Say Anything Blog

A Conservative Harvest:

Elected official’s motivations matter. There is no better example of motivations than this particular vote. These two men should have voted in unison, for or against Alito. Conrad’s concern for re-election prevented that from happening. Had Dorgan also voted in favor of Alito, I would have been complementary to the both of them. Because their votes were split is perfect evidence to me why only thirty-four percent of Americans feel Congress people do a good job. They only do what they should when the fear of losing an election is hanging over their heads.

My sentiments exactly.

Read the whole thing.

Whoa...

Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) failed today to address rumors that Nevada Senator Harry Reid will step down next month as Senate Minority Leader. Reid has been stung by revelations that his political action committee (PAC) accepted more than $60,000 in contributions from Indian tribes linked to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, Biden avoided discussing either the Reid situation or any upcoming changes in Senate Democratic leadership.

Still just rumor and speculation at this point, but what a blow to Democrats that would be.

This from DNC Chairman Howard Dean, appearing on Fox News with Chris Wallace, is also interesting:

DEAN: No, what I said was that it is possible that some Democrats got money from some of the — yeah. No, what I'm saying is that Abramoff may not have directed some of this money toward the Democrats.

WALLACE: In fact, he did, sir. We've got evidence of that.

DEAN: But the point is that not one Democrat either knew it or acted on it. Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff. No Democrat delivered anything, and there's no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that's not true of the Republicans.

WALLACE: So if we find — and I just want to — we have to wrap this up. But if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?

DEAN: That's a big problem, and those Democrats are in trouble, and they should be in trouble. And our party, if the American people will put us back in power in '06, we will have on the president's desk things that outlaw all those kinds of behaviors. Right now it's a Republican scandal. Maybe they'll find that some Democrats did something wrong, too. That hasn't been the case yet.

But our reforms in the Democratic Party are going to be aimed at both Democrats and Republicans. We want to clean up Congress, and we will within 100 days of the new Congress in 2007.

Of couse, we know North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan accepted money from Abramoff clients, met with an Abramoff associate and then took direct, favorable political action on behalf of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts, an Abramoff client.

If you ask me it is looking as though both Reid an Doran are in big, big trouble.  And Howard Dean knows this, even if he's not outright admitting it.

It looks like Senator Conrad will vote for Judge Alito.

I figured he probably would.  He's up for re-election in November.  He doesn't have the luxury of time for his red-state constituency to forget a "No" vote before the election.

Survey USA has it's monthly review of approval numbers for the nation's Senators up.

North Dakota's Senator Byron Dorgan, at 64% approval, is down 8% from a peak in the same survey at 72% back on October 17th, 2005. His current level of approval is the lowest for him in the last nine months.

Dorgan's colleague, Senator Conrad, is still at 67% approval, but even that is down 6% from his own peak in the same survey at 73% back on October 17, 2005.

Probably nothing to get too excited about. Looking back at the history of this poll both Senators seem to go through approval cycles ranging from the mid-60's to the low 70's. This most recent down-turn probably has more to do with an overall frustration with Congress than any real change in ND opinion about the two Democrats.

Hmm...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate's top Republican decided Thursday to force a showdown on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito early next week, with the two Democratic senators from Massachusetts pushing to block a vote.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist filed a motion to cut off debate on the Alito nomination after his Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Harry Reid, objected to a move by GOP leaders to schedule a final vote on his confirmation Monday afternoon.

Frist's motion, which requires 60 votes under Senate rules, will come up for a vote at 4:30 p.m. Monday. If successful, senators will then vote on Alito's nomination at 11 a.m. Tuesday, with a simple majority of 51 votes needed for approval.

Frist's move came as Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was lobbying his Democratic colleagues to filibuster the Alito nomination -- an uphill fight, given that none of the chamber's 55 Republicans have opposed his confirmation and three Democrats are on the record supporting it.

"Judge Alito's confirmation would be an ideological coup on the Supreme Court," Kerry said in a written statement.

This seems more like positioning for Kerry than anything else.  Pushing for a filibuster of Alito so late in the game seems pointless.  As the article states, Alito is all but on the bench.  He's got 58 votes locked in.   It almost seems as though Kerry is trying to pander to far-left interests by agitating for a filibuster now that the result of a vote on Alito is pretty much assured.

In fact, I'm sure that this is what he's doing.  Democrats know they can't win on Alito, so Kerry and Kennedy will be the standard bearers to make it look like the Dems are putting up a good fight, thus appeasing the rabid NARAL/MoveOn.org types.  Meanwhile a few red-state Democrats up for re-election this year (my own Senator Kent Conrad among them) will quietly cross the lines and vote for confirmation.  Ultimately Alito will be confirmed with about 60 votes, and none of this silliness from Kerry will have mattered.

It is all just a show.

Weird...

An Internet blogger has for months quietly published the jailhouse writings of Joseph Edward Duncan III, hoping the suspected serial killer from Fargo would release details of new crimes, another person with ties to the Web site said today.

The writings, which carry a mostly religious theme, had been known only to a few people besides the FBI and Duncan’s defense team, said blogger Jules Hammer.

That changed Saturday, when Hammer learned someone may have leaked the existence of the site, 5nrevelations.blogspot.com.

Hammer figured word about the new Duncan blog would soon be out, so she disclosed the matter on her own Web site, The Cellar, which she devotes to investigating Duncan.

“We really didn’t want this to come out now,” she said.

Blogs, or Web logs, are Web sites designed to easily publish commentary or photos, like an online diary.

Hammer said she was one of the few people who knew about the secret blog when it began in November. She said she isn’t the one who runs it or corresponds with Duncan.

That person, whom Hammer would not identify, contacted Hammer to discuss whether or not to pursue the idea of publishing for Duncan, she said.

Duncan had a blog he maintained prior to getting caught. The blog referred to in the article above is here.

Here's a taste of what's there:

We Need Tougher Sex Crimes (Uh,…laws)

When will America learn? It seems nobody remembers the result of “getting tough on alcoholics” (the prohibition). It was literally the birth of organized crime in America. Or what about “getting tough on drugs” (the so called “War on drugs”)? We now have over five times more drugs in this country than before! So now we need to get “tough on sex crimes?” That’s synonymous to saying, “We need more sex crime!” It’s really no mystery why. If you take control away from a person who has an obvious need for control (a “sex offender”—just for example) then what do you think they’ll do? Give up? Not likely. They are going to find a way to take control back, at any cost. And guess what? Do you really think they’ll look for a new way to get control, or resort to the one way they know?

Makes a good point about prohibition being the birth of organized crime. At least modern organized crime anyway. Not sure I see the connection to sex crimes, though. The problems with boot legged liquor were solved when the government re-legalized and then regulated booze. Sex crimes aren't the same thing, as this country is hardly going to legalize and regulate things like rape and child molestation. But I guess that's the kind of reasoning you get from a sex criminal.
I'm mixed as to whether or not this sort of thing should be allowed. On one hand you hate to see this sort of gibbering nonsense from people like Duncan made public, lest some naive soul take it to heart. On the other hand, there are free speech issues. And Duncan's writings may well give researchers and scientists some insight into how someone becomes a monster like Duncan is.

This sort of jailhouse communication is hardly unprecedented. Many inmates have published books and articles from prison, and the Son of Sam killer David Berkowitz has had an internet publishing set up similar to Duncan's for years. Though usually I believe this sort of thing goes through prison officials before being made public.

This is cross posted at TakingBackND.com, headquartered on the right side of the state.

As promised I'm going to cover the second half of Byron Dorgan's interview in the Fargo Forum that ran Sunday and Monday. I posted on the first part Monday evening here.

This half of the interview covered different material than the first half. Still the more he talks the sillier he looks.

[Forum]Who do you see in the next race for president?

[Dorganoff] Well, if I were betting, I’d say (Sen.) John McCain likely could be the Republican nominee. And John probably wouldn’t like me to say that.

John’s a good friend, and I like him a lot. I’ve worked with him a lot over a few years, and I think he’s likely to be the Republican.

They will try to stop him as they did in South Carolina. There’s a faction of the Republican Party that just does not like him. But I think that he’s likely to get the nomination.

Sounds like Byron Dorgan's working another conspiricy theory here. "They" will try to stop him. I suppose he's referring to the urban legend that the South Carolina primary was a dirty one. I've looked for evidence of that and I've challenged people to find it. It didn't happen but for conspiricy freaks a lack of evidence is enough evidence all by itself. Do you suppose Senator Dorgan's still spreading his Bin Laden Conspricy theory to those that still listen?

While we're talking about Senator Dorgan's friend John McCain I have two questions the forum should have asked. "Is the reason John McCain exempted indian tribes from his campaign finance law because Senator McCain receives as much or more indian-casino money than anybody else." "Is the reason why you, Senator Dorgan supported this law because you receive almost as much indian-casino money as McCain?"

[Forum]What’s going on with your oil company windfall profits tax?

[Dorganoff]I lost it. We had a vote, and the oil companies have a lot of friends. And you see the price of oil going up again, gas going up again now, and the oil companies are reporting record profits...

Sounds like more conspiricies. My mama had a saying that fits Senator Dorgan's "Windfall Profits Tax": "Socialism is as Socialism does." If you want to know more about his tax scheme read here.

[Forum]What is the biggest issue facing the nation right now?

[Dorganoff] Probably the international issues. But it’s linked with Iraq, with what’s going on with Pakistan at the moment, with Sharon lying deathly ill in Israel....

...There are issues I’m working on that I care a lot about – international trade. We’re importing every day of the year $2 billion more than we export, which means we’re selling part of our country every day. When we import $2 billion more than we export every day, we put American dollars in the hands of foreigners who then can use it to buy stocks and property in our country. It’s a dangerous thing. We’re importing both energy and food, and exporting jobs. Boy, that’s a recipe for disaster. I spend a lot of time on the floor of the Senate talking about that and what we should do about it.

I see that Senator Dorgan spends a lot of time on the floor of the Senate talking about what we should do about this. You know I watch C-Span2 on occasion. Usually someone's talking but nobody's there to listen.

Senator Dorgan's ready to talk to an empty room, but he's not willing to tell us what his secret plans are. Maybe he doesn't think his scheme to fix the problem will pass muster with people with common sense.

Senator Dorgan apparently doesn't want foreigners to own stock in American Corporations. However he doesn't seem to want Americans owning that stock either. I've got an idea Senator. Why don't you propose allowing individuals to take some of our money we're paying into Social Security and invest that money into the stock market. There'd be so much US money going into the stock market we wouldn't have to worry about a thing.

The solution to the balance of trade as I see is to quit punishing the productive people in this country. If we get the government out of the way nobody can compete with the American Economy.

Hmm...

WASHINGTON - Senators from Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota pressed the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command on Monday to maintain the region's 500 nuclear missiles, responding to recent reports that efforts might be afoot to reduce the fleet.

The Pentagon might try to reduce the number in a review of military strategy due out in early February. Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Conrad Burns, along with Wyoming Sen. Craig Thomas, told a news conference after their meeting with Gen. James Cartwright that they have heard reports that the military expects to recommend reducing the fleet by about 10 percent.

A Washington trade publication has fueled that rumor, posting what it said is a summary draft of the report, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review, on its Web site. According to Inside Washington Publishers' InsideDefense.com, the Pentagon report calls for reducing the fleet to 450.

Pentagon officials have been quiet on their plans but have not ruled out further decreasing the nuclear stockpile, which has been slowly reduced since the end of the Cold War.

I understand the concern of these Senators, but I've never felt comfortable about politicians petitioning our military to make changes (or keep the status quo) based on anything other than a concern for national defense.  Yet that is exactly what these Senators are doing.

It is no secret that military installations out here in western states are an enormous economic boon for the communities in which they reside.  The soldiers who work at these installations spend their money, time and talent in our cities and towns and we are the better for it.  When they leave, it hurts.  And yet, as bad as that reality may be, the primary concern of our military leaders when making decisions and domestic military bases and installations can only be national defense.

If our military can be better and more efficient by closing down some facilities and/or moving them around then so be it.  Of course, if there is a choice we who live in communities which benefit from the presence of the military would like them to stay, but ultimately national security must trump economic interests.

I have no problem with these Senators reviewing the process and advocating for their constituents during it, but I often worry that the politics of the matter will obscure the reason why these military installations were built in our communities in the first place.

Namely, the safety of our homeland.

This is Cross Posted from way over at TakingBacknd.com

Senator Dorgan actually had the nerve to sit down and have a friendly interview with The Fargo Forum. The first time I read through the interview I was disgusted with the softball questions the Forum asked of him. However when you think about it you don't expect pigs to fly. Besides Senator Dorgan is too arrogant to submit to a hard interview. I suppose it's best that the Forum get him talking and we can put out the inconsistencies in Senator "Dorganoff's" interview.

First of all I have to take issue with the Forum's Headline, "Dorgan: Stricter Ethics Rules on the Way." I find that a curious way to introduce an interview concerned with Senator Dorgan's alleged lapses in ethics. What difference does it make what the rules are until you know the guy is going to follow them.

From the article:

Fargo Forum: You said people who may be connected to Abramof (sic) were trying to specifically discredit you because of your being involved in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigation. What makes you think that and who would those people be?

That's the Forum's question. It doesn't look to me that they really want to dig into Senator Dorgan's involvement in this scandal.

"Dorganoff" Well, The Hill newspaper published an article with a headline that the Republicans’ strategy was to pull Democrats into the Abramoff issue. In recent weeks, people who talked to Republican strategists said their approach was to pull Democrats into it so that it is not seen as a Republican scandal.

The fact is (Sen.) John McCain and I took on this investigation. We exposed a pretty big scandal, and it’s not surprising to me that there’s some push-back.

Do paranoids have enemies? Senator Dorgan's known to have some goofy conspiracy nut theories. Seriously Michael Moore's known to use Byron Dorgan's nut case theories in his movies. Does Senator Dorgan think this "they're all after me" gambit will deflect attention from his own involvement?



I guess Senator "Dorganoff" forgot that The Washington Post covered this issue almost a year ago. The Fargo Forum covered Senator Dorgan's ethical lapses a bit later than that. And I covered it in June of last year. You may have questions about my partiality, but if you're thinking that the Washington Post and the Fargo Forum are hard on Democrats you're as dumb as Senator Dorgan thinks you are. (The links for the Post, Forum and my June Post are found on this post here.)

Forum: You’ve been asked before why you didn’t step down from the Abramoff committee investigation. You had already declined stepping away from the investigation and obviously you haven’t.

"Dorganoff:" Anyone who has paid attention to the investigation would understand that there’s never been a conflict. I mean, I’ve been – Sen. McCain and I have both been – the most aggressive interrogators, the most aggressive investigators of this scandal.

I think a great followup question for the Forum to have asked would be, "Is the reason you refuse to step down so you can block any investigation of your involvement in the Abramoff/Greenberg Taurig affair?" The Department of Justice is looking into this situation. However unless they can get someone like Michael Smith to testify against Senator Dorgan it's going to be a tough prosecution. So it's likely nothing will come of the Justice Department investigation. If that's the case we'll never hear about what really happened because Senator Dorgan is in charge of the public investigation of the Abramoff/Greenberg Taurig affair. The followup question to that is "How can we trust you when you don't allow a full investigation of your involvement?"

Forum: You’ve said many times you’ve never met Abramoff but, obviously, you knew who he was.

"Dorganoff" I would not have known him from a John Deere tractor. Abramoff was not part of my radar.

Never trust someone like Senator Dorgan who just can't give a straight answer. Apparently he thinks by affecting his folksy Senator Hayseed persona he can deflect the relationship between him and the people from Team Abramoff he did know well, quite well. Followup question, "Could you pick out a John Deere Tractor in a lineup?

Forum: You must have been aware of him by the time you used the (MCI) skybox of the Choctaw Indians.

"Dorganoff:" That was in 2001, I believe. That skybox was offered for use by the Green(sic) Traurig law firm by two Democratic attorneys who worked for that law firm. We were told it belonged to the Choctaw Indian tribe. There were pictures of Choctaw Indians on the wall, Choctaw chieftains and so on. And when we reported it on our FEC report four years ago, we reported it as an in-kind contribution from the Choctaw Indian tribe. When reports later surfaced that suggested that Mr. Abramoff had controlled perhaps that and other skyboxes, I immediately refunded the money that was reported as an in-kind contribution from the Choctaw tribe.

There goes Senator Dorgan trying to deceive us again. Jack Abramoff was in charge of the Washington office of Greenberg Taurig. Apparently the law firm maintains an office in Washington for lobbying purposes. Senator Dorgan doesn't care to inform us who these two "lawyers" were. (They may have a law degree, but if they lobby full-time they are lobbyists.) I suspect at least one of these two lawyers was Michael Smith of Team Abramoff. We know he was at the MCI center that night. The Washington Post referred to him as Democrat Fundraiser.

Followup Questions: ""If Michael Smith of Team Abramoff were to invite you to a fundraiser at the Ralph Englestad Arena would you just assume that it belonged to the Sioux Tribe and list it that way in your FEC reports?" "Would you expect a lobbying firm to decorate their fundraiser skybox with pictures appropriate to their clients?" " Have you corrected your false FEC reports?" "What's the penalty for filing a false FEC report?"

Forum: You’ve been saying that since the first time …

"Dorganoff" If somebody came to my office and said, “Do something and I’ll give you a campaign contribution,” I’d kick them out of my office. North Dakotans know that is not the way I would ever allow business to be done.

"So why don't you allow a full investigation of your involvement? How do North Dakotan's know when you're in the perfect position to block any investigation of your involvement?"

The Forum chose to run this interview in two parts. Because of the length of this post I'll follow their example and post the rest tomorrow.

This was cross posted from way over at TakingBackND.com

According to Rasmussen Reports Republicans are 340% smarter than Democrats.

In a poll released Saturday 17% of the population believes that the Abramoff scandal invovled only Republicans. In Contrast only 5% of those polled said that it involved only Democrats. Fortunately for the Union a majority, 52%, understand that the scandal involves members of Congress from both parties including North Dakota's not-so-favorite son Byron Dorgan.

(For you Democrats; 17 is 340% bigger than 5%.)

70% of those polled also don't believe that if the Democrats regained control of Congress things would get any better. (Apparently we're helping by getting the word out on Senator Dorgan.)

The public also believes by a 3-1 margin that the Abramoff isn't the only lobbyist attempting to influence OUR government in unethical ways.

We need new representation in Congress. We must hold the new guys accountable for getting Congress off our backs and out of our pocketbooks.

Looks like the Old Democrat Media is failing once again to pull the wool over our eyes.

This is laughable...

The Forum

“You’ve said many times you’ve never met Abramoff but, obviously, you knew who he was.”

Senator Dorgan

“I would not have known him from a John Deere tractor. Abramoff was not part of my radar. He was what is known as a Pioneer for President Bush – those are people who raised over $100,000 for the president. He, by all accounts, gave personal contributions to a lot of members of Congress, all of them Republican. Many of them probably knew him, probably went to fundraisers with him, but he’s not someone I would have known.”

Oh sure. Dorgan didn't know Abramoff. Of course, he did use Abramoff's suite at the MCI Center for a fundraiser. He did accept at least $67,000 in contribution's from Abramoff's clients. He did accept some of that money from employees of Jack Abramoff. He did meet with an Abramoff associate and representative of an Indian tribe in Massachusetts during a time when he was pushing for that tribe's recognition in Congress.

But rest assured that Jack Abramoff isn't someone Byron Dorgan knows. Jack Abramoff and the tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from his clients were not "part of" Dorgan's radar.

Hmm...

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), one of Abramoff's toughest critics, has acknowledged that in the fall of 2003 he pushed Congress to approve legislative language urging government regulators to decide whether the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts deserved federal recognition. About the same time, Dorgan met with the tribe's representatives and Michael D. Smith, an Abramoff associate.

Reached for comment, Democrat Party Chairman Howard Dean was quoted as screeching, "IT'S A REPUBLICAN SCANDAL!" before locking himself in a closet.

Taking Back ND has more.

byron dorgan, jack abramoff, michael d. smith, politics, corruption

Dustin over at FreeRepublicans.com is getting together a North Dakota blog meetup. Right now the tentative date is March 31st in Bismarck. Barring any unforseen scheduling glitches I plan on being there.

If you're an ND blogger (or maybe even an ND blog reader, I'm not sure if the invitation is limited or not) head on over and let Dustin know that you're interested in attending.

north dakota, blogging

Oh my...

Republican legislators in Bismarck's District 35 will be faced by a young challenger.

Ryan Gustafson, 22, will formally announce Tuesday that he plans on seeking the Democratic nomination to run for a seat in the House in that district.

He is currently employed as the communications director for the North Dakota Progressive Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group.

Gustafson moved to Bismarck in 1999. He graduated from Bismarck High School in 2001 and from Concordia College in Moorhead, Minn., in 2005 with a bachelor's degree in journalism.

Gustafson is hosting an event at the Democratic Party state headquarters, located at 1902 E. Divide Ave., where he will formally announce his candidacy. The event will take place at 7 p.m.

He is inviting residents of District 35, which covers central Bismarck, to attend the event.

The incumbents in District 35 are Sen. Ed Kringstad and Reps. Bob Martinson and Margaret Sitte, all Republicans.

SA readers will know Mr. Gustafson as frequent commenter (and the person responsible for the Flickertail Journal) Ryan G, famous for accusing U.S. troops of using weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and other far-left, moonbat crazy talk.

Oddly enough, just as he announced his candidacy, all of the posts on his blog have diappeared. The given reason is "template redesign," which is laughable. Its clear that it disappeared so as to keep his nuttier sentiments swept under the rug.

I guarantee that if his blog does come back online it will be missing posts. Like the one where he accused our troops of using WMD's against the enemy in Iraq and the one where he accused Republcians of wanting kids to starve after they passed federal spending reductions.

Update:

Ryan's blog archives may be gone, but Google Cache doesn't forget. Here are PDF printouts of his archives from August 2005 (when he started) to December 2005. Can't go any earlier than December 29th as Google doesn't have those in cache.

August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005

ryan gustafson, north dakota, ed kringstad, bob martinson, margaret sitte

Former ND Governor George Sinner:

FARGO - It was the courage of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that publicly exposed the Abramoff corruption.

As I watch the Abramoff scandal unfold in Washington, I am not surprised that the two people who had the guts to expose the scandal now are under attack by those they investigated. And I hope people understand what is going on.

McCain and Dorgan led the Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigation of the bilking of Indian tribes of tens of millions of dollars by Jack Abramoff and others. The Justice Department's announcement of Abramoff's guilty plea last week confirms what McCain and Dorgan's hearings have exposed.

Now, we see the attempt at retaliation orchestrated by some of the very people who were named in the investigation.

People close to the Abramoff operation (such as top Republican strategist Grover Norquist and others) are attacking both McCain and Dorgan in print and on the national media.

Once again, the lesson is clear. If you have courage to investigate and expose corruption, you are going to be attacked.

What a total canard. In order for us to accept Sinner's conclusions both McCain and Dorgan wold be under attack.

Is anybody attacking McCain? I haven't heard of it. In fact, the only time I've heard McCain's name mentioned in connection to this scandal is in regard to his role in investigating the matter. Dorgan, however, is a much different matter. Sen. Dorgan accepted $67,000 (that we know of) from Abramoff employees and clients. Sen. Dorgan, by his own admission, took favorable political action for those clients. Sen. Dorgan once used Abramoff's suite at the MCI Center for a fundraiser. His connections to Abramoff's dirty politicking are many, and while that may not add up directly to criminal or ethical violations it does provide more than enough impetus for asking questions.

Putting it bluntly: Nobody is attacking Byron Dorgan. Rather, many people are questioning his apparent connection to a major lobbying scandal.

What does Sinner have against that? Other than the fact that Dorgan is a fellow Demcorat, that is.

abramoff, lobbying, byron dorgan, george sinner, north dakota, politics