Foundation

This is not a straightforward point to make, and takes a little dot connecting, but I think that Tom Campbell’s excuses for defending Sami Al-Arian are falling apart.

At the California Republican Party Convention currently under way, Tom Campbell claimed that he would not have written the 2002 letter for Al-Arian had he known that the man called for “Death to Israel,” implying it was not a widely known thing.

There’s a problem with that claim. Al-Arian himself defended the statement on FOX News. Here’s what he told Bill O’Reilly on September 26, 2001:

O’REILLY: … In — in 1988, you did a little speaking engagement in Cleveland, and you were quoted as saying, “Jihad is our path. Victory to Islam. Death to Israel. Revolution. Revolution until victory. Rolling to Jerusalem.” Did you say that?

AL-ARIAN: Let me just put it into context. When President Bush talked about crusade, we understand what he meant here. The Muslim world thought he is going to carry a cross and go invade the Muslim world and turn them into Christians. We have to understand the context. When you say “Death to Israel,” you mean death to occupation, death to apartheid, death to oppression, death to…

The whole world knew in 2001 about Al-Arian’s support for violent jihad and death in the name of Islam. But in 2002, Tom Campbell wrote “I never heard Professor Al-Arian utter a single word disloyal to the United States. Nor did I ever hear him say anything anti-Semitic, or racist, or religionist, against any group.” So Victory to Islam, Death to Israel doesn’t count as any of those? Come now.

One defense of Campbell might be that he didn’t watch Bill O’Reilly. I sure don’t. But read the letter further. “I read a transcript of the O’Relly Factor interview last autumn,” Campbell said. He knew.

Tom Campbell knew when he wrote his letter in defense of Sami Al-Arian that the man had shouted “Death to Israel,” as well as “Victory to Jihad.” He wrote anyway. Why is he saying otherwise at the convention?

Behold your NRSC-favored candidate in the California Senate race, in a 2006 interview in Salon:

[Salon:] Are you a Republican?

[Carly Fiorina]: Right now.

What does that mean?

I hesitate because in this country right now, party affiliations have become so polarized. In business you try and focus on what you can agree on and common goals and common objectives. In politics in this country all we ever do is talk about what we disagree about. I’d much rather talk about what we agree the problems are.

Could Carly Fiorina actually be the second NRSC-backed candidate this cycle to jump parties? Or, more accurately, in Fiorina’s case it would mean jumping back out of the Republican party, as the self-proclaimed lifelong Republican was an Independent when she finally managed to register in 1997.

Does the NRSC vet its candidates using surplus Obama administration checklists? Seriously.

Back when Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith came out, it was popular to compare the villains with the Bush administration. But now I see Google fitting better as Senator Amidala’s opponents, when now the firm’s supporters cheer as Eric Schmidt refuses even to consider the option of not storing your personal data. Says Fortune at CNN:

In one of the sharper exchanges of the afternoon, a questioner challenged Schmidt with the fact that Google is collecting a staggering amount of information about who we are, what we’re thinking, and even where we are. “All this information that you have about us: where does it go? Who has access to that?” (Google servers and Google employees, under careful rules, Schmidt said.) “Does that scare everyone in this room?” The questioner asked, to applause. “Would you prefer someone else?” Schmidt shot back – to laughter and even greater applause. “Is there a government that you would prefer to be in charge of this?” It was quite the effective moment that showed we still trust government less than we trust Google. But should we trust either?

It doesn’t even cross their minds that we might ask Google not to build the database to begin with, because it’s a basic law of databases that they can always be put to another purpose.

It’s a long forgotten incident, but this concept of re-purposing databases was illustrated during the Clinton administration. As part of the small intrusions into your private life that President Clinton ran on, attacking “deadbeat dads” was something that he and Attorney General Janet Reno spoke of often. The result was a national database of “deadbeat dads,” but before the end of the Clinton administration, the database was already to be reused to track those who owe money for other reasons. Said Wired in 1999:

The measure would require the Department of Health and Human Services to use a national list of current public and private-sector employees to track people suspected of cheating the government out of money.

You got it: That was the “deadbeat dad” database, which once built had no idea it was meant to be used only for “deadbeat dads,” and so became a tool for more and more expansive intrusion. And guess what? The same is true of any Google database. What is to stop Google, a business partner, or the government from using it later? Good will? Internal corporate safeguards? The request to “Don’t be evil?” What is to stop the government from passing a law which grants access to the database?

The only true way to respect us and our privacy is for Google not to build that database to begin with. But we know why they do it anyway: the love of money. Also from Fortune:

“Advertising that is more targeted is worth more money. … Eventually, the revenue in the digital world should be higher.”

Not just higher than it is now, but higher than it was in the analog world, Schmidt said. For newspapers, magazines and broadcasters who are watching revenues drop in their legacy businesses, this sounds like wishful thinking. But the Google chief maintained that because digital advertising should allow marketers to tailor their message to the audience, it will be more effective and brands will spend more money. He didn’t say how much of that money Google would pocket, and how much would be left for content creators.

Google expects to make too much money off of breaching your privacy for the firm to stop doing it. All the high minded talk goes away as soon as it comes time to keep growing as a business. It’s time all Americans stopped pretending that “Don’t be evil” actually means anything, and started looking closely at every single element of policy the firm promotes, starting with Net Neutrality, examining for ways that the corporation will gain at our expense.

The California Republican Assembly, a 75 year old conservative group in this state, endorsed Chuck DeVore for Senate today with over 75% support on the first ballot.

“CRA must keep working and producing solid conservative candidates for office at all levels of government, and I hope that my fellow Californians will join the CRA team and get involved with a local chapter.” Ronald Reagan said that of the CRA years ago, and today the group proved itself to live up to those words still. The doubters question DeVore, even after his convincing debate victory, saying he has no name recognition, he has no fundraising, and he can’t win. The CRA stood up today and pushed back. Conservative activists know who he is, stand ready to give, and can be the backbone of a DeVore victory.

We, the Republican grass roots of California, have an opportunity in this primary election to push back. We can push back against the NRSC who came in from DC to try to dictate our candidate to us. We can push back against Governor Schwarzenegger, who works tirelessly to reshape our party in his own image. We can also push back against Babs Boxer and the Democrat-Union-Press axis in this state by installing a candidate who will use any tactic he has to in order to challenge her, surprise her, and wear her down in the general election.

It’s easy to see why any conservative can back Chuck DeVore. He received a 100% rating from the CRA in the 2009 session of the California Assembly. He’s the one candidate in this race with a proven track record of fighting taxes, slashing at spending, and standing up to the expansion of government.

I hope conservatives will give to Chuck DeVore at his stylish new website, help spread the word about him, and see this through to June in the primary, and to November in the general election. Some say say Babs Boxer is unbeatable. They also said that of Marcia Martha Coakley. Let’s do this.

The California Senate race is becoming a real free for all, as the candidates go after each other’s records with gusto, and it appears that Tom Campbell is taking the worst of it. It’s not a good sign when a candidate has to say that he does not help terrorists. What’s worse for him is that Carly Fiorina is not letting it go at that.

The Campbell statement to me seems rather weak, as it repeatedly tries to drag George W. Bush down with him, to use him as a shield in some vague way. But Fiorina is now calling on Campbell to correct that page, saying that the findings of the Investigative Project on Terrorism refute Campbell’s denial that he has worked to assist Sami Al-Arian, who has been convicted in the US of aiding anti-Israeli terror.

While it’s on the record that Sami Al-Arian once snagged an invitation to the White House under President Bush, apparently through campaign contacts, there is no record of Bush going out of his way to give assistance to the man specifically. Campbell on the other hand did.

Can friends of Israel trust Tom Campbell in the Senate or anywhere else where he can influence America’s foreign policy? I’m skeptical.

Update: There’s a debate coming at noon Pacific between the Republican candidates for Senate, which will be available online at ktkz.com live. Listen and judge for yourself if you like.

Senators Coburn, Inhofe, and Kyl have put out a letter explaining why conservatives should back Carly Fiorina for Senate instead of Chuck DeVore. I have problems with this letter. Here’s how.

This November, California will have an opportunity to call Barbara Boxer home and send a new conservative leader to the United States Senate. That new leader is Carly Fiorina. We are proud to endorse her as a fellow conservative who has real?world business experience and the guts and moxie to take on Barbara Boxer and win.

First off, you’re not a conservative leader until you’ve led. Fiorina has done no such thing, instead choosing to work with Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow/PUSH coalition, and so is not a conservative leader. Chuck DeVore is a conservative leader, having proven himself in the California Legislature. He knows what it’s like to fight against a Democrat near-supermajority.

Carly is not a Washington insider. She is a proven business leader who understands the economy and advocates a strong national defense. And, she is a tough fiscal and social conservative who:

• Signed Americans for Tax Reform’s “No New Taxes” Taxpayer Protection Pledge;
• Will fight to lower taxes, reduce the deficit, and cut wasteful Washington spending;
• Is Pro-life, unlike her liberal opponents, Barbara Boxer and Tom Campbell;
• Opposes Barbara Boxer’s Cap-and-Trade legislation;
• Opposes the radical “government takeover” policies that President Obama and Barbara Boxer support for health care and other sectors of the economy; and
• Supports a tough national security policy that prosecutes terrorists as unlawful enemy combatants before military commissions, not as civilians in our federal courts.

First off, it’s just nonsense for a team of DC insiders to insist that we listen to them, while at the same time telling us to vote for a non-DC insider. But wait, there’s more! None of the three candidates for Senate are DC insiders! The closest is Campbell, who used to be in the US House, but he’s been in Sacramento lately.

Second, Fiorina and her supporters ask us just to trust her that she’ll fight for lower taxes and spending. Chuck DeVore has a proven track record of doing just that in Sacramento.

Democrats fear Carly more than any other candidate in the Republican primary. That’s why Barbara Boxer has been using Carly’s name in fundraising letters for nearly two years, while the California Democratic Party employs two full-time staffers to follow Carly around the state, and why numerous union-funded groups have launched independent expenditure efforts attacking her.

Or maybe Carly is a total novice, doomed to make major mistakes on the campaign trail, and Boxer knows that using her name paints Republicans with her record of failure in business? Anyway, If you’re already resorting to talking to me about the Democrats, and you’re asking me to trust the judgment of Babs Boxer of all people, then you’ve already run out of good things to say about your candidate?

Also, if Fiorina is the candidate backed by more DC insiders, per your comments and logic shouldn’t she be the candidate we favor least if we want to bring substantive change to the Republican leadership in the Senate?

Carly Fiorina worked her way through undergraduate and graduate school, majoring in medieval history at Stanford University and earning two graduate business degrees from the University of Maryland and MIT. A self-made woman, Carly started her business career as a secretary and went on to become the first and, to date, the only woman to lead a Fortune 20 company, serving as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Hewlett-Packard Company. Most recently, Carly served on the Defense Business Board advising the U.S. Secretary of Defense on overall management of the department and as Director of Business Executives for National Security.

Wow, you actually opened that door. Did you know that at MIT, Fiorina advocated (in what she called a personal as well as academic pursuit) a total federal government takeover of high schools in America, and declared that the Constitution was a problem and obstacle to doing the right thing? How progressive of her.

As conservative leaders in the United States Senate, we know you can count on the principled leadership of Carly Fiorina. We are confident that she will stand with us and stand up for you against the liberal special interests that have kept Barbara Boxer in Washington for almost 28 years.

How do you know we can count on Fiorina’s leadership? Her lifetime track record is that of bleeding heart left-wing leadership, favoring increased government involvement in schools, working with Jesse Jackson to promote an agenda opposing equality of opportunity in America, and making feminist tirades in private meetings even on the campaign trail. Why should I believe you over my own eyes and ears?

This is a golden opportunity for the people of the Golden State to come together to elect Carly to represent them in the United States Senate. Please join us in supporting Carly’s campaign.

But can she win? Chuck DeVore has been working since November 2008 for this seat, building up contacts, raising money at a brisk pace for Republican candidates for Senate in this state, and establishing himself with TEA Party activists up and down the state, as well as across the country. He’s also proven he can keep his cool and win on the campaign trail, using aggressive surprise tactics where needed. Fiorina hasn’t proven she can win as dog catcher, and her campaign staff reacts with anger when surprised. Won’t Boxer just crush her and make her lash out before November?

TOM COBURN, M.D. U.S. Senator (R-OK)

We at Red State support you, Sen. Coburn, but many of us are disappointed with your failure to back the man with the proven track record in this race. Step back, step away from the DC go-along, get-along club on this one.

JAMES INHOFE U.S. Senator (R-OK)

JON KYL U.S. Senator (R-AZ)

Should I be worried that Sen. Kyl, who has a track record of supporting legalization of illegal aliens in America, backs Fiorina? Should all opponents of mass, uncontrolled immigration into California be concerned? Why do I get the feeling that DC insiders just don’t care about that issue right now, and are going to lead us into trouble later?

How do you like your Demon Sheep cooked? Or maybe you prefer him squished, mocked, or just plain sheared? Whatever your preference, today’s the day to Finish Him! with a hop on over to Chuck DeVore‘s new Demon Sheep extermination website.

The California Senate primary has heated up in recent weeks. After Tom Campbell tucked tail from the Governor’s race, he immediately drew fire from the previous frontrunner, Carly Fiorina. And while her ad drew… attention, it is true that Tom Campbell is not the libertarian Republican he appears to be. Many support him because they believe he is a compromise: strong on fiscal issues, and “moderate” on social issues. The sad part is though: he’s neither.

The Demon Sheep ad focused on Campbell’s ties to the girly man Governor Schwarzenegger, but Tom Campbell has a lengthy voting record in Washington we can look back to. That record is not promising. Time and again Tom Campbell had opportunities to take stands for small government, but time and again he refused. Campbell repeatedly voted against a Constitutional Amendment to require a supermajority to raise taxes. Campbell repeatedly voted against conservative budget alternatives to reduce spending and shrink the government toward Constitutional levels. There’s also the matter of his proposal last year to raise gas taxes in California. Carbon tax anyone? Campbell was, and is, a moderate on fiscal matters.

The fact also remains that Campbell is anything but a moderate on social matters. I didn’t originate the statement, but it’s conceivable that Barbara Boxer could run to Campbell’s right on social matters, as Campbell is an extremist on marriage, having come out as such in Reason Magazine even as the state came together for Proposition 8. All Boxer has to do is run as a moderate Democrat, respecting federalism and the wishes of California’s voters while backing tinkering with marriage in other states, and she will be to Campbell’s social right. Both Campbell and Boxer are pro-abortion extremists, after all. Campbell, while in the House in 1999, offered an amendment to allow US government funds to aid the UN Population Fund, with the only restriction being that the money not go to China, leaving the rest of the UN’s “reproductive health” arm unfettered to spend our money.

Nuke a demon sheep. Help nominate a conservative for the Senate to join Jim DeMint’s army. Help out Chuck DeVore.

Posterize (vt) From basketball, to defeat brilliantly with a photogenic finish that humilates the victim.

Mark Cuban is known these days for being the owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks, a team he took from years of malaise to the NBA Finals. He didn’t get his start in sports though, no. He made his money in a pair of business ventures. First he sold a company called MicroSolutions – a hardware and software integrator – to CompuServe. From there he joined what became broadcast.com – an online multimedia streaming service – which netted him the billions in a sale to Yahoo. He’s since stayed in the broadcast field, now heading a venture called HDNet – a high definition video broadcasting service.

Suffice it to say Mark Cuban knows audio and video broadcasting.

So when Mark Cuban writes a lengthy article explaining in great detail how Senator Al “Stuart Smalley” Franken is completely, totally, and utterly wrong in his pronouncements on the future of online video, I listen.

Cuban conclusively shows how Franken’s proposed government mandates would make the Internet more expensive for everyone, would cripple a media giant, and make online television worse for the people who do use it today. Nobody wins under the Franken plan.

This idea is so bad, it’s a good thing the Democrats aren’t also proposing to regulate the entire Internet, in some sort of “Net Neutrality” scheme. Then they might really goof up.

When FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski uses words like “regulate” and “Internet,” they mean precisely what he wants them to mean when he says them. So when he says he does not want to regulate the Internet, he means that he only wants to treat the Internet the way he treats your local NBC affiliate broadcasting USA Curling to your home. That affiliate, of course, is fully regulated by the FCC.

Now a federal court appears poised to say no, that Comcast is right, and the law does not give the FCC the authority to regulate firms that provide information services, such as ISPs. In response to such a ruling, which would kill the vast “Net Neutrality” regulatory scheme before it started, the FCC is going to declare that ISPs are no longer IT firms. In other words, Julius Genachowski will take an unfavorable court ruling, change the meanings of the words, and do what the court just told him is illegal. He is arrogant and believes himself above all oversight and control.

Don’t think that’s a likely outcome? Every big name in the ISP industry says otherwise in a letter to Julius Genachowski acquired by The Hill.

Read the letter for yourself if you like, it’s a document steeped in the language of government written by a committee of lawyers. So it’s no Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia dissent with a scathing catch phrase to quote, and if I quote it directly I’ll end up making this post itself three pages.

My coverage of Net Neutrality here has been sustained over time and in depth on the issue. If you want a sound bite, I’ll give it to you:”The FCC wants to regulate every private computer network on the Internet, which will result in higher costs, less access, worse service, and the effects will ripple through the whole economy.” If you want the comprehensive case, and specifically how the FCC’s Net Neutrality plan to Single Payer Internet what Obamacare is to Single Payer Medicine, please check the archives. Key phrases to look up: Free Press, Save the Internet, Google, FCC, Julius Genachowski.

In any case, please consider commenting at the FCC against Net Neutrality, proceeding number 09-191. Tell them that free competition will punish bad behavior, and that remind them that today, wired broadband Internet access is cheaper and easier to get than the regulated wired phone, wireless phone, and cable television markets. Ask them to keep their hands off of our Internet.

The conventional wisdom in this country is that incumbent Presidents effectively just don’t lose short of some freak events, such that in 2012 we should go in expecting defeat. That’s not the case. While it is true that in 2012 we will start off behind President Obama, the historical advantage of incumbency is not insurmountable. Especially if the President receives a serious primary challenge, we should go into the election expecting to beat him, not merely to contain losses downticket.

I’ve classed these Presidential runs by incumbents in two broad categories: The first category is with the light backgrounds and includes three elections of the post-war era: 1948, 1964, and 1976. These incumbents were not elected President. In them, the incumbents go 2-1. Johnson faced no serious opposition for the Democrat nomination and cruised to victory. Truman and Ford did not have their nominations assured, and both had close races, going 1-1.

The second category includes all other incumbents who took office by running for President and winning. In the post-war era these incumbents go 5-3, with all three losers suffering serious party challenges. In Johnson 1968’s case, he had no serious chance of winning the nomination against the Communist-driven pacifist movement sweeping his party.

I conclude we’d best hope President Obama receives a primary challenge, because historically the President’s own party members are excellent at sensing weakness in an incumbent’s re-election chances. Does anyone have the ear of Secretary Clinton, or perhaps a candidate who can capitalize on Democrat dissatisfaction over war and rendition for torture?