Archive for the “Peter Hoekstra” Category
Yes, according to the latest PPP Poll.
Favorable Vs. Unfavorable:
- Sen. Debbie Stabenow – 46% Vs. 39% (41% vs. 40% in December)
- Terri Lynn Land – 37% Vs. 19%, GOP – 55% Vs. 7%
- Pete Hoekstra – 30% Vs. 28%, GOP – 52% Vs. 9%
- Saul Anuzis – only 20% know enough about for an opinion
- Randy Hekman – only 17% of voters claim an opinion
Head to Head:
- Stabenow – 48% Vs. Land – 38%
- Stabenow – 50% Vs. Hoekstra – 38%
- Stabenow – 52% Vs. Anuzis – 35%
- Stabenow – 52% Vs. Hekman – 33%
It looks like this Michigan Senate seat will not be in GOP cross-hairs in 2012. With a large 2012 African-American turnout to re-elect President Obama, the GOP will be faced with insurmountable Democratic registration numbers in this blue state.
For the past few election cycles, with a poor economic climate in Michigan and the loss of jobs, Republicans also hope for a pick-up of some sort.
Won’t happen in 2012.
The full poll is here.
2 Comments »
This is a shocking poll in that most pundits do not predict blue Michigan to be in play for 2012.
Republicans have a real chance to make it a race in Michigan this cycle, according to a poll from EPIC-MRA. Barack Obama trails Mitt Romney in a hypothetical matchup, 46 to 41 percent, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D, only polls at 44 percent to former Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra’s 42 percent.
Republicans have had quite a dry spell in Michigan, but even then they managed to win down-ticket statewide races for attorney general and secretary of state. The state is certainly not a lost cause — we saw in 2010 that Republicans can win races all the way up and down the ticket under the right conditions.
Stabenow’s seat can be added to a list of vulnerable Democratic Senate seats in North Dakota, Nebraska, Virginia, and Montana.
President Barack Obama is not a lock to win a second term. The economy continues to be very poor and American voters may see past his speeches and the “winning the future” hyperbole and choose the GOP nominee.
If Michigan comes into play, Obama is in trouble.
Likewise, the Senate seat of Democrat Debbie Stabenow will be a flip to the GOP = goodbye Harry Reid as U.S. Senate Majority Leader.
1 Comment »
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Represenative Jane Harman each received briefings on interrogation techniques used on Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah.
Flap thought Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied she was EVER informed
that waterboarding and other CIA enhanced techniques were used?
Judging by Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who were informed at the time, the answer seems to be yes. In December 2007, after a report in The Post that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that sheâ€™d been â€œbriefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future.â€
Today Pelosi protests â€œwe were not â€” I repeat â€” were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.â€ She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.
On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that whatâ€™s done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIAâ€™s rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do â€œin the future.â€
But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying â€œDonâ€™t do it.â€
Now, Speaker Pelosi’s story is changing again or should Flap say the story is being parsed.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didnâ€™t protest directly out of respect for â€œappropriateâ€ legislative channels, a confidant of the San Francisco Democrat said Monday.
The Pelosi campâ€™s version of events is intended to answer two key questions posed by her critics: When, precisely, did she first learn about waterboarding? And why didnâ€™t she do more to stop it?
Pelosi has disputed a CIA document, released last week, that shows she was briefed in September 2002 on the â€œparticularâ€ interrogation techniques the United States had used on Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi has said she was told then only that the Bush administration was considering using certain techniques in the future â€” and that it had the legal authority to do so.
But thereâ€™s no dispute that on Feb. 4, 2003 â€” five months after Pelosiâ€™s September meeting â€” CIA officials briefed Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, on the specific techniques that had been used on Zubaydah â€” including waterboarding.
Harman was so alarmed by what she had heard, she drafted a short letter to the CIAâ€™s general counsel to express â€œprofoundâ€ concerns with the tactic â€” going so far as to ask if waterboarding had been personally â€œapproved by the president.â€
According to the Pelosi confidant, Sheehy told Pelosi about the briefing â€” and later informed Pelosi, the newly elected minority leader, that Harman was drafting a protest letter. Pelosi told Sheehy to tell Harman that she agreed with the letter, the Pelosi insider said. But she did not ask to be listed as a signatory on the letter, the source said, and there is no reference to her in it.
The fact is Nancy Pelosi did NOTHING about waterboarding. She did NOT sign Congresswoman’s Jane Harman’s letter. Hell, she didn’t even LEAK it to the Washington Post. So, now why is the Speaker so outraged at enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA when she was in fact at least partially complicit by her inaction?
As Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra (the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee) said:
â€œIf Nancy was so concerned about the waterboarding, why did she let someone else write the letter?â€ asked Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the intelligence committee. â€œIf she was so upset, why did she let someone else raise objections?â€
As I have said before, lets have the Obama Administration and CIA release all of the documents and have open, public, televised Congressional Hearings. The American people deserve the truth, not Obama Administration spin and stonewalling.
Put Speaker Pelosi under oath, the lights, on television and ask her the questions about what she knew and when she knew about the CIA enhanced interrogation techniques. Ask her why she is so outraged today after the fact while she wouldn’t even sign Harman’s letter?
Enough of the BAD lies and deception. Congressional hearings – let’s go.
Former Senator Bob Graham: I Donâ€™t Have Recollection of Being Briefed on Waterboarding
What Did Speaker Nancy Pelosi Know and When Did She Know it? Re: CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and Waterboarding
Nancy Pelosi on CIA Torture? – NO. Exceptâ€¦
Waterboarding: What Did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Know and When Did She Know It?
Technorati Tags: Nancy Pelosi
, Jane Harman
1 Comment »
The CIA confirms that Nancy Pelosi was briefed on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques in 2002.
When President Obama first released the CIA memos about waterboarding and other CIA enhanced interrogation techniques to blame the Bush Administration for “TORTURE,” I relished the thought of Congressional hearings so the true story would come out.
Now, with the latest revelations, GOP Congressman Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee is asking for the release of more CIA documents (like Vice President Cheney already has) and is considering calling for Congressional hearings on the matter.
Open public Congressional Hearings and placing Speaker Pelosi under oath to answer questions would be a good idea.
Want to bet President Obama now regrets placing his fellow Democrats in political peril and the whole “TORTURE FLAP” dies a quiet death?
Technorati Tags: Peter Hoekstra
, Nancy Pelosi
, Barack Obama
2 Comments »