a running commentary by our trusted california contributors...

National Issues Blogging at theOneRepublic's Blog [tOR Blog]

[11/30/04 Tuesday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:03 am [link]
Arnold's Intelligence and Congress' Bill Did you notice the stumbling block inside of the Intelligence Bill on the Hill in DC? From the New York Times:

Mr. Bush intervened to try to rescue the talks about 7 p.m. Friday, when he telephoned Mr. Sensenbrenner from aboard Air Force One, en route to Chile, with a plea that Mr. Sensenbrenner compromise and drop his insistence that the bill contain a provision banning the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Mr. Sensenbrenner had long championed the idea, which he depicted as a means of blocking terrorists from obtaining official government identification; several of the Sept. 11 hijackers had been issued driver's licenses. But it was opposed by White House officials and many lawmakers from both parties as unnecessary and an infringement on the rights of state governments.

"What the president was stressing to me was that he would like to get this issue off the table because the Congressional agenda and the presidential agenda were going to be very ambitious" next year, Mr. Sensenbrenner said of Mr. Bush's request for quick passage of an intelligence bill. "I didn't want to give up on the driver's license provision," he said. "But out of respect for him, if he asked me to, I said I would give up on it."

But in dropping the driver's license provision, Mr. Sensenbrenner told the other negotiators that he wanted to reintroduce other law enforcement and immigration provisions, including a measure that would give new discretion to immigration officials in deciding whether to grant political asylum to immigrants. The Senate negotiators and House Democrats said the new provisions, which have been strongly opposed by civil liberties groups, were equally unacceptable.

This measure inside of the Intelligence Bill could help Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in dealing with this issue inside of California...either way, if it stays or if it goes.

Daniel Weintraub remarks:

"Either way, the bill has the potential to get Gov. Schwarzenegger off the hook. Obviously, if the feds ban them, his hands are tied and he can quit negotiating with California Democrats who are pushing him to approve the licenses. If Sensenbrenner drops his move and the bill instead contains guidelines for the states to use, then the governor can apply those and tell conservatives he is simply following federal law."

This is something we have talked about on 1380 KTKZ for a number of months. Congress has had their eyes on state driver's license issue since early summer. This is the saving grace for Arnold in dealing with Gil Cedillo, Fabian Nunez, Art Torres, the Latino Caucus and even Mike Spence of the CRA that wants to run out "The Son of 187" once again. [Hogue Blog]

[11/29/04 Monday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:05 am [link]
Sacramento NAACP Bought and Paid For? This recent article in the Sac Bee had me thinking over the Thanksgiving break.

Why is the Sacramento Chapter of the NAACP a foe of the chartered school initiative in California, especially the effort of Kevin Johnson's St. Hope Academy and the success at Margaret Fortune's Sacramento High?

I've had lunch with the out going President of the Sacramento Chapter of the NAACP, David DeLuz, interestingly enough at a Republican fund raising event...his brother's (Craig DeLuz, a fine Republican) bid for city council this past year. David is a fine man, well spoken and well intentioned inside of his ideology.

I like David DeLuz and I disagree with him on most, if not all, political and social issues. Yet, I'm confused as to his stance (and the Sacto NAACP's stance) against the chartered school success at Sacramento High.

My only conceivable source of explanation is a quid pro quo with the local teacher's union surrounding the protests of the charted school decision by the school board and St. Hope Academy.

Now, I can 'understand' the teacher's union being committed to the NAACP - for obvious, politically and job security reasons...but why is the Sacto NAACP supportive of the teacher's union? Or should I ask if they are dependent upon the teacher's union?

This has the markings an agreement negotiated by the likes of Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. If not, someone from the PUSH Coalition should be recruiting Sacto's NAACP for a new apprentice on educational entitlements.

Notice this segment of the article: "...DeLuz and his team of younger African American professionals have performed a small miracle. DeLuz and Williams said the branch has more than doubled its membership, paid off its debts, beefed up its legal services, registered 3,000 new voters and created a spiffy Web site..."

Is the teacher's union a major contributor to the fledgling Sacramento Chapter? Did the union help with the minimal turn around of the Sacto NAACP's financial health?

Something is askew...why would the NAACP side with an organization that buried Sacramento High School and become a constant foe of those who offered up thousands - if not millions - of dollars to resurrect the educational system at Sac High, as well as student performance? Why?

Is the Sacramento Chapter of the NAACP bought and paid for?

I also find the 'other major accomplishments' for the NAACP to be bit conflicted with the needs and issues of the black community in Sacramento:

When fights among students of different races broke out at an Elk Grove High School last Feb ruary, the local NAACP held a community forum questioning whether African American students were disciplined more severely, and more often, than students of other races who committed similar offenses.

DeLuz said he reached out to the Sacramento Valley chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which helps protect American Muslims from discrimination. (CAIR has been investigated by the federal government on numerous occasions for collecting and contributing money to terrorists organizations worldwide.)

Met with local gay and lesbian activists at the Lambda (Man-Boy Love; men who desire young boys for sex) Community Center to discuss the alarming spread of AIDS among African American women, many of them infected by African American men in secret gay relationships.

He fought Ward Connerly's campaign to ban racial classifications, Proposition 54 - and won.

Seriously, are these the issues at heart for the Black Community of Sacramento [Hogue Blog]

[11/24/04 Wednesday]

[Bill Leonard, contributor, Member CA Board of Equalization] 12:13 am [link]
When Race Counts: The dirty little secret behind the UC Regents’ 1-12 vote last week against creating a single check box labeled “multiracial” on their admission forms is that having students check boxes for many separate races actually benefits UC in its game of claiming great diversity. Student applicants are now permitted (even encouraged) to check more than one box on the race/ethnicity section. Many students do because their heritage reflects our multiracial society. However, UC does not count all the check marks; instead it categorizes applicants using the one box that represents the race where UC is lacking in students. So if the student checks the boxes for black and Asian, UC will forever, for statistical purposes including government grants, call that person black because UC already has an abundance of Asian students. Ward Connerly is right. We are a multiracial society with proud blends of different heritages, and its only racists and UC administrators who still believe there are any pure blood, single race people. [Leonard Letter]

[11/23/04 Tuesday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:04am [link]
The Battle over the Budget, Round Two Starting in December, the "Beast' is back in session and one of the major issues for the Democrats will be raising taxes for the next budget, not to mention Assemblyman Mark Leno's "Same Sex Marriage Bill".

After the "Fiscal Recall" of Gray Davis, the liberal legislature was weak in driving new taxes against the popularity and presentation of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Last year, Democrats predicted that budget would be the last without tax increases. They pledged to force their governmental spending initiatives after things 'cooled down' surrounding the sizzle of first year 'Governor Arnold in the Capitol', but they have problem to content with this season...Schwarzenegger's budget leadership has worked.

California has a rising revenue source and a single-digit deficit, compared to Davis' mammoth $20-25 billion hole. Now, the issue of raising taxes is more remote than after the passing of the 2004-05 budget.

"There's no question you can balance this year's budget without a tax increase. But the question really is whether the Legislature is going to be able to make the difficult decisions necessary for fiscal responsibility," said Assemblyman Keith Richman, R-Northridge, a moderate who said no options, including tax increases, should be eliminated from consideration at this point.

Republicans, including Schwarzenegger's new finance chief and GOP lawmakers, are already drawing lines against tax hikes.

"Tax increases are not a way for us to gain more jobs in California and make more people self-sufficient," said Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster.

She said budget writers can find savings in other ways, such as using some of the 1,200 recommendations of the California Performance Review. The massive review of state government efficiency is likely to help shape the governor's upcoming budget.

I remember the critiques when I decided to 'go for the win' with the pragmatic choice of Arnold Schwarzenegger over the purist vote for State Senator Tom McClintock. Many of the conservatives scolded me for the choice and said, "Hogue, don‚t plan on asking for any help lobbying against the Arnold tax increases next spring if this election goes the way you plan. Stopping Cruz's tax increases would be a piece of cake, but stopping Arnold‚s „emergency compromise‰ will be impossible."

All I have to say is...who is Cruz (Bustamante) and what new taxes are you referring to? [Hogue Blog]

[11/19/04 Friday]

[Senator Tom McClintock] 5:09 am [link]
Highway Robbery: The new DMV director has proposed scrapping California's current fuel tax and instead substituting a tax based on the miles you drive.

A bit of background: California's highways have traditionally been funded by fuel taxes - principally an 18-cent per gallon excise tax and a sales tax that averages 7.9 percent. It is simple and efficient to collect and provides a rough approximation of proportional use: the heavier the vehicle or the more it is used, the more fuel it uses and the more tax it pays. This system also provides a natural discount to the most fuel-efficient cars.

Proponents of a mileage tax point to an inflation-adjusted decline in the gasoline excise tax, but they ignore the dramatic increase in the sales tax on fuel produced by skyrocketing oil prices.

In fact, Californians currently pay the 4th highest tax per gallon of gasoline in the country. And yet we recently ranked at the very bottom of a nationwide survey of both highway conditions and per capita spending for highways. The problem is that existing taxes paid by highway users have not been used for our highways. In the last two years, $2 billion of our sales taxes on gasoline have been raided for purposes unrelated to our highways - including $1.1 billion in the current year.

So the first question is, what makes them think the mileage tax won't suffer the same fate?

Some other flaws: . Unless you are going to apply endless bureaucratic formulae to adjust for vehicle weight and fuel efficiency, the frugal hybrid driver will be paying the same as the indulgent SUV owner.

It gives out of state travelers a free ride on California roads, and, if mileage is based on odometer readings, it would tax Californians even when they're traveling out of state.

. It is highly invasive. One proposal is to place GPS tracking devices in every car, requiring up-close and personal snooping of how and where Californians drive.

The real agenda is to establish the means and the precedent to track the individual driving routes of individual motorists. And the only reason for doing this is to penalize them financially for trying to get to work on time. [McClintock Blog]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:05 am [link]
Natomas Grad's Racial Attack of Soldier and Wife The lead story from the morning show on Thursday...

Here is an update on the Joseph Rudulph (19 year-old from Natomas) incident in Corvallis, Oregon. If you're not familiar, it's not entirely your fault. To my knowledge, the only news media in this city to cover the story has been 1380 KTKZ and News 10 Sacramento.

Here is the latest from the Corvallis Gazette-Times Thursday tonight.

The most powerful statement comes from a member of the military; "I don't want anyone telling me who I can hang out with downtown, let alone who I can marry," Jacques said. "He's dodged bullets, he's been hit with IEDs (improvised explosive devices), he has lost four comrades in action. To come home and have this happen ..."

Here we have a 19 year-old living in the lap of luxury, riding a full scholarship to OSU to play football in the PAC-10 and he decides to attack a soldier (and his wife) who is off on leave from the war in Iraq. Reason for the attack, Rudulph is black and he didn't like the fact that the soldier (who is white) had a black wife...he race baited the wife and sucker-punched the US Reservist.

You might ask, "Where is the local news media in Sacramento?"...good question!

I just did a search at the Sacramento Bee and HERE is the result of searching under "Joseph Rudulph".

Things to keep in mind when discussing this story (non-story) in Sacramento...

What's 'good for the goose should be good for the Gander'. This illustrates the problem with hate-crime legislation. It can be applied 'selectively', making some victims 'more equal than others'.

A government that is supposed to be color blind in legal matters (and gender-blind), is also supposed to identify and selectively prosecute based on race, ethnic and gender concerns? Impossible without a bias or agenda taking the lead.

Another thought; is the media afraid of playing up this story because it would put the spotlight on the soldier's story and underscore his sacrifice? Especially when you compare the soldier's sacrifice to the life and opportunity of the 19 year-old graduate from Natomas!

Calling Sacramento media - "Where are you?" [Hogue Blog]

[11/18/04 Thursday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:03 am [link]
Weintraub's Blog Supports My Battle Dan Weintraub Exposes Illegal Immigration Stalemate -- From Daniel Weintraub's interactive blog discussion yesterday...

Illegal Immigration Posted by Try2runabizinCalifornia November 17, 2004 at 7:23 AM

Question: How big a role will our broken immigration policy play in the next election (federal and state)?

Answer: I wouldn't be surprised if immigration became a major issue again, and it will happen overnight if we are attacked by terrorists who are found to have entered the country through the Mexican border. Right now both parties are reluctant to address it. The Democrats seem to believe that illegal immigration is really no different from legal immigration, and the Republicans are afraid that if they focus on it, they will suffer a backlash from Latino voters, as they did in the 1990s. I have always thought that a leader willing to take a calm, rationale look at illegal immigration while lauding legal immigrants would do fine. Seems to me that illegal immigrants hurt legal immigrants by "cutting in line" in front of those who are waiting and by bidding down wages in the entry level jobs that many legal immigrants hold as they try to climb up the economic ladder. Handled carefully, this should be an issue that appeals across party lines.

I agree with Dan's statement on the Republican's fear of offering the Democrats a campaign 'hammer'. This is why I'm supporting the "Fair Districts Now" initiative. Get more Republicans inside of the Beast and they WILL offer legislation to deal with the MANY illegal immigration concerns we have in California - not just driver's licenses.

[11/17/04 Wednesday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:02 am [link]
Gasoline Taxes by the Mile? Removing the gasoline tax and charge the citizens of California by the mile with GPS tracking and billing...

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday appointed a new Department of Motor Vehicles director who has advocated taxing motorists for every mile they drive ˜ by placing tracking devices in their cars.

The idea would mean a significant overhaul of how California collects taxes to maintain its often-crumbling roads. Under the plan, the state gas tax ˜ now 18 cents a gallon ˜ would be replaced with a tax on every mile traveled by each car and truck.

The notion has not been endorsed by Schwarzenegger but is gaining acceptance among transportation and budget experts. As Californians drive increasingly more fuel-efficient cars, state officials are alarmed that the gasoline tax will not raise enough money to keep up with road needs.

Charging people for the miles they drive also worries some owners of hybrid cars, because it could wipe out any gas-tax savings they now enjoy.

Dan Beal, managing director of public policy for the Automobile Club of Southern California, said altering the system would remove one incentive to buying new-technology hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius, because its owner would pay the same fuel tax as a Hummer owner.

"You are arguing against people taking risks on technology development," said Beal, warning that some mile-tracking systems could invite fraud more than the reliable tax meters at the pump.

Any change in the state's gasoline tax would have to be approved by the Legislature.

[11/15/04 Monday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 7:02 am [link]
Slapped by Union Blogger - I Defend! Mark Williams blogged on this page the following (November 11 at 2PM):

Y'know, there are just some days when I almost wish there was another news/talk formatted radio station in this town besides KFBK and KSTE (a viable one that is... and, "almost")....

This statement is nothing more than an elementary styled 'cheap shot' toward my employer.

If anyone has read the detailed posts inside of this blog page (or my personal blog page) you understand my problems with Mark are his political opinions and commentary. His vendetta against the Governor gets old and his political content lacks intellectual reasoning.

Williams likes the shock topics - fine. But what he doesn't understand is the damage he causes with his continual self aggrandizing goal.

My on going debate with Mark will stay focused on politics, cultural content and the issues of the day. He works for a fine station in KFBK, as well as his parent company in Clear Channel - every bit the success story as my employer, Salem Communications, which features the talk talent of Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Mike Gallagher and Dr. Bill Bennett.

There are numerous 'news/talk radio station' in (and surrounding) Sacramento...to say that KFBK and KSTE are the only ones seems a bit arrogant - wouldn't you say? (Maybe there is some concern being revealed here)

I'm more than proud of my employer and our product on "Talk and News 1380 KTKZ"...it's where the Recall of Gray Davis started and 1380 KTKZ has recently been recognized (again this year) by Sacramento Magazines readers as one of the best in the city.
If the elementary attacks, self aggrandizement and personal vendettas get old, come on over to 1380 KTKZ and join the conversation on one of 'the other news talk station' in Sacramento...you'll find Fox News 'Fair and Balanced' and the talk talent some of most recognized conservative voices, authors and leaders in the nation.

Now that I have defended the hard work of my fellow Salem employees, I'll be getting back to the issues that politically matter.

[11/12/04 Friday]

[Michael Levine - PR/Media expert] 12:33 am [link]
PR for PLO: TOP TEN PR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PLO IN LIGHT OF ARAFAT’S DEATH
by media expert and author Michael Levine

1. Deny that PLO stands for Pulling Legs Off.

2. In exchange for promotional consideration, get Cannon Towels to pay
for the PLO’s head gear.

3. Keep Arafat’s memory alive by touring him in a production of Yasser
On Ice.  (Alternate title:  Yasser, That’s My Baby!)

4. Spend the extra money to get Arafat’s tombstone engraved:  “Here Lies
History’s Most Beloved Mass Murderer.”

5. In a show of reconciliation with Israel, sprinkle Arafat’s ashes over
a Jewish deli.

6. To ease her grief, allow Arafat’s widow to spend a night with love
god Antonio Banderas.

7. Cease plans to produce their own reality show, “Who Wants to Marry My
Camel?”

8. In terms of a spokesperson for your cause, two words:  Angelina Jolie.

9. Don’t be so stuck on living in Palestine – there are huge,
unpopulated areas of North Dakota that could work for you.

10. Consider having a theme song, perhaps “Oh What a Beautiful Land
Mine” or “Somewhere Over Falloujah.” [Levine Communications Office]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:03 am [link]
Specter Speculation Reasons to NOT replace US Senator Arlen Specter:

1. He has changed his voice and will behave appropriately with pressure.
2. Republicans need to enjoy governing with a majority rather than strive to win one.
3. I'd rather make the batter, than eat the crumbs that fall from the table.
4. Democrats would LOVE a Republican upheaval over Specter's spectacle. 5. The 2006 mid-terms need to be successful, rather than combative.
6. Trust the 'majority' we worked to accomplish.

Pull him behind closed doors and read his the election results - again. Remind him of the mandate and encourage him to follow the countries lead.
If, in the end, he strays, then we can remove him and punish - not until!

[11/11/04 Thursday]

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 1:05 pm [link]
Veterans Day: Instituted by the relatively obscure Warren G. Harding, Veterans Day honors those who served. Some fought, some were wounded or prisoners, many others simply did their duty. All deserve our respect and admiration. A personal note: Today it is fairly common for me to hear 'thank you for your service' when I show up for book signings and speaking engagements. For someone of my time it is a remarkable transformation. I was yelled at by foul-mouthed demonstrators in San Francisco airport when I returned from Vietnam. I stood there in khakis with a Green Beret on fuming in frustration and confusion, but was told to 'move on, sir' by a local policeman. By the way, that was in fall, 1972 a year after Kerry's bogus Winter Soldier testimony before the Senate. Thanks again, John, for trashing our reputations.

My father was congratulated when he returned home from WWII but was overlooked when he came back from Korea. In many ways ignoring his efforts was more hurtful even that the abuse my era of vets got from the wackos. So we have an obligation in my opinion to make it up to these folks, the Korean War vets. They themselves bitterly refer to the war as The Forgotten War. Make it a point today and in the future that when you meet these men and women to take special efforts to thank THEM for their service. They sure earned it. Here is a quick reference: in Vietnam we lost about 58,000 GIs over ten years. We lost 56.000 in Korea in three years! Today 50 million people live in freedom in South Korea thanks to their sacrifice and we have a steadfast ally in Asia. Thanking these gallant veterans is the least we can do. The Forgotten War - forgotten no longer. De oppresso liber.

[Nick Winter-administrative editor] 12:02 am [link]
Arafat is dead: Hmm…Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Yassar Arafat is dead... Millions of crocodiles tears will be shed over the next few days… watering a dry Middle Eastern desert… eh?

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:01 am [link]
Immigration Solution? We had an interesting (successful) conversation on yesterday’s morning show (Eric Hogue Show on 1380 KTKZ) surrounding illegal immigration concerns for California and the country.

Let me start by stating the obvious, we ALL agree that illegal immigration IS a major problem for the state and the country. After all, it is ILLEGAL!

There are numerous concerns with the illegal (undocumented workers) living inside of our border and state. Today on the morning show we created a list that totaled 22 items - and that was compiled within 54-minutes of dialogue.

I also AGREE with much, if not all, of the content of statewide initiatives like California's Prop 187 (1994) and Arizona's recent passing of Prop 200. But these movements do have a problem - they are narrow in solutions and broad in misrepresentation of intent.

There must be a better way for California to deal with illegal immigration...and I believe its Fair Districts Now.

While a state proposition will tackle the driver's license issue, as well as general (some) state benefits, what will an emotional, message laden proposition do with the porous borders and illegal hiring inside of the state itself - nothing. We need to do more to solve the problem of illegal immigrants!

Let me give you some quick talking points to muse over:

1. What party actually 'attempts' to deal with illegal immigration? There is only one and it is the Republican Party. The Democrats 'use' the immigration debate to create a dependent community of voters for career minded liberal politicians. The solutions rest within the Republican Party along.

2. President Bush just won re-election with 44-percent of the Hispanic vote - more than any Republican presidential candidate in at least three decades. Why, because he represents the 'legal immigrants' concerns surrounding the 'illegals', and he does it with legislative solutions that respect desire of immigration to America. (yes, there are concerns about the "Guest Worker Program", but it is NOT amnesty folks.)

3. In a state proposition there are three methods of that the use to label propositions with politically charged rhetoric during a campaign. The left uses tags such as (a) racists, (b) simple strategies as well as (c) as partisan message-senders. (Ruben Navarette of the Dallas Morning News)

These are easy campaign labels that Democrats use to message against the one party that actual can and will offer legislation to deal with the numerous idiosyncrasies of legal and illegal immigration in California.

If California is 65% behind illegal immigration reform and 67% behind Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, why not use that large majority (and 'Arnold popularity') and combine the concerns of illegal immigration with an initiative for Fair Districts Now?

We can win the battle to level the legislative playing field in Sacramento's Beast and allow the one party, (Republican), to create and represent legislation that can control and reform immigration in California. This way the state can tackle the concerns "issue by issue".

Immigration is a complex issue and requires coordination between the state and the federal governments. We really can't figure out or implement a solution through the initiative process. Ideally, we're supposed to have a government that deals with these issues for us. That's what we pay them to do.

The answer from here, a fair redistricting of the state, so we can end this far-left wing monopoly in the state legislature and pick of the immigration issue one-by-one with full content and expressed purpose.

Let's return some accountability to our elected officials, and then hold their feet to the fire for meaningful reform. With re-districting, a lot of things are possible - not just illegal immigration reform!

I'd like to read your comments on this issue, email me with your thoughts.

[11/10/04 Wednesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:03 am [link]
Losing: This piece in The Washington Times melds nicely with my weekly Califorinia Republic column discussing the impact of the Democrats' "politics of hate" on the election.

Predictably, some of the biggest hate-spouters, the Hollywood "stars", are upset about the election's outcome. But one more salutary effect of President Bush's win may be the wake-up call it's providing to the entertainment community: The fact that people are willing to be entertained by them doesn't translate into political power or any meaningful influence in the world of ideas.

Some Democrats appear to be engaging in serious soul-searching about what went wrong -- James Carville is one of them. It will be interesting to see if they are able to thread the needle on this one. To my mind, Democrats have a real problem in reaching out to people of faith. That's because an important part of their constituency includes militant secularists -- people who are not just indifferent to religion, but openly hostile to it. It would seem very difficult for any candidate to succeed in speaking the language of faith sincerely without alienating the secularists; obviously, however, talking religion with a wink to the irreligious isn't likely to get Democratic candidates far, either. Bill Clinton may have been able to split the difference because he spoke like a parson but behaved like a libertine; given all the problems that caused, it wouldn't seem to be a prescription for long-term success, either.

And finally, Lincoln Chafee has announced that he will remain a Republican. That's good news -- and one more reason it's good to have a 55-45 split rather than a 50-49-1. After all, Senator Chafee might not have been so likely to stay in the fold if his leaving would have made a difference to the entire Senate, not just to him. [Liebau Blog]

[11/9/04 Tuesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:02 am [link]
More on Specter: Conservative talk radio was burning up all day on the topic.

Let's think it through. As the ad says, you only get one chance to make a first impression. In 1993, Bill Clinton -- giddy at his election -- took a turn to the left immediately with his gays in the military gambit. No one ever forgot it -- it was disproportionately important because it was America's introduction to his governance.

So why, oh why, in the flush of victory, would conservative Republicans now try the same thing with Arlen Specter, and take a turn to the right that will be widely reported as "intolerant" before Specter has done anything wrong???

And one other question: How do you think we are most likely to get good action from Specter? By throwing him off the committee, and enjoying a satisfying but short lived emotional high, or by letting him know that he'd better fly right or he's outta there? Would he be more cooperative on our issues with something to lose (i.e. the chairmanship) or nothing to lose? The question answers itself.

Majority parties have to demonstrate a certain level of emotional maturity in order to become permanent majority parties. It means that we must be willin