Badda Boom, Badda Bing; Democrats Front Felon To Challenge Maristoca

As reported at ToTheRight

We know the seat is hopeless for Democrats, but couldn’t they find someone without a criminal record to run in this race?

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan:

Democratic state House challenger Crusificio “Cross” Gambino pleaded guilty to class 5 felony theft charges last year stemming from check fraud and was sentenced to three years probation, according to court records.

Gambino, 30, who Tuesday announced his intention to run for House District 51 - which covers north Loveland and the southern edge of Fort Collins - could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Phone numbers for Gambino obtained by Coloradoan public records searches were not active, and knocks on the door of his Fort Collins-based marketing firm, Gambino and Associates, were not answered.

Gambino would face Republican incumbent Rep. Don Marostica in 2008 if he runs for the seat.

According to court records, Gambino pleaded guilty to class 5 felony theft charges Jan. 12, 2006, and was sentenced to three years probation March 3 the same year.

Gambino can still run for the office with a felony conviction, a spokesman for the state Secretary of State’s Office said Wednesday.

“If you are a felon serving a prison sentence or on parole, you cannot vote,” spokesman Richard Coolidge said. “As it relates to a candidate for an office, if you’re on probation, there is nothing that would (preclude) you from running.”

Gambino said Tuesday he has been a longtime supporter of the Democratic Party. A check of voter registration records showed Gambino as a registered unaffiliated voter in Weld County.

Calls to Larimer County Democratic Chairman Adam Bowen and a late afternoon call to Marostica were not answered.

Dick Wadhams needs to stop insulting conservatives

The Colorado GOP has a long history of making poor choices when it comes to Republican primaries (Think Randy Graff) and they've done it again.

So-called "political genius," and state party Chair Dick Wadhams publicly insulted a sitting member of Congress from his own party.

From The Politico.com:

“The most lethal charge against Doug [Lamborn] is that he just doesn’t have the personal and intellectual strength to be the congressman for the 5th District.”

If Wadhams truly wanted to stay out of the CO-5 primary, he would have sat on his hands and said nothing. Given Wadhams willingness to push around Wayne Wolf, Bob Schaffer's primary opponent, he has shown he IS willing to support primary candidates.

Wadhams is wrong to publicly attack a conservative member of congress.

Shame on Dick Wadhams, shame on the state party.

Rudy: I'm not a Republican

Rudy on running for NYC Mayor:

"Well, I'm a Republican mayor, but I"m really not. I'm the mayor of New York City. I ran as a Republican, I ran as a Liberal — which really confuses all kinds of people — and I ran as an Independent, as part of the Independent Party, which actually is now the party that's supporting Ross Perot. So I ran a fusion candidacy, like my predecessor Fiorello LaGuardia. So I'm not the most partisan of Republicans."

The video:

Huckabee is liberal

The Wall Street Journal's John Fund attack's Huckabee's liberal record on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson show:



You can read the full WSJ article here.

Money quote from Phyllis Schlafly:

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

RINO Bill Owens piles on:

Governors who served with him praise Mr. Huckabee for his ability to work with others, but say he was clearly a moderate. "He fought my efforts to reform the National Governors Association and always took fiscal positions to my left," former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a supporter of Mitt Romney, told me.

A Colorado Rockies Win Could Spell A Loss For Conservative Politics

Ok, the title of this post is abit dramatic. Needed to make a point though.

Representative Tom Tancredo has announced that he will announce his decision on whether to run for Colorado's Sixth Congressional District the day after the World Series ends. While Tancredo could go either way with his decision, many fear that he will decide not to seek another term in Congress. That being the case, is there a way we can convince Rockies skipper Clint Hurdle to not win the final series clinching game until after the November 2008 election?

Yes, it would be the longest game in World Series history. A game that lasted over a year and if my math is correct would be somewhere around 26,208 innings long. We're talking about the Rockies though, they can get an RBI whenever they want and defensively speaking Troy Tulowitzki could probably handle the fielding by himself.

It is possible.

It also would also be well worth it to keep a conservative hero like Tom Tancredo in office. Tom has single handedly brought the issue of immigration to the forefront of politics. With the exception of perhaps Ron Paul no other representative sparks enthusiasm among hard line conservatives the way Tom Tancredo does. You name the issue and I guarantee you Tancredo is on the right side of it.

While those in line to fill the 6th would make great members of Congress, it will be abit disheartening to see someone like Tancredo leave us(at least for the time being).

Congressman Tancredo we salute you and while we are eager for the Rockies to bring home that World Series trophy, I for one would be willing to wait just abit longer to get it.


From Roll Call (only those with subscriptions can view the article online)

Tancredo's Decision
He’ll Reveal Re-election Plans at the Conclusion of the World Series
By David M. Drucker
Roll Call Staff

Play Ball! While most of Colorado surely is preoccupied with the Colorado Rockies’ first World Series appearance, a subset of fans located in the Centennial State’s 6th district probably is anticipating Major League Baseball’s main event for another reason.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R), who is in the midst of a long-shot presidential bid, will announce the day after the Series ends whether he will run for re-election to his House seat. His retirement could ignite a heated GOP primary in the solidly Republican 6th district between state Sens. Ted Harvey and Tom Wiens and small-business man Wil Armstrong, the son of former Sen. Bill Armstrong (R-Colo.).

Tancredo spokesman T.Q. Houlton confirmed this week that his boss would reveal his 2008 plans the day after the last Rockies game. That could come as soon as Monday, should either the Rockies or the Boston Red Sox sweep the best-of-seven series, which was scheduled to begin Wednesday night after Roll Call went to press.

The first two games were scheduled to be played in Boston, with games three and four scheduled for Saturday and Sunday in Denver.

“People very close to him don’t think he’s going to run,” said one knowledgeable Colorado Republican. “But I still have a hard time thinking he’s going to walk away from everything.”

While stoking his White House ambitions for the past several months, Tancredo has long eyed the 2010 Senate race and a potential matchup against Sen. Ken Salazar (D). Many Colorado insiders have speculated that Tancredo will run for Senate in 2010, retaining his House seat until then.

The younger Armstrong said Wednesday that he is giving serious consideration to running for the 6th district GOP nomination in 2008 — but only if Tancredo retires at the end of his current term, his fifth in the House.

“I care what’s going on in our district and our state and our country, and if he chooses not to run again I will think very hard about it. I’m leaning that way,” Armstrong said. “But frankly, if he stays as my Congressman, I’d be thrilled. He’s done a great job and I have lot of admiration for him.”

Armstrong, Harvey and Wiens each would make a strong candidate, according to Republican strategists, although each has a potential downside. Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman (R) also is seen as a formidable candidate, but GOP activists would prefer he hold off running until 2010, as Gov. Bill Ritter (D) presumably would appoint a Democrat to replace him if he ran for Congress next year and won.

Tancredo mostly is known for his ardent opposition to illegal immigration and his work in Congress to overhaul federal immigration law. Tancredo’s outspokenness on the matter has helped him build a national public profile, and his supporters credit him for the fact that addressing illegal immigration has become a major campaign issue in the presidential race and in many Congressional contests.

Strident remarks Tancredo has made on other subjects — including that dropping a nuclear bomb on Mecca in Saudi Arabia should be a military option in the war on terror — have added to his run of national publicity.

However, Colorado Republicans note that he remains beloved in his district, and they contend that he is known for more than illegal immigration back home. Republicans there say his support for education reform and his opposition to wasteful government spending has earned him a reputation for being a reliable conservative on issues important to Republican voters.

Like Armstrong, Harvey is interested in running for Congress if Tancredo retires. Harvey said most political activists in the district place the odds of Tancredo running again at 50-50, although they are beginning to believe more and more that he will seek a sixth term.

If Tancredo does retire, Harvey predicted a crowded and competitive GOP primary to replace him, as the district leans heavily Republican and the winner of the intraparty contest likely would cruise to victory in the general election. Tancredo’s worst performance since ascending to the House in 1998 occurred in 2000, when he won re-election with 54 percent of the vote.

President Bush won the suburban Denver 6th district with 60 percent of the vote in 2000 and 2004.

“I think the primary will be a highly contested race,” Harvey said.

Harvey said he would wait for Tancredo’s decision before figuring out his own plans. The state Senator has two young children, ages 7 and 10, and he said that definitely would factor into his decision.

Wiens could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

The state Senate districts held by Harvey and Wiens include separate though significant chunks of the 6th Congressional district. That could give each of them an advantage over other potential primary candidates, although their support does not extend outside of their legislative seats.

Armstrong’s father, the former Senator, is still revered by Colorado Republicans, and that could help the small-business man should he run for Congress. However, he would have to overcome the notion that he is trying to win a political office on his father’s coattails.

“Ted [Harvey] and Tom [Wiens] both are very serious, legitimate candidates,” the knowledgeable Colorado Republican said. “But I think Wil [Armstrong] is the intriguing wild card that could surprise a lot of people. I don’t think there’s a frontrunner in it.”

John McCain On Woodstock And Clinton

In case you missed it McCain had by far the most memorable line of the night at the recent GOP debate.

Right or Left brained?

Check out the link below to see if you're right brain or left brain oriented.
Right Brain or Left Brain?
When I looked at it this morning I swear it was moving counterclockwise now it is definately moving clockwise and I am having a hard time forcing myself to see it otherwise.
(Hat tip to former Colorado political operative, turned VA GOP spokesman, Shaun Kenney for the link)

Learning To Say You're Sorry

Intersting article from Roll Call that points to some of the underlying motivations that push both Republicans and Democrats to do what they do.

From Roll Call (Unfortunately the only way you can only access the actual article is if you have a subscription to Roll Call)

By Stuart Rothenberg

October 22, 2007

If there is anything that points out the difference between most Republicans and most Democrats, it is Congress’ effort to pass a resolution that labels Turkey’s slaughter of Armenians almost a century ago as “genocide.”


The White House has opposed the action, which has been pushed by House Democrats. While some Republicans have been supporting the measure (and supported previous attempts to please Armenian-Americans by embarrassing Turkey), the current resolution is primarily a Democratic initiative on Capitol Hill.

But if you cut through all of the politicking and even put aside the specifics of the current controversy, you see that fundamentally, the issue is this: For Republicans, politics is never having to say you’re sorry. For Democrats, politics primarily is about an endless number of apologies and condolences, and a feeling of unquenchable guilt, though it tends to be institutional, not personal.

Republicans apparently figure that what’s past is past, so you might as well forget about it. You got a problem? Deal with it. As a party, the GOP isn’t big on apologies, reparations or public assertions of sympathy.

It’s not that Republicans never experience guilt. Actually, they are drowning in it. But it’s personal guilt, some of it apparently coming from original sin (except for Rep. Eric Cantor [Va.] and Sens. Arlen Specter [Pa.] and Norm Coleman [Minn.], no doubt).

As former President Bill Clinton proved, Democrats are much better at publicly feeling people’s pain, even if it occurred more than 100 years ago and all of the people actually involved in the incident are long gone. It doesn’t even matter whether the United States was involved. Democrats pretty much are ready to apologize or commiserate for anything, anyplace and anytime.

Luckily for Democrats, we’ve had centuries of people oppressing people around the world, so there is almost an endless supply of brutalities and injustices deserving of attention, classification, condemnation and apology.

In fact, so many unfortunate things have happened over the past few centuries that the next Democratic Congress can spend pretty much all of its time, if it wants to, apologizing to groups and demanding that other people apologize, too. Democrats have only begun to scratch the surface on groups they want to apologize to.

The problem for the Democrats is that the controversy over Congress’ steps to assert that Turkey was guilty of a policy of genocide isn’t a laughing matter — at least it isn’t to the Turks. Instead, it is the first truly dumb thing that Democrats may have done since the party won both chambers of Congress last year.

It now looks as if House Democrats may put the Armenian genocide measure in the deep freeze, hoping that everyone forgets about it. But while that may limit the damage that the party could cause itself, burying the measure wouldn’t inoculate Democrats completely from the fallout caused by their initial efforts to pass the resolution.

I recently asked a couple of Democrats — an incumbent Member of Congress from a Democratic-leaning district who is on record supporting the measure and a long-shot Congressional challenger in a Republican district — whether they now favored the genocide resolution, and both acted as if the measure were infected with botulism.

The resolution has strained U.S.-Turkish relations at exactly the worst time, when a Turkish incursion into Iraq could complicate the already complicated American military and political mission in Iraq.

“Democrats are harming the future of the United States and are encouraging anti-American sentiments,” Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan asserted about 10 days ago.

Democrats, of course, have been criticizing President Bush for years for allegedly contributing to an increase in anti-Americanism around the world, so Erdogan’s comment gives Republicans ammunition to use against Democrats.

If Turkey’s military forces cross into Iraq to attack Kurdish guerillas, Republicans could well try to change the subject of Iraq by blaming Democrats for antagonizing the government of Turkey and undermining the U.S. effort in Iraq.

Democrats have been successful for the past few years by keeping the focus on GOP failures and by criticizing Bush administration policies. But the House leadership’s miscalculations on the “genocide” resolution points out both that making policy is more difficult than criticizing and that House Democrats are likely to make their share of problems when they become more ambitious.

CASA requests liberal mayor's records

I just got this press release from the Colorado Alliance for a Secure America:

October 18th, 2007
Greeley City Clerk

Attn: Betsy Holder
Greeley City Clerk’s Office
100 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631

Re: Open Records Act Request

Dear Ms Holder:

Please consider this letter to be a request for records pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. § 24-72-201 et seq. (the “Act”).

Our organization is seeking records pertaining to the “contingency plan” concerning revised departmental budgets as presented or discussed by City Manager Roy Otto in the spring of 2007. Of course, we will pay reasonable costs for such information. This would include any paper or electronic communication that the Greeley Tribune recently referred to as involving “Greeley City Council proposing to cut…the police budget. Police Chief Jerry Garner and City Manager Roy Otto said…that all city departments had to have a contingency plan -- which included some cuts -- if city revenue dropped much more.”

Again, any communication pertaining to the “contingency plan”. We have also served this request upon the City of Greeley IT department to prevent any electronic communication from being deleted, as that would violate the intent and letter of the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. § 24-72-201.

A copy of this request has been forwarded to all parties named herein, the State Attorney General, the local and state media, and likewise forwarded to our counsel. As the nature of this request goes to the heart of certain issues that Greeley residents may consider important in the short term, time is of the essence.

Please forward the information or contact me for any questions/clarification via the number(s) below as soon as possible.

Thanks very much.

Sincerely,

Chrisann Reese
Executive Director

CASA has been attacking liberal Greeley mayor Tom Selders over his weak stance on illegal immigration.

You can keep up to date on all the goings on in Greeley at the new blog the Greeley Report.

GOP Lawyer gives money to Dems

Prominent RINO lawyer -- and State GOP counsel -- John Zakhem has been giving money to Democrats.

The Grand Junction Sentinel reports the Zakhem gave $400 to Rep. Bernie Buescher. Additionally, former GOP state representative Gayle Berry also gave money to Buescher.

From the report:

In his campaign finance filings, Buescher reported receiving $400 from John Zakhem, a Denver-based, Republican lawyer and former attorney for the Trailhead Group, a political campaign committee that targeted Buescher last year.

“(Zakhem) is perhaps as prominent a Republican as there is out there, and I was very pleased,” Buescher said. “I think that is demonstrative of the fact that I’ve been able to reach across the aisle and work with members of both parties.”

More than 30 percent of Buescher’s contributions, $1,150, came from lobbyists, including $100 from former Grand Junction Republican Rep. Gayle Berry, the documents show.

GOP musical chairs

In the era of term limits, jockeying for electoral advantage has taken on a mythic level.

Senator Ron May is expect to announce his retirement, paving the way for Rep. Bill Cadman to take over his senate seat, via vacancy committee.

It is widely believed that Doug Bruce, author of TABOR, will full Cadman's house seat.

Rumors to this affect have been swirling around the golden dome since early this year, and it seems like now we're just waiting for May's announcement to put these balls in motion.

Muhammad Ali Hasan files in SD-8

From ToTheRight.

October 11, 2007 (Eagle County) — Eagle County resident and political news commentator Muhammad Ali Hasan has filed as a candidate for Colorado State Senate District 8 with the Secretary of State. While a final decision on a run for the seat is not expected until January, Hasan has decided to move forward in the process to adhere to state campaign laws and to allow for more liberty in exploring his options.

“I have a deep respect for campaign laws,” Hasan said. “Since there is no provision for exploratory committees is Colorado, filing shows everyone I am serious about thoroughly evaluating a possible run. I plan to use the next few months to have conversations with residents and local party leadership before making my final decision.”

Hasan has an extensive background in political commentating for national news networks and as a political activist. Locally, Hasan was a founding member of the Eagle County Young Republicans, served as their first president, and currently serves on the Eagle County Republicans Finance Committee. Hasan holds a Masters degree and is a former public school teacher to extremely low-income, urban students.

Senate District 8, currently represented by term limited Republican Jack Taylor, includes all of Eagle, Jackson, Moffat, Rio Blanco and Routt counties, as well as parts of Garfield county. Hasan said he believes he could bring new energy, ideas and a commitment to be an advocate for the issues that matter most in Senate District 8.


Hasan’s high energy and interest in local issues is appealing, said business owner Rick Spencer of Routt County. The two met on several occasions as Hasan traveled the district, and Spencer said Hasan “leaves an impression.”

“He is highly energetic and he seems very curious,” Spencer said. “He gets very involved in things and is really working hard to get in step with what is going on here and what matters to our counties.”

Jeannie Ford Artez of Glenwood Springs said she is also impressed by Hasan’s energy and eagerness.

“Though I haven’t decided who to endorse yet, personally I think he is a terrific young man who is very bright,” Artez said. “I have very much enjoyed meeting with him and I look forward to seeing what he is going to do.”

Should Conservatives Support Rudy Giuliani?

(Hat tip to a veteran CO Republican operative for the story)

From Scripps Howard News

"The most important 'traditional value' in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House," says Greg Alterton, an evangelical Christian who writes for SoConsForRudy.com and counts himself among Rudolph Giuliani's social-conservative supporters.

People like Alterton are important, if overlooked, in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. Anti-Giuliani Religious Rightists are far more visible. Also conspicuous are pundits whose cartoon version of social conservatism regards abortion and gay rights as "the social issues," excluding other traditionalist concerns.

New York's former mayor "has abandoned social conservatism," commentator Maggie Gallagher complains. He "is anathema to social conservatives," veteran columnist Robert Novak recently wrote. Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson has said: "I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008." Dobson and a cadre of Religious Right leaders threaten to deploy a pro-life, third-party candidate should Giuliani be nominated.

This "Rudyphobia" ignores Giuliani's pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.

While Giuliani accepts a woman's right to an abortion, he told Iowa voters in August: "By working together to promote personal responsibility and a culture of life, Americans can limit abortions and increase adoptions." Among Giuliani's relevant proposals:

--"My administration will streamline the adoption process by removing the heartbreaking bureaucratic delays that burden the current process." Giuliani notes that sclerotic court schedules, exhausted social workers, and tangled red tape prevent moms and dads from adopting some 115,000 boys and girls in foster care.

-- Giuliani wants the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to promote organizations that help women choose adoption over abortion.

-- He would like to make permanent the $10,000 adoption tax credit.

-- Giuliani also would encourage states and cities to report timely and complete statistics to measure progress in abortion reduction.

This is no sudden conversion on the road to Washington. As mayor, Giuliani did nothing to advance abortion. On his watch, total abortions fell 13 percent across America, but slid 17 percent in New York. Between 1993 and 2001, Gotham's tax-funded Medicaid abortions plunged 23 percent.

Giuliani's campaign for personal responsibility created a climate that seemingly discouraged abortion. Moving 58 percent of recipients from welfare to work may have encouraged women and men to avoid unwanted pregnancies. New York's 57 percent overall-crime reduction and 67 percent homicide drop probably reinforced such self-control.

Compared to the eight Democratic years before he arrived, adoptions under Giuliani soared 133 percent.

-- Giuliani also proposed eliminating the city's $2,000 marriage penalty. He chopped it to $400.

-- Giuliani opposed gay marriage in 1989. "My definition of family is what it is," Giuliani told Newsday 18 years ago. "It does not include gay marriage as part of that definition."

-- He jettisoned New York's minority and women-owned business set-aside program. Giuliani explained: "The whole idea of quotas to me perpetuates discrimination."

-- Giuliani sliced or scrapped 23 taxes totaling $9.8 billion and shrank New York's tax burden 17 percent. This left parents more money for children's healthcare, private-school tuition, etc.

Giuliani could have governed comfortably as a pro-abortion, pro-welfare, pro-quota, soft-on-crime, tax-and-spend, liberal Republican. Instead, Giuliani relentlessly pushed Reaganesque socio-economic reforms through a City Council populated by seven Republicans and 44 Democrats.

These accomplishments may explain why he leads his competitors and impresses churchgoers. Among Republicans in an Oct. 3 ABC/Washington Post poll, Giuliani outran former Sen. Fred Thompson, 34 percent to 17, versus Sen. John McCain's 12 percent, and Mitt Romney's 11. As "most electable," Giuliani scored 50 percent, versus McCain's 15, Thompson's 13, and Romney's 6.

An Oct. 3 Gallup survey found Giuliani enjoying a 38 percent net-favorable rating among churchgoing Catholics, compared to McCain's 29, and Thompson's 25. Among Protestant churchgoers, Thompson edges Giuliani 26 percent to 23, with McCain at 16, and Romney at 7.

Religious Right leaders should study Giuliani's entire, socially conservative record, not just the "socially liberal" caricature of it that hostile commentators and lazy journalists keep sketching. Social conservatives should not make the perfect enemy of the outstanding. Ultimately, they should recognize that a pro-life, third-party candidate would subtract votes from Giuliani in November 2008.

This would raise the curtain on a 3-D horror movie for social conservatives: "The Clintons Reconquer Washington" -- bigger, badder, and more vindictive than ever.

The Truth about S-CHIP

Congrats are due to Marilyn Musgrave, Doug Lamborn and Tom Tancredo for their opposition to the ridiculous S-CHIP legislation.

The Liberal Left has so distorted the facts, that I thought a brief reminder of what S-CHIP really is, would be in order.

Here is some of the analysis done by Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling:

H.R. 976 reauthorizes and significantly expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), while increasing cigarette taxes to supposedly offset the bill’s costs. The legislation follows closely the Senate-passed version of SCHIP reauthorization, expanding the program but discarding much of the Medicare-related provisions included in the House-passed legislation. Highlights of the bill are as follows:

Cost: H.R. 976 provides $34.9 billion over five years and $71.5 billion over ten years in new mandatory spending—this spending is on top of the $25 billion over five years that would result from a straight extension of the program. The House-passed version provided $47.4 billion over five years and $128.7 billion in new SCHIP spending (as well as billions of non-SCHIP spending).

The new spending is partially offset by increasing taxes on tobacco products (see below). However, this CBO score overlooks a major gimmick which the bill employs to lower its costs. The bill dramatically lowers the SCHIP funding in the fifth year by 80%, from $14.25 billion in the first six months to $1.75 billion. In all likelihood, such a reduction would not actually take effect, which would make this an effort to generate unrealistic savings in order to comply with PAYGO rules. To that end, H.R. 976 is technically compliant with PAYGO.

Some of the worst parts of S-CHIP include:

Encourages Spending: H.R. 976 shortens from three to two years the amount of time a state has to spend its annual SCHIP allotment. Under current law, states are given three years to spend each year’s original allotment, and at the end of the three-year period, any unused funds are redistributed to states that have exhausted their allotment or created a “shortfall,” i.e. making commitments beyond the funding it has available. In addition, the bill establishes a process through which any unspent funds would be redistributed to any states with a shortfall. Some conservatives may be concerned that this process provides incentives both for states to spend their allotment quickly and to extend their programs beyond their regular allotments into shortfall, so as to be relieved by the unspent funds of other states or the new Contingency Fund (see above).

Expansion to Higher Incomes: Under current law, states can cover families earning up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) or $41,300 for a family of four in 2007 or those at 50% above Medicaid eligibility. However, states have been able to “disregard” income with regard to eligibility for the program, meaning they can purposefully ignore various types of income in an effort to expand eligibility. For instance, New Jersey covers up to 350% of FPL by disregarding any income from 200-350%, allowing them to cover beyond 200% with the enhanced federal matching funds that SCHIP provides.

As of 2010, H.R. 976 increases the eligibility limit to 300% of FPL or $61,950 for a family of four but also continues the current authority for states to define and disregard income. States which extend coverage beyond 300% of FPL would receive the lower Medicaid match rate. The bill also grandfathers states with an approved state plan amendment (or a state about to submit such an amendment in compliance with state law) that already covers those above 300% of poverty. This provision is for New Jersey and New York (seeking to cover 400% of FPL or $82,600 for a family of four). In addition, Section 116 of the bill overturns CMS’ current policy of requiring states to ensure that 95% of the eligible children in their state below 250% of FPL are enrolled before expanding coverage to higher incomes.

Adult Coverage: Under current law, some states cover nonpregnant, childless adults—these states have received waivers in the past in an effort to expand health insurance to uninsured populations, even though the program was intended for children. H.R. 976 would prohibit any further waivers but would provide continued funding for existing coverage of such adults through FY 2008. Beginning in FY 2009, funding for nonpregnant childless adults will be capped at FY 2008 levels, but states would receive the lower Medicaid match and be limited to only covering those already enrolled.

Additionally, the bill also weakens current law regarding illegal aliens recieving S-CHIP monies, increases taxes and penalizes those with private insurance.

The bottom line is simple: the bill would expand the SCHIP program by $35 billion over five years and loosen the program’s eligibility requirements while astronomically expanding the big-government welfare state.

Huckabee: unions are the future

Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee's populist campaign continues to stray from conservative, and even Republican ideology with his support of labor unions. This sort of apostasy doesn't go over will with the base.

From Change to Win (a union political website) Huckabee says:

"The real fact is, unions are going to take a more prominent role in the future for one simple reason: A lot of American workers are finding that their wages continue to get strapped lower and lower while CEO salaries are higher and higher.

And the reality is that when you have the average CEO salary 500 times the average worker, and you have the hedge fund manager making 2,200 times that of the average worker, you're going to create a level of discontent that's going to create a huge appetite for unions.

So unions are the natural result of workers finally saying, "Look, I can't go from a $70,000 year job to a $15,000 a year job and feed my family of four." That's when unions are going to come back in roaring form."

This is the hallmark of unionism: violence against workers.

NARAL wants Rudy

The national pro-abortion lobby, NARAL, is saying that a Giuliani Presidency would be good for the pro-abortion "movement."

From Huffington Post:

NARAL's political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it "would help" the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights...

As mayor of New York City, Giuliani had a pro-choice record, which has come under intense scrutiny since he entered the presidential race. In the GOP debates this past May, Giuliani said "it would be okay" to repeal Roe v. Wade, before adding, "But ultimately, since it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a woman's right to make a different choice." In recent weeks, a coalition of prominent Christian conservative figures has threatened to support a third-party candidate should Giuliani win the Republican nomination.

NARAL has yet to announce an endorsement in the 2008 race. But Shipp acknowledged that Giuliani is the lone Republican in the field who could potentially win the organization's support. [Emphasis added]

Musgrave's image improving; while maintaining principle

Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave gets a decent write up from today's Fort Collins Coloradoan on her re-branding and the "Musgrave 2.0" phenomenon.

"I've worked hand-in-hand with numerous Democrats to address bread-and-butter issues that are relevant to my district," Musgrave said in a statement. "My bipartisan efforts to pass (emergency) agricultural disaster assistance are far more important than a procedural vote."...


"Where she has reached out to the Democratic side, it has been on issues of direct concern to Colorado," Wadhams said. "I don't think there's any suggestion that she was changing her overall mainstream philosophy as a member of Congress."

There goes the electability arguement

A recently release Quinnipiac poll has Rudy Giuliani struggling head to head with Hillary Clinton in many battle ground states.

This certainly hurts his elect-ability argument.

The bottom ine:

Matchups by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds:

• Florida: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 43 percent, breaking a 44 - 44 percent tie September 12;
• Ohio: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 40 percent, compared to 47 - 40 percent September 6;
• Pennsylvania: Clinton beats Giuliani 48 - 42 percent, up from 46 - 44 percent August 23.

"The news just keeps getting better for Sen. Clinton. She has a Democratic primary lead over Sen. Obama ranging from 27 to 34 points in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and is widening her margin over the Republican hopefuls in each of those three critical states," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

(H/T: NRO's The Campaign Spot)

There's more to Life than just judges

From today's National Review Online:

Douglas Sylva on "We need a president to do more than just appoint the right justices." The Money Quote:

The “Pro-life, Pro-family” voting contingent require a candidate who sees threats as they do — as the pervasive efforts of cultural and social elites— and who is vigilant, and active, and courageous in response to these threats...

President George W. Bush has been that champion, and his administration has proven just how much more there is for a conservative president to do to than to select judges, even Supreme Court justices.

For years now an effort has been underway at the United Nation, for instance, to reinterpret international law in the hope of creating a universal right to abortion on demand. Various forces at the U.N. also seek to redefine the family, to establish complete sexual autonomy for adolescents, to create a worldwide right to homosexual marriage, to depress world fertility rates, and to legalize cloning in order to create human embryos for medical research...

More specifically, on his very first day in office, Bush reinstated the Reagan-era “Mexico City Policy,” which restricts federal funding from non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries. His enemies erupted in anger, naming the Mexico City Policy the “Global Gag Rule,” and claiming that Bush would be responsible for killing women who would not have recourse to legal abortions....

Would Giuliani have taken any one of these important actions? Not caring much about these issues, would Giuliani have even known about the threats? It is time for Rudy to acknowledge what pro-lifers already know only too well: that they need a president to do more than just appoint the right justices. Executive-branch neutrality is not acceptable. Rudy has to tell “Pro-life, Pro-family” voters whether or not he can be this sort of president, and he can start by promising to continue George W. Bush’s fight — his entire fight for life and family — at the United Nations.

The unnecessary Bush cheering aside, I think this is spot on. And for the record, I don't believe Rudy knows about pro-life issues and frankly I don't think he cares either.

Giuliani, abortion and Christians

I feel a couple of comments need to be made about John Galt's posting of The Hill's article on the third party controversy that has arisen in the last severals day, as well as the incoherent blabbering over at the re-activated RockyMountainPolitics.

It isn't news that the leaders of the major Christian groups didn't agree on a potential pro-life third party candidates. That was reported in the original article.

The larger point is they were all in unanimous agreement that they would not support Rudy Giuliani for President.

Additionally 27% of Republican voters say they would support a pro-life, third party candidate over Giuliani. Regardless of what Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins do or say, the natives are restless.

I will not vote, under any circumstance vote for a pro-abortion Republican for President. Enough of my fellow Christians feel the same way, that it will be next to impossible for Giuliani to win.

I highly recommend this post from RedState.com. It is a passionate response to the knuckle-heads in the Giuliani personality cult.

Money quote from Red Sox Republican:

...what my pro-Rudy friends don't seem to understand is that for guys like me, support for Rudy is a non-negotiable proposition. And it's not just (or even primarily) because he's a dirty, stinking Yankees fan. It is, of course, the abortion thing.

Now, a lot of people say that abortion is just an "issue" and that it's wrong to let a single issue dictate your whole politics. Generally, that's a sound proposition. I guess there are a wide variety of reasons that people might oppose abortion - but I oppose it because I think it's killing. And the way it's practiced in this country, it's a *lot* of killing. It's killing in numbers per annum that roughly equal the holocaust. And so I'm sorry to say that it's simply not an option for me in my conscience to pull the lever for a guy who supports the continuation of current abortion policy in the United States.

This is the point in the conversation where my pro-Rudy friends generally interject, "Yes, but, *HILLARY!!!*" And then I have to wonder whether I'm speaking clearly or something, or whether my pro-Rudy friends have somehow gotten the idea that the concept of supporting a candidate who would stand by and allow what I consider to be mass infanticide is a negotiable one. So let me just say it: it isn't. Sorry if you got the wrong impression, here, but I'm not really interested in being persuaded on this point.

I think that part of what makes this so insulting is that there's so little else about Rudy which might even make me think about at least standing aside for him, if not actively working for him. At this point, the only arguments I have ever heard for why Rudy would allegedly be good for this country are these:

1. He's not Hillary Clinton
2. He'd aggressively continue the war in Iraq

Well, put me on the growing list for whom #2 isn't such a high priority any more, and as for #1, well, the country survived Andrew Johnson, Jimmy Carter, LBJ, and Bill Clinton; it will survive Hillary Clinton. And the parade of horrors that would supposedly attend a Hillary Presidency are simply not enough for me to vote for a guy who is pro-legal-abortion. Not even close. So, I mean, thanks for the effort, Rudy fans, but perhaps you'd better move on to someone else in that 27% group, because the issue is not up for negotiation here.