Worcester County Freedom Trail

Thousands of people attended the Scott Brown People’s Rally in Worcester at Mechanics Hall yesterday. It was a powerful experience. The momentum of this campaign is amazing. If you haven’t seen it yet, watch this clip from the event.

THEN GET OUT AND VOTE TOMORROW! Tuesday, January 19, 2010. Polls are open from 7am til 8pm.

And this from the Scott Brown campaign:

Nicolas Sanchez, Professor of Economics at Holy Cross, spoke to a standing room only crowd of more than 100 people on June 30, 2009, at the Worcester Public Library. His talk, “Why President Obama’s Economic Policy Will Not Solve Our Economic Problems,” provided startling information about the economic crisis — how we got here, what’s being done that won’t work, and what should be done to turn things around.

Below is an excerpt from the talk with horrifying numbers about what the current administration has done to the money supply and what that means over the long run.

How, then, is the current Administration dealing with the crisis?

I will begin this third part of my presentation with something that I discussed at the Tea Party in Worcester on June 20th. This is the statistic that you should memorize; and that you can easily obtain if you forget it, for it is available at the web site of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, one of the branches of our central bank. Five years after the Fed’s creation, in 1918, the monetary base—which is what allows the money supply to expand in multiple proportions—grew from $4.8 billion to $870 billion, as of August of last year. This growth of the monetary base occurred at a steady pace for over 90 years. Yet, between August of last year and May of this year the monetary base has risen by almost $1,000 billion—in other words, it has more than doubled in the past eight months! This is the type of behavior that you find in Argentina or the approach that communist regimes have used to attach the problem of unemployment: print enough money so that firms can hire the people who want to be employed.

Let me make clear that I do not believe that this Administration is simply imitating communist regimes—for some other, non-communist countries have also followed this type of reckless monetary behavior in the past. I gave the example of Argentina, which has never been a communist country, but I do believe that a more appropriate example is the Weimar Republic—in other words, Germany in the 1920s. Germany was an advanced country that was in deep trouble because of its military commitments and the debt that it had acquired as a result of the First World War. Unions were also quite powerful and big business tolerated the power of those unions. Big government, big labor and big business finally decided that the country could only get out of debt by inflating the currency—big time.

The one surprise that you will hear in this lecture is that the policy was in fact successful, at least initially and with regard to unemployment and the financial markets. (The stock market boomed.) The big German inflation began slowly but peaked in 1923; then the German government finally stabilized the mark (which was the German currency) by forcing an exchange of 1 trillion old marks for 1 single new mark. (The stock market collapsed.) The consequence of this approach was that the structural problems of the nation were not addressed and that there was massive redistribution of income within the country that ultimately led to massive social unrest, and ultimately to the rise of Adolf Hitler. People on fixed incomes, like the elderly, were financially devastated by the inflation. This, I believe, is a possible scenario for our own economy.

Our forefathers never envisioned the role of legislator as permanent or full-time. It’s easy to see the problems. Our elected officials are mere humans and humans in a position of power will more often than not do what it takes to keep their position of power. That includes breaking ethics laws and bending or ignoring rules. In Massachusetts, we see a perfect example in the indictments of three consecutive Speakers of the House: DiMasi, Finneran, and Flaherty.

That’s why I was quite happy to learn that Rep. Karyn Polito (R-Shrewsbury) filed a term limits bill earlier this year.

From the Worcester Telegram’s editorial pages:

‘Allowing the same people to remain in power in decades is not healthy for our democracy and our state,” state Rep. Karyn Polito of Shrewsbury told me during a recent interview. “If we really want to change the culture on Beacon Hill, end entrenched bad practices and level the balance of power, we need a system that encourages fresh ideas and fresh perspectives.”

She made those remarks as she was filing a constitutional amendment that would place term limits on members of the Legislature. “Timing is everything,” she said. “Scandals, mismanagement and the absence of political balance have diminished people’s confidence in government. We need to restore integrity.”

She’s right on target. The alarming loss of credibility on Beacon Hill has many roots, ranging from the criminal indictments of three House speakers in a row, to the ethical morass created by self-serving politicians who bilk the treasury and fatten their pensions — not to mention fiscal irresponsibility that caused state spending to increase 57 percent in a decade. About 40 percent of those lawmakers have been around for more than 12 years, and 80 percent of them belong to the same party, marching in lockstep with leaders who exercise all but dictatorial authority.

Boston Globe editorial on ethics reforms

Details on Rep. Karyn Polito’s term limits bill

In the latest report from the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, they outlined the impact money had on the 3 ballot questions in the November 2008 election: repeal the state income tax, make marijuana possession a civil offense, and close the greyhound race track. I knew the Teachers Union went nuts on the tax issue; I just didn’t realize how nuts: $3.5 million!

From the OCPF:

Corporations, unions and organizations reported spending $11,516,215 to support or oppose three questions on 2008’s statewide ballot, according to an analysis by the Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

Question 1, asking voters to repeal the state income tax, generated the greatest amount of spending this election cycle at $7,918,157.

Question 3, concerning a ban on dog racing, accounted for $1,983,163 in spending (the total for this question includes spending by the Committee to Protect Dogs since it formed in September, 2005).

There was $1,613,895 spent on Question 2, which asked voters to make marijuana possession a civil, not criminal, offense. The totals include in-kind contributions and expenditures that were independently made of any organized ballot question committee.

The election results favored the side that spent the most money for all three questions. The supporters of Question 2 outspent opponents 20 to 1, the most disproportionate spending comparison of the three questions. Question 1 opponents outspent supporters 15 to 1 to defeat the proposal to eliminate the state income tax. Question 3 supporters outspent opponents 2 to 1 to pass a ban on dog racing.

Of the corporations and organizations that spent money to support or oppose ballot questions, the Massachusetts Teachers Union contributed the most, $3,468,241, to oppose Question 1. The National Education Association of Washington, D.C., spent the second most, $1.5 million, also to oppose Question 1. The Marijuana Policy Project spent $1,067,756 to support Question 2.

Total spending on the 2008 ballot questions fell short of the $16.1 million record set in 1992, when four questions were on the statewide ballot. The record for spending on a single ballot question is $13.1 million, a mark set in 2006 concerning the sale of wine in food stores.

Excellent summary of the wild and wooly Web 2.0 world and where it’s taken politics. From NextGenGOP:

Every New Year marks one of the most fascinating times in the news: the yearly wrap-up, in which the top 10 stories/events in a particular category of the past year are featured. Today, we’re going to hop on that bandwagon as we present the Top 10 Political Technology Stories of 2008.

10. Senate Candidate Raises Money via Twitter
9. Twittering Election Results
8. McCain Campaign Asks Supporters to Produce Campaign Ad
7. RNC Launches New Online Platform Discussion Site
6. Members of Congress Provide Government Transparency via Twitter
5. Barack Obama Announces Biden Pick for VP via Text Message
4. “The Network” Beats “The List”
3. The Obama Campaign Used Grassroots Data and Computer Modeling to Allocate Resources in Real Time
2. This is the Era of Personal Politics
1. Barack Obama Raises $500 Million Online

Btw, if you’re on Twitter, follow me at sharilee.

A tip of the hat to Mark for pointing us to this interesting look at who’s controlling the presidential race’s conversation and how that will affect the final vote. Personally, I’m looking for a candidate who will reduce government intervention in our lives; America has become the great country it is because we have less regulations and so are able to be our brilliant selves…starting new businesses, growing into bigger businesses, donating to charities at a rate far higher than any other country. I’m also looking for a candidate who won’t provoke the next lunatic fringe group to “test” America’s resolve.

From Townhall.com:

Perhaps it’s my imagination, but as we enter the last 48 hours of the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s rhetoric on the stump is sounding increasingly defensive. That is a bad sign for his prospects. Here’s why.

Key is that from the conventions through mid-October, you are not fighting over votes to be cast so much as over whose agenda will dominate the last two and a half weeks before the voting. If, as I do, you believe that most poll movement from mid-September to mid-October this year was statistical noise – with each candidate’s numbers moving up and down within the margin of error – this year’s race looks like most others. The bulk of the electorate effectively decided which nominee they would support months ago.

These voters surely do favor Senator Obama but judging from the best of the polls, not by much. The highly regarded IBD/TIPP tracking survey released Sunday showed a spread between the candidates of only 2.1 percent. It also showed 8.7 percent undecided. The last three months have been about controlling the terms of debate during the period that this 8.7 percent would make up its mind.

Here is the rule: whichever candidate sets the terms of discussion in the closing days of an election will emerge as the winner. This year – thanks to several inexplicable late-game gaffes – Barack Obama has found himself responding to John McCain throughout this final weekend.

Gaffe #1: “Spread the wealth”: Made on a rope line in response to a question from the now-iconic Joe the Plumber, Obama’s comment went entirely unnoticed until a video clip of that exchange – apparently made with a cell phone — popped up on YouTube. Until then, Senator McCain had been struggling to define the difference on economic policy between him and Mr. Obama. He brilliantly seized on the remark and Joe the Plumber as his emblem of the American people and their aspirations during the final debate. Suddenly Obama was the one who didn’t get it about the middle class. The Illinois senator fumbled with Senator McCain’s debate attacks and then made a second unforced error at a rally a day or two later.

Gaffe #2: “Selfishness”: I know that it is current campaign orthodoxy that every charge must be rebutted, but the candidate doesn’t always have to be the one who rebuts. This is a lesson apparently lost on Mr. Obama and his operatives. Despite MSM instant surveys that named the Democratic candidate the winner of that final debate, Team Obama and in particular the candidate himself must have understood that they had taken it seriously on the chin that Wednesday night. So they decided to respond, having Obama tell a rally that McCain was making “selfishness” the center of his campaign.

Most Americans do not believe that paying higher taxes is a sign of “patriotism”, as Joe Biden had put it, or that resisting higher taxes is a sign of “selfishness.” Neither did it help that Obama used another rally to mock Joe the Plumber (“How many plumbers do you know who make $250,000 a year?”). Sunday’s IBD/TIPP poll showed for the first time McCain winning those whose education stopped at high school, as, one presumes, Joe’s did.

Gaffe #3: “He’ll be tested”: This was Joe Biden’s gaffe, of course. If he loses, Senator Obama can thank cell phones and private tape recorders, which caught not just this amazing riff and Obama’s “spread the wealth” one but also Obama’s “cling to their religion and their guns” remark to wealthy donors in San Francisco about the same Western Pennsylvanians Congressmen John Murtha even more unbelievably and entirely publicly characterized as “racists” and “rednecks.” Everyone talks about the Democratic ticket’s innovative messaging. And this much is true – repeated insults directed at a group of voters who may well decide whether you win or lose everything does set a new standard in American political rhetoric.

But Biden’s talk about a “manufactured” international crisis to test a President Obama reminded voters at exactly the most pivotal time that Mr. Obama has not gone through a test in his life more strenuous than the LSATs. So, suddenly, once more, the Obama campaign found itself responding, this time playing on turf where thematically it can never win.

So, as I say, count me in the dumb money. Something is happening in this campaign. The candidate everyone says is winning acts as if he’s on the ropes. The one everybody says to be down is scoring the blows. Whatever the MSM would like to believe, this fight isn’t over yet.

Just as we’re starting to see more reasonable prices at the pump, a San Francisco Chronicle interview with Senator Obama has surfaced where Obama states, unequivocally, that under his proposed Cap and Trade plan, energy prices will skyrocket and coal mines will be put out of business.

Doesn’t seem like a good issue to push at a time when we need to retain as many jobs as possible to weather the current financial instabilities. And if energy prices will skyrocket, say goodbye to that “middle class tax cut” Obama promised.

Thanks to Mark for this tip to Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air blog:

“The folks at Naked Emperor News have unearthed another interesting nugget from a Barack Obama interview from months ago. In January 2008, Obama spoke about his approach to global warming and cap-and-trade systems, and he had a warning for anyone foolish enough to invest in coal:”

Per Senator Obama:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.

In another clip from the same January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in which Barack Obama promised to bankrupt anyone foolish enough to build coal-burning power plants, he also made an interesting admission about his entire energy plan. Obama told the editors that his policies would make energy prices “skyrocket” as the energy industry passed along the exorbitant costs of his cap-and-trade policy. In Obama’s own words:

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

Kevin Kuros and State Rep. Paul Kujawski recently met in a debate for the state rep seat in the 8th Worcester district. Each candidate submitted questions ahead of time for the other to answer.

Here are the questions from Kevin Kuros for Rep. Paul Kujawski:

• Just 5 months ago in May, you voted for a state budget that increased spending by over $1B dollars. How can you, in good conscience, then immediately turn around and propose a tax on non-profit University endowment funds because “we’re facing a $1B deficit” as you were quoted in many places?

• You claim to represent everyone in your district. Can you please explain how voting to eliminate the home heating oil tax credit, and voting not to expand the number of senior citizens eligible for the Circuit Breaker tax deduction, directly helps anyone?

• Little League coaches, soccer coaches, and many municipal, government and private sector positions require a CORI check before the position can be accepted. Will you support Legislation that requires CORI checks for State Senators, State Representatives, and all State Constitutional offices?

• You voted and helped pass a law in 2005 that retroactively taxed capital gains dating back to 2002, essentially changing the rules after the game had already been played. Did you honestly think that was a good, fair taxation policy or were you following the Speaker’s lead?

• You’ve traditionally been a pro-life voice in the State House. Yet you recently voted against an amendment to the Life Sciences Bill that would have eliminated funding for embryonic “clone and kill” research. Has your position on life softened, similar to your position on traditional family values, or were you following the Speaker’s lead?

• The National Federation of Independent Businesses rates you a 60% (a D minus if you were in school) on their business-friendliness criteria. The Associated Industries of MA rates you an even worse 50% on their criteria. You just voted to raise taxes on businesses by nearly half a billion dollars. And you were openly against a mall in your own home town. What do you propose, specifically, to help create jobs?

• 12 years ago in a debate like tonight’s, you said it was important to re-elect you because “an experienced, watchful eye” is required to keep an eye on the “Big Dig” so that we don’t end up paying a disproportionate amount for it. It’s become the biggest public works boondoggle in the country. What, exactly, has your watchful eye bought us?

I must say, I was not impressed with Kujawski’s answers. Besides the fact that he didn’t answer a lot of the questions:

• Kujawski completely ducked the question about whether he’d support legislation that would require CORI checks of state senators, state reps, and state constitutional positions.

• Kujawski got rattled and denied voting against Rep. Karyn Polito’s amendment to H.4811 this year, requiring mandatory 10 year sentences for anyone who rapes a child. He did, in fact, vote against it.

• Kujawski dodged the question on the retroactive capital gains tax — was it fair and equitable? His reply, “The job is about making tough decisions, not all of them are popular.” I know that, but what’s his answer?

• Kujawski said the MassGOP was running Kuros’ campaign. I am involved in the MassGOP State Committee and I know, for a fact, that they are not.

• Kujawski deflected the question about lobbyist support by pointing out that GOP leaders who have also accepted lobbyist money. I love Kuros’ response, “I’m not running against them, I’m running against you [Kujawski] and I’ve accepted $0 from lobbyists while you’ve accepted $5400 from 37 lobbyists.”

I thought the Clinton’s had the worst reputation when it came to choosing friends. But Senator Obama takes the cake. Has there ever been a presidential candidate with more questionable associations? Anti-white preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright, terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko, and now we can add former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, a rabid anti-Semite.

This from Little Green Footballs:

Gateway Pundit says he contacted the LA Times to ask about a video showing Barack Obama at a party for former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, mentioned by the LA Times in this article: Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama.

“At Khalidi’s going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances,” Khalidi said.”

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.”

LA Times writer Peter Wallsten said he won’t release the video or reveal his sources: Confirmed: MSM Holds Video Of Barack Obama Attending Jew-Bash & Toasting a Former PLO Operative… Refuse to Release the Video!

It gets even more interesting.

Also attending the farewell dinner described above: Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

“In Chicago, the Khalidis founded the Arab American Action Network, and Mona Khalidi served as its president. A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. (There were also testimonials from then-state Senator Barack Obama and the mayor of Chicago.)”

Apparently the Obama campaign is working as fast as possible to cover up any connections with Khalidi, including revising Khalidi’s Wikipedia entry. See revision history story.

Wow, just found a Florida reporter who’s willing to ask hard questions of the candidates. She took Senator Biden to task over Senator Obama’s socialism and his military un-preparedness. You’ve got to watch this video. It’s great. Biden was so upset after, the Obama campaign shut the TV station off and will not allow any more interviews of its people.

From the Orlando Sentinel:

Channel 9’s Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it’s some of the best entertainment he’s seen recently. What do you think?

West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama’s comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn’t being a Marxist with the “spreading the wealth” comment.

“Are you joking?” said Biden, who is Obama’s running mate. “No,” West said.

West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America’s days as the world’s leading power were over.

“I don’t know who’s writing your questions,” Biden shot back.

Biden so disliked West’s line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate’s wife.

“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election,” wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was “a result of her husband’s experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West.”

Here’s a link to the interview: http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html.

WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, “When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes.”

Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.

“Mr. Biden didn’t like the questions,” Jordan said. “We choose not to ask softball questions.”