Maggie Unchallenged.

As you know by now, the Democrats did not put forward a candidate to oppose Maggie Brooks for Monroe County (NY) Executive. Here is Joe Morelle's press release on the topic:

“After a wide ranging search and discussions with many fine potential nominees, I regret that we will not be fielding a candidate for Monroe County Executive in 2007.
“The absence of a county executive candidate does not indicate acquiescence to Republican policies that we believe have led to budget deficits, economic stagnation, and a loss of the public’s faith in the integrity of county government.
“Instead, we believe the best way to address these issues is to focus on the many important campaigns for the Monroe County Legislature, which in recent years has abdicated its role as the body charged with providing oversight and checks and balances in the face of executive power.
“We are confident that in 2007, the Monroe County Democratic Party will continue the resurgence of the past two years, and continue to offer the citizens of Monroe County true leadership and a genuine vision for a better future for this community.”

I've read and heard a number of explanations, excuses, justifications, clarifications, etc., etc.
Frankly, any way you spin it, the failure to put forth an opponent for Maggie Brooks is an embarrassment to the Democrat Party. For those of you who think this will help the Democrats focus on taking the County Legislature, my advice is don't bet the house.

I guess the Democrats hope that voters will rally around Ms. Palumbo’s vacuous “12 point (non)plan” to take back the County. Of course, its generally easier to rally around ideas which are carried forth by a leader. If that plan is so good, why couldn't the Democrats get someone to run on that platform?

And I don’t buy the “its hard to get someone to be a sacrificial lamb” theory. The Democrats had some people who could have made a race of it, but who would either not risk their current jobs (e.g., Ms. Frankel) or who would not risk harming their future electoral plans (e.g., Mr. Koon). Boy, there are some examples of selfless and courageous leadership! I can see why we would be much better off with Democrats in charge of the County.

Schumer: "Just Say No" to Bush Nominees.

NY Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer says that the Senate should not confirm any new Bush nominees to the Supreme Court. He says the high court is "dangerously out of balance".

Actually, I'd say it looks like the Supreme Court teeters on the edge of a 5-4 split, tilting slightly conservative since Roberts and Alito replaced Rhenquist and O'Connor. I guess the old 5-4 split, which favored liberal justices, was "just right". At least Sen. Schumer appears to think so.

Frankly, the best thing that could happen to the GOP politically, would be a battle over a Supreme Court pick. The Supreme Court is just about the only thing President Bush got right. A battle with Schumer over a nominee would energize the Republican/Conservative base like nothing else could.

Warning: Unfair Cheap Shot Alert!

Can't resist mentioning this!

Jay Leno, commenting on the drunk astronauts story: "Maybe that's why its called the Kennedy Space Center".

Our Side's Gotta' Win, Even If It Kills Us!

Here is a disturbing follow-up to the point I made regarding putting politics ahead of principle and public interest. This PowerLine article starkly illustrates where "uber-partisanship" has taken us.

If Not Outrage, At Least A Question.

I didn't realize that the Democrat & Chronicle editorial board read my blog. But its obvious that they took my previous post about the Spitzer/Bruno dust-up to heart.

This morning's editorial chastised Spitzer for not agreeing to an open investigation. they pointed out that, as Attorney General, Spitzer had been a relentless inquisitor who did not let the subjects of his queries of the hook easily.

Even the D&C recognized that his stonewall stance is hypocritical and self-defeating.

I guess it was pretty obvious.

Who's Government Is It, Anyway?

Take a moment to read this. It's part of a Victor Davis Hanson blog post from Works and Days.

The Furor Over Bush:

Spent a week with some die-hard conservatives, what one might call his hard-core base. All of whom seem to detest Bush. Part of it is immigration, big spending, federal programs, bad or rather embarrassing appointments, and Iraq. But part of it is simply piling on and hoping not to be seen as the lone nut who thinks Bush can pull off a successful presidency. I was very disappointed that we pulled back from Fallujah, let Sadr off, saw Franks quit almost as soon as the insurgency started, kept seeing Bremer everywhere on TV with his blazer and hiking boots, and all the other half measures that empowered the insurgency—but not to the degree that I lost hope we could win. The US military is too good for that.
So the real irony is that should Petraeus stabilize Iraq, if Korea really has given up its weapons, if the world comes together on Iranian proliferation, Afghanistan gets quieter, and either bin Laden or Zawahiri gets captured—while the economy stays strong and an immigration fence is built, then mirabile dictu Bush will leave office in a good position to be praised in 10 years for preventing another 9/11, removing Saddam and the Taliban, decimating al Qaeda, and stopping nonproliferation. He needs some luck, must not listen to his short-term politicos who always choose apparent advantage over principle, and must keep his resolve. I told all that to some prominent Republicans—and was laughed at for it.

He was laughed at for it! It is adding to a realization that I have been coming to lately, namely, that our elected officials, particularly at the Federal level, are more and more disconnected from ideology and principle. They are most concerned with winning and preserving their power. This is the only explanation for the massive GOP defections from the President over Iraq, despite more and more positive news about the effects of the surge. And it explains why Republicans laugh at someone who has an optimistic and hopeful view of the possible outcome in Iraq based upon evidence and philosophical convictions.

Certainly, our elected officials have little loyalty to party or political ideology. Instead, the politician's self-interest has become tethered to groups of special interests. The Democrats are slaves to the dictates of NARAL, the NAACP, Big Labor, especially, teachers unions, and groups like Move-On. The GOP jumps to the tune of the NRA, Big Business, and religious fundamentalists. But they don't do so for any principled reasons. Their only goal is to ensure the continuing financial and/or electoral support those groups give them.

Our Congressional "leaders" speak only in sound bites and virtually every position and vote for almost everyone of them is based on politics rather than principle. Every time Harry Reid speaks, every time he makes a policy statement, he includes a criticism of the President and the GOP. No one in Congress ever passes up an opportunity to pander to its interest groups and base or to criticize the opposition. The other side is never right about anything. Long held views about "sacred" prerogatives like the filibuster, change with the election of a new political majority.

Where are we headed with this? I fear this partisan and cynical rancor is blinding us to real threats and keeping up from dealing with serious problems. Time spent on political wrangles over matters like Global Warming, impeachment, the Patriot Act, etc., keep us from fighting al-Qaeda or dealing with the imminent collapse of Social Security and Medicare. Much of the heated rhetoric is merely intended to stir each party's respective base. That in turn is intended to help keep our elected officials in their comfortable jobs. Thus the special interests win out over the public interest. This piece by Mort Kondracke illustrates the point of how the goal of winning at any cost has lead both sides in Washington to take their eyes off the ball.

I cannot now name a member of Congress whom I believe places the public interest over his or her own personal or electoral interests. The last ones I actually knew were probably Barber Conable and Jacob Javitts. They actually did the people's business. Its a long way from those men to today's Congress.

Where's the Outrage?

I've been waiting for someone at the Democrat & Chronicle to write a story or editorial criticising Governor Spitzer for his aides' misconduct. Please note: I'm not holding my breath.

The D&C's "outrage" over this Governor's scandal was confined to page 5B, the only place any serious stories about the scandal were placed. Funny, when the issue of Sen. Bruno's "improper" use of State aircraft came up, the story made page 1A.

The only editorial to date stated that the Governor handled the matter "swiftly and appropriately" and that such "shenanigans" by the Governor's aides were inappropriate. Other New York newspapers are apparently more interested in the depths of the scandal. The Governor's press conference/signing ceremony apparently became an inquisition by many reporters on the extent of the involvement Spitzer's top aide. The D&C didn't think that was nice. Cara Matthews, one of the D&C's Albany correspondents, characterized some of the questioning as "badgering" the Governor!

It seems to me that the D&C is letting Spitzer too easily off the hook. He campaigned about things changing "Day One" when he took over. He has harped on campaign finance reform. All the while he has acted like any other NY Dem. politico. He is so desperate to get those last two GOP seats in the State Senate, he'd do anything, including, possibly, looking the other way while aides tried to bring down his nemesis. As I said, though, don't hold your breath waiting for the D&C to investigate.

You might turn blue.

When is a Republican Really a Democrat?

Let's ask my favorite Congressman, Jim Walsh.

You probably saw the recent story in the Democrat & Chronicle pointing out that Walsh "broke" with his fellow Democrats (oops, did I say that; it was a Freudian slip), I mean, Republicans, on several spending bills. Walsh is torn by trying to remain a Republican while acting (and voting) like a Democrat.

As a fellow conservative Republican remarked to me yesterday, "Who does Walsh think voted for him and kept him in Congress in 2006? Does he think those people will vote for him in 2008 based on his recent voting record?"

I can't help picking on this guy. He is the epitome of the spineless, self-centered politico, who cares only for his job and has no allegiance to constituents or principle.

I saw this cartoon and I just had to post it. Typical Walsh: trying to have it both ways while not noticing that the ground is giving way under his feet. What a loser!

Repoman Communes With Nature - Update

These photos are real. There has been no use of photo-shop technology. In case you were wondering, I am the large human in two of the pictures, my current nickname being Moby DiCaro.
In addition to me, and my fish, there are pictures of Cap'n Dave, Anna and Luke Rydelek (Dave's niece and nephew) and my best fishing pal Joe "Crappie" DiCaro (wearing the shades). Joe caught a bigger bass but I didn't have a camera (or, I didn't want a picture of a bigger bass caught by my 9 year old son).

These pictures are for those of you still doubting that I was really at the lake or that I really touched a fish. You can click on the pictures to enlarge them. Not that you might want to enlarge my already "huge-ah" image. But if you want a better look at the fish.

Democrats and the D & C: Playing Together in a One-Note Orchestra

Over the past couple of weeks, I've really reached a high (or should it be "low") point of contempt for our local Democrat politicians and our local media pundits. The Democrats in the County of Monroe have no ideas, thus all they do is gripe and snipe, all the while having covering fire from their media fifth column. It has to be clear to all but the most naive reader, that the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle is run by a group of left-leaning folks who can't stand Republicans or Conservatives from George Bush to Maggie Brooks to Ralph Esposito. D & C reporters, editorialists and bloggers, all appear to have the same story line on every topic.

This week's attacks on Maggie Brooks and the GOP County Administration, focused around Moody's dropping the County's credit rating. The Dems in the County Legislature promptly announced that this was "proof" of the fiscal errors of the Brooks Administration. Of course, the main reason for Moody's action is the fact that the County government cannot commit to sufficient tax increases. Brooks doesn't want to increase property taxes; the Democrats won't allow Sales Tax increases and nobody wants cuts in services.

Of course, the Democrats must have offered a plan to eliminate the deficit without raising any taxes or cutting any vital services, right? Well, if you read the D&C you might think so. The Democrats published their "plan" for "solving County budget woes. The "plan" is nothing but platitudes and politics. If you accept their plan, then you must believe that the only real problem we have in Monroe County is inefficiency by the GOP administration. The Democrats won't raise your taxes or cut your services, they will waive their magic wand of long-term planning, restoring procedural rules and budget deadlines, eliminating partisanship (I really like that one!) and maybe, for good measure, they will sprinkle fairy dust over Rochester and all we be well with the world.

Obviously, the "plan" fails to include one word regarding the nuts and bolts of budget problems, namely decreasing revenues and growing costs. I feel a "Bill Clinton" coming. You remember his oft-repeated campaign promise to do a middle class tax cut. Then after his election, he told us that although he tried as hard as he could, he just could not do it. He just didn't realize that the problems were just too big to be able to keep that promise. I can hear the legislature Dems now, "we didn't think we had to raise taxes, but its so bad we don't have any choice".

These same Democrats rail against Brooks' proposal to increase the Sales Tax. The are hypocrites of the first order. They know that the County Budget must be cut unless taxes are increased. They so desperately want Brooks to break her pledge on property taxes that they will do anything even if it means losses of services to their constituents.

Similarly, in Gates, the Democrats, led by Sue Swanton, play the same game. For five years Sue and her cohorts have been criticising Ralph Esposito and the GOP Administration. They have attacked Esposito for "allowing" a deficit and for raising taxes too much. Gee, those things seem contradictory, you say. No matter to Sue and the Democrats. They have yet to tell anyone what their magic prescription for fiscal salvation is. They say they will end the deficit without raising taxes or borrowing. To logical minds, that would indicate that they plan to cut services or programs, like the Police Department. Well, we are not sure because the Dems aren't talking.

Meanwhile the editorialists and bloggers offer cover for the Democrat's lack of specifics. Tom Tobin has written a number of editorials and blog posts critical of Brooks and supporting the Democrats alleged plan. Here's one example. Mr. Tobin tells us that the Democrats have "good talking points". He tells us this apparently, without irony.
Lee Strong, the Gates Blogger, published a post titled "Where have I heard this before?" in response to the D&C article on the County credit downgrade. He identified the many similarities between the County budget issue and Gates' fiscal issues. He left out the most obvious one, however. In both cases all the Democrats have done is point fingers and say there is a problem. Neither Ms. Palumbo and the County Democrats nor Ms. Swanton and the Gates Dems have ever offered a serious, detailed plan to fix the problem.

Both Democrat groups shun tax increases yet are silent on where service cuts should come from. The D&C Editorial Board keeps up the drumbeat against County and suburban government taxes and spending and tells us all that we must be realistic about local services that should be trimmed. Then they stay silent when the City heads to Albany to beg for ever-increasing State aid and then spends it on things like opening a beach that is, more often than not, unsafe to swim at.

I really can't believe this "cooperation" is planned, but its really amazing how so much bull could be packaged so similarly by accident. At least the public has, so far, seen all this for what it is. Nonsense!

Profiles in Courage.......Not!

The Democrats in the Senate are once again pressing for timetables for withdrawal in Iraq. The funny thing is, their rhetoric doesn't match the particulars of the proposal. The "plan" as Harry Reid described it, call for troop reductions leading up to "total withdrawal by next May, except for troops needed for force protection, training of Iraqi troops, chasing al-Qaeda, and border security.

In addition to the fact that these guys are so desperate for a US defeat in Iraq to gain political advantage over the GOP, they seem to have overlooked the fact that their "total withdrawal" requires somewhere between 40,000 and 70,000 US troops to remain to fulfill the remaining tasks. I wonder how their base will react to that definition of ending the war and bringing our troops home?

Not to be outdone, we have more "principled" Republican senators "concluding" that we need to change course in Iraq. Its funny though, it seems that the only Republicans who are "principled" about Iraq are those running for re-election next year. The only conclusion these guys have come to is that their electoral chances are being harmed by continuing to support the war effort. As such, they join the Dems in determining that all is lost two months before the commanding general in Iraq reports on the progress of his strategy.

Someone should tell Senators Lugar and Domenici that the Republic may just possibly survive even without their virtually indispensable presence in the Senate. And someone should tell Harry Reid and his Democrat colleagues that, now and then, their proposals and votes should be based upon sound policy grounds not simply political benefit.

Seriously, can someone in Washington explain the policy basis for withdrawal from Iraq without defeating al-Qaeda and without leaving a capable Iraqi government in place? Can the opponents of the war seriously believe that a premature pull-out won't lead to an emboldened enemy, more determined than ever to attack us?

Is there anyone left in Washington who is willing to act on principle rather than political expediency? I'm truly beginning to wonder.

Last Words on Immigration

Recently, I was upset by a Tom Tobin post in the Democrat & Chronicle Editorial Blog about immigration. Tobin basically reiterated the oft heard claim that opposition to the immigration bill resulted from racism. My response, along with others, argued that his claim was baseless ranting, unsupported by fact. You can read the exchange here.

The following is an excerpt from Victor Davis Hanson's Works and Days column. Hanson is a scholarly writer who manages to argue passionately without abandoning reason in his arguments:

Immigration Implosion
The President never understood why so many Americans were furious about the bill—witness the administration’s condescension toward, and abuse of, its critics.
There is an elemental anger over the issue, even if poorly articulated and sometimes contradictory. But the furor arises from a weariness with 5-pound bilingual phone books or having to select English over the phone as the preferred language.
People were tired of being told by courts that we are a racist society unless we supply interpreters at great cost to those who do not enroll in English classes. There is rampant fraud in areas that Americans were warned since infancy were the third-wires of our legal system such as authentic Social Security numbers and legitimate names. And the most grating was the complete neglect of immigration laws by city- and local officials due to the sanctimoniousness of the race industry on the left and the profit-above-all of the corporate right.
The average, maligned as a racist, middle-class voter (note the bipartisan rejection of the bill) was tired of having to buy insurance, get a driver’s license, ensure his car registration—and then get on highways where thousands simply chose not to. That they did so, because many or perhaps even most were ill-paid and without apparent resources was ironically an argument against more illegal immigration.
In short—the days of ethnic pressures (remember a trembling Gray Davis in California) to issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, or the Orwellian effort itself to ban the use of “illegal alien” for “undocumented worker” are for now over. They may return under a President Hillary, but for now the open borders movement has overplayed its hand.
Someone should interview the public relations genius who thought up the May-Day Mexican-flag waving demonstrations the past two years by illegals that came across as more Hugo Chavez than Martin Luther King. He was probably the same one who made the old Cruz Bustamante commercials here in California, replete with the red flags waving among a shouting audience as the candidate whipped them up in Spanish. (I knew that was a disaster when a liberal friend in the Bay Area, who saw one during the recall campaign, called me and asked, “What the Hell are those red flags and screams about?”)
Where do we go from here? First, close the border and all good things arise—more assimilation and integration, less identity politics, higher wages for low-paid American citizens, renewed respect for the law, and a warning to Mexico we will not subsidize its own failure to reform. When the number of illegals is static, the forces of the maligned melting pot will resume. And we will have time to sort out “earned citizenship”, guest workers, and all the other contentious issues that were to be snuck into law under the current legislation—but only when the forces of apartheid are stopped through border security.

I wish Mr. Tobin would take the time to consider whether his views are reasoned or just emotional.

Win Some, Lose Some

Hugh Hewitt points out that after suffering a number of setbacks in England and Pakistan, al-Qaeda got a victory yesterday when GOP Senator Pete Domenici decided to defect from the President's war effort. These guys can't wait till September for the Petreaus' report? Of course, that may signal a wholesale GOP retreat.

Like Hugh, I don't intend to support overall GOP campaign efforts. I will send funds directly to candidates and causes that I support. The RNC and NRSC do not represent me anymore. Unlike Hugh, I never thought Domenici was a stalwart.

The really sad part is that evidence is dribbling out of Iraq that our current strategy may well be working. This does, of course, beg the question of why the President did not fight the war effectively in the first place, but it also makes you marvel at how craven these apostate Republicans can be. Their decision to cut and run now, after all this time supporting the policy, can be based only on one thing, fear of losing their seats. Is there anyone left in Washington who does something because its the right thing to do?

Partisanship and Hypocrisy

The President's commutation of Lewis Libby's sentence has led to a great clamor, mostly from the left. Most notable about the comments I have read and heard is the clear illustration of the partisanship and hypocrisy that is rampant in politics and the media today.

The Democrats are apoplectic at Bush's "violation" of Constitutional Law. I guess they haven't read the Constitution; the power of the President to pardon and commute sentences is spelled out directly. Mrs. Clinton, speaking at a campaign rally with Bill on the podium with her, spoke about the President's misuse of his powers. Give her credit, only someone with brass balls could make such a statement given her husband's having handed out pardon's like candy (remember, Marc Rich and Roger Clinton, among many others) not to mention perjuring himself and sending out staffers with misinformation.

Hypocrites on both sides have used the commutation as an opportunity to, once again, tell the Iraq War, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, story, and to characterize the story in the light most favorable to their views. Depending upon who is telling the story, either Bush, Cheney and Libby outed Plame to get Wilson for exposing their Iraq War build-up lies or Plame and Wilson were part of a conspiracy to discredit the Bush administration and help John Kerry win the 2004 election. Today's Rochester Democrat & Chronicle editorial on the topic is a clear example of such partisan "reporting" of "fact".

The best example is Chris Matthews of Hardball. He was interviewed on the Today show about the Libby story. The beginning of the interview is on point but he quickly launches into a diatribe apparently claiming that Bush commuted Libby's sentence to keep him quiet about everything he knows about the Iraq War build-up. Watch it, but it will probably make you wonder where Chris keeps his tinfoil hat.

The only thing that we know for sure is that the truth is irrelevant to the vast majority of partisans in politics and the media. The only goal is to make sure "our side" wins. "Heart-felt" positions taken by politicians and pundits in the past, evaporate under new sets of circumstances, like changes in which party runs Congress, or the latest opinion poll.

The big problem with this ongoing battle is that the goal of always winning is inconsistent with the great compromises that are needed to get big things done. The problems of Social Security and health care coverage and costs are looming as great disasters. Such problems can only be dealt with by cooperation. The type of partisan competition we have today will never allow for those problems to be addressed.

FLASH: Repo survives the woods!

I made it through another week at Christie Lake.

We had a great time, which included some very excellent fishing. I caught a very large bass ( I will post a picture confirming this story when its developed), but my son and daughter caught bigger ones. Evelyn was the "bassmaster" landing a 17 1/2" monster. It tasted great, by the way. Joe suggested that he really didn't want to eat a fish that he had seen alive.

There was one new twist to the Christie Lake experience, though. My daughter, who just turned 13, seemed to draw a lot of attention from the large group of teen-age Canadian boys whose families share our week at the lake. According to Evvy, the boys believed that I looked "annoyed", "worried" and/or "mad", that they were hanging around with her. I may have been scrutinizing her actions more than usual, I don't know.

Bob Ayotte was everyone's idol as the true outdoorsman. He caught and cooked fish, killed snakes bare-handed, chased away skunks, and had all the necessary tools to rescue us less skilled campers, such as spare anchors, battery chargers and jumper cables. He also introduced us to the joys of horseshoes. He's good at that, too; we have to practice for the rematch.

Overall, however, this year the vacation was more restful than usual; I actually "got away from it all" in my mind. I lost track of the days and did not really worry about the office. I was sorry to come home, especially when I got to the border.

The trip back was one of the worst ever. We had a two hour wait at the border. I understand the need for security and the fact that high, holiday-weekend traffic volumes make for longer waits. what annoyed me was the incompetent direction of traffic by Thousand Island Bridge Authority (TIBA) personnel. There were several of these guys just basically standing around, rather than effectively managing the merging of traffic across the bridge and to the toll booths. As a result drivers moving along shoulders were able to cut the line (and save at least an hour) with impunity. Also rather than having one smooth merge point, there were several unmanaged ones which added to delays.

Anyway, I'm glad to be home and I'm ready to blog again!