Winnebago GOP: "Get out your pleasure boats and let's go get a beer!"

From an email update from the Chair of the Winnebago County Republicans:

Stop by our 1st Friday Club on August 4th the Fin 'n Feather in Winneconne from 5-7. Join fellow Republicans and candidates for great conversation in a very relaxed environment. Stop by for 10 minutes or hang around all evening.

August 10th is the Annual Neenah/Menasha GOP Boat Trip out of Waupaca which begins at 5:30pm.

By the way, if you need to talk to the Winnebago County Democrats, we will most likely be in your neighborhood knocking on doors and talking to voters. Or, you may very well see us making calls at our new HQ at 683 N Main St Suite E, Oshkosh. Call (920) 230-6432 to volunteer or stop by anytime.

You don't even need to be a boat owner.

Ready in the Reality Community

The Federation of American Scientists has found so many problems with the Bush Administrations Homeland Security website www.ready.gov that they have launced thier own: www.reallyready.org.

In February of 2003 the United States Department of Homeland Security released Ready.gov, an emergency preparedness web resource for Americans, as a cornerstone of its multi-million dollar Ready Campaign. As of March 2006, Ready.gov has received more than 23 million unique visitors. Unfortunately, Ready.gov contains information that is both inaccurate and incomplete. The Department of Homeland Security has been alerted both publicly and privately of this problem. However, the modifications that have been made to the site over the past three years, including an update in July 2006, have not adequately addressed the errors.

A thorough analysis of Ready.gov by the Federation of American Scientists reveals that numerous shortcomings remain. We therefore developed ReallyReady.org,
a emergency preparedness web resource with comprehensive and correct information.

The Federation of American Scientists hopes to achieve two purposes with ReallyReady.org:

To provide clear and correct information to citizens interested in preparing themselves and their families for an emergency

To persuade the Department of Homeland Security to take a serious look at Ready.gov and their policy on the accuracy of information and to make important changes that will help Americans to prepare for terrorist attacks or natural disasters.

We recommend that the Department of Homeland Security request the assistance of scientific, military, and emergency response experts to make crucial alterations to Ready.gov. Until FAS deems Ready.gov acceptable, we will ensure that the information on ReallyReady.org will remain updated, useful, and correct. We hope this site will demonstrate to the Department of Homeland Security that their multi-million dollar site can be useful and we hope they will update their site as quickly as possible.

More On the Penn Green's Republican Money:

It turns out that giving to the Green Party in Penn is a good way to double your contribution to Santorum. Contributions to the Green Party included $1000 from a Haliburton lobbyist. Others included (click here for details):

* The leading financial backer of an anti-abortion ballot measure in California called Proposition 73.
* Another California who wants to run for Congress while pushing an amendment to ban gay marriage.
* A military contractor and big GOP donor whose firm has won at least $11.5 million in earmarked federal dollars with Santorum's help.
* A former Bill Frist aide who now lobbies for Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary making billions in Iraq, and oil giant Chevron.
* Another lobbyist, who represents Big Pharma, who was in with Santorum at the start of the notorious "K Street Project."
* Another longtime friend and donor to Santorum who lobbied and saw the senator introduced a proposed targeted tax break for the donor's industry, beauty schools.

More:

Republicans Sponsor Green Candidate in PA Senate Race
By Paul Kiel - August 1, 2006, 3:31 PM
It's worse than we knew. Is the Green Party candidacy in the race for Rick Santorum's seat a wholly Republican sponsored affair?

As reported today by the AP and the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Green Party managed to get their candidate Carl Romanelli on the ballot with a costly petition drive, which was mostly funded by contributors who had also given to Rick Santorum's campaign. The party raised $66,000 for the effort, all of which they spent on a private company to collect signatures. TPMmuckraker was able to establish that at least $55,000 of that came from conservatives.

Virginia Davis, Santorum's spokeswoman, told the Inquirer that their office had encouraged the contributions. Why? Because a challenge from the left is seen as a liability for the Dem candidate, Bob Casey.

The $66,000 came from twenty donors, in contributions ranging from $1,000 to $5,000. None of the donors have a history of giving to the Green Party.

The Inquirer reported that $40,000 came from donors who either had given to Santorum's campaign or lived at the same address as a Santorum supporter. But even more than that came from Republicans. That raises the question whether any of the $66,000 - which comprises the total sum collected by both the local Green Party and Romanelli (with the exception of his $30 contribution) this election cycle - came from actual supporters of the Green Party.

But there's evidence that even those who didn't also give to Santorum's campaign are Republicans.

I called up one couple, Harry and Carol Wolfington, who had given $5,000 each to the Green Party. Mrs. Wolfington hadn't heard of the Green Party and told me they were conservatives. She referred me to her husband, who she said had made the contributions, but he refused to talk to me.

Together with another $5,000 contribution, which came from a donor who'd given to Republicans in the past according to FEC reports, the Wolfington's $10,000 means that fully $55,000 of the Green Party's $66,000 came from Republicans. I was unable to contact the remaining three donors, none of whom have given to the Green Party in the past.

The Green Party of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania hadn't received a dime in contributions before June of this year. The $66,000 given in that month was an amazing take for a Green Party committee, almost equalling the total ($77,160) received during the 2006 election cycle by all other local and state Green Party committees in the country combined.

Will Julie Pung Leschke Come Clean on Ethics Reform?

Will Julie Pung Leschke Come Clean on Ethics Reform?

OSHKOSH---On the heals of her refusal to answer a League of Women Voters survey on ethics reform, Winnebago County Democratic Party Chairman, Jef Hall, today challenged Julie Pung Leschke, the presumptive Republican candidate for the 54th Assembly district to finally state her position on ethics reform.

“She’s been running for the State Assembly for almost seven months and voters still don’t know where she stands on nearly every important issue in this race,” said Hall.

In May, Leschke recently held a fundraiser with Assembly Majority Leader Mike Huebsch, who killed Senate Bill 1, the comprehensive ethics reform bill, in the Assembly. Huebsch, who also donated $300 to Pung Leschke, is positioning himself to be the next Speaker of the Assembly.

“If you’re going to stand right next to the guy who killed ethics reform at an expensive fundraiser on your behalf, you might as well stop the smokescreen and come right out and say you oppose ethics reform,” said Hall.

The first question of Leagues’ the survey asks:

YES OR NO: Do you support and would you vote for bipartisan legislation (similar to 2005-2006 Senate Bill 1) to strengthen enforcement of Wisconsin's ethics code and campaign finance laws by replacing the current State Elections and State Ethics Boards with a nonpartisan and politically independent Government Accountability Board with an enforcement division with the authority and resources to investigate and prosecute violations of state elections, ethics, campaign finance and lobbying laws and regulations?

“This November, voters will have the choice of voting for a Republican who refuses to state her position on ethics reform, or Gordon Hintz, who’s been up front about his support for this important reform since day one,” said Hall.

Pung Leschke boasts her membership in the League of Women Voters on her campaign materials. However, the League of Women Voters co-sponsored the survey that Pung Leschke refused to answer, which can be found at http://www.wisdc.org/lwvquestions.php.

Steve King's a CREEP - Xoff has the goods...

The new negative TV commercial attacking Gov. Jim Doyle, which features audio and video clips of Richard M. Nixon, is being brought to Wisconsin voters by someone who was deeply involved in helping Nixon cover up the Watergate scandal during the 1972 presidential campaign.

Steve King, chair of the Coalition for America's Families, which is airing the attack ad, is the Nixon campaign security man who repeatedly manhandled Martha Mitchell to keep her from talking to the press about Watergate, Mrs. Mitchell's biography says. King, a former Wisconsin Republican Party chair who ran for the US Senate in 1988, also is chair of Paul Bucher's campaign for attorney general.

King, an ex-FBI agent, was working as a security man for the Committee to Reelect the President, known as CREEP, in 1972. He was assigned as personal security escort for former Atty. Gen. John Mitchell, the head of CREEP, and his outspoken wife, Martha, when the Watergate burglary became public. King later became head of security for CREEP, replacing his boss, John McCord, who was one of the Watergate burglars who broke into the Democratic Party's national
headquarters.

Read the rest here - it is an interesting story.

The percentage of members of Congress with children serving in the military is only slightly above 1 percent...

The percentage of members of Congress with children serving in the military is only slightly above 1 percent. Sens. Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, and Tim Johnson, a South Dakota Democrat, have had sons serve combat missions in Iraq, Time said.

This from a report that Sen. McCain's son is enlisting in the Marines. I wish him well.

Colonel Bob at Altercation notes on this fact:

Unfortunately, as the article notes, only 1% of our representatives in Congress have family in service. Some 32, however, are apparently married to lobbyists.

I made a top list!

I was included in Waxing America's (Paul Soglin) top blogs!

Thanks for the compliment - I read that blog almost daily. Great insight.

All Political Contributions Are Bad....

I got this off of Xoff - Carrie Lynch has a great analysis on the giving of contributions titled "That's everyone then"

It's official. No one can give money to the candidates in the race for governor or any other politician for that matter. Every donation is suspect and a potential scandal.

A story in the Wisconsin State Journal today is the one that makes it official. The story is highlighting a ridiculous accusation by the Republicans about a business that gave money to Governor Doyle but didn't get any business from the state. If you have been following the news, adding this story to the mix means business that don't get contracts from the state cannot give money and businesses that do get contracts from the state cannot give money before OR after getting a contract.

That's everyone I guess. Anyone that works for a business is not allowed to give money to politicians because you just never know if your employer might get a contract from the state or might not get a contract from the state.

At what point do you think the businesses in Wisconsin will get really angry that the press is making them look as bad to the public as the politicians they support?

I would like to point this out from the DPW Platform:

Increased empowerment of citizens in all civic affairs makes our nation a true democracy. The government must be an open institution that people trust. The government must comply with open meeting and public record laws, enact legislation for full public funding for all state and national elections, while ensuring that every citizen has a guaranteed right and equal access to vote. We have the right to inspect and count votes and have a paper ballot to insure voting accountability.

It is not the Democrats in Wisconsin that are killing campaign finance reform. Our members in the Senate and Assembly did not kill SB1 - Our candidate for Gov has pledged to sign it once it reaches his desk.

Let's compare to the RPW Platform:

We support the right of individuals to freely express their political opinions through their financial contributions, with full, prompt disclosure. We insist that neither employers nor unions should force individuals to contribute to political causes against their will. We oppose public financing of all campaigns.

The Green Party of WI doesn't have public financing as part of their platform:

PACs must be eliminated. Limits should be imposed on the money that candidates can spend on campaigns, with the amount determined for each race by the size of constituency of the office being contested. We support removing economic interests from the electoral process by limiting contributions of cash and services by businesses and individuals. We do not support term limits since they restrict the rights of people to choose their representatives.

The Libertarians dont have it either:

We advocate election law reforms that make it easier for the people to nominate and finance the election of the candidates of their choice.

Pretty plain as day in there, isn't it? There is only one party in WI that is officially trying to clean up elections. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin. And I am proud to be a member.

Embryonic Stem Cells and Small Pox - A Historical Look at Medical Innovation

A great editorial in the NYTimes today:

The past, however, seems to encourage a more optimistic outlook. Medical progress has stirred religious and moral objections throughout history — objections that were overcome as the benefits of medical advances became overwhelmingly obvious. In the 11th century, European church leaders warned monks that treating illness with medicine showed such a lack of faith in God that it violated holy orders. When 19th-century doctors began using chloroform to alleviate the pain of childbirth, the Scottish Calvinist church declared it a “Satanic invention” intended to frustrate the Lord’s design.

An illuminating case study is the late 18th-century controversy over inoculation against smallpox. Condemned by clerics as both immoral and blasphemous, smallpox inoculation offers some surprising parallels to our current impasse over research using embryonic stem cells.
...
The religious authorities of Jenner’s day viewed smallpox inoculation as an affront to God and man. A widely published British sermon was titled “The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation.” American clergy warned that inoculation usurped God’s power to decide the beginning and end of life. Only hypocrites would undergo the procedure and still pray to God, one theologian declared.

Jenner responded with a risky demonstration of his idea. In 1796, the doctor persuaded his own servant to allow the man’s 8-year-old son to be inoculated with cowpox material; two months later, Jenner exposed the child to smallpox.

The experiment was a success. Moreover, the child remained immune to smallpox even after the doctor exposed him to it a second time. The doctor himself, however, was reviled. Clerics denounced him as a tool of the devil. Newspapers ridiculed him as “a presumptuous man” overselling his results; one cartoonist portrayed him as a country bumpkin surrounded by patients sprouting cow parts.

Even some of his medical colleagues questioned whether he might have gone too far. In retrospect, one can easily imagine Jenner’s brilliant idea sinking under the combined weight of moral antipathy and scientific disdain.

Instead, the doctor persevered and triumphed. Not by hyping the potential of his ideas, as some stem cell supporters occasionally have done, but by doggedly gathering more evidence based on more inoculations. Fueled by his success, the practice spread, and smallpox rates plummeted. In time, the life-saving merits of inoculation eventually overwhelmed all doubt; the evidence, Jenner wrote, became “too manifest to admit of controversy.”

I hope we’re headed in a similarly pragmatic direction with regard to stem cell research. We still have not ventured much beyond the promising preliminaries; there is no multitude of saved lives to serve as a moral counterweight to the use of embryos, even unwanted ones.

John Gard, Mark Green and President Bush are carrying on a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in the name of pandering to ignorance.

Green Party Senate Candidate - Gladly Takes Dirty Money to Help Republicans Win...

"Both Republicans and Democrats have this notion that, if Greens are in the race, Democrats lose votes," said Romanelli, a railroad-industry consultant from the Wilkes-Barre area. "If that was going to motivate someone to contribute, I am fine with that."

Here is the story. It is the Green in the race for the Senate in Pennsylvania. Rick Santorum, perhaps the worst example of right-wing badness in the Senate seems to be fully funding the Green candidate:

When Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) encouraged everyone in state politics to help the Green Party earn a spot on the November ballot, at least one group answered the call: Santorum donors.

Fourteen Santorum supporters gave $40,000 to fund a petition drive that has allowed Carl Romanelli to collect about 100,000 voter signatures to qualify for the Senate race. That's 33,000 more signatures than required, and double what independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader gathered here in 2004.

But Romanelli and the Green Party of Luzerne County, which collected the money, might have violated federal election law in the process.

I think we can settle the dabate about the moral 'purity' of the Green Party candidates. Lets take a look at Santorum's record, the guy they are "fine" with taking money and support from:

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2005.

2003-2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2001 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2001.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 95 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 100 percent in 2005.

2003-2004 On the votes that the American Forest and Paper Association considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003-2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Public Citizen's Congress Watch 9 percent in 2003.

2003-2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 11 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 6 percent in 2005.

2003-2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 6 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the National Education Association 0 percent in 2005.

2003-2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the National Parent Teacher Association 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2001 On the votes that the English First considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the American Coalition for Ethanol 0 percent in 2002.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 10 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the American Land Rights Association 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Family Research Council 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the American Family Association 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 0 percent in 2005.

2004 On the votes that the State PIRGs Working Together considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 6 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

2000 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2000, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Santorum a grade of A+ (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

1999-2000 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 0 percent in 1999-2000.

2003-2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the National Breast Cancer Coalition 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 14 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 7 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 0 percent in 2005.

2001-2002 On the votes that the CATO Institute--Center for Trade Policy Studies considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Santorum voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Senator Santorum supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 0 percent in 2004.

Do you really believe that Santorum and the Green Party are working together and sharing money based on issues? We will leave the last word to Santorum's spokeperson:

"We have encouraged those who have inquired or asked to assist in this effort," said Virginia Davis, Santorum's spokeswoman, of the Green Party petitions.