Dublin Saab

Cars, politics, sports and what not from my view. (Closed Sundays and Holidays)

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Union Do's

I’m not a big fan of what unions do these days. One of my bigger critiques is that they have become little more than PAC’s for the left than organizations defending their “workers”. The OEA (Ohio Teachers Union) seem to be no exception.

From Wednesdays Columbus Dispatch Online.Posted by Picasa

So from the above picture I can gather that the OEA not only backed issues 2-5 but they were a primary backer as little guys don’t get to host the official election night party. Well done OEA! Looking at how badly the issues were defeated it’s safe to assume many teachers voted against the issues, issues that the OEA used their compulsory union dues to support.

The OEA took money, forcibly, from teachers, under the guise that it is for collective bargaining, etc. and instead spends the money on pet political causes that; a) have nothing to do with teaching and or education, and b) many of their members disagree with.

There is nothing unique about the OEA, just one of many examples of what’s wrong with many big unions today.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Left Wing gets a big NO in the Buckeye state.

While not getting any of the nation press as issues in Maine, Texas and California, issues 2 thru 5 on the Ohio ballot yesterday represented a big battle between the left and right.

Most prognosticators, including Fox News, had all 4 issues with the possible exception of #4 passing. As it turned out they went down, hard.

Todays Columbus Dispatch feels that their failure of the issues is a result of, “their complicated and confusing ballot language”. Ah, so I see. The issues failed due to the voters not being smart enough and since I voted no on all 4 I am left too assume I “didn’t get it”. Of course I beg to differ, so let’s take a look.

First all 4 issues are nothing more than an attempt by left wingers, upset over the ’04 Presidential vote in Ohio going for Bush, to rewrite the Ohio Constitution in a way that they hoped would permanently weaken the Republican party in the state. Only the hard left base was for this push as many prominent Dems and newspapers, including the Plain Dealer urged a no vote. Even Jimmy Dimora -- a Democratic Commissioner for Cuyahoga County and head of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party urged a “no” vote on 2 thru 5. So this was a push from the fringe that garnered, at best, half-hearted support from Democratic leaders.

Let’s look at the issues;

#2 – Claimed to make absentee voting easier. What is would have done was take the current rules already on the books and written them into the Constitution. Opponents stated that the laws already existed and didn’t belong in the Constitution.
No: 64% Yes; 36%

#3 – Claimed to be removing big business and special interested from campaign financing. What it would have done is maxed out personal donations at $1,000, donations from businesses at $1,000, donations from PACs at $1,000 and donations from unions at $10,000. That’s right, unions could spend 10 times as much as anyone else. The opponents of the issue simply pointed this out.
No: 67% Yes: 33%

#4 – Claimed to make voting districts “fairer” by setting up a board of appointees that would do the redistricting and eliminate Republican gerrymandering. What it would have done is created god awful districts in an effort to ensure 50-50 Dem / Repub representation in each district. It would have resulted in districts stretching from inner Cleveland to the hills of SE Ohio, 150 miles away, in order to get the 50-50 split. It even allowed for districts to not be contiguous! Opponents simply showed a picture of what the new districts would look like.
No: 70% Yes: 30%

#5 – Claimed to be removing graft and corruption in the election process. What is would have done is striped election oversight from the office of the Secretary of State and given it to a an oversight board of appointees. Opponents asked voters who they trusted more, a SoS that was elected and at least somewhat beholden to the people or a group of unelected political appointees.
No: 71% Yes: 29%

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Back Conservative = Race Traitor

In Maryland the Democratic opponents to Lt. Gov. Michael Steele in the race for the opening Senate seat have resorted to using racial slurs in their attacks of him. How are they able to justify this? Simple, see Lt. Gov. Steele is a black conservative and as such is in essence a traitor to his race and therefore racial slurs are fine.


What would the reaction be if Republicans, in say Iowa, went around calling white Democrats “nigger lovers”? I imagine that CNN, NY Times, et al would be tripping over themselves, running stories on the front page, dedicating entire shows to discussing yet another example of how hideous and evil conservatives are. But when the shoes on the other foot and a black conservative is called an “uncle Tom” it’s only gets play in the local conservative paper.

There is no difference between a while calling another white a “nigger lover” and a black calling another black an “uncle Tom”. None, ziltch, zip, nada. Both contain the exact same concepts of racial animosity, racist world views and hatred.

Their words and attitude are both despicable and indefensible, and this from the party that claims to be carrying the torch of Martin Luther King Jr.

It's only a lie if there's an "R" after your name.

On Monday the Democrats in the Senate made an attempt to try and turn the indictment of ol’ Scooter into yet another chance to say Bush Lied® over WMD and ergo the War is Wrong©

According to Minority leader Harry Reid, “The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq”. They have even dusted off Carter who's come out to say, "The Bush Administration's prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were "manipulated, at least" to mislead the American people".

So the Dems, who want us all to forget the 745 other reasons to oust Saddam, are sticking to the line that since Bush said Saddam was a threat and had WMD and as no WMD has been found Bush was lying. That's fine except Bush wasn't the only one making those claims. Let’s roll that beautiful bean footage.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous
dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous
threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is
miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent
grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with
weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.
23. 2003 Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security
of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons
throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- AlGore, Sept. 23, 2002 Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 Source

So here we have a who’s who of Democrats all saying the exact same things as Bush for 5 years leading up to shots being fired yet the Dems would have you believe that only Bush Lied®.

Now, in order to believe that the Bush “administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence” pointing to Saddam having WMD one must subscribe to odd reality where the Bush Administration was manufacturing and manipulating information years before the Bush Administration even existed.