Death by Entertainment

The cultural consequences of excessive television watching loom large as people veg out from life and expect the government to solve their problems.

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

Related:

 Cultural and Media Institute:

Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism

The Friends of Larry Grant

One argument in the Idaho Statesman regarding the late campaign of Larry Grant that I had to respond to came regarding campaign funding. First, George Moses wrote in the letters to the editor:

For the record: Larry Grant took on a race when no one else would. He fought it with limited money.

Mr. Moses is wrong on the first point (Larry Grant had a primary opponent by the name of Cecil Kelly.)  but let’s move on from that. How underfunded was Larry Grant? He spent $687,000, a pretty chunk of change, not as much as Sali, but hardly an obscenely low amount. Where did this money come from? Many sources the Democrats would not like you to know about including arch liberal Congressmen Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel, and far left talker Al Franken.

It’s the liberal Dems biggest secret, but Grant received plenty of out of state cash, mostly from unions, but also the sugar industry and some other business interests. Read until the end and I’ll be happy to introduce some very interesting supporters of Larry Grant. You can read the list of committees here.

Grant received $92,500 from Labor Unions (which might explain this behavior.)

Immediately after Sali’s bruising primary, Grant had a great chance to establish himself as a moderate, business-friendly alternative. He had two meetings with the Associated General Contractors, who doubted Sali’s reliability on infrastructure spending, including highways.

Instead of courting them, the Ivy Leaguer from Fruitland lectured the contractors on unions, the minimum wage and a gas-tax hike, and said his aim would be to clean up Congress. “You may hate unions, but that’s the way it is, guys,” Grant recalled telling AGC. “I’m not afraid of being on the side of the working guy.”

AGC endorsed Sali. “We wanted to talk about infrastructure and regulation,” said AGC Executive Director Michael Gifford. “It just became clear that his issues were not our issues.”

Well, $92,500 is quite a bit to tick off. But where else did Larry Grant’s money come from? An insignificant amount ($5,000 came from business PACs) and then we see Larry Grant got very direct support from ideological allies who transferred money from their personal campaigns to his campaign. Who were some of these Congressmen?

A couple Big Names. Barney Frank sent Larry Grant $2,000 and Liberal Charlie Rangel (who is busy finding finding ways to raise your taxes) also sent $2,000, as did arch-proabortionist Henry Waxman Oddly enough, the contributions from Mr. Frank and Mr. Rangel weren’t received until November 1st (for some reason Larry Grant didn’t proudly tout the endorsement of Barney Frank.)

Larry Grant also took in some huge donations from leadership PACs. Leadership PACs are campaign entitities set up by members of Congress to allow them and their supporters (often lobbyists) to donate up to $5,000 in a primary on $5,000 in a general.

Mr. Grant received $5,000 from “AmeriPAC: Fund for Greater America” which is House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer’s leadership PAC. Earl Blumenauer’s (D-OR) PAC, Committee for a Livable Future kicked in $6,000. DNC Chariman Howard Dean’s PAC, Democracy for America gave $1,000. Leadership 21, Rep. John Tanner’s (D-TN) PAC gave $1,000. Midwest Values PAC controlled by that great moderate Al Franken gave $2,500. National Leadership PAC which is Charlie Rangel’s PAC gave Grant $5,000, which brought the total Rangel contributed directly or indirectly to $7,500.

I count one dozen out of state Democrat members of Congress trying to influence our elections. I didn’t list such unknowns as Xavier Becera (D-CA.), but when you add them all up with leadership PACs, it comes to a dozen. Yet this isn’t news to the Idaho Statesman, while Bill Sali’s out of state contributions are. Liberal media bias lives.

Mistakes Were Made

Larry Grant delivers his response to Dan Popkey’s column in a reader’s view:

In the 2006 congressional election, an out-of-state, ultra-conservative fringe group, Club for Growth, hijacked the Republican primary and made Bill Sali the official candidate of the Republican Party.

“Not that I’m bitter about it.”  As this guy thinks Daily Kos is mainstream in Idaho, I don’t think he has finger on the pulse of Idaho voters.

Stuck with a candidate that most Republicans did not like, but with control of the Congress at stake, the Republican Party had no choice but to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Sali campaign in order to keep the seat in GOP hands. Republican leaders, state and national, put out the word for Republicans to vote for Bill Sali, even if they didn’t want to, because a vote for Larry Grant was a vote for Nancy Pelosi. For their trouble, they got both Nancy Pelosi and Bill Sali.

“Ha, I told you so, but I’m not bitter.” Actually, I know Republican circles better than Mr. Grant and Mr. Sali has nowhere the problems that Mr. Grant things.

Dan Popkey, in his column of June 17, talked to some committed Republicans and anonymous Democrats who think that was not enough

Committed Republicans who’d thought of voting for you before finding out intractably far left you were.

Every candidate makes mistakes and I certainly made my share. I am truly sorry I disappointed my supporters. And for those of you who think I didn’t listen, I hope you will be forthright with your advice in the future and forgive me if I did not explain well enough why I chose to do things the way I did.

You made a fair share of mistakes? Wait, I thought you did almost everything right? Which is it? And apparently his subtle message is, “If you have a problem with me, tell me, don’t tell Popkey.” Of course, the way Popkey wrote about it, the people who spoke to him may have been trying to do a political intervention.

And, yes, I will do it again for 2008 because no Democrat yet has won the first time out and because, as Mr. Popkey correctly noted, I have “a tougher hide than most.”

And, yes, it will be different this time.

This time, Bill Sali has to run on his record.

So, I’m guaranteed loads of material for the blog until May, 2008 at least. Then, we get the letters from the Grant staffers which defend Grant and attack Sali. They didn’t necessarily agree. Jill Kurtz wrote:

For the record, Larry did as much “retail politics” as any candidate I’ve seen.

Julie Fanselow wrote:

As a veteran of last year’s Larry Grant for Congress campaign, a bit of what I read in Dan Popkey’s June 17 column rang true to me. I agree that Grant needed to do more retail campaigning.

So which is it?

The Messianic Obama?

I get most disturbed about Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) when I read some of the comments of his supporters. One stood out to me in E-mails that were sent to David Brody of CBN:

“I’m supporting Senator Obama’s candidacy because of difference reasons. I don’t agree with everything he says, I don’t agree with everything my parents say. There are “some” Christian leaders that divide us by saying the Demorcats don’t care about Evangelical issues. This is true. I glad he said “some.” Senator Obama is truly chosen for a time such as this.”

So now Obama’s the chosen one? Kind of disturbing rhetoric from a not elected, not nominated candidatee. I’d also say that I don’t agree with everything my parents say either. However, my parents never advocated live birth abortion in which the abortionists are allowed to kill the child outside the womb. Or is opposing that too divisive?

Religious Freedom In Iraq

Some good news, some bad from Christianity Today LiveBlog.

A Perspective on Paris

Dennis Mansfield has some thoughts on Paris Hilton’s release. 

Doubtless, there will be some who are outraged that she’s out after a few weeks in jail. If you want to be outraged, be outraged that this is par for the course in DUI sentencing and punishment.

How to Marginalize Yourself And Feel Good About It

Tonight, we talked about the Amnesty Bill and I was pretty angry. Not as much as the Senators who voted for the bill but the rising breed of smug Independents out there acting like leaving the Republican Party with no plan on how to achieve positive political change, and little more than destructive griping that will leave both parties in the hands of people who are not standing up for our country. The future of our nation is at stake and I refuse to sideline myself to make myself feel good while the country goes down the drain.

Also, on the Amnesty Bill, we name names. Here are a few Senators who need challenged (courtesy: Red State) in the primary:

Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Larry Craig (R-ID), Pete Domenici (R-NM),
Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and John Warner (R-VA).

Some reactions to this were understandable, such as the talking to Cat gave a RNC solicitor a talking to.

However, there are other issues that aren’t getting as much attention. For example, the Senate stopped a bill from coming up that would have created an environment of union intimidation.

Finally, we take a look at an attempt to make support for creationism or intelligent design a violation of human rights.  (Hat Tip: World Magazine Blog)

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

Related:

Idaho Fallz:

Renouncing Political Party Membership Sends Clearest Message

Instapundit:
They’re Getting Kind of Testy.

Outside the Beltway:
Bush Calls Immigration Bill Amnesty

When Blogging Goes Bad

Blogging can be great for exposing the public needs to know and the politicians are afraid of being revealed.

Of course, the blogosphere can also make everyone a sage expert, which is not always a good thing. Example. The Mountain Goat Report posts several mistake-ridden pages from Conservative Rep. Steve Thayn’s campaign finance papers. Do they prove Rep. Thayn guilty of a crime? No. Do they prove he’s a tool of evil special interests. No. They prove that he struggled with the bureaucratic form from the Idaho department of elections and that his Treasurer, Benjamin Little Bear, needed to fill out forms beforehand and then copy the final draft down, or better yet download it on computer and type it up.

 But is it a scandal? No. Is it interesting? It’s slightly between curling and watching paint dry on the boredom scale. Some stories need to be told. This isn’t one.