Sunday, June 29, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Exactly how much "walking around money" does Barack Obama intend to pour into Philadelphia, Pittsburgh (and don't forget Harrsiburg and Lancaster!)? Since Obama has gone back on his word to accept public financing, he will have perhaps a half-billion dollars (!!!!) to play around with. That should make the vote-buyers and street corner "consultants" in urban Pennsylvania very happy. On the question of "how much?" perhaps one of our intrepid PA journalists might ask him? But that may be asking too much.
One of the great mysteries this year has been why Democratic SuperDelegates (elected officials) in Pennsylvania supported Barack Obama when their districts (and state) went heavily for Hillary Clinton. Information recently released by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Reform organization shows they did it for old-fashioned reasons: they got paid off.
Three of the biggest culprits are Rep. Patrick Murphy (8th district, Bucks County), Rep. Jason Altmire (4th district, western PA), and Rep. Tim Holden (17th district, Harrisburg area). As discussed in previous columns, Murphy endorsed Obama last August and Altmire did so in June, when he said mysteriously that he remained "undeclared" but that he "supported" Obama.
Holden refused to endorse Sen. Clinton even given her popularity among his constituents..
How did these men's districts vote?
Murphy's southeastern PA district went for Mrs. Clinton by 78,655 to 46,287.
Altmire's western PA district went for Mrs. Clinton by 84,122 to 43,962.
Holden's central PA district went for Mrs. Clinton by a smaller margin as her huge victory in Schuykill (combined with smaller victories in Lebanon and Perry) wiped out Obama's margin in Dauphin County (Harrisburg). Exact results up later on Saturday.
During the Primary season, Holden refused to declare which candidate he was supporting. After Sen. Clinton's concession, as reported previously, he announced his position was "moot." Presumably at the convention he will cast his "moot" ballot for Sen. Obama.
There's no record of Holden receiving money from the Obama Campaign, but it's conceivable he could between now and the election (Nov. 4). With Murphy and Altmire, the situation is different.
The Obama Campaign handed over to Murphy a large "donation" with a strange total: $18,826. The "contribution" obviously derived from Murphy's support of the Illinois Senator.
In the case of Altmire, the donation was somewhat smaller: $10,000.
Were these apparent contributions for services rendered illegal? Apparently not. Were they examples of unethical behavior? I'll leave that up to you.
What's very clear is that Murphy, Altmire, and Holden went against the will of the voters in their districts. Apparently, they did so because they believe voters have short memories. Whether they're correct is up to the voters to determine.
Tip O'Neill famously said that "money is the mother's milk of politics." One has the hunch that Murphy and Altmire will never lack for "mother's milk," at least while the Obama money-machine is around.
Will the large and angry group of Hillary Clinton Supporters seek retribution, not only on Murphy and Altmire, but also on wafflers like Holden? There's a good chance Hillaryites will target those Democratic incumbents for defeat.
In the words of the DNC Reform organization, "Super Delegates on the list [like Altmire and Murphy] MUST be held accountable for their lack of courage and inability and unwillingness to stand up for the will and voice of the voters.". (www.dncreform.com)
Jason Altmire's opponent is Melissa Harr
Patrick Murphy's opponent is Tom Manion
Tim Holden's opponent is Toni Gilhooley
They all need your support -- moral, political, and financial.
Friday, June 27, 2008
BULLETIN ON SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS:
Sent following to Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Tom Manion, and Steve Sauerberg: [Note: if you're looking for the piece on the Democrats almost unanimous opposition to producing domestic energy, please scroll down to a couple of columsn. Sauerberg is opposing Obama crony Dick Durbin for an Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate.
Frankly, anyone who votes for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker or Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader is not a supporter of Second Amendment rights. In the House, the Speaker has absolute power over what gets considered and what doesn't, and Pelosi's attitude against gun rights borders on the hydrophobic.
Supporters of Pelosi backers Altmire, Murphy, and Holden who are also for gun rights are kidding themselves. Their advocacy of the Second Amendment becomes nothing more than an empty campaign promise.The first act for both men in 2007 was to vote Pelosi in (unanimously) and their first act in 2009 would be to do the same.
Also, their favorite presidential candidate, Obama, has a terrible record on gun rights, and if Altmire, Murphy, and Holden support him for President, they are misleading their constituents. An Obama presidency would set gun right back 200 years.
John McCain supports Second Amendment rights -- while Obama and Pelosi do not.It's that simple. No gun owner in his or her right mind can vote for Altmire, Murphy, or Holden, let alone an anti-gun extremist like Senator Durbin. The NRA and the Gun Owners of America (GOA) should laugh such people out of office.
(In Durbin's and Obama's cases, they basically have said they would appoint or vote for leftist judges who would disregard the Second Amendment, just as Clinton appointees Breyer and Ginsburg did.)
Cranberry Township, PA - Former Congresswoman Melissa Hart today released a statement praising the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Heller case. [Note from Steve: Please contribute to Melissa Hart today in order to preserve your second amendment rights.]
“The United States Supreme Court made a very good and important decision today with its ruling on the Heller case. Now, citizens of Washington, D.C. can enjoy the same Constitutional rights as residents of the 50 states. This is likely the most important Second Amendment case of our time. The ruling is likely to spark legislative initiatives all over the country in the coming weeks to restore Second Amendment rights of many whose cities have infringed on the right of an individual to bear arms,” said Hart.
The last time the Supreme Court heard a case on the Second Amendment was in 1939. (United States v. Miller)
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right – and not only a collective right, as some gun control supporters have claimed. During the years I served on the State Senate and the U.S. House Judiciary committees, I was a strong and constant leader on protecting Second Amendment rights.
“This case reminds those of us who are truly concerned about degradations of the U.S. Constitution and our individual liberties, that we must not allow ourselves to be fooled by those who claim to support Second Amendment rights, but act in ways that weaken them.”
“Jason Altmire may claim back home in Western PA that he supports our Second Amendment rights, but in reality he has ‘gone Washington’ and one of the first votes he ever cast in Washington, D.C. was to elect anti-gun Nancy Pelosi to Speaker of the House. As long as Speaker Pelosi controls the agenda in the House, she will ensure that pro-second amendment legislation never sees the light of day.”
“An example of the inaction on the part of Speaker Pelosi and this Congress is The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, (H.R. 1399). It was introduced March 8, 2007 to repeal the DC gun ban; however that bill has now been sitting in committee for 15 months with no action taken.”
“I have fought consistently to protect our Second Amendment rights against anti-gun legislators and their trial lawyer supporters who tried to bankrupt the American firearm manufacturers, kill the good jobs they provide and try to get the courts to take away our rights. As I did for 6 years in Congress, I will not just talk about protecting our Second Amendment rights and hunting traditions, my actions and votes will continue to match my words.”
Thursday, June 26, 2008
http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com (re-post from camp2008 site listed previously)
For John McCain, if he can somehow get 5 million of the 18 million-plus Hillary Supporters, he will win.
For Congressional candidates, if you can get 25%-30% of those Hillary Supporters, mainly by showing them how they shafted Sen. Clinton, you will win on November 4. It's that simple -- and that challenging.
The columns below deal with areas on which the Democratic candidates for federal offices (the Presidency, the Senate, and the House) are extremely weak: guns and gas prices. On Friday afternoon, I'll put up Melissa Hart's devastating press release skewering her opponent (Jason Altmire) on gun rights.
I'll be writing about the issues above on all my sites all weekend. Please visit -- and comment if you wish.
BULLETIN ON SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS: Sent following to Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Tom Manion, and Steve Sauerberg:
[Note: if you're looking for the piece on the Democrats almost unanimous opposition to producing domestic energy, please scroll down to the previous column.]
Steve Sauerberg, candidate against Dick Durbin for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, is one of my "adopted" candidates, and his statement on Second Amendment rights (which some Democrat House members supposedly support) is a good one. [Scroll down to see Steve's release.]
Frankly, anyone who votes for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker is not a supporter of Second Amendment rights. In the House, the Speaker has absolute power over what gets considered and what doesn't, and Pelosi's attitude against gun rights borders on the hydrophobic.
Supporters of Pelosi backers Altmire, Murphy, and Holden who are also for gun rights are kidding themselves. Their advocacy of the Second Amendment becomes nothing more than an empty campaign promise.
The first act for both men in 2007 was to vote Pelosi in (unanimously) and their first act in 2009 would be to do the same.
Also, their presidential candidate, Obama, has a terrible record on gun rights, and if Altmire, Murphy, and Holden support him for President, they are misleading their constituents. An Obama presidency would set gun right back 200 years.
John McCain supports Second Amendment rights -- while Obama and Pelosi do not.
It's that simple. No gun owner in his or her right mind can vote for Altmire, Murphy, or Holden, let alone an anti-gun extremist like Senator Durbin. (In Durbin's and Obama's cases, they bascially have said they would appoint or vote for leftist judges who would disregard the Second Amendment, just as Clinton appointees Breyer and Ginsberg did.)
June 26, 2008 Press Release: Sauerberg Applauds Supreme Court Decision on the Second Amendment
Steve Sauerberg, M.D. - "If Senator Dick Durbin had his way, the Second Amendment would no longer exist."
"As a proud gun owner, I believe in the individual Constitutional right to keep and bear arms," said Republican Nominee for U.S. Senate Steve Sauerberg, M.D. "Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that right."
"If Senator Dick Durbin had his way, the Second Amendment would no longer exist," Sauerberg said.
"Senator Durbin approved judges who used their own beliefs to argue that the Second Amendment means basically nothing, and Senator Durbin opposed the judges who affirmed that Constitutional right to bear arms.
"Sauerberg believes existing gun laws sufficiently balance the need to protect individual rights with the public's desire to reduce gun violence. Sauerberg argued that aggressive prosecution, rather than further legislation, is the key to combating gun violence.
Sauerberg also reiterated his support of strict constructionist judges. "The next U.S. Senator from Illinois needs to insist that any new Judges have a common-sense approach to jurisprudence."
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Of course, John Roberts, being one of CNN's robotic liberals, probably doesn't think so either, as suggested in the cocksure way he made his statement. Don't expect Roberts to throw anything at Corzine other than a steady stream of journalistic softballs.
Frankly, the Democrats are in a terrible bind on gasoline prices. As the material at the end of this piece indicates, Democrats have voted consistently about the production of oil and other forms of energy (including coal and nuclear).
For example, 96% of Republicans have consistely voted to increase refinery capacity, while 97% of Democrats have voted against it. How on God's Green Earth can we produce more gasoline without refineries?
A national commitment to energy production will not immediately cause a significant reduction in gasoline prices. However, it will send a message to energy-producing countries -- and to speculative buyers of high-priced oil contracts -- that the U.S. is finally serious about doing its part in dealing with the energy crisis. We can't depend on people like Hugo Chavez and the various Sheiks of Araby to bail us out of our energy problems.
The Democrats, from Obama on down, have been consistently in bed with what The Economist magazine calls the "hair-shirt crowd." Those are the environmental extremists who believe that we in the U.S. have been "bad" when it comes to energy consumption -- and that therefore we should suffer.
Notice I don't say "they" (the Democrats and their allies) should suffer. Most of them won't, because they're extremely wealthy. If gasoline cost $20 a gallon, it wouldn't put much of a dent in their fortunes.
John Corzine made hundreds of millions of dollars on Wall Street. In fact, Corzine -- like his friend Jay Rockefeller -- spent tens of millions of his own vast fortune to buy his seat in the Senate. Then, these filthy rich individuals spend most of their time in office lecturing the rest of us on our consumption habits.
Ted Kennedy and Jay Rockefeller inherited million of dollars. John Kerry married one of the wealthiest women (Teresa Heinz) in the nation. Senator Diane Feinstein and Representatives Jane Harman and Nancy Pelosi married mega-rich men. In this decade, Hillary Clinton and her husband have made more than $109 million.
OpenSecrets.org provides information about the wealthiest members of Congress. Perhaps to your suprise, most of them are Democrats. http://opensecrets.org/
When such gazillionaires tell us that they "feel our pain" over gas prices, we should be excused for letting out a loud guffaw. When John Corzine was injured last year in a huge SUV going well over the speed limit, he wasn't exactly searching for change to buy a gallon of gasoline.
The Democrats in Congress who vote constantly against energy production are not all as wealthy as the men mentioned. However, they have all have nice big salaries and the best benefits of any legislators in the world. So, when they tell us that they too are hit hard by $4 a gallon gasoline, we should disbelieve them.
I hear today that in one opinion survey Barack Obama has the support of 49% of the American people. I doubt half those people will end up voting for him when they learn that he thinks it's just great if gas prices go much higher. Obama is worth about $5 million. He's not worrying about where his next tank of gas will come from.
Obama -- and his allies in the House and Senate -- don't want us to explore for ans produce more domestic oil and natural gas. They don't want to build non-polluting nuclear facilities. They don't want to expand oil refinery capacity. They especially don't want to develop "clean coal" technology that's vital to Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio.
Melissa Hart's 4th district opponent, Jason Altmire, voted for the Democrats' recent weak energy bill. As Melissa noted, the legislation didn't even mention clean-coal technology. In fact, that important form of energy would be a tremendous economic boon in Appalachia. But Altmire still wants coal miners and coal communities to vote for him. Why on earth should they?
Today, on Harrisburg-area radio, candidate Toni Gilhooley, a wonderful woman, blasted her opponent, Tim Holden, for consistently opposing domestic energy initiatives. Holden likes to pretend he's a "moderate," which fools just enough people to give him a safe seat. In Holden's district, people depend on gasoline to get to work and to pursue their livelihoods. Yet Holden's answer is to have them pay higher prices. When on earth would anyone in the 17th district vote for Tim Holden?
Most Democratic voters in Pennsylvania are blissfully unaware that their federal legislators are the primary cause of skyrocketing gas prices. They've forgotten (if they ever knew) that Bill Clinton vetoed legislation that would have alloowed drilling in ANWR
When Republican candidates like Melissa Hart try to inform voters through Op Eds and other communications, the Democrat-leaning media refuses to print or air them. Those papers truly believe "silence is golden" when it comes to telling the truth about the Democrats' culpability.
The Democrats are now trying to pin the blame on someone, anyone -- ranging from the oil companies (forbidden by Democrats to explore or produce), the speculators (who have no control over supply or demand), or even President Bush (who strongly supports domestic production).
Let's face it: the Democrats have put the nation in a real bind. It's time for Pennsylvanians to stop voting for candidates who believe high gas prices are a fit "punishment" for American consumers. Our problems -- unlike most of our oil -- were produced right here at home.
Statistics below deal with how the two Parties have voted over the years on energy:
Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas .
Republican candidates must hammer home the facts of the energy situation
Monday, June 23, 2008
Dr. Deborah Travis ("DAnn") Honeycutt, running a tremendous campaign for Congress in Georgia's 13th District.
How does Deborah Honeycutt's campaign relate to the ones in PA and Illinois that I've been emphasizing? I believe all Republican congressional should run in essentially the same way. I sent the follow to the Steve Sauerberg campaign in Illinois -- he's running against the public menace named Dick Durbin.
I agree that candidates should "keep it simple" and focus on issues people really care about, including the Bill of Rights (2d Amendment) and gas prices. The Democrats are incredibly vulnerable on gas prices. The Second Amendment I would present as a matter of people protecting themselves and their families in every legal way. Some of the issues people (including me) thought would be important (Iraq, health care) are not as significant -- at least now -- as most of us thought they would be. In some areas, crime (Dems weak on that) is important. I'm sending a copy of this to a long-time Pennsylvania State Policewoman, Toni Gilhooley, who is running a great campaign for Congress in Harrisburg and surrounding counties. Toni spent 25 years in the PA State Police and her husband spent his adult life working in the same organization as a homicide investigator. They are great, great people. Her opponent is very vulnerable on gas prices/oil production and Toni is showing him no mercy, which I like a lot. I hope as time goes on people like Toni and Dr. Deb Honeycutt will work together, something that's usually unheard of but makes sense this year. Can Toni win? I believe she will win (and as you know, I rarely talk about winning and losing until Election Day). http://gilhooleyforcongress.com. She needs and deserves national support.
I've been speculating that -- just maybe -- Dr. Deborah Honeycutt could end up someday as the first Black female President. You can find the previous column on super-candidate Deborah and her opponent David Scott by scrolling down. The issue this column deals with -- gas prices -- is one every GOP challenger can use to crush his or her opponent.One of the campaign "strengths" of Deborah Honeycutt's opponent, David Scott, is that he owns an advertising company. He funnels campaign money into it in ways that are at least unethical and probably against House of Representatives' rules. In the 2006, election, Scott effectively used billboard ads on the endless series of highways around Atlanta.
Deborah Honeycutt should also make use of billboards, ones placed as close as possible to Scott's. The billboards should contain a picture of Dr. Honeycutt, and they should refer to Scott (usually a campaign no-no). They should go something like this:
Like $4 a gallon gas?
Of course, David Scott, being a good (robotic) Pelosi-type Democrat, voted against exploration and drilling in ANWR. Figuring out why he voted that way, representing an area dependent on the auto, boggles the mind.
Which other congressional candidates should use similar billboards? I hope every candidate I'm supporting -- in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and elsewhere -- will put up such ads. Just substitute names like "Altmire," "Holden," and "Murphy" for Scott.
The people who see the ad will be the same ones who just forked out $80-plus to fill up their gas tanks.
Issue #1 everywhere in the U.S. this year is going to be gasoline prices. The Democrats vote against domestic energy production (see below) and so the sky-high gas prices fall directly on their shoulders.
Note, Pennsylvania candidates-on-the-move, with chances to defeat incumbents, include: Melissa Hart (against Altmire), Tom Manion (against Murphy), Toni Gilhooley (against Holden), and Lou Barletta (against Paul Kanjorski). If John McCain carries PA by a large margin, as he should, all four of these candidates could win. They all need your support.
(More on Tuesday)
Sunday, June 22, 2008
I posted the material below on Sunday, when most people are not in a blog-reading state of mind. I'll leave it up today and add more material late Monday. If any candidtes wish to speak directly to Dr. Deborah Honeycutt, her phone number at the GA campaign office is: 770-714-4781. Her campaign manager, Michael M. Murphy, ihas teh following email address: firstname.lastname@example.org.
As you'll read below, Dr. Deborah Honeycutt from suburban Atlanta is a formidable Republican candidate for Congress. If you scroll down see material about her opponent -- David Scott -- you will find that one independent (but left-leaning) group has named him one of the most corrupt members of Congress. Deborah is a tremendous fund-raiser, and all candidates, especially challengers -- can learn from the ways she raises money.
Unfortunately, corruption is common among Democratic members of Congress, especially the Black Caucus, but that doesn't make the crooks easy to beat. If anyone can dislodge Scott (before he's lead off in leg irons), it's Deborah Honeycutt, one of the most remarkable women in the U.S. Keep reading to see how she's going about accomplishing her Herculean task.
And here you probably thought the most corrupt members of the House were either Howard Jefferson (with $90,000 of bribe money in his freezer, or Jack Murtha, who has used your tax dollars to enrich his major campaign contributors. But if you scroll down to the italicized section, you'll find the all-time champion of official corruption, GA Democratic Cong. David Scott, who is opposed by Deborah Honeycutt.
This column and those to follow should have great appeal to Republican congressional candidates (in PA and elsewhere) and their supporters around the nation. It focuses on a particular candidate, Deborah Honeycutt, M.D., who is doing everything right, particularly in fundraising. The following columns will describe how she might do the impossible: defeat an entrenched (and corrupt) Black incumbent congressman in a district that's almost 50% Black and Hispanic. I'll post the column Sunday afternoon (about 2:30 p.m. ET) and added to over the next two days. Please visit -- and tell candidates and their supporters across America that it exists. Thanks.
Almost every Republican congressional candidate running against a powerful Democrat incumbent has trouble raising enough money to get his or her message across. Dr. Deborah Honeycutt has no such problem. In 2008, she may generate more contributions than any other GOP candidate for the House. How has she done this?
Do I agree with Dr. Honeycutt, a staunch social conservative, on every issue? Nope -- but then again I don't agree with my wife (a supporter of Sen. Clinton) on everything. But Deborah Honeycutt has a clear outstanding of what's currently wrong with our country -- and how to fix those problems. This graduate of Illinois University Medical School is a thoroughly impressive woman.
In 2006, when she ran against David Scott, a totally self-serving man who votes to raise taxes but often "forgets" to pay his own, Honeycutt amazed the world by raising more than $1.3 million. This year she could conceivably raise more than $4 million.
She lost the 2006 race to Scott (a man who doesn't even live in his district!). According to Michael Barone in The Almanac of American Politics, the main reason for Honeycutt's loss was "lack of name recognition." The hard fact is that if people don't know who you are they're not likely to vote for you. This year, however, name recognition is not going to be a problem for Dr. Deb.
If you go to Open Secrets.org, you'll find fundraising information through March 31. You'll note that Scott has raised a little over $500,000 -- 80% of it from PACs. You'll also note that Honeycutt had raised nearly $1.7 million -- NONE OF IT FROM PACS. If she win the election, she would be the least PAC-tarnished candidate to serve in the last 100 years. (No, not all PACs are corrupt, but most of them are.)
Trust me, if the Political Action Committees were making contributions for "good government," the ethically-challenged and robotically Democratic Scott would have received nothing.
(To examine the fund-raising by Honeycutt and Scott please use the following link: http://opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?cycle=2008&id=GA13 )
Aside from the huge amounts of money Honeycutt has received, you'll find similar situations in relation to PACs with Pennsylvania congressional Republicans -- Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Tom Manion, Marina Kats, Bill Russell, Craig Williams, and Lou Barletta. The PACs now that these people are superior candidates, but hey, the PAC-men will say, "Business is business." The PACs are buying access (a votes), not character and judgment.
Most incumbents -- take a look at Hart's opponent, Jason Altmire, or Gilhooley's opponent, Tim Holden -- get the vast majority of their money from PACs, (Often, they also get a good chunk oftheir donations from individuals associated with companies linked to the PACs -- as happens with Murtha and Altmire in their vast donations from University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.)
But how does Honeycutt raise huge sums of money? She gets it from individuals who believe in her and the causes she represents. Refreshing, huh?
Honeycutt has raised most of her money through mailings to "values voters" -- social conservatives, the kind of people who strongly supported Mike Huckabee. There are roughly 15 million such voters in the country, and Honeycutt is using her own mailing list and the lists of third-party fundraisers. It's obviously working very well. She's appealing to people who have an inclination to donate and a history of doing so. (That's the same reason I receive a lot of mail requests for money from John McCain and [many] others.)
A lot of Republican challengers have a terrible time raising money. One reason is that they're asking the wrong people. For challengers, the "wrong people" include the vast majority of PACs. The "wrong people" also include individuals, including Republicans, who need political favors from incumbent Democrats.
Is there a flip side to Honeycutt's focus on mailings to values voters? Yes, because to raise big money requires the expenditure of significant sums. Third-parties who have "golden" mailing lists don't provide their services for nothing.
You'll see on OpenSecrets.org that Honeycutt had expenditures by April of $1.5 million. I dearly hope a good part of that spending went for ad buys (TV and radio), as well as billboards. (Her opponent, Scott, owns an ad company and is famous for billboard ads; I'll explain later today how Honeycutt can use billboards AGAINST the "billboard-man.") The Scott-Honeycutt material on OpenSecrets is very worth examining.
Luckily for Honeycutt (although not for the country), Scott has heeded Nancy Pelosi's admonition to vote against all forms of domestic oil production. My suggestion to Deborah is that she might use that fact on her own billboards on the highways in suburban Atlanta. In short, she has Scott dead-to-rights on high gasoline prices, which will be the biggest issue in this year's campaigns.
To my candidate friends in PA, as well as those in Illinois, California, and elsewhere, Honeycutt is woth not just knowing about, but also studying. She is very, very good at what she does. And as you'll read later, she is good at many things other than just raising tons of cash.
P.S. What's the downside to using third-parties to raise funds from groups. If you don't have a strong link to the groups -- as Honeycutt does with evangelicals, the "values voters" -- you probably won't generate a lot of cash. Also, you may have spend one dollar for every two you raise. However, in my modest town of Ambridge, PA, if you give somebody a five-dollar bill and he hands you back a ten-spot, we call that a great deal.
Honeycutt's Opponent Rep. David Scott: Scum-of-the-Earth
Those of you who've read the above about Dr. Honeycutt may be wondering, "Gee, Steve, don't you have anything to say about her opponent, David Scott, the 13th district Congressman from Georgia, who actually lives in Washington, DC?" No, I have nothing nice to say about Scott, who is a step or two below being the scum of the earth. He's a persistent tax-evader and a violator of House rules on campaign finance. Below is the report of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics and Washington, which lists Scott as one of the 22 most members of Congress.
Rep. David Scott (D-GA) is a third-term congressman, representing Georgia’s 13th district. Rep. Scott’s ethics issues stem from allegations of tax evasion and misuse of official resources for political campaign activity.
In 2003, Rep. Scott and his wife, Ms. Alfredia Scott, began missing federal income tax payments that now total nearly $154,000 and have failed to pay $23,200 in taxes on their Georgia home. In addition, their company Dayn-Mark Advertising, failed to pay over $4,600 in local and state taxes since 1998. At the same time the Scotts were failing to pay their taxes, they increased their stock holdings from $5,000 to about $67,000 and bought a $702,000 rowhouse in Washington D.C. More than 40 tax liens have been placed against Rep. Scott’s home and business.
Personal, Business and Campaign Finances
Since Rep. Scott’s first congressional bid in 2002, Rep. Scott’s wife, two daughters, his son-in-law and employees of Dayn-Mark have received disbursements from his campaign committee. From 2002 through the July 2007 FEC reporting period, Rep. Scott’s campaign committee paid a total of $124,795.98 to his wife, two daughters and son-in-law, and $491,382.00 to Dayn-Mark Advertising and its employees. Rep. Scott has reimbursed himself $98,952.75 for travel, billboards, and fund-raising expenses. In total, since 2002, Rep. Scott’s committee has disbursed $715,330.17 to his family, business, and himself. The payments to his family and company became larger and more frequent in 2003, around the same time Rep. Scott was falling behind on his taxes.
Rep. Scott, by failing to pay taxes on his home and business and by failing to pay property taxes on his Georgia home may have violated federal and state tax laws.
Misuse of official resources
In July 2007, The Politico reported that a staff member alleged Rep. Scott has misused his federally funded congressional staff and resources to run his political campaigns. The staffer, Robert Merrill, alleged that Rep. Scott had designated certain congressional employees to do only campaign work, that congressional employees often did campaign work on taxpayer time and used government office equipment, that on taxpayer time congressional employees engaged in political work from Rep. Scott’s advertising firm, and that these employees’ absences compromised the productivity of the congressional office.
By using congressional staff to engage in campaign activity on official time and with the use of official resources, Rep. Scott may have violated the prohibition on soliciting political contributions from employees, the prohibition on using appropriated funds for campaign activity, House ethics rules and the regulations of the Committee on House Administration.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Dr. Deborah Travis Honeycutt, head of a free medical clinic in Georgia and an evangelical Christian, is running as a Republican candidate for Congress in Georgia's 13th District. And is she ever. Dr. Honeycutt has raised approximately $2 million (probably more), none of it from PACs -- that is, all of it from individuals. This weekend (Saturday evening) I'll feature her and two more African-American Republicans, Antoine Members and Anthony Williams, both from Chicago, IL. THEY ALL NEED YOUR SUPPORT! (Deborah, please run on the gas issue -- see below.)
[On my Hillary Supporters for McCain blog, I have new information about the "Larry Sinclair scandal" now swirling around Barack Obama. Sinclair has made explosive charges regarding drugs and other matters concerning the Illinois Senator. ]
Basically, the main issue in this campaign is whether the Democrats will continue to advocate $6-$7 a gallon gasoline by blocking exploration and production of oil off-shore and in Alaska. For 20 years they have been blocking production in a tiny area of ANWR and in most of the OCS, which means we don't have the gasoline supply now that we should.
Are the Democrats who oppose such drilling -- Altmire, Murphy, Holden, Sestak, Schwartz, Doyle, and others -- going to own up to their direct responsibility for the gasoline crisis? Hey, they're just doing what Nancy Pelosi told them to.
Barack Obama believes the high gasoline prices, which are driving families and communities to the economic wall, are good for the country. He wants them to go higher, and he's leading his PA cronies along as if they had rings in their noses.
Keep these people in office, and fairly soon four-buck-a-gallon gasoline will seem like the good old days. I hope Republican challengers attach this issue to the incumbents the same way they'd pin a tail to a donkey. Hugo Chavez ought to send all of the Democrats listed a campaign contribution.
It is disgusting, and it is damaging the American Way of Life. It must stop.
In PA, WV, and OH, the ecomomies of untold communities depend to a significant degree on the development of clean coal technology and production. The Democrats didn't even include it in their poor excuse for an "energy bill." Two generations ago, Germany was running its economy on liquefied coal.
Why aren't we doing the same? Oh, right, the Democrats and Obama don't like coal. They also don't much like nuclear power, which is free of carbon emissions. I give up.
What exactly is it that they like? Oh right, corn-based ethanol, which is driving up your food prices and aggravating world hunger. Shameful.
Jason Altmire's opponent is Melissa Hart (http://peoplewithhart.com/)
Patrick Murphy's opponent is Tom Manion (http://votemanion.com/)
Tim Holden's opponent is Toni Gilhooley (http://gilhooleyforcongress.com/)
Joe Sestak's opponenet is Craig Williams (http://craigwilliamsforcongress.com/)
Allyson Schwartz's opponenet is Marina Kats (http://katsforcongress.com/)
John Murtha's opponent is Bill Russell (http://williamrussellforcongress.com/)
Paul Kanjorski's opponent is Lou Barletta (http://loubarletta.com/)
Mike Doyle has no opponent -- that's his definition of democracy.
Nancy Pelosi's opponent is Dana Walsh (http://danawalshforcongress.com/.
Sen. Dick Durbin, who has been voting against exploration for 25 years has an opponent, Dr. Steve Sauerberg, who's at: http://sauerbergforussenate.com/.
Why should you vote against the boldfaced (and bald-faced) Democrats. Because as they go on their merry way, they're wrecking your way of life and the lives of your neighbors.
Why not send each of the challengers above a $25 donation -- more if you wish. Twenty-five bucks is a lot less than you'll paying for a half a tank of gas if the docile Dems keep blocking America from producing its own oil.
If you haven't seen the Jack Kelly column (below), please scroll down. Anyone who wants to reprint this column is free to do so. If you'd like to send a copy to voters in your districts, be my guest. On Sunday, I'll be writing about three dynamic African-American candidates, Antoine Members, Anthony Williams, and Dr. Deborah Travis Honeycutt.
A candidate's best friend is the one that tells him or her the unvarnished truth. In that sense, national security writer Jack Kelly is John McCain's best friend. In the following column Kelly (a former Marine, former Special Forces soldider, and former Congressional candidate) Kelly criticizes John McCain for a lack of political shrewdness.
Kelly is telling McCain what he must do to win the election. If Sen. McCain does not do such things, he cannot win. (Kelly writes for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade.)
What relevance does this have to Republican challengers like Melissa Hart, Toni Gihooley, Marina Kats, Tom Manion, Bill Russell, and others -- inside and outside Pennsylvania? The suggestions Kelly makes are relevant to all candidates. They need to pin the rapid rises in gasoline prices -- most of which have taken place since the 2006 election -- on the Democrats. If Toni, Melissa, Marina, Tom, and Bill do the things Jack suggests -- and do them every day between now and Nov. 4 -- they have a good chance of winning.
If they don't, they will lose. It's just that simple. Jack's column follows:
JOURNAL PRESS SYNDICATE
545 West End Ave. (Suite 2C)
New York, N.Y. 10024-2713
Tel: (212) 580-8559
[Note: If your local newspaper doesn't print Jack Kelly's syndicated column, please call them up today and ask them (nicely but firmly) to start doing so. If they continue not to, keep calling]
BY JACK KELLY
Barack Obama has the lead for the time being. But three sign posts point the way to a McCain landslide in November -- in the unlikely event the Arizona senator has the wit to heed them.What figures to be by far the most important issue this fall is the skyrocketing price of energy and its deleterious effect on the broader economy and national security.
Now that Sen. McCain has flip flopped on drilling off of our coasts, there is a substantial difference between him and Sen. Obama on the issue. Sen. McCain also supports building more nuclear power plants, which Sen. Obama opposes.
Opinion polls indicate a large majority now supports drilling for oil off our coasts and in Alaska. That majority is likely to expand and harden as gas prices rise this summer. But Sen. McCain can't fully capitalize politically on this change in public attitude unless he completes his flip flop, and consents to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Commentary editor John Podhoretz fears Sen. McCain's ego will prevent him from doing what is in his, and his country's interest:"So McCain 2 makes a big speech about offshore drilling and the need for it. Fine. But the message is muted and confused.
"Why? Because McCain 1 voted against oil exploration and field development in (ANWR) and McCain 2 doesn't want to look like a flip flopper by changing his stand on the matter...In acting out of a combination of holer-than-thou piety and political pique, McCain 1 has made it all but impossible for McCain 2 to run with this issue and go on the offensive with Obama on a matter of central concern to the American people."
I fear Mr. Podhoretz is correct. But few Americans would hold flip flopping against Sen. McCain, because they've flip flopped, too. Soccer moms were happy to genuflect to environmental pieties when gasoline was $2 a gallon. But now that they have to sell their firstborn to fill up their SUVs, their attitude has changed dramatically.
If Sen. McCain were to fly to ANWR and announce his change of heart there, the attendant publicity would make it clear to Americans the sharp difference between himself and Sen. Obama on the issue most important to their pocketbooks.
He supports letting Floridians and Californians decide whether there should be drilling off their coasts. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to Alaskans? A large majority favor drilling in ANWR.
The second sign post is Sen. Obama's clumsy embrace of a Sept. 10th attitude toward the war on terror. The law enforcement approach toward fighting it is precisely what led to Sept. 11, 2001.Fortunately, national security is the one issue Sen. McCain knows something about.
The danger for him here is that he'll overemphasize it. The fact that we're winning the war on terror makes most Americans less interested in it, and more focused on economic concerns. Voter anxiety about Sen. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief is a strong subsidiary issue. But this election will be won or lost at the gas pump.
The third sign post was illuminated by the flap over the receipt by the (now former) head of Barack Obama's vice presidential selection committee and two prominent U.S. senators of below market rate loans from Countrywide Finance, which Sen. Obama has charged is in large part responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis. One of those senators, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, is trying to push through Congress a bill that would, in effect, bail out Countrywide.
This glaring conflict of interest hasn't attracted much attention from the news media, because for most journalists, a scandal isn't really a scandal unless Republicans are involved. But it's an issue tailor made for Sen. McCain. He has often stupidly (see McCain-Feingold), but always ardently, fought pork barrel spending and corruption. Congress has its lowest approval rating in the history of polling.
Replacing the Washington way with the Chicago way is not an improvement. Sen. McCain is the best person to make that case, and Americans are in a mood to hear it.
The sign posts also indicate who Sen. McCain should choose for his running mate. No Republican can better make the case for drilling than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and no governor has fought harder against corruption, especially in her own party.
So go to ANWR, Sen. McCain. Embrace Sarah Palin there. You'll have to eat some crow. But crow doesn't taste so bad when it's served on the White House china.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Friday, June 20th
These are the hottest congressional races in Pennsylvania this year. It doesn't look currently like the GOP will win all of them -- but, surprisingly, it could very well win most of them.
Here's a short piece I wrote today to Katie Hastings O'Malley, a writer for Human Events and other publications:
Hi Katie: I hope you'll write something on our Pennsylvania races, In my own district (4th), Melissa Hart is trying to regain her seat against Jason Altmire, a self-described "conservative" of whom Bob Novak said, "There's nothing conservative about him." Melissa is a slight favorite. She's a wonderful human being -- and Altmire is nothing more than a snake.
Toni Gilhooley (17th) , one of the female pioneers in the PA State Police, is running against Tim Holden, a Superdelegate who announced he was voting "moot" in the Obama-Hillary race. If Toni can raise the money to get her message across, she has a chance for victory.
Tom Manion, a 30-year-Marine who lost a son in Iraq, is running against Nancy Pelosi's political boytoy, Patrick Murphy. Murphy's district voted two-to-one for Hillary, so of course he came out early for Obama. This race is highly competitive, although extreme leftists are pouring in money for Murphy. If McCain does very well in Bucks County, he could help carry Manion into office.
Lou Barletta (of anti-illegals fame) is running very well against Paul Kanjorski, who vies for the coverted title of most Corrupt Member of Congress.
Bill Russell, who served as an Army Lt. Col. in Iraq, is running against John Murtha. There are widespread rumors (which I believe) that this is Murtha's last go-round -- too much alcohol, too much rich food, too much betrayal of his fellow Marines. I've contributed to Bill's campaign and support him strongly, but I've sadly concluded that this race is not winnable. At the same time I acknowledge some strange things (and some good things) happen in politics, and I hope that's the case here. Murtha is a disgusting excuse for a human being -- corrupt and absolutely self-serving.
Murtha does not look well. Beyond that, his notorious big mouth has remained shut, a sure sign that he's not in good health. The probability is that this will be his last go-round. He has raised a huge amount of cash from his favorite special-interests, and he should be able to buy his way to one more victory.
If I had to hazard a guess, I believe the next congresswoman from the 12th district will be Diana Lynn Irey. But that would be in 2010.
Marina Kats, a Russian emigre and entrepreneur-lawyer is running against the truly wretched Allyson Schwartz. As a human being, Marina is one of the best candidates in PA ever to stand for federal office. However, her campaign has gotten off to a slow start, and that's not exactly the way to beat Allyson Schwartz, who raises gazillions of dollars. If the election were based on the qualities of the individuals running, Marina would win in a walk.
I dearly hope her campaign catches fire. Montgomery County and Northeast Philly would be lucky to have a patriot like her in office, rather than someone (Schwartz) who panders relentlessly to the worst elements in our society.
Craig Williams versus Joe Sestak. I don't have a good handle on this race. Sestak is a purely programmatic liberal, and he dearly deserves to lose, but he's ahead now and may remain so. (I'll write more about this contest in coming weeks.
Are we having fun yet?
One of the fascinating developments in PA politics (and nationally) is the semi-frantic effort to get angry Hillary Supporters (MAHHS -- Mad as hell Hillary Supporters) -- on board with GOP candidates, including of course John McCain. As I suggested earlier, when such Hillary Supporters find out the roles of people like Murphy, Altmire, and Holden in torpedoing Mrs. Clinton's campaign, they will be less likely to vote for said Democrats.
Yes, there are a lot of stories here in the Keystone State . . .
On my Hillary Supporters for McCain site, I wrote (Thurs.-Friiday column) about the many strengths of Hillary Clinton -- and contrasted them with the many weaknesses of Barack Obama. The battle for the Hillary Supporters is the highest stake game in contemporary politics.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
However, since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet to historically low levels;
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars; and,
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
Toni Gilhooley supports a real energy policy aimed at lowering skyrocketing gas prices. The simple plan is in stark contrast to the inaction taken by her November opponent, Tim Holden, and his Democratic House leader, Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi’s 2006 campaign promise that Democrats would provide, “a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices (4/24/2006 – average gas price at the time $2.33 per gallon),” has never been revealed. Since that time the average price per gallon has ballooned to near $4 ($3.95 5/29/2008) per gallon.
Toni Gilhooley, as one of many measures in a comprehensive energy plan to be released in the coming weeks, supports drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and in American coastal waters. China has been given permission by Cuba to drill less than 50 miles from the coast of Florida.
“If we had taken measures to drill in ANWR and other areas ten years ago when Tim Holden voted NO and President Clinton vetoed a bill to allow it, we would not be experiencing the highest gasoline prices in history today. These extraordinarily high prices are affecting working families adversely in everything from food to transportation. We can no longer afford Tim Holden and his policies,” said Toni Gilhooley.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Of course, the Democrats want to blame George W. Bush for everything but President Bush has been warning for many years about the consequences of our "addiction to oil." He has been emphasizing the need for more production.
The Democrats should not get away with scapegoating, because the responsibility for mushrooming gasoline prices is theirs and their alone.
Gasoline prices are what is going to defeat many Democrats in this year's election. It will be the reasons for the currently unexpected losses of congressional representatives like Jason Altmire, (opposed by Melissa Hart), Tim Holden (opposed by Toni Gilhooley), Patrick Murphy (opposed by Tom Manion), and Allyson Schwartz (opposed by Marina Kats). They're the ones who voted to prohibit oil exploration and refinery expansions. George W. Bush did not "force" them in ways that have led to the disaster of $4-plus gasoline prices.
Barack Obama has said basically that skyrocketing gas prices are a good thing. He is going to regret such comments. People who believe rising gas prices are good thing are not going to get elected to anything.
When the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said she was "going to do something" about gasoline prices. She has. Under her "leadership," gasoline prices have gone up 75%. That's a point Republican challengers should drive home every day.
Issue #1 in the coming election is going to be the rapidly rising gasoline prices. It will not be Iraq, nor will it be health care or the overall economy. So . . .
How can individuals like Steve Sauerberg, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Illinois (opposing Sen. Dick Durbin) pull off a totally unexpected victory? He needs to get across the point that re-electing people who are the causes of the nation's problems is a form of political insanity (i.e., doing the same thing repeatedly and hoping somehow for a different result).
A key point GOP challengers for federal offices must make is this: Only 22% of the American people approve of the performance of Congress, but many people are quick to defend their local person. In fact, Dick Durbin -- and many others like him -- ARE the Congress.
Durbin has been part of it since 1982, and anything that's wrong with it is frankly his fault. He's not somehow divorced from its failures. They're HIS failures.
Left-wing Democrats like Durbin have sought to blame the oil companies. In fact, it's not necessary to love those companies to recognize that they are in fact the ones that produce all the oil and gasoline. The producers are not the cause of the pain we all feel at the pump. The cause of the problem is a Congress that seeks to deflect blame -- and that has voted repeatedly with environmental extremists.
Over the years, Durbin and his allies have done everything in their power to ensure a rapid rise in gas prices. Voting against production -- and against creating new refineries -- is now exacting a terrible cost on the American people.
During Dick Durbin's tenure in Congress (since 1982), gasoline prices have more than tripled! (See http://moveondickdurbin.org).
What did Durbin do to prevent the gas price catastrophe? Nothing. What did he do to warn the American people? Nothing. So, what can we expect from a future Congress full of Durbins? Would you believe gasoline at $6-$7 a gallon (or more)? What is Durbin's plan to prevent such an economy-destroying development? He has none.
In fact, his approach is to ensure the U.S. produces LESS oil -- presumably so we can become more dependent on the Hugo Chavezes of the world.
The people of Illinois will re-elect someone like Durbin at their peril. He's presiding over the destruction of the American way-of-life, and he shouldn't be rewarded for that.