RSS Feed
Loading ...
Your turn to decide what the topic of conversation is. I look forward to reading this, so I hope that you do as well.
Captain Ed has a good coversation starter: Has The Silence Begun To Crack?
Hillary Clinton’s fundraising scandals have kept the blogosphere amused and certain pundits occupied, but the story has not moved much beyond the Los Angeles Times and the New York Post in the mainstream American media. However, the Washington Post editorial board has sent a small signal that her latest fundraising peccadilloes warrant more attention.
Or Michelle Malkin’s: Hillary says: Leave my dishwasher donors alone!
Oh, sweet snorty-snort:
A defiant Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she has no intention of curtailing her fundraising in the Chinese community despite reports that she accepted cash from dozens of questionable donors in Chinatown earlier this year.
The Los Angeles Times has reported that Clinton had received about 150 donations of between $500 and $2,000 each from dishwashers, street vendors and other low-wage workers. Of the contributions examined, one-third of the donors could not be found and a $1,000 donor denied giving a contribution, according to the report.
“I represent New York and New York is a symbol of the success of immigrants coming to America,” the senator told reporters Saturday after addressing supporters at the Oak Park Elementary School in Des Moines.
“I am pleased to have a lot of first-generation American support as well as people who have been longtime involved in the political process … I’m going to keep reaching out to everybody in our country. I want to be a president to everybody.”
Earlier this year, Clinton returned about $7,000 of about $380,000 raised during a fundraiser that targeted donors from China’s east coast after campaign officials raised red flags about the donors. It’s not clear whether other refunds will be issued.
The recent Chinatown story came to light a month after Clinton was forced to return more than $850,000 raised by accused scam artist Norman Hsu.
The campaign has refused to return several hundred thousand Hsu raised for Clinton’s Senate re-election bid or for her pet political action committee Hill Pac.
Some of Clinton’s “Hillraisers” - about 200 high-powered fundraisers who have pledged to bundle $100,000 or more for her - have questioned the campaign’s vetting and screening procedures, which have been a continuing source of embarrassment, a person close to the campaign said yesterday.
From the NYPost…
October 22, 2007 - 09:47 AM on October 22nd, 2007
I want to make a comment about the superfires burning in California.
I wish to point out the cause of these have been the policy of the US Forestry Department 40 years ago that were enacted by a Democratic congress and the same conservationist lobby screeching over global warming.
The folks with real expereience in forestry said that the best was to control these ewre with controlled burns, but the Dem congress and the “conservationist” were against this. 40 years later, these folk were proved wrong.
So, why should we believe them now regarding global warming? This is another failed Democratic policy, but will any acknowledge it? I am getting weary of the GW screeching over this and happily thrust these facts in their face.
October 22, 2007 - 10:32 AM on October 22nd, 2007
Ted,
You sound like my Father! He keeps talking about this with my 9 year old nephew. He is trying to teach him about these fires, prevention, corrective action etc…The 9 year old got it.
October 22, 2007 - 10:47 AM on October 22nd, 2007
Lol…thank. I turned 40 lst week Pam, and now I feel nice and old.
No really, what I am trying to point out is that lieralism have gotten many tings right, and I agree with that. HOWEVER, it has gotten many more things wrong, and this is just but one example.
Here is another- socialized healthcare is wrong, period. France and other nations are starting to realize this and are moving away from these ideals. Why are we moving towards them? Why can’t we learn fom their mistakes?
It is the one problem with a Democracy- once folks realize they can vote in free stuff, they do. But it isn’t “free” at all- the forgotten man pays for it. They collapse and the entire nation collapses also.
Why are some liberals short sighted about this? Social programs out of control are the bane of a civilization. If we simply maintain the current programs we have now, there will be a 70% tax burdon upon the middle class and this DOESN”T include miliatary spending. Social programs now outpace defense spending at 56% verses 21% respectively.
We can not operate this way.
October 22, 2007 - 12:23 PM on October 22nd, 2007
Happy Birthday Ted.
You make excellent points. I firmly believe that liberals really just don’t get it. As Robert says it’s a form of mental illness.
To an environmentalist they don’t see that cleaning of the forests are a good thing and they don’t put two and two together no matter what you say. Honest. I’ve got a f.i.l. who refused to let the power company cut down trees overgrowth on his power lines. It took an outage on a cold, windy, day for him to concede.
I heard an old saying not too long ago that I hope I can quote correctly here. “An old forest is a dead forest if no new growth is allowed to take seed.”
October 22, 2007 - 12:25 PM on October 22nd, 2007
I have something to say here about Hillary as well. I truly hope she is the candidate of choice for the democrats. Why? Because with all the scandals, lies, etc. she’ll never get elected.
Did anyone watch the Republican debates last night? Fred Thompson finally got on. What’s your take?
October 22, 2007 - 12:35 PM on October 22nd, 2007
“You make excellent points. I firmly believe that liberals really just don’t get it. As Robert says it’s a form of mental illness.”
Well, I don’t agree with that at all Bon Bon. Liberals have had legitimate ideas and have contributed to society over the decades. The are great champions of the individual’s right. They’ve rightly been the inventors of the concept of public funded roads and infrastructure. They were innovative in approach to many things, and that is their contribution in many cases.
It is just in the case with Hillary Clinton, they fail toi see her approaches are not innovative at all and are doomed to failure. “Progressive” are no more than half baked communism that failed during the early 20th century and will fail again.
October 22, 2007 - 01:06 PM on October 22nd, 2007
Once upon a time liberals may have had the right idea. However, I think that since the days of Vietnam with the radical 60’s and the protesting over the war, etc., liberals have done more harm than good for this country. There is also the matter that they have re-written history a bit and taken credit for Republican successes. Case in point to go with your thesis. The environment. Who was it that created the first earth day? Richard Nixon; love him or hate him it’s one of his successes, and one he rarely gets credit for.
October 22, 2007 - 01:06 PM on October 22nd, 2007
6- Ted, are you referring to liberals or democrats when you give credit for infrastructure etc., as I think we would disagree that it was the liberal that did this.
October 22, 2007 - 01:48 PM on October 22nd, 2007
8.
Okay- that link says nothing of real importance that supports your assertion, or am I missing something?
Egads Pam, it was common knowledge that the Federal Highway System was the brainchild of Logan Page (a true die in the wool progressive) and Thomas MacDonald (who was inspired by Page) plus MacDonald’s right hand man Herbert Fairbanks who worked out much of the logistics.
October 22, 2007 - 01:59 PM on October 22nd, 2007
From the archives of the NYT’s I found this. Thought it was interesting.
Now back to Page and the highways. Ted you credited the liberals with our infrastructures. I disagree. I gave you a link to show that we didn’t just start building public roads during the early 20th century. We have been at it for the past 200 years. Yes Page and MacDonald were instumental in revising the way we spent money and where the roads went, but they are not the only people involved. They built upon others work. Just as many other people reshaped the way we built our infrastructure, after the deaths of Page and MacDonald.
October 22, 2007 - 01:59 PM on October 22nd, 2007
7.
“Once upon a time liberals may have had the right idea. However, I think that since the days of Vietnam with the radical 60’s and the protesting over the war, etc., liberals have done more harm than good for this country.”
Perhaps, but I also think the same can be said of the Reoublcans. Since Reagan after Reagan, they’ve done a lot of harm to this country. Bug spends like a Democrat, and had mismanaged this war horribly.
October 22, 2007 - 02:51 PM on October 22nd, 2007
Well, I agree the Republicans lost sight of their spending habits but they paid the price for it in the 2006 election don’t forget. As for the war, I honestly give the benefit of the doubt to Bush. Here’s my reasoning.
Islamic radicalism has been a threat for more than 30 years with wt93 marking the beginning of the most serious time frame and Clinton did NOTHING. After 9/11 Bush effectively has been playing catch up in dealing with this issue. I think he has the right convictions and it will be up to the next president to continue the web of policies, laws, and strategies for the GWOT that are needed for our protection.
October 22, 2007 - 02:52 PM on October 22nd, 2007
Good article Pam but wasn’t it also Eisenhower that ordered the construction of interstates and federal money to spend on them?
October 22, 2007 - 03:19 PM on October 22nd, 2007
Pam,
Crediting modern infrastructure concept to the pre 1916 concepts just isn’t right- it is apples to oranges. Referencing the same website you did:
“Thomas H. MacDonald, who served as the chief of the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) for 34 years, is the towering figure of road transportation in the 20th century. He has no equal, and even today, the United States enjoys his legacy in the mobility that characterizes our life and the sustained economic strength of our nation.”
Sorry, this is just a recognized fact of history. If you want me to site the fact that first roads built were those in Rome, and those folks were definately liberal I can.
However, let’s not. The modern day concept of infrastructure in the United States is a liberal one. That’s a plain simple fact. You can compare it with the Cumberland Highway and I can compare it to the Roman highway systems, but that’s just not relative.
October 22, 2007 - 03:33 PM on October 22nd, 2007
14- Ted, the infrastructure in 1830 was modern for it’s time, so no it isn’t apples and oranges. Because of the infrastructure of the time, industries thrived. It may not be the road of concrete as you know it today, but it was a road nonetheless, and it provided an avenue for travel by land among the states.
Yes Bon Bon, Ike did. per the article and cited others:
The modern era of roads didn’t begin until 1956 when President Eisenhower signed into law the federal aid highway act. With it, he authorized the construction of 40,000 miles of limited access roads creating the interstate highway system. It was the biggest public works project this country has ever seen, and was lauded as one of the most important, as well.
October 22, 2007 - 04:40 PM on October 22nd, 2007
14.
Then I’ll play the Rome card, and will say that infrastructure was actually invented by them- one of the most liberal societies of history.
Come one Pam. That patchwork of a few canals, railroad and the Cumberland Highway does not denote an infrastructure and the argument is specious at best. It wasn’t even “modern for it’s time” as Rome had a better infrastructures hundreds of years earlier.
Anyway you slice this- it is a liberal idea.
BTW, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was also a work of MacDonald and Fairbanks:
“The concept of an Interstate system as we know it was first described in a 1939 report to Congress called Toll Roads and Free Roads. The report rejected the toll superhighway network Congress had suggested; revenue from tolls on most segments would not support the bonds issued for their construction. However, the report added that the country needed a toll-free express highway network. Thomas H. MacDonald, Chief of the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, and Herbert S. Fairbank, Chief of the agency’s Division of Information, prepared the report.”
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question1
October 22, 2007 - 05:18 PM on October 22nd, 2007
What does Rome have to do with US Infrastructure? Nothing, but if you want to play it, be my guest. You stated that liberals have “rightly been the inventors of the concept of public funded roads and infrastructure.” Our publically funded roads did not begin in the beginning of the 20th century. We were already funding roads with public funds, prior to the 20th century. With the invention of the automobile and it’s rapid mass production, the roads evolved, as did the funding. The funding of the roads of the 1800’s did not meet the needs of the early 1900’s. By the mid 20th century, the demand for even bigger and better highways increased.
October 22, 2007 - 09:13 PM on October 22nd, 2007
Ted, it might the modern road system may be a progressive idea, but hardly liberal. Without a need for modern roads to meet the transportation needs of industry, you can bet your backside that they wouldn’t have been built. The interstate road system was originally planned (after WWII)as a means to insure that defense materials could get where they needed to go as quickly as possible without having to rely on railroads that may or may not be able to handle the load.
If modern liberals thought that pouring millions of cubic yards of concrete and asphalt might disrupt the mating habits of a toad, or in anyway benefit big business or the military, they’d have marched on Washington to stop it. Look at the reactions to the false claims about the endangered status of the snail darter stopping a hydroelectic dam that would provide low cost power to tens of thousands in the depressed Appalachian region of the Tennessee Valley.
October 23, 2007 - 07:30 AM on October 23rd, 2007
“What does Rome have to do with US Infrastructure?”
My statement, on which you contended was:
“They’ve rightly been the inventors of the concept of public funded roads and infrastructure.”
Any way you slice it whether in US history or world history, this has been an idea contributed by a liberal idealogy: Logan, Thomas, FAirbanks, the Romans.
What is truly amazing here to me is the absolute rejection of one side by the other. The refusal to even acknowledge each other’s contributions to America is amazing. If Jefferson and Franklin (two flaming liberals in a annals of history) were trated by their conterparts like folks are today, there would not be an America.
October 23, 2007 - 07:33 AM on October 23rd, 2007
One note: one of the things that made Eisenhower so great was that he listened to the suggestrions of Thomas and Fairbanks even though they didn’t agree politicaly. I don’t understand the stridancy within today’s political conversation. If the nation were alway like this, we sure would have ceased to exist by now.
Hopefully time will help fix these problems. Where is the Great Comminicator when we need him!
October 23, 2007 - 07:40 AM on October 23rd, 2007
I am not rejecting Logan, Fairbanks and MacDonald. My point was that our infrastructure didn’t begin with them. We already had publically funded roads and those three built upon it and made it better.
As for Eisenhower not agreeing with their politics, what political party did they belong to?