"McHugh Wins 9th Term..."

GOP Rep. John M. McHugh swept to victory on Election Day, securing a ninth term in office with a 65% win over DEM Mike Oot.

Congrats to both.

The bottom line (as I always say) - "It is the money and we stupid."

To wit:

Mr. McHugh was first elected to Congress in 1992, after eight years in the New York State Senate.

Mr. Oot, a Madison County lawyer with minimal political experience, simply could not overcome Mr. McHugh's seven-to-one fundraising advantage.

As of Oct. 15, Mr. McHugh had raised $657,954, mostly via contributions from political action committees.

Mr. Oot raised $92,056, mostly through individual contributions.

By Oct. 15, Mr. McHugh had spent $389,511 while Mr. Oot had spent $88,924.

One final word to Mr. McHugh and all others - campaign finance reform may be shot to hell (thanks to the OBAMA strategy), but in the long run, it will matter, that I promise.

2010 - just around the corner...

"I need to wade in here, step aside."

Rep. McHugh, me, and Mr. Oot (McHugh's challenger).

UPDATE UPDATES:

Mr. Oot seems to be reacting to what I've been posting about his stance. He now updates his update with this [from is homepage].

Quote: "First, as I've written here previously, I would have hesitantly supported the initial bailout legislation as voted down by the House of Representatives. It was a phased approach, somewhat measured and it left us with the ability to not only ease aid into to the markets but to measure the success of that aid. Unlike the original proposal (demand) by the Bush Administration, it wasn't just a "shovel the cash into the market, any old way we please" approach. The Administration's approach left American taxpayers upset, thinking that this was just a last minute grab at their wallets on behalf of Wall Street Fat Cats as the Bush Administration exited the stage."

"The phased approach House bill was taken up by the Senate, but with a dramatic difference: The Senate Bill, which yesterday became law, in addition to the bailout provisions, contained over $150 Billion in tax cuts and pork.

Tax cuts.

While creating historic deficits.

"Here is my statement, released by the campaign yesterday, October 3, 2008:

"While I would have supported the first attempt at passage of the Bailout, I can't say the same about the legislation passed today. It is clear that the government needed action and leadership in a time of crisis and it is astounding that in order to achieve a result, it was necessary to tack $150 Billion Dollars of pork onto the bill. I think that Americans will be infuriated by this and justifiably so. Let's face it, there is no guarantee that comes with the so-called rescue plan. I would hate to think that the net result of all this effort is to add to the enormous deficits created over the past 8 years. This demonstrates both the necessity and urgency of change in Washington."

So, Mr. Oot was for the bailout before he's now against it? Oops...

Note: I've been against it all along and my plan is pretty clear on what we should have tried - a loan/line of credit and NOT a $700 billion check that is / will grow.

ORIGINAL POST ON THIS SUBJECT:

This is long, but needs to be said - so please bear with me.

Subject: The bailout, rescue or stabilization bill, call it what you choose, is not the right bill at the right time.

Rep. McHugh voted for it, twice, saying he wanted to “protect the taxpayers and on balance the bill was a good start.”

UPDATED: Mr. Oot [September 30, 2008 homepage update] said he would have voted for it because of the “urging and pronouncements of the Administration and comments by economic experts, all as bolstered by those of our current legislative leaders.”

McHugh and Oot are both wrong, and neither one of them deserves to represent the people in the House.

I have been opposed to the bill all along for many reasons, which right now are before us – excessive spending and Christmas tree goodies.

I outlined a solid 10-point plan, which in essence is a “... loan / line of credit plan for business and banks to borrow from as they slim down, get back to the basics, toss away their greedy boards, and as government provides new oversight and new accountability rules to protect the taxpayers from start to finish.”

Most importantly, however, there was a total lack of leadership from anyone on this bill, except maybe those who voted against the final package.

Let’s review quickly how we got from there to here:

* The original Bush-Paulson plan was 3 pages. But, no one bought it quite simply because all they asked for was a “$700 billion dollar blank check” that had few answers to the many questions being asked – all they wanted was the money – the reasons or the why would come later. The failed as it should have.

* Then the House took up the measure, crafted a bill, and then just as quickly voted it down. The “market” reacted and fell nearly 800 points.

* Then the Senate became involved and wrote their version, but they added $100 billion in new spending that basically had nothing to do with the intent of the “bailout, rescue or stabilization” overview, then they passed it (October 2, 2008), and sent it back to the House.

* The House then added a few more goodies of their own that also have nothing to do with the intent; it passed by a wide margin (October 3, 2008). President Bush a few minutes later signed it into law and now we have to wait for the details. Wall Street was still in the minus column.

* Now the chest beating and hand wringing has started about “woe is me.” It’s like when a drunk wakes up again and says, “I’ll never touch another drop in my life,” but he gets drunk that night again.

The lack of leadership question is simple to see in my view.

This bill to stabilize the markets and help stop the foreclosures and bankruptcies should have been debated on the floor in open session and not behind closed doors where midnight deals for millions in spending that has nothing to do with any rescue plan’s intent.

Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid should have stepped up and had total complete and around the clock debate on the bill – that way the public could have seen the pork coming and took action right along with their Rep. and Senators. But, more importantly, those in the House and Senate would have been exposed to the sunlight and their millions for pet projects would have been stopped cold before they were added to the tab.

The best solution right now is to kick out every incumbent in office – a “clean sweep” as it were – and it is something, by the way, that I have advocated for a very long time.

We need new people with new ideas and fresh eyes on the serious problems we face along with non-insider brains to solve them – people not connected to self-party, or lobbyists, PAC or other DC-infested ties.

This bill shows how bad the insider business of our government really works. I suspect, but have no way to prove it, but $700 billion will not be nearly enough before it’s over.

Why do I say that? Mr. Paulson will come back for the authorization of the money and guess what? More will be hung on that Christmas tree in October long before October is even over or the real Christmas season is upon us. Then, God, save our souls – the wild spending begins.

Clean Out Congress: a clean sweep to kick out every incumbent this cycle is the best solution for our future. Will it happen; probably not. In fact, if I were a betting man, I’d say most of the incumbents will be reelected – they always are.

It must be all the goodies they deliver for Christmas in October?

Define torture in 25 words or less...

In 25 words or less - um ... let's see:

Rep. McHugh told the Watertown Daily Times on March 18, 2008: "People like to play these games of semantics. What matters is that the CIA has abandoned water boarding and that the question of interrogation techniques goes beyond debates on any particular method." [Close: that's 31 words]

McHugh went on to say, "Water boarding is one of the few (methods or techniques) that fall into a gray area where it's debatable, among some ... and it's not acceptable and not where we should be." [closer: 30 words]

Excuse me, sir, we're already there, and in fact, we're beyond there. For those who practiced it, condoned it, authorized it, allowed it, or have admitted to it (as President Bush did to ABC News in an April 2008 interview) should held accountable and answer as war criminals.

Mr. Oot, in all fairness about this issue says: "... [that he is] ... unequivocally opposed to any and all uses of torture, including water boarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration." He goes on to say that " ... [this] brutality has damaged our image as a good country in the eyes of our own citizens and the world, and I find it abhorrent. I can’t believe we would have a debate in American society about the propriety of torture.”

Oot concluded by saying, "... it was only a matter of time before such policies, if allowed to continue, trickle down to local law enforcement." "What is to stop a police officer from using enhanced interrogation techniques and using the federal government as his justification?" [that's over 80 words]

I wonder about those things, too, but that is not the issue. Torture has already been used - applied - all to keep us safe, if you believe or trust President Bush.

The crime, however, has already been committed and someone has to pay, including the guy at the top, unless an admission to a crime on ABC News is not admissible in a court of law?

In a Bush-appointed court, probably it is not illegal, especially when there is a secret memo making the illegal, legal drafted by John Yoo!

Where are the Democrats on this issue? I suspect they are still hiding in some dark corner telling anyone who will listen to their reelection pledges (i.e., from Speaker Pelosi) "... it's off the table."

Back to the Future?

"Hey, bud, can you spare a dime?"

Standing in line for job in 1930's and again today. A run on the banks back in 1932 and again today. The comparisons are eerie.

The only thing missing are pictures of people leaping from their 20th floor, well-furnished Wall Street offices and Wall Street crashes.

However, that might be next if "Wall Street investors and insiders" believe that Uncle Sam isn't coming to their collective rescue. It's something they don't want (e.g., government control, but an occasional bail-out is okay)!

Examine at what a lack of regulation (* Mortgage industry), or deregulation (* Airlines), coupled with GOP economic policies have gotten us [since 1980]?

In a word: total fiscal disaster.

Do issues matter? We are about to see!

Introduction: As a society, in a word, we are heading in the wrong direction and 75 percent of the public is demanding change - and what does Congress do? Takes a break to run for reelection.

Choices, choices, choices: I see a few good choices ahead.

We can maintain, or actually get back on track with the three distinct branches of government with "Equal Justice Under Law" for all.

We can sustain the runaway system we see now that demands huge amounts of money on both sides of the political aisle from every nook and cranny on the planet for power.

We have more wars, chosen at random of course, to either stop a madman's urge to get religious revenge, or to invade a country on false premises and lies, or worse, on a case built on fear and hype campaigns.

We can always “stay the course” and let the so-called market decide our destiny thus continue to spend until there is no tomorrow. We can continue the huge amounts of deficit spending (mostly via foreign borrowing), too.


We can roll along in our balancing act that breeds more and more greedy partisan and rabid policies for your side, or our side, depending on who is in the driver's seat, and just have a status quo sort of day.

Or, we change that dynamic and get our act together and back on track the way we say we should be and stop talking about the way it should be, or is our system protecting itself so much that even We, the People can't change it?

Elections are overall supposed to be about three things in my view: (1) Choices (offer the voters clear-cut choices between candidates); (2) Differences (those candidates must show the people their differences); and (3) and, Consequences (what happens if we stay the course, do not change, or change too drastically?).

These are tough times and we have tough issues before us. We need and deserve serious people to seek serious solutions to our problems, both domestic and foreign. We do not need more of same old, same old.

Time will tell but as someone one noted: "It don't look too good right now!"

We have to regain our optimism - regardless of the obstacles. Holding elected officials accountable is a good start; nay, it's the only start. If we don't hold them accountable, they won't be. Leadership comes from the top; but accountability starts from the bottom up. But, that's just me thinking out loud.