The Truth In Arkansas Politics

By now, we've all seen David Sanders latest article where he seems to be campaigning for Senator Lincoln. However, some of the very issues he raises as making Senator Lincoln "powerful" as he puts it, are the very same issues that prove she only chooses to represent Arkansans during an election year.

Lincoln is no conservative. She is no friend to the very businesses that create jobs. In fact, she is nothing more than a washington Democrat who comes home to Arkansas and changes her clothes and pretends to understand the needs of the state.

Her election year conversions are too obvious and given the growing movement of the tea parties, her vote on the bailout, H.R.1424 [Title: A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers.] , will rally conservatives around her opponent, whoever that may be...

At least we know she will get one vote: David Sanders!

Is Lincoln shifting on EFCA?

By David J. SandersColumnist, Stephens Media
March 4, 2009
http://arkansasnews.com/category/columns/davidjsanders-columns/

With tensions mounting in Washington as business and labor groups increase pressure on Arkansas’ two U.S. senators in anticipation of vote on the Employee Free Choice Act, there are subtle hints that Sen. Blanche Lincoln may be preparing to vote “no.”

And, Arkansas’ lawmakers may soon enter the fray by weighing in on the controversial legislation in an attempt to turn up the heat on the state’s congressional delegation.

If passed, EFCA, also known as “card check,” would allow union officials to bypass existing laws governing the process of how and when a union can be established, and allow them to set up a union by simply obtaining signatures from a majority of workers on authorization cards.

Supporters contend the current labor law, which requires a secret ballot vote by workers to form a union, is outdated. Opponents counter that changing the law would open the door for union officials to coerce workers into signing the cards and, in turn, lead to mass unionization of the country’s businesses and industries.

In spite of Arkansas’ right-to-work status and its insignificant union membership, Sens. Mark Pryor and Lincoln have emerged as two of the swing votes that will either help or hinder Majority Leader Harry Reid’s effort to reach the 60 votes needed for passage. Reid and other Democratic leaders promised labor unions quick action on the EFCA, but that could be in jeopardy.

Even though Lincoln hasn’t officially signaled which way she intends to vote, she may be edging closer to voting against it.

The senator’s campaign staff has been busy making phone calls trying to round up support for her second re-election campaign in anticipation her March 14 fund-raiser with Vice President Joe Biden. At least two times when individuals who were called expressed apprehension about Lincoln’s indecisiveness on EFCA, they were told in response not to worry about that.

Lincoln’s possible new direction makes sense. The co-host committee for her re-election kickoff reads like a virtual laundry list of business executives from industries opposing EFCA. A “no” vote from Lincoln would be major blow to the Democratic leadership and the White House, which strongly supports the legislation.

As for Pryor, after being a co-sponsor in the past, he said would not attach his name to bill this time around. Pryor believes a compromise bill that both business and labor could agree to should emerge.

While Lincoln and Pryor are publicly uncommitted, members of the state House of Representatives will soon have an opportunity to go on the record.

State Rep. Bryan King, R-Green Forest, will file a resolution calling on his colleagues to oppose “‘Card Check’ and Forced, Compulsory Binding Arbitration in Union Recognition Elections,” as stated in the title.

Even though the resolution wouldn’t require Gov. Mike Beebe’s signature, don’t look for the governor to mirror Washington Democrats. Beebe’s position, according to his spokesman, is that “now is not the time to address the card check issue given the current state of the American economy.”

King, the Republican leader in the House, has all of his GOP lawmakers on board, but he also has 12 Democratic co-sponsors for his toughly worded resolution. If passed by the House, the resolution would provide Lincoln more needed cover from her Democratic leadership and out-of-state unions. And, coming out against EFCA also could help her to fend off a potentially strong Republican opponent – something she likely has thought about.

Last week, Democratic members of Arkansas' Congressional Delegation joined in lockstep with their liberal leadership and left Washington without renewing the Protect America Act, which expired at midnight on Saturday. This important national security legislation gave our intelligence professionals the tools they needed to monitor threats to America's security, specifically terrorists' communicating and plotting abroad.

"The Senate was able to reach a bipartisan agreement, the President said he was willing to postpone his trip to Africa, and yet Democrats in the House like Congressmen Vic Snyder, Marion Berry, and Mike Ross thought it was more important to go on vacation than to renew the Protect America Act," said Dennis Milligan, Chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas. "These Democrats claim to be representing the people of Arkansas, yet they continually vote with the left wing of their party."

The Congressional Democrats' inaction leaves the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence unable to authorize new certifications against foreign intelligence targets, including international terrorists, abroad. Private companies assisting the United States in the surveillance of terrorists will now be exposed to legal liability, and our intelligence community will be stripped of the power to compel the assistance of private companies that are not already helping monitor terrorist communications.

"It is time for Congressmen Snyder, Berry, and Ross to reject the political games being played by the Democratic leadership and their candidates for President," continued Chairman Milligan. "Some things are more important than politics. I call on Arkansas Democrats to do the right thing and give our intelligence community the tools they need to keep our nation safe."

For Immediate Release
Contact: Press Office
February 7, 2008
202-863-8614

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Cost of Democrats is adding up and this year, it may lead to thousands of Army civilians and contractors having a "pink Christmas."According to a senior Army officer quoted in a story on Military.com, "[i]nstallation operations and quality of life programs for soldiers and their families would be affected worldwide if the Army doesn't receive additional funding from Congress soon ..." (Military.com, 11/30/07)

The necessary additional funding is being held up by Mark Pryor and Democrats in Congress who continue to insist upon adding troop withdrawal timetables to the emergency spending legislation for the military. The President has said he will veto any legislation that contains a withdrawal timetable and Democrats refuse to budge.

According to the Military.com article, "[a]bout 200,000 Army civilians and contractors worldwide could be furloughed or temporarily laid off if the funding isn't provided..." (Military.com, 11/30/07)

As a result, thousands of Americans might have to explain to their families why they are getting a pink slip rather than Christmas presents this year. "Mark Pryor and Senate Democrats are so concerned with appeasing extremist organizations such as Code Pink and MoveOn.org that they are willing to turn their backs on our troops and the civilians and contractors that provide them with support," NRSC Communications Director Rebecca Fisher said. "How does Mark Pryor plan on explaining to voters in Arkansas that since Democrats have put thousands of Americans out of work, they might not be having Christmas?"

ABC News: Clinton Library Sells Secret Donor List
November 19, 2007

Three years after the William J. Clinton Presidential Library opened its doors, the list of donors who helped the former president build his $165 million complex remains a secret from the public.

Yet the Blotter on ABCNews.com has learned that the Clinton Foundation sold portions of the list through a data company headed by a longtime friend and donor.

"The fact that they've sold the list and then turned around and said that these names must be kept anonymous completely undercuts their argument," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog group that tracks the influence of money in politics.

An employee of Walter Karl, a subsidiary of the data company InfoUSA, told ABCNews.com that the company made a list of more than 38,000 donors to the Clinton presidential library available for sale to foundations and other nonprofit groups from June 2006 to May 2007. A spokesman for the company would not say how the profits from the sale of the partial list were distributed.

There is no legal requirement for presidential libraries to disclose the identities of their contributors. Donors, including corporations and foreign governments, can give unlimited amounts while the president is still sitting in office.

"This is one of the few places that remain under the veil of secrecy, and there is really no good reason for it," says Krumholz. "Disclosure is important because the money is often being raised while the president is in office, and in this case and with the Bush family, they can be given for currying favor with persons other than the president being honored."

"I don't think I should disclose it unless there is some conflict of which I am aware of, and there is not," said former President Bill Clinton at a news conference in September after his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, was questioned about the donor list at a presidential debate. "A lot of people gave me money with the understanding that they could give anonymously. And if they gave publicly, they would be the target for every other politician in America."

The Clinton Foundation did not return calls requesting comment for this story.

The former foundation chairman Skip Rutherford says that when the foundation started soliciting funds, it adopted the policy of the Reagan library to leave disclosure up to donors.

"People were told that we would not disclose their gifts," said Rutherford. "Disclosure was up to the donor; if the donors chose to do so, it was their prerogative. Some did; others didn't."...
"Most of those lists are people who have given $100 or $200 or less," he said.

The little that is known about the identities of the donors to the Clinton library was reported by the New York Sun in 2004, after a reporter discovered the names on a touch-screen computer on the third floor of the library after its opening.

Members of the Saudi royal family, Arab businessmen, the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei and Taiwan, and Hollywood celebrities, were among the 57 individuals or foundations who gave $1 million or more to the library, according to the Sun.

The computer with the list of donors was disconnected after the Sun article ran. At the time, Clinton officials said that a permanent list of donors contributing $100,000 or more would eventually be installed on a wall at the library.

Bill Rollnick, the former chairman of Mattel and a longtime Clinton supporter who was among those contributing $1 million or more, said he didn't think the donor list was "anybody's business."

"If they want to make it public, that's their business," said Rollnick. "There's nothing nefarious about it -- it's just a library."

Another top donor, Patricia Hotung, was dismayed to learn that the list had been for sale.
"It should be kept private to protect people's privacy," said Hotung. "They shouldn't be selling it."

A contribution from Hotung to the Democratic National Committee generated controversy in 1997 when it was reported that Democratic officials had arranged for her husband, Hong Kong businessman Eric Hotung, to meet with President Clinton's top national security advisers after she contributed $100,000 to the committee...

To view entire article, please visit: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/clinton-library.html

Clinton Papers Won't Be Released Until After Election

Diane Blair Papers Detailing 1992 Clinton Campaign Won't Be Released Until 2009

By JAKE TAPPER

Nov. 6, 2007 — Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has been taking heat from her Democratic and Republican opponents for the reams of papers detailing her various activities as First Lady that the National Archives has yet to release from the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library.

And now questions are being raised about why another set of papers relevant to her political career at yet another Arkansas library will not be available to the public until well after election day 2008, despite earlier indications that the papers would have been released by now.
Those papers were written by Diane Blair, a close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who taught and engaged in Arkansas politics until her death due to lung cancer in 2000.

As a trusted friend during then-Gov. Bill Clinton's successful presidential run in 1992, Blair was permitted to extensively interview 126 senior and junior Clinton campaign aides, which resulted in four enormous binders full of information.

The information was to be published in a book that Blair, a historian and author, ultimately never wrote.

Only two copies of the Blair Report were ever made; one was given to the Clintons, the other remained in Blair's custody until after her death, whereupon the books were given to the University of Arkansas Library.

Last month the University of Arkansas announced that the Blair Papers would not be made public until 2009. Andrea Cantrell, the head of research services at the university library's Special Collections, told reporters that the Papers were not yet processed.

But that claim seems questionable, according to statements the Library itself has made obtained by ABC News.

In its 2005-2006 University Libraries annual report, for example, the University of Arkansas reported that the process was almost done. "Archivists were hired to process both the Diane Blair Papers and the records of former third district Congressman Asa Hutchinson, and both collections are nearing completion."

Moreover, while in November 2005 the University appointed Kerry Jones the "Diane Blair Papers Archivist," the University Of Arkansas Library Newsletter one year later, in 2006, implied the job has been completed, describing Jones as having "previously processed the papers of the late Diane Blair."

Jones was desribed as taking on a new task, as part of the Special Collections Department team "gearing up to begin processing its largest manuscript collection, the papers of former U. S. Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt."

"All I can say is that was a preliminary estimation and neither of the collections that were reported on are finished, neither Blair nor Congressman Hutchinson's papers," Tom Dillard, head of the Special Collections Department, told ABC News. "They're just not ready."

Dillard acknowledged that while "there has been a preliminary processing," and that Jones "did his part," the Blair Papers require much more "quality control" work.

"The big problem are the oral histories," he said. "Those require a lot of legwork. The other process is going through it box by box and making sure the contents of what's in the file folders is what they're supposed to be. There is a lot more work that needs to be done."

A spokesman for Clinton's Senate office, Philippe Reines, told ABC News that no one from Clinton's Senate office, her campaign, or from the office of former President Clinton have had any contact with the University of Arkansas about delaying the release of the Diane Blair papers.

"It's not a conspiracy," Dillard told ABC News. No representative of the Clintons has been in touch with the Library, he said. "No, absolutely not. No political campaign has been in touch with us. Nor have any individuals been in touch with us asking us to do anything different from what we would normally do."

The library newsletter indicated that two years ago Jones had extra help in processing the papers.

"Visitors to the Library's Special Collections Department might notice two students working diligently processing the papers of the late Professor Diane Blair," wrote the University Of Arkansas Library Newsletter in 2005.

"These students are the first two Diane Blair Interns appointed by the University Honors College in a collaborative venture with the University Libraries."

Intern Lindley Carruth Shedd "commented that she finds her work in the Blair papers fascinating, and she believes the Blair collection "will be a great resource to those who want to study women's issues, state politics, or Bill and Hillary Clinton."

Two biographies of Clinton released this year and criticized by the Clinton campaign -- Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.'s "Her Way" and Carl Bernstein's "A Woman In Charge" -- reported on the Blair papers as a treasure trove of information about the 1992 Clinton campaign.

Blair's "questions, based on extensive preparation," wrote Gerth and Van Natta, "elicited candid remarks from aides who trusted her. She chronicled the highs and lows of a dogged campaign and quickly generated a mountain of insightful information.

In the end, she compiled her lengthy report -- the introduction alone numbered thirty pages -- into 'big bound volumes.'" Bernstein was able to interview Blair before her death and see the papers.

Dillard said he did not know when the Blair Papers would be made available, and he said the Library would not release her 1992 report separately since it was not customary.
"We always open a collection in its entirety because individual component parts do not always make sense," he said.

Despite Clinton's suggestions that she would support a more transparent government as President, Newsweek first reported , that in November 2002 former President Bill Clinton specifically requested that the Archives "consider for withholding" various "confidential communications" including those pertaining to "sensitive policy, personal or political" matters as well as "communications directly between the President and First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature."

The term "withhold" is a term of art relating to presidential papers not necessarily meaning that the papers be kept from the public, but rather that they be reviewed before release.
Historians have complained that while the decision of what to release is ultimately up to the National Archives, Clinton's letter at the very least doesn't expedite the process and may even be delaying it, though the former President disputes that.

The National Archives controversy, as well as questions about the release of the Blair Papers, touch on a murky and well-traveled ground where politicians insist they are releasing information while historians and reporters suspect forces at play delaying immediate disclosure.

Information as yet un-released from the the days of her husband's presidency stored at the Bill Clinton Library constitutes more than 99 percent of 78 million pages' worth and 20 million emails worth of documents, according to the National Archives.

In response to questions about papers not yet released by the Clinton Library, Sen. Clinton told Radio Iowa, "I think it's like people think we have boxes of records in our basement and why don't I just go and get them and hand them over. And you know my husband has never blocked a record ever. He has been the most forthcoming of all presidents."

Bill Clinton's 2002 request and Sen. Clinton's confusing answer on the subject when asked about it at last week's debate, have fueled attacks from Clinton's Democratic and Republican opponents that the Former First Lady is, if not hiding something, not willing to completely disclose everything.

"We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, during the recent Democratic debate "And not releasing, I think, these records -- at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience -- I think, is a problem."

View this text: http://click.emailgop.com/?ju=fe661576716d077d7714&ls=fe3112737060047f701475&m=fef4167777630d&l=feec1c757c600d&s=fe5513787262037d7711&jb=ffcf14&t=

Tim Griffin, former US Atty, in little rock and his wife Elizabeth Griffin are featured in the november southern living in a 3 page recipe filled Christmas article. Tim is joined in a picture by boyd and lynn corley of little rock. Boyd is the owner of bell-corley construction. We found it on page 120.

AR Dem Gaz: McDaniel calls request 'cheap shot'; He says GOP chairman baiting him with call for Hillary Clinton inquiry

NOTE: Milligan replied that McDaniel “might be too blinded by his role as Clinton’s campaign guru to recognize her calculating political motives, but voters in Arkansas are not.”

“The fact that Hillary is willing to listen to conversations by political opponents instead of conversations by terrorists plotting to kill Americans is inexplicable,” Milligan said. “If McDaniel wants to have a debate on Hillary Clinton’s weakness with national security, we welcome it.”

McDaniel calls request ‘cheap shot’He says GOP chairman baiting him with call for Hillary Clinton inquiry
By Michael Wickline (Contact)

LITTLE ROCK — Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said the state Republican Party chairman took “a cheap shot” in asking him to investigate whether then-first lady Hillary Clinton violated state law during her husband’s presidential campaign in 1992 by listening to a recording of a phone conversation.

McDaniel, a Democrat who is co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign inArkansas, said GOP Chairman Dennis Milligan “wanted ... to get me to make some sort of comment that in some way blurred the lines between my job as attorney general and the fact that I am supporting Hillary.

“They know that this was a bogus allegation of doing something that wasn’t against the law at the time it happened, if it happened,” he said Wednesday in an interview after he spoke to the Political Animals Club at the governor’s mansion in Little Rock.

“If it was against the law, the statute of limitations ran [out] 17 years ago and, if the statute of limitations hadn’t run [out] 17 years ago, the prosecuting attorney is the one to handle it,” McDaniel said. “So it was either gross incompetence or a calculated political move to send it to me in a press release and I was not going to take that bait, even if I just did.”

Milligan replied that McDaniel “might be too blinded by his role as Clinton’s campaign guru to recognize her calculating political motives, but voters in Arkansas are not.”

“The fact that Hillary is willing to listen to conversations by political opponents instead of conversations by terrorists plotting to kill Americans is inexplicable,” Milligan said. “If McDaniel wants to have a debate on Hillary Clinton’s weakness with national security, we welcome it.”

In a news release Tuesday, Milligan of Bryant pointed to one paragraph in the book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by The New York Times reporters Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth.

“Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty,” the book stated. Among other things, the book said that, “she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton criticsplotting their next attack,” the book stated.

The complaint offered no more details about the purported conversation or the circumstances of the purported taping or the purported listening.The GOP’s news release referred to an Arkansas law enacted in 1993 that says certain actions are Class A misdemeanors, which are punishable by up to one year in jail or a fine of up to $1,000. Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney Larry Jegley said the statute of limitations for such misdemeanors is one year.

Jegley, also a Democrat, said late Wednesday that his office has not received a complaint.

That law, Arkansas Code Annotated 5-60-120, says, “It is unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, landline, oral, telephonic communication, or wirelesscommunication, and to record or possess a recording of the communication unless the person is a party to the communication or one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception and recording.”

McDaniel told the Political Animals Club that he’s proud to be co-chairman of Clinton’s campaign in Arkansas.“

I believe when I look at my little girl it’s important that we have a president who cares about the future, who has a vision for improving America, someone who knows that surpluses are better than deficits, someone who knows that peace is better than war, somebody who knows that hope is better than fear, someone who knows how to pronounce nuclear,” he said.

He said it’s important that the state’s Democratic elected officials feel connected to Clinton in her bid to carry Arkansas.McDaniel recalled that when he was running for the state House in 2004 “people would say to me all the time, ‘I am voting for you, but I am not voting for that [Democratic presidential nominee] John Kerry.”

He said he and Rep. Ray Kidd, D-Jonesboro, looked at such people and said, “‘Fine with us.’ We were worried about our own hide.” Both men were elected in the state House in 2004. Kidd was re-elected last year while McDaniel was elected attorney general.McDaniel referred to the GOP allegation as “these bogus allegations.”

“There has never been anybody that has been more investigated or more thoroughly vetted for anything than Hillary Clinton,” he said.

This article was published Thursday, October 18, 2007.Arkansas, Pages 13, 22 on 10/18/2007

Amazing at how wild the media went upon Dennis Miligan's statement, yet doesn't even cover a Presidential Candidate's statement. I agree, Dennis Miligan is far more newsworthy then Hillary Clinton...

HILL: TERROR WOULD BE GOP BOOST

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08242007/news/nationalnews/hill__terror_would_be_gop_boos.htm

By GEOFF EARLE

August 24, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

The former first lady made the surprising comments as she explained to supporters that she has beaten back the GOP's negative attacks for years, and is ready to do so again.

This is so perfect, we don't even need to comment:

John McCain, the early frontrunner has imploded. Fred Thompson, thought by many to be the Republican savior, had a very disappointing June fundraising total it will be announced tomorrow. Mitt Romney has the money, is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, but faces many questions from the Republican base about his faith as a mormon. Rudy Giuliani, isn't making waves as he fights his liberal positions on key issues. Former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee isn't raising enough money yet to compete on Super Tuesday.

So, we ask who will be our nominee? The Truth sees this election as possibly the most critcally important election of our lives. If Hillary or Obama were to become President, we would have the single most liberal President in the history of America.

A recent AP poll showed that more Republicans are supporting "None of the Above" than supporing the frontrunners. Will a strong showing in Iowa vault a relatively unknown candidate to the top tier or will we be split on our nominee?

Questions remain, but one thing is for certain: we MUST defeat Hillary in 2008!

Click here to meet the REAL Hillary Clinton!

“I saw a bumper ticker the other day that said, ‘Support our troops, not poor leadership.’ I agree.” (Sen. Tom Harkin press release, 9/7/06)

To recap here are a few items that the Department of Defense Authorization Act would do:

A 3.5 percent pay increase across-the-board for all service members and would guarantee a pay increase for members of the American Forces

$50 million for the Defense Health Program sustainment account for health care facilities, particularly at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

An increase in the authorized payment from $12,000 to $100,000 for Defense Department military personnel who die while working in a combat zone.

An additional $4.1 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles.

To recap here is what Democrat Senators have said about the troops:

“We've all made a promise to our servicemen and women that while their away protecting us; we would be in Washington protecting them and their families. We should not let partisan judicial politics stop us from keeping that promise.” (Sen. Mark Pryor, Senate Democrat Conference Web site, accessed 7/19/07)

“Our first priority should be to ensure that the men and women who honorably serve our country are given the resources they need to succeed both on and off the battlefield.” (Sen. Dick Durbin’s Web site, accessed 7/19/07)

"As part of the Defense Authorization bill this week, I will introduce an amendment making it clear Congress will provide every dollar and every authority needed to build vehicles resistant to roadside bombs and shaped charges. As long as we have a single soldier in Iraq, we must do whatever it takes to provide them the best protection possible. This must be a national priority. (Sen. Joe Biden press release, 7/16/07)

“…it is extremely important to make sure our troops continue to know we support them. The president was right to commend the troops for their tremendous efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but honoring them with words is not enough. It’s critical that our troops have the proper equipment they need to do their jobs.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller press release, 1/20/04)

“As long as our nation's policies put them there, our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them.” (Sen. Carl Levin Washington Post Op-Ed, 6/21/07)

“We are here to say that, yes, we're going to fight hard for all of what government can do -- the needs that they [soldiers] have, the financial needs, whether it's health care needs, mental health care needs, equipment and everything.” (Sen. Mary Landrieu press conference, 7/11/07)
The first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who’ve worn the uniform of the United States of America. Our obligation is to keep faith with the men and women of the American military and their families-whether they are on active duty, in the National Guard or Reserves, or veterans. (Sen. John Kerry’s Web site, accessed 7/19/07)

We must ensure that our troops at home and abroad have the tools they need to protect freedom and democracy across the globe. I'm committed to working together to ensure our military and our men and women in uniform have what they need to do their jobs.” (Sen. Max Baucus’ Web site, accessed 7/19/07)

Yet when it came time to vote on legislation to increase troop pay, to increase money for military healthcare, to increase benefits for military widows and families, to increase the safety of our troops; Democrats staged a self-described stunt and when that failed to even impress their own liberal base, they throw a temper-tantrum and pulled the bill from the floor.

If Democrats really supported the troops they would call on their leadership to quit pandering to the left and pass legislation that actually does support our troops.

Support out troops, not poor leadership!!!

During the campaign, we brought you a series of Mike Beebe's cozy relationship with the utilities companies. At the same time he was supposed to be regulating them, he was receiving thousands of dollars in donations.

Once we brought attention to obvious conflict of interest, Beebe began backpeddaling. He even went as far as to say:

"My office is dedicated to protecting the rights of Arkansas consumers and ratepayers and will be vigilant in assuring that increases are kept to a minimum," Beebe said.

His office was committed to protecting consumers during the campaign.

Now that he is Lord Governor of Arkansas, his minions Paul Suskie at the PSC and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel approved a 3.4 percent rate increase for Arkansas Western Gas customers.

This rate hike is expected to generate over $5 million in revenues for the energy company. Not a bad investment for Arkansas Western Gas. Give a few thousand dollars worth of political campaign contributions and receive a $5 million payout on the other end.

Arkansas residents should be outraged of the back room politics surrounding this rate hike. With fuel prices at an all-time high, why are our politicians helping gas companies get richer as hard working Arkansans struggle to pay the bills?

Mike Beebe, Paul Suskie and Dustin McDaniel have a lot to answer for on this one...

Developing...

During the lead up to the 2006 elections we warned our readers that the Democrats were full of hate and rhetoric, but weak on alternatives. They ran a campaign of hate-speech and yet offered no substance. We have always maintained that if the Democrats are so against Republican policies, offer an alternative.

The Washington Post
March 17, 1992, Tuesday, Final Edition

Clinton's Wife Finds She's Become Issue;
Arkansas Lawyer Denies Impropriety but Vows to Rethink Her Role
Dan Balz, Edward Walsh, Washington Post Staff Writers

On the sidewalk outside the Busy Bee restaurant this morning, Hillary Clinton stood surrounded by reporters -- defiant, feisty and, she said, confused.

Through two months of adversity this winter, she never flinched, defending her husband in the face of charges of infidelity and evading the draft. Juggling career, family and political ambition, she seemed to embody a new generation of political spouse. But today she seemed unsure of herself as she answered questions about her role as a partner in Arkansas's biggest law firm and denied that she had benefited from the fact that her husband Bill is the state's governor.

"I must say that the events of the last week have certainly raised a lot of questions . . . for me, and I haven't sat down and focused on it," she told a reporter who had asked her if she would practice law if her husband were elected president. "Right now I'm a little confused about what the rules are."

Last summer, as her husband was in the final stages of deciding whether he would run for president, the 44-year-old Yale Law School graduate acknowledged in an interview that the American people might not be ready for a woman who had her own high-powered career. She had been studying Marilyn Quayle, she said, like herself a lawyer, but one who had never practiced -- in deference to her husband's political career. That seemed unacceptable to her.

On Sunday night, the "new generation" woman and her career became issues in the campaign when former California governor Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. accused Clinton during a televised debate of funneling state business to his wife's law firm. Clinton angrily denied it. Today, on the eve of the Illinois and Michigan primaries, Brown not only did not let up on the charges, but accused the Democratic front-runner of "hiding behind his wife" in defending himself against charges of "bush-league cronyism."

"Just like Nixon, he brought out Pat and talked about the cloth coat," Brown said in Hamtramck, Mich., referring to Richard M. Nixon's legendary 1952 "Checkers" speech in which he cited his wife while fending off charges of impropriety.

"It's a diversion. There's only one issue here: It's Mr. Clinton and his electability and what we are going to do about this scandal-a-week."

The Arkansas governor returned the fire as he moved on from Chicago to appearances in several Michigan cities, dismissing Brown's charges as "absolutely false" and a "typical thing to say [by] a person who doesn't respect the fact that women can have their own world and do their own jobs."

"When Governor Brown attacked my wife . . . I thought he should have been ashamed of himself and that's why I stood up for her," Clinton told students at Wayne Memorial High School near Detroit. "If he does it again, I'll stick it to him again."

Brown based his accusation Sunday on a story published that day in The Washington Post. The story described the relationship between the Rose law firm where Hillary Clinton works and the Arkansas state government, including the firm's lucrative work as bond counsel for state agencies, and its representation of private business clients who are regulated by the state. The story did not suggest that Clinton had personally directed any state business to the firm.

Bill Clinton said "it was really insulting and . . . unfair" that Brown had "misrepresented the Washington Post article." Hillary Clinton described the former governor, more in sorrow than anger, as "sort of desperate and sad."

Her aides were tugging on her to leave, to join her husband and the voters, safely behind the flimsy rope line that forms the barrier between candidate and press. But she stood and talked.

"Every time Bill Clinton gets ahead, the people who are running against him attack him," she said, "and I think that's because the issues of this campaign really will cause changes in this country . . . . I know what's happening because I'm out there, and I don't think a lot of the people who are making decisions and forming opinions and running against my husband understand what's at stake."

Hillary Clinton said the dispute over her professional life in Little Rock "is the sort of thing that happens to women who have their own careers." Asked if there was an appearance of impropriety in the law firm's relationship with the state government, she replied -- the defiant feminist -- with a comment that caused aides to shudder:

"I suppose I could have stayed home, baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided was to fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life."

Moments later, she was the more politically correct voice of professional women. "You know," she said, "the work that I've done as a professional, as a public advocate, has been aimed in part to assure that women can make the choices that they should make -- whether it's full-time career, full-time motherhood, some combination, depending upon what stage of life they are at -- and I think that is still difficult for people to understand right now, that it is a generational change."

But what clearly bothered her as she stood on the sidewalk in the cold air was the suggestion of impropriety, both because of her involvement as a lawyer for a savings and loan owned by someone she and her husband owned property with and more broadly because of her partnership in the Rose law firm.

Hillary Clinton has said in the past that she did not represent clients before the state government and that she has made it a habit of declining her share of the firm's fees from such cases.

"As far as I know I'm the only lawyer related to a public official that I'm aware of in the country who had actively practiced law who has never even shared in a penny of state funds that have ever gone to my firm," she said. "I thought that was above and beyond the call . . . . From my perspective I've done what I thought at the time was absolutely appropriate and beyond what I thought anybody else had done that I was aware of. So I'm going to have to really think through what the rules are, because right now I'm confused."

And then, lest anyone think the controversy would slow her down, she added, "But I put all that on the back burner anyway. I'm in this campaign full time . . . because I really care about the issues that are confronting people and I want to help solve those anyway."

Staff writer E.J. Dionne Jr. in Michigan contributed to this report.