republican Town Committee, has formally declared his candidacy for State GOP Chair…
If the RIGOP is to succeed with its mission in 2008, it must be run like a business.
As a Director of one of the largest technology corporations in the world with responsibility for $500 million in annual revenue, a 24 year veteran of the high tech industry, and a graduate of Seton Hall University with a Master of Business Administration, I have experience of how to run the RIGOP like a successful business where appropriate.
My vision for the RI GOP is the product of my success as Chairman of the South Kingstown Republican Town Committee. Before I became Chair of SK GOP in 2005, it was inactive. The Committee regularly failed to generate a quorum for meetings, and its fundraising numbers were insufficient.
Today, the SKGOP is the fastest growing Republican Town Committee in Rhode Island. It is the second largest RTC in RI by total numbers, and the largest by monthly attendance. Fundraising was up by more than 400% after my first term. This could only have been achieved by uniting the existing members and successfully recruiting new members.
My vision for the RI GOP is also the product of my experience as a Republican candidate for public office and an elected official in Rhode Island in 2002. Having successfully run for elected office as a Republican, I am aware of the challenges faced by Republican candidates in Rhode Island.
Finally, my vision for the RI GOP is the product of my experience as Secretary of RI GOP since 2005. As an officer of the RI GOP, I have seen first hand the needs of candidates across the State of Rhode Island.
This diverse and complete background of experience provides me with a uniquely qualified perspective for leading the RI GOP to success in 2008.
In conjunction with his announcement, Mr. Cote has released a detailed plan describing what he would like to accomplish as chair…
[Open full post]Here’s your buried lede of the week (actually of last week). On Februrary 21, the Times of London ran this headline…
Anti-American feelings soar among Muslims, study finds.However, the poll being reported on didn’t justify the headline. Here are the raw numbers presented at the end of the online version of the article…
Percentage with unfavourable view of US in 2005 (all increased since 9/11 except where indicated):So unfavorable views of America are down in two of five countries surveyed – the smaller of which (Iran) has a population greater than the other three combined — and below 50% in a third, but the headline is that anti-American feelings are “soaring”.
- Saudi Arabia: 79%
- Jordan: 65%
- Morocco: 49%
- Iran 52%: (down from 63 in 2001)
- Pakistan 65%: (down from 69 in 2001)
The Iranian numbers are fascinating. It’s fair to say that America is more popular in Iran than George W. Bush is popular in America. More importantly, America is more popular in Iran now than it was before the invasion of Iraq. Isn’t that a fact worth noting, and something that seriously mitigates the idea that anti-Americanism is soaring?
Finally, the article describes the motivation of the poll as follows..
Researchers set out to examine the truth behind the stock response in the West to the question of when it will know it is winning the war on terror.Isn’t one possible interpretation of this poll that there are a large number of Sunnis currently less interested in the War on Terror than they are in having the U.S. help them (unwittingly or not) in a war against the Shi’ites and that America’s attempt to play the role of an honest broker is winning at least some grudging support in Shi’ite-dominated Iran? [Open full post]
According to GOP Minority Whip John Boehner:
Under the guise of “protecting” workers, a bill by House Democrats would strip American workers of the right to choose — freely and anonymously — whether to unionize. The misleadingly titled Employee Free Choice Act offers neither freedom nor choice, and will leave workers open to ugly union harassment, intimidation, and pressure that still persist today. The San Francisco Examiner called it “exquisitely Orwellian… anti-freedom, anti-democracy”…
The remarkable thing about the Employee Free Choice Act is the enormous amount of power over the lives of Americans it gives to Big Labor. No other group has the authority to simply draw up a few signatures in order to force others to start paying them money. But that is exactly what Democrats are giving their union buddies. By stripping workers of their right to a private ballot election, Democrats are raiding the wallets of and stripping away fundamental rights from American workers.
Boehner also offers up this useful analogy:
[I}magine it is November 2008 and community leaders all across America decide not to hold elections. Instead of heading into a voting booth like you always have, you’re told to show up at town hall and declare publicly — in front of your neighbors and community leaders — for whom and what you’re voting.
Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Well this is exactly what House Democrats are proposing for your workplace. Workers will no longer be able to express their wishes privately; their “votes” will be public for everyone — union organizers, employers, co-workers — to see.
Is this the progressives’ idea of protecting workers’ rights? They feel comfortable excoriating corporate fat-cats for initimidating workers who want to organize, but shouldn’t they and the Democrats they support be intellectually honest enough to recognize that union bosses can be just as intimidating? Not just CEO’s pull down six figures, my friends. Or do they just like to pay lip service to worker rights and think that passing “labor” laws are enough maintain their street cred of “fighting for the little guy”?
Currently, Anchor Rising is running an advertisement for a “virtual” March on Washington sponsored by The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which “co-chairs the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, an organization that represents employers, workers, and activists who want to safeguard the protections of the secret ballot in workplaces throughout America.”
We strenuously oppose H.R. 800, the “Employee Free Choice Act” and the unions who want Congress to legislate the end of secret ballot union elections and the safeguards they afford to working families.
Congress has begun working on this legislation and may vote on it as soon as the week of February 26.
Join a crowd of thousands without leaving your computer by writing a letter to your members of Congress and designing a “virtual you” to place on the Mall.
If you think that workers should have the right to a secret ballot, pay them a visit.
[Open full post]Mickey Kaus provides the seeds of the argument that explains why flip-flopping is something not desirable in a political candidate. Kaus points out that you can’t really determine a candidate’s heartfelt position is the flip or the flop. Contrary to the way it is usually portrayed, it is just as likely that a candidate’s current position is his real one and the past position was the one chosen for political expediency than it is the other way around. Kaus uses former New York Mayor Rudolph Guilani as an example…
I’d forgotten a perverse set of facts that suddenly seems relevant: Hillary Clinton was almost certainly in favor of the 1996 welfare reform law while Rudolph Giuliani opposed it. … That could mean Giuliani is more liberal than people realize…Or it could mean that Giuliani is more opportunistic than people realize and therefore more likely to reposition himself. … My guess: Both, but definitely the latter. Giuliani was a genuine welfare reformer, after all. His opposition to the key reform bill, in retrospect, looks like a stunt to cultivate stature in the national press.Here’s the problem opportunistic flip-flopping creates for voters. The incentives for politicians change after an election. Before an election, opportunities lie in getting the attention of undecided voters. Undecideds are undecided because they don’t like anything they’ve seen so far, so one way candidates can appeal to them is by promoting “fresh”, “exciting” new ideas. But after an election, new opportunities are going to lie with a different group of people, away from the voters, and in the direction of the existing power structure and the permanent bureaucracy that an elected official must work with on a day-to-day basis (see President George W. Bush and the No-Child-Left Behind Act).
If a candidate is an opportunistic flip-flopper, how is a voter to know which path a candidate will choose after he wins?
This dynamic is, at least, why we don’t have to worry about candidates like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards flip-flopping on domestic issues. During future campaigns, they’ll promise to bring you big bureaucratic government (liberal Dems try to win undecideds not through ideas, but by promising to give them more wealth through benevolently-managed bureaucratic programs). If a lib wins, he or she will be happy to work with those bureaucracies on strengthening their power.
By the way, this is post about flip-flopping in general and not any specific election that may be coming up in the next year or two, so it shouldn’t be interpreted as a statement of support or non-support for any particular candidate. [Open full post]
From a dishearteningly informative article from Mark Arsenault of the Projo…
The Rhode Island Republican State Central Committee spent nearly five times as much in the 2006 election on consulting fees to people connected to the party than it gave to its own General Assembly candidates, who then failed to pick up any seats.Here’s Arsenault’s breakdown of the “five times” figure…
After providing more than $80,000 in cash and in-kind donations to its State House candidates in 2004, the state Republican Party provided cash donations totaling just $5,095 to a dozen legislative candidates last year, according to campaign finance reports. Those donations, coming three weeks before the general election, ranged from $270 to $500 per candidate.
- ”$8,300 in consulting fees to the Torrey Group, the firm of Jeffrey Britt, a consultant who advises Carcieri”.
- ”$2,000 for consulting by Carcieri campaign worker Mark McKiernan”.
- ”$2,000 for consulting by Adam Gabrault, whom a state party spokesman also identified as a former Carcieri campaign worker”.
- ”$11,630 for legal work by Giovanni Cicione, a former U.S. House candidate who is currently campaigning to be chairman of the Rhode Island GOP”.
- ”About $30,000 in fees paid last year to Darcie Johnston, a Vermont-based fundraising consultant who also worked for Carcieri and former U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee”.
- ”$6,192 last August to the consulting firm Northeast Strategies”.
“We spent too little on candidates and we spent too little on consultants that could do us some good….Do I think we overspent on consultants? No. Do I think we underspent on candidate support? Yes. Would loved to have done both, but we didn’t have the wherewithal.”It would be interesting to hear…
Newton said the party tried a new strategy in the last election cycle: hiring full-time staff to help oversee the campaign. “Those dollars to fund the full-time staff were not available for candidates,” he said. “What we chose to do is provide resources for candidates without putting money directly into their hands.” The staff, including Newton and field director Andrew Berg, recruited candidates, updated the party’s voter database, researched the voting records of incumbent Democrats, and developed campaign strategy, among other duties — all of which benefited Republicans running for local offices, Newton said.
- From the current candidates for statewide Republican party officer postions, if they also believe that the consultant-heavy strategy was on the right track, just underfunded.
- From candidates and volunteer campaign staff from the previous election cycle, what benefit they saw from all of this consultant spending trickle down to them.
Yesterday, I asked if Americans had patience to see the war in Iraq through. Maybe they do, at least according to a poll published last week (which I missed):
“The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory,” said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. “The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.”
– By a 53 percent – 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that
“Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to
withdraw troops from Iraq.”
– By identical 57 percent – 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these
two statements: “I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping
the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and
provide security” and “the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on
terrorism.”
– Also, by a 56 percent – 43 percent margin, voters agreed that “even if
they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind
the President in Iraq because we are at war.”
– While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq
will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory
in Iraq (“creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the
threat of terrorism at home”) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent
say it’s still possible, while 43 percent disagree.
– By a wide 74 percent – 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the
notion that “I don’t really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S.
leaves, I just want the troops brought home.”
“How Americans view the war does not line up with the partisan messages or actions coming out of Washington,” said Davis Lundy, president of The Moriah Group. “There are still a majority of Americans out there who want to support the President and a focused effort to define and achieve victory.”
Add to this the fact that President Bush is still supported by a large majority of Republicans (75%), which will probably limit any of that magical “bi-partisan” support that any Democratic Iraq draw-down plan would hope to garner, and we can start to understand why the Democrats now seem to be retreating from any too-cute-by-half Iraq pullout plan.
[Open full post]Ya know, do they really have to make it so easy? (via Instapundit):
Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
Aw, c’mon Drew? Al just has to use all o’ that energy in his great, big mansion so he can power the global media campaign that is spreading the Truth to all of us poor, working- and middle- class, ignorant rubes? Dontcha see? And that’s why he uses a private jet, too: so he can spread the word to the masses faster than he could by riding a bike! Really! Honest!
(h/t Philip K. Dick)
As Andrew’s post highlighting the reporting of Rocco Dippo shows, the real story, “the view from the ground,” is different than what we regular Americans are getting from the mainstream press. But that really is no excuse. As Mitch Lewis writes:
We cannot make decisions about this war based on fatigue, anxiety or self-interest. The stakes are too high for that. If the news is disturbing, don’t look at it until you can read it with your head instead of your gut. Eventually, find the courage to read beyond the “if it bleeds it leads” headlines. Choose to base your thinking on your intellect and will instead of on your weariness or fear. Choose to look beyond your own needs to the needs our nation and our world. As a nation, choose whatever strategy or course of action you think best achieves the greatest good and the members of the armed forces will execute it.
With very little effort, we could find blogs written by all sorts of Military Bloggers (millbloggers), including those who are blogging straight from Iraq or Afghanistan. They’ll tell us what exactly is going on: the good and the bad. But even when bad things happen, they persevere. Even when they think that too many Americans are unable to do the same:
Too many Americans simply don’t understand what it means to “see this thing through“:
Why is it that the combat troops want to see this thing through, but the average American is tired of this war? What do you have to be tired of? Do you have any understanding of what it means to be truly tired? To patrol for hours in 120 degree heat wearing 100 pounds of kit? I’m sorry that watching images of Iraq on CNN has taxed you so greatly. No really, I am. That’s ok, though, because I’m willing to share some of your load so that we can press on with the mission. Because that’s what we do when we get tired.
Whatya think? Can you stand a few more “reruns” of the “War in Iraq” TV show? Can you handle “fighting” the war from that easy chair just a while longer? Apparently, the Democrats in the Senate–with their finger in the political wind–can’t take it anymore. Well, given that they are political animals, can you blame them? No, you can’t. They’re listening to what most Americans are telling them, after all.
[Open full post]In the Providence Phoenix from two weeks ago, Ian Donnis quoted University of Rhode Island Political Science Chairwoman Maureen Moakley on Rhode Island’s tendency to reject development of all sorts…
For too long, Moakley believes, there has been a lack of vision and an excess of parochialism on economic development: “We don’t want a port, we don’t want a casino, we don’t want LNG in our backyard, or an airport runway extension,” she says, paraphrasing opponents. “If you look at Boston, and if you look at New York, how can you expect to develop sophisticated economic structures in a global environment under those kinds of restrictions? If we want to remain a pretty backwater, those are the consequences.”How about this for an economic development project that everyone can get behind: a destination rail yard that would receive ethanol shipments from the Midwest. According to the Sioux City Journal, such a project is being considered for Rhode Island…
In eight years [Union Pacific] has seen a 515 percent growth rate in the ethanol area. The railroad’s investment is an effort to make this expanding business efficient, largely through use of unit-trains of 75 or more cars of ethanol and/or distillers’ dry grain from and to the same locations, with no car switching en route.The Wall Street Journal has more detail on the link between railroads and ethanol…
While the UP trackage is mostly west of the Mississippi River, it does serve Chicago, where many grain trains are switched to other railroads such as the CSX and Norfolk & Southern, for destinations on the East Coast. Those facilities are currently located in New York and New Jersey, with a UP yard in Dallas, Texas. New destination yards are planned for California, Maryland, Rhode Island and Florida…
Unlike gasoline, natural gas and oil, ethanol attracts water and other chemicals, so it can’t be sent through the long-established pipelines that move those fuels. That means the ethanol industry has been forced into a marriage with the already groaning railroads….As of data retrieved today from the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, there is presently only a single ethanol filling station in the six New England States (Burke Oil in Chelsea, Massachusetts). The lack of ethanol pumps is at least partly the result of the lack infrastructure needed to transport ethanol here. (You know that Vermont would be all over ethanol, because of its reduced greenhouse emissions, if it was easily avialable, right?). Whoever gets the destination rail yard is going to become the central distributor of ethanol-based fuel for all of New England.
Railroad executives say ethanol, though still a small part of their total freight traffic, promises to be a lucrative growth opportunity. Shipments of ethanol have nearly tripled since 2001 to about 106,000 rail carloads last year and are projected to increase to at least 140,000 in 2007, according to the Association of American Railroads in Washington. Each tank car has a capacity of 30,000 gallons….
After the corn is distilled into ethanol, it’s mixed with a small amount of gasoline at the production plant before being shipped by train to a petroleum terminal, where it is blended with gasoline. Large petroleum terminals are accustomed to receiving their product by pipeline and then distributing locally by truck. Most terminals haven’t developed the infrastructure of tracks, storage tanks and rapid unloading to receive ethanol by unit trains, says Kevin Kaufman, group vice president of agricultural products of BNSF’s rail unit. Expanding is difficult because they are sometimes hemmed in by buildings, highways and bodies of water.
Let’s hope that that the NIMBYs and the BANANAs (“build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody”) don’t start manufacturing excuses to stop a project that could be good for Rhode Island and, as it reduces our dependence on foreign oil, good for the nation. [Open full post]
Some local political analysts predict that the alliance between the unions and the do-gooder liberalism that dominates Rhode Island cannot last forever, because the interests of the two factions don’t converge. Tom Coyne put it very succinctly describing last year’s General Assembly session on the (sadly dormant) Rhode Island Policy Analysis Website…
The labor – liberal Democratic coalition that controls the General Assembly now faces an agonizing choice: The Rhode Island economy is in such tough shape that we can keep paying social welfare checks or public employee pension checks, but not both. Their old game is over.In today’s Projo, Scott Mayerowitz adds another angle, reporting on how the divergence of interests extends beyond money…
Thousands of Rhode Islanders who qualify for food stamps don’t sign up for the program, and some advocates say the state isn’t doing enough to encourage them to enroll….Is it unreasonable to ask unionized public employees to be flexible and occasionally take the public good into consideration in return for the big pension checks they’ve been promised? [Open full post]
Many eligible Rhode Islanders don’t think they qualify, think the application process is too cumbersome or simply can’t make it to state offices to enroll because the hours conflict with their jobs….
[Acting Director Gary Alexander] said the Department of Human Services has wanted to experiment with evening hours but that the state has yet to reach an agreement with the unions to allow different work hours.
