For GOP only

[Balta1701]

Holy s***! So much for the myth of "law abiding" I had no idea the #s were this high.

So, I have some problems with that number, but given that it seems like a very odd number, I'm not exactly sure how to interpret it. Couple of points:

 

First, here's exactly what Malkin says: "foreign-born individuals admitted to state correctional facilities and local jails during the year for committing crimes in the U.S." I'm not exactly sure what all that includes honestly. She doesn't say anything about being convicted of a crime, she doesn't say what sort of crimes are being included. It could very well be that she's picked out her number in such a way as to make things look as bad as humanly possible, i.e. by including the 200,000+ folks picked up solely on immigration violations, or including people who are picked up but never charged with anything.

 

Secondly, if we assume there are roungly 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, that gives a rate of 5.4% If you assume the other end of the estimates, 20 million, that comes to 3.25%. According to the U.S. Census bureau, the U.S. prison population may rise to 7.7 million, or 3.4% of the population, by 2010. Amongst the African American population, for example, the rate is even higher, although for some reason I can't seem to find the data I want using Google. I'm amazed and frustrated.

 

And beyond that, this number clashes with other number sthat have been recently published. Citing a study from about 2 months ago:

The incarceration rate of U.S.- born men 18 to 39 years old in 2000 was 3.5 percent — five times higher than the incarceration rate of their immigrant counterparts, the study found.

...

For example, foreign-born Mexican men had an incarceration rate of 0.7 percent in 2000, more than eight times lower than the 5.9 percent rate of U.S.-born males of Mexican descent.

To my eyes, this number just doesn't pass the smell test. It seems like something has been done to artificially inflate it to make it look as bad as humanly possible, without giving appropriate explanation of where it actually comes from.

[mr_genius]

Dick Durbin

 

the guy is a colossal phony

 

i can't watch him on tv for more than 2 seconds without getting pissed.

 

John Edwards isn't just looking to repeal the Bush tax cuts, he is looking to possibly raise them further.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...24141-8365r.htm

 

the democrats will only raise taxes on those that are wealthy.

 

what they don't tell you is they consider anyone making over $40,000 a year "wealthy",

[kapkomet]

the guy is a colossal phony

 

i can't watch him on tv for more than 2 seconds without getting pissed.

the democrats will only raise taxes on those that are wealthy.

 

what they don't tell you is they consider anyone any family making over $40,000 a year "wealthy",

 

Fixed that for you.

[BigSqwert]

what they don't tell you is they consider anyone making over $40,000 a year "wealthy",

You have a source for that fact?

[Balta1701]

So, I'm not sure where exactly to stick this, but I think it's interesting, so here goes. An MIT paper taking a detailed look at the practicallity and effectiveness of an Israeli-led strike against the Iranian nuclear industry. Link.

[mr_genius]

You have a source for that fact?

 

 

The Bush tax cuts (which are supposedly only for the wealthy) cut taxes on a salary of 40,000.

 

If the tax cuts are rolled-back to the Clinton rates (which the dems like) , everyones taxes will increase. Of course, they will raise the highest tax brackets first, but everyone elses taxes will eventually be raised. But it won't won't be a tax increase, it's just a rate adjustment!

[Balta1701]

The Bush tax cuts (which are supposedly only for the wealthy) cut taxes on a salary of 40,000.

 

If the tax cuts are rolled-back to the Clinton rates (which the dems like) , everyones taxes will increase. Of course, they will raise the highest tax brackets first, but everyone elses taxes will eventually be raised. But it won't won't be a tax increase, it's just a rate adjustment!

I thought those tax cuts went to everyone!

[mr_genius]

I thought those tax cuts went to everyone!

 

 

well, i will concede that even the democrats don't want to raise taxes on the $0- $8,000 tax bracket.

[BigSqwert]

Anyone have thoughts on the debate last night? I only caught a few snippets.

 

Romney seemed very presidential.

Edited May 4, 2007 by BigSqwert

[Cknolls]

A radio hatemonger in Milwaukee

By Michelle Malkin · May 04, 2007 10:05 AM

 

WNOV's Michael McGee: Gleeful over radio rival's mother's tragic death

 

Despicable:

 

A former alderman and controversial radio talk show host said he's happy the mother of his radio rival is dead.

Michael McGee Sr. made the comments during his radio show on WNOV-AM Thursday morning. Charlie Sykes is a radio talk show host on WTMJ-AM. Sykes' mother, Katherine B. Sykes, died in a house fire Tuesday. The Ozaukee County Coroner said Thursday that Sykes died of smoke inhalation...

 

..."Mother Sykes, she dead. To me it's the vengeance of God. I ain't got no tears. Matter of fact a woman that would have a fool like that deserve whatever is coming her. She raised a sure enough idiot," McGee said on his radio show. "My instincts say Charlie Sykes killed his momma, cuz she live out in this big palace in Mequon all isolated. He got tired of waiting for her money."

 

 

More background at Modern Commentaries:

 

[McGee's] homophobic, race-baiting radio rants coupled with his son's underhanded legal activity (he's got TWO legal names, two Social Security Numbers and drivers' licenses), his son's ill treatment of women (he threatened to kill his pregnant mistress in court, after perjuring himself and denying he'd had an affair with her), and his son's outlandish behavior (he was arrested for disturbing the peace after loitering outside a Blockbuster video, in a neighborhood where robberies are prominent, at the wee hours of the morning; he recently called for groups to throw bricks at cars in his district to...combat speeding).

Unfortunately, these two have gotten away with a lot of - no, all - of this behavior. McGee (Jackson), Jr. even survived a recall election (he's an Alderman in Milwaukee). This, sadly, speaks volumes about the political climate in Milwaukee - people like the McGees are looked to as "leaders" in a community rife with violence, family strife, and racial tensions. They do nothing to help the people of the community. In fact, they embrace the violence, strife, and racial tensions (which are often played up) and continue allowing Milwaukee neighborhoods to spiral.

 

 

 

Apple does not fall far from the tree.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Cknolls

[mr_genius]

Anyone have thoughts on the debate last night? I only caught a few snippets.

 

Romney seemed very presidential.

 

 

The debate was horribly moderated in both style and the questions asked. possibly the worst run debate i've ever seen.

 

MSNBC and Politico.com were running it, so I should have expected as much.

 

Romney won, IMO. No one really screwed up, it was fairly even.

[BigSqwert]

Generational Tensions

The sons and daughters of some iconic Republicans (Ike! T.R.!) are contemplating crossing the aisle.

 

By Michael Hirsh

Newsweek

 

May 14, 2007 issue - Susan Eisenhower is an accomplished professional, the president of an international consulting firm. She also happens to be Ike's granddaughter—and in that role, she's the humble torchbearer for moderate "Eisenhower Republicans." Increasingly, however, she says that the partisanship and free spending of the Bush presidency—and the takeover of the party by single-issue voters, especially pro-lifers—is driving these pragmatic, fiscally conservative voters out of the GOP. Eisenhower says she could vote Democratic in 2008, but she's still intent on saving her party. "I made a pact with a number of people," she tells NEWSWEEK. "I said, 'Please don't leave the party without calling me first.' For a while, there weren't too many calls. And then suddenly, there was a flurry of them. I found myself watching them slip away one by one."

 

Eisenhower isn't the only GOP scion debating if the party still feels like home. Theodore Roosevelt IV, an investment banker in New York and an environmental activist like his great-grandfather, Teddy, takes issue with what he says is George W. Bush's inattention to global warming (and Republican presidential contender John McCain's flirtations with the religious right). He's unhappy with the cost of the global war on terror and the record deficits incurred to finance it. Ninety years ago, former president Teddy Roosevelt attacked Woodrow Wilson's pro-democracy idealism, calling it "milk-and-water righteousness"; Roosevelt's great-grandson doesn't like how the current president is promoting values abroad, either. "I come from a tradition of pragmatic Republicanism," he says. "This administration has taken the idea of aggressively exporting democracy à la Woodrow Wilson and gone in a direction even Wilson wouldn't have considered."

 

Entire Article--> LINK

[southsider2k5]

Entire Article--> LINK

 

Its funny that you only read stuff about Republicians crossing the aisle, and that they are also the only ones who are willing to do the same in votes, and to critisize their own party, but they are the ones who are stubborn.

[kapkomet]

Yea, kind of like Joe L. - who is pretty much hated in Democrat circles.

[BigSqwert]

With all the blunders that have occurred over the past 6 years, including all the scandals involving Republicans, it's not surprising to see a lot of GOP supporters defect. And have you seen the approval rating of Bush lately? He'd fit right in with the Sox lineup with numbers that low.

[southsider2k5]

With all the blunders that have occurred over the past 6 years, including all the scandals involving Republicans, it's not surprising to see a lot of GOP supporters defect. And have you seen the approval rating of Bush lately? He'd fit right in with the Sox lineup with numbers that low.

 

That's right, I forgot the Dems only do things right.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think it can be truly said that neither party has any sort of moral high ground. The GOP is messed up in part because of BushCo, yes. But in the last few months, the Dem Congress is doing no better than the GOP did.

 

If you read the article, you also see hints of what I think the real reason for the defections is - the GOP has shifted its focus as a party. The small government, fiscal discipline and individual freedoms themes that once dominated the party line have fallen by the wayside, in favor of a conservative social agenda (budgets and freedoms be damned). That I think, more than any scandals, has been the reason for flight for politicians from the Republican party.

 

Voters are fickle, so they are more effected by the current administration and its blunders. But these people more at the core of politics, when they consider jumping the aisle, its for more thematic reasons.

[kapkomet]

I think it can be truly said that neither party has any sort of moral high ground. The GOP is messed up in part because of BushCo, yes. But in the last few months, the Dem Congress is doing no better than the GOP did.

 

If you read the article, you also see hints of what I think the real reason for the defections is - the GOP has shifted its focus as a party. The small government, fiscal discipline and individual freedoms themes that once dominated the party line have fallen by the wayside, in favor of a conservative social agenda (budgets and freedoms be damned). That I think, more than any scandals, has been the reason for flight for politicians from the Republican party.

 

Voters are fickle, so they are more effected by the current administration and its blunders. But these people more at the core of politics, when they consider jumping the aisle, its for more thematic reasons.

And that's the reason that I consider myself an independent as opposed to GOP or Dem. Personally, I'm more of a social libertarian and a fiscal conservative. The social libertarian part of me agrees with some Dem platforms, but both parties are so extreme right now, that they all suck.

[Rex Kickass]

Its funny that you only read stuff about Republicians crossing the aisle, and that they are also the only ones who are willing to do the same in votes, and to critisize their own party, but they are the ones who are stubborn.

 

How quickly you forget Zell Miller. Ben Nelson. Hell, Joe Lieberman left the party after he couldn't win a primary.

[kapkomet]

How quickly you forget Zell Miller. Ben Nelson. Hell, Joe Lieberman left the party after he couldn't win a primary.

And they all pretty much had to leave or be pushed out for their beliefs. The republican party does the same thing, but it's not nearly as dramatic most of the time.

[NorthSideSox72]

And they all pretty much had to leave or be pushed out for their beliefs. The republican party does the same thing, but it's not nearly as dramatic most of the time.

Anyone remember the Blue Dog Democrats, from the south? Or the Farm Democrats of the midwest? Or the Northeast Republicans?

 

These were smallish but powerful mini-lobbies in Congress for decades. Moderates of their own parties. They were a key ingredient to making compromise work, and getting legislation passed. They crossed party lines on some issues, which helped grease the wheels and keep things moving.

 

Now those small groups are dead or dying. That, to me, is a huge indicator of what Congress is becoming - irreconcilably divided. The reaction may be a third party, or a resurgence of moderate candidates, maybe from the mountain west or pacific northwest. But right now, the result is stagnation. It sucks.

[Rex Kickass]

And they all pretty much had to leave or be pushed out for their beliefs. The republican party does the same thing, but it's not nearly as dramatic most of the time.

 

Last time I checked Ben Nelson is still a Democrat serving in office. Zell Miller chose to endorse Bush in 2004 and then retired. Joe Lieberman ran in a Democratic primary and said that he'll run in the general regardless of whether or not he still has the support of his party.

 

Nobody made anyone leave. Hell, Lieberman won because he had the tacit support of Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid.

[Balta1701]

Here's a chance for all you Republicans to laugh at me and say "I told you so".

 

House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.

 

Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They're also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.

 

The growing resistance to several proposed reforms now threatens passage of a bill that once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats' campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices.

 

``The longer we wait, the weaker the bill seems to get,'' said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, which has pushed for the changes. ``The sense of urgency is fading,'' he said, in part because scandals such as those involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., have given way to other news.

 

The situation concerns some Democrats, who note their party campaigned against a ``culture of corruption'' in 2006, when voters ended a long run of Republican control of Congress. Several high-profile issues remained in doubt Friday, five days before the House Judiciary Committee is to take up the legislation.

 

They include proposals to:

 

-Require lobbyists to disclose details about large donations they arrange for politicians.

 

-Make former lawmakers wait two years, instead of one, before lobbying Congress.

 

-Bar lobbyists from throwing large parties for lawmakers at national political conventions.

 

All appeared headed for adoption in January when the Senate, with much fanfare, included them in a lobby-reform bill that passed easily. But the provisions, plus many others in the bill, cannot become law unless the House concurs - and that's where feet are dragging.

 

The issues are in danger of being dropped from the House version, a Democratic member close to the negotiations said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity because sensitive discussions were continuing.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Balta1701

[EvilMonkey]

Here's a chance for all you Republicans to laugh at me and say "I told you so".

I can't find where I read it, but I read that the Dems also now want to change the rules on accepting flights from people. Thye want to make it ok to do it if the person providing the plane is 'a personal friend', which wold suddenly make lobbists very popular people again. I won't say I told you so, because you probably suspected as much from them all along, despite hoping for better.

[Texsox]

The plane thing always was a tough call for me. On one end, it saves the country money. On the other is the appearance of impropriety.