About Me

Name: cehwiedel
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Senate Is Back in Session

Topic of the day:  H.R. 5441, the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill.

Follow the bouncing senators...

[You are invited to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write on many other topics than the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate.]


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dianne Feinstein - Senate 2006

The tagline for Senator Feinstein's campaign website: "An independent voice for California".

My first question: independent of whom?

Senator Feinstein is a member of the Democratic political party. She isn't independent of that.

According to the welcome message, the tagline dates from her original Senate campaign pledge to be "an independent voice for California."

Was she promising not to work with Democratic colleagues in the Senate?

Okay, I will drop my rhetorical pose.

The tagline is warm, fuzzy and meaningless. No American political candidate is going to stand up and forthrightly claim that he or she will be a lickspittle lackey of their own political party, and every politician is going to claim that he or she will bravely stand up against the nefarious desires of the opposing political party.

[You are invited to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write on many other topics than the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate.]

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dianne Feinstein's Re-Election Website

Not to play favorites between the two esteemed members of the California delegation to the United States Senate, I looked for and found a campaign website for the senior Senator from California, who is up for re-election this year.

[You are invited to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write on many other topics than the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate.]

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Coverage of Yearly Kos Keynote Speech

The notice of her keynote speech at the Yearly Kos convention this past June that is missing from Senator Boxer's Senate website can be found at her partisan website, barbaraboxer.com.

An article by Bob Geiger of Alternet writes in an approving tone of Senator Boxer's speech to a partisan crowd that clearly liked what it heard.

[You are invited to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write on many other topics than the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate.]

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

barbaraboxer.com

During her keynote speech at the Yearly Kos convention in Las Vegas this past June, Senator Boxer invited listeners to visit her non-Senate website, barbaraboxer.com.

So I did. You should, too. Especially if you disagree with her political positions on current issues.

[You are invited to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write about many subjects other than the California delegation to the United States Senate.]


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Yearly Kos

During the second week of June this year, the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas welcomed the Yearly Kos convention, "uniting the netroots" and luring insecure liberal politicians towards their flame.

The esteemed junior Senator from California, recently re-elected, gave a luncheon keynote speech (video) to the conventioneers on Friday, June 9th. Senator Boxer's official Senate website does not trumpet the text of this speech. There is no press release posted about her attendance.

One topic: net neutrality. She’s for it. I'm agin it. I don't want regulation to sneak its ugly nose onto the Internet.

The video shows a lot of more. Regardless of your political leanings, you should watch the video so that you know where Senator Boxer stands.

[I invite you to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write about much more than the California delegation to the United States Senate.]
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Testing Firefox

I have downloaded Firefox in order to make it easier for me to post to red-flagged.townhall.com. It seems to be much more compatible with the r.a.d. editor.

Huzzah!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Background on Free Trade With Oman

The record vote before the July 4th recess concerned a free-trade agreement with Oman, S. 3569. According to Section 2 of the text of S. 3569, the purposes of the act are:

(1) to approve and implement the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Oman entered into under the authority of section 2103(b) of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803(b));

(2) to strengthen and develop economic relations between the United States and Oman for their mutual benefit;

(3) to establish free trade between the 2 nations through the reduction and elimination of barriers to trade in goods and services and to investment;

and (4) to lay the foundation for further cooperation to expand and enhance the benefits of such Agreement.

Beyond a general benign regard toward free trade, why would the United States benefit from concluding a free-trade agreement with Oman?

According to the country study for Oman in the Library of Congress, it is located on the "elbow" of the Arabian Peninsula, along the southern edge of the Persian Gulf before making a sharp southward turn to follow the coast of the peninsula. Its southwestern border falls northeast of the southernmost point of the peninsula. Its landward neighbors include the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Across the ocean are Iran and India. So Oman is strategically located for a ringside seat for current events in the Middle East and Asian subcontinent.

Economically, Oman is entirely dependent on oil revenue for export earnings. Fishing and agriculture account for a negligible fraction, and would not attract the attention of American trading partners. The free-trade agreement makes specific mention of trade in textile and apparel goods, so perhaps earlier efforts by the Omani government to diversity have succeeded at least to some extent in that area.

The religious landscape of Oman, according to that Library of Congress country study, is a bit sticky. While most Omani are Muslim, the majority are Ibadi and disinclined to integrate with Shia or Sunni. Sunni Muslims comprise about 25% of the population, while Shia make up a smaller minority. The majority Ibadi invest governing power in an imam elected by "a council of promiment laymen and shayks." This imam wields both religious and political authority.

From this extremely condensed description, I would wager that a free-trade agreement is mainly meant to keep oil flowing to feed the growing dependence of the United States on foreign-sourced oil, a dependence only increasing as shallow-water oil platforms leave the Gulf of Mexico for better-paying locations elsewhere around the globe.

Lifting restrictions on trade in textiles and apparel would support the efforts of the Omani government to diversity its export economy.

An ancillary benefit might be angling to open up or liberalize Omani society, loosen religious restrictions, or generally tie Oman more closely to the United States; perhaps edge toward military cooperation, overt or covert.

Given the present dependence of the United States economy on oil, and the intransigence of the problem of developing domestic sources of oil for reasons varying from opposition by environmental interest groups to lack of economically exploitable oil fields, it would seem in the interest of the United States to encourage closer ties with Oman.

Dianne Feinstein, the esteemed senior Senator from California, voted YES on S. 3569.

I support that vote.

Barbara Boxer, the esteemed junior Senator from California, did not cast a vote. She apparently felt that some other activity was more important than securing a trade agreement with a strategically important Gulf state. Where was she?

[You are invited to visit my personal website at www.cehwiedel.com, where I write on far more than the California delegation to the United States Senate.]

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not Voting

The esteemed junior Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, did not participate in the last record vote prior to the Senate adjourning for the July 4th holiday.

Dianne Feinstein, the esteemed senior Senator from California, cast a YES vote on the question: S. 3569, a free-trade pact with Oman.

Where was Senator Boxer?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senator Feinstein Responds: Iraq

Dianne Feinstein, senior Senator from California, has responded to my email concerning the recent votes in the Senate in regards to Iraq:

The Senate vote on the resolution to authorize the use of
force in Iraq was difficult and consequential.  It was based on
hours of intelligence briefings from Administration and
intelligence officials, as well as the classified and unclassified
versions of an important National Intelligence Estimate that
comprehensively assessed Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) program.  It was also based on trust that this intelligence
was the best our nation's intelligence services could offer,
untainted by bias, and fairly presented.  In this case it was not.

The bottom line is that Iraq did not possess nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons in 2003 when the war began.
Saddam Hussein did not have an active nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons program. Considering the statements that were
being made by the Administration, and the intelligence that was
presented to Congress which said otherwise, this points once again
to major failures in the analysis, collection and use of intelligence. 
I have said many times that "had I known then what I know now, I
would not have voted to authorize the President to use force."

On top of these intelligence failures, the Administration's
war planning was shortsighted and ill-conceived. By failing to
provide adequate troop levels to secure Iraq and its borders and
ignoring requests from General Shinseki and others to increase
troop levels, the Administration placed the entire mission in Iraq in
jeopardy. 

      Now that Iraq has adopted a constitution and has voted for
permanent leadership, the time has come to change our role and
downsize the presence of our troops.  Logistics support and
training of police and military along with helping to rebuild Iraq
and its infrastructure remain top priorities.  But I believe that the
force structure should be downsized this year and either
repositioned outside Iraq or brought home.

      In my view, 60,000 American troops in Iraq ought to be
redeployed in the region or brought home by the end of 2006. 
Most of the remaining troops could be withdrawn by the end of
2007 or sooner.  Iraqi forces must take primary responsibility for
the security of their country - and soon.

      America cannot withdraw all forces immediately without a
chaotic result, but we can begin to change the mission, and over a
short period, bring our men and women home.

      To further this effort, it is time to change course and bring
in a new team to run our military, starting with the resignation of
Secretary Rumsfeld.  While it is true that, ultimately, the President
is responsible for the failures in Iraq, no Bush Administration
official was closer to the war planning than Secretary Rumsfeld.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Raising the Table Stakes

Due to the difficulty I am having with blog-post editor here -- including the content filter -- I have been forced to post this entry at my other blog, www.redcountycalifornia.com, under the category "Red-Flagged".

I apologize for the technical issues and hope to resolve them shortly.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Red-Flagged Voting Record

I have created a hand-tool for use in tracking my differences of opinion with the esteemed members of the California delegation to the United States Senate: a spreadsheet with an entry for each record vote, as recorded by the official Senate website.

Next to the vote recorded for each Senator, I list how I would have voted.

To jumpstart it, I went back a week or so in the entries at www.redcountycalifornia.com and copied the votes. The results so far show an unsurprising divergence of agreement: of the six votes listed so far, Senator Feinstein receives a "red-flagged tracking score" of 33%; Senator Boxer receives a "red-flagged tracking score" of 20% (she didn't vote on one).

The Senate reconvenes next Monday, July 10th.

Stay tuned. This should be amusing.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Statement of Purpose

"Red-Flagged" will be limited to watching over the shoulders of the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate. Over the course of a week, I'll watch for something worth commenting on, write up a 600-800 word article and post it on Monday morning.

Shorter posts will be sprinkled through the week, but all will deal with something said or done by either the senior or the junior United States Senator from California.

If the California Senate delegation does something I agree with, I'll pat them on the back and encourage the good behavior.

More likely, the California Senate delegation will provide fodder for a tongue-lashing, from mild to wild. I will not instigate personal attacks; the commentary will be an explanation of what I disagree with and why.

If I get any sort of response from the esteemed members of the California Senate delegation, I'll post the response. My experience is that, more often than not, such responses are either general to the point of not pertaining to the question or nonresponsive to the question raised.

But.

With current events (such as the ballistic missile firings by North Korea) refusing to settle down to a sleepy mutter, there should be more than enough to comment on.

If the my posts here at Townhall.com leave you wanting more, you may check out www.cehwiedel.com, where I write about much more than the California delegation to the United States Senate.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive