What were they thinking?

Plymouth Selectmen, Dicky Quintal and Butch Machado>>>




The Plymouth Selectmen voted unanimously Tuesday night to place an anti-Iraq war question on the May Town ballot. By allowing this placement, they relieved the proponents from the need to gather the necessary signatures that would reflect widespread support among the Town’s electorate. While the Board maintained it was not taking a position on the underlying issue, the highly partisan wording of the “question” strongly argues that allowing it to be placed on the official ballot amounts to de facto support. Acceptance of the Board’s neutrality requires a major suspension of disbelief.

First and foremost, the question is not a question, but rather a petition calling upon our Congressional delegation to vote to withhold funding from the U.S. Military while it is in the field fighting a war. And while there is ample room for debate as to the best way to fight that war, undermining our military, while in action, hardly seems like a patriotic act.

The proponents of the referendum don’t like war. This is understandable, what’s to like? At the same time, however, we are faced with enemies that seek to inflict great harm on the United States and its people. The Executive Branch is vested with the responsibility to defend the Nation, and since 9/11, it has done a pretty good job of preventing additional attacks. We are now engaged in a presidential election which will, to a great extent, show whether the majority of Americans do want an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The value of a non-binding referendum on this issue, at this time, seems pointless.

The conduct of the War against Terrorism continues to be a subject of intense debate. Moreover, this war is fraught with complexities, many of which are being faced for the first time. By allowing this “question” to appear on the Town ballot, the Selectmen have, at best, shown support for a simplistic solution; and, at worst, may be guilty of giving support to our enemies. Either way, the Plymouth Board of Selectmen has done a major disservice to itself and to the people of Plymouth.

Who's Lying Now?

Last week, an organization called, the Center for Public Integrity released a report entitled, The War Card, Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War. The Heading summarizes the thrust of the report:

"False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Much of the main-stream media was quick to point to this study as a proof statement supporting the contention that the Bush Administration tricked the country into the Iraq war.

An editorial in this morning's Boston Herald provides a different point of view as it challenges the reports key assertions regarding Iraq's ties with al-Qaeda, its attempt to purchase uranium from Niger and its weapons of mass destruction. The key point being that there is a big difference between relying on intelligence which later turns out to be inaccurate and actively plotting with an intent to deceive (read lie). To read the editorial, click HERE

In addition, The Center for Public integrity, is not exactly an independent arbiter of public truth. Its funding from left wing supporters such as George Soros is widely documented. You might want to see for yourself. To read the original report, click HERE.

While We Americans believe strongly in contrary opinions and serious debate, there should be no room for schoolyard name-calling and the thoughtless undermining of the efforts of the Executive Branch to protect the country in the aftermath of 9/11. The fact that these efforts have been remarkably effective seems to be conveniently lost in the anti-Bush rants of the political left.

Random Thoughts

With world oil prices at all time highs, one would expect an OPEC nation would be wallowing in high cotton. Turns out, the good people of Venezuela are waiting in long lines for basic foodstuff which seems to be in critically short supply. It seems that due to the Chavez government's strict price controls on basic commodities like milk and eggs, coupled with the country's high rates of inflation, producers are faced with the prospect of selling their products at a loss and are holding products off the market. In addition, prices are un restrained in neighboring Colombia, so merchants are shipping their goods to markets across the border.

Since no one in Chavez's government ever took Economics 101, they have dealt with the food shortages as a political problem and have taken to stopping shipments of food and threatening to nationalize the food companies.

"Anyone who is distributing food ... and is speculating, we must intervene and we must expropriate (the business) and put it in the hands of the state and the communities," Chavez said during the inauguration of a new state-run market in Caracas.

So as those Citgo (owned by the people of Venezuela) tankers sail into Boston Harbor with discounted oil, it makes one wonder how and why a governemnt would be so generous while its own people are undergoing hardships. Maybe these dots don't quite connect, but after all, money is fungible and there should surely be a way for the foregone oil revenue to be recaptured and used for the country's own people.

********************************************************

On a different topic, it seemed to many of us that when the Clintons left the White House with a few truckloads of home furnishings that may or may not have belonged to the taxpayers, we concluded that whatever the value of the merchandise, it was well worth the price to see the last of this dynamic duo.

Well as we are now learning, he's baaaack, campaigning for the Mrs. And he hasn't lost a step in his ability to split infinitives. As he famously once said to Bob Dole, "You gotta do what you gotta do." Or put another way, say what you gotta say.

It's hard enough trying to get a straight answer out of Hillary as to what she might or might not do as president. We are now realizing the extent to which old Bill might play a prominant role in a Clinton II administration. The concept of a "Third Term" is starting to emerge out of the murk like the shark in Jaws.

**********************************************************

Closer to home, Massachusetts Governor, Patrick, who is high up on the Barack Obama bandwagon is blaming his administration's lack of accomplishment on the recalcitrance of the Democratic Legislature. If Barack gets elected, I suspect Deval will be on the next shuttle to Washington. Should Hillary and Bill get themselves elected, Deval will be doomed to stay in Boston and try to make nice with Sal DiMasi and Therese Murray. Of course, if the Republicans prevail, all bets are off.

There He Goes Again

Once again, a U.S. Congressman shows up in South America giving strokes to an anti-American despot and inserting himself in international politics. On Friday, January 18th, the Massachusetts 10th Congressional District's own Bill Delahunt,(D-Caracas), was in Venezuela to huddle with Dictator/President Hugo Chavez, who seldom passes up a chance to take a cheap shot at the U.S. According to the AP report, Delahunt indicated during the meeting that the two countries needed a new relationship based on "mutual respect". A good first step in this process might be for Chavez to apologize for publically calling George Bush a devil.

The stated purpose of the meeting was in support of the release of a number of hostages being held prisoners by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of neighboring Colombia, aka, FARC. FARC is essentially a gang of left wing terrorists trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of President, Alvaro Uribe. Kidnapping, and then demanding ransom is, of course, a cottage industry in parts of South America. Chavez is a strong supporter of FARC.

The question is, why does a U.S. Congressman spend so much time supplicating governments like those in Venezuela and Cuba, often in direct conflict with the policies of the U.S. Government? Perhaps, he is positioning himself for a State Department Post should the Democrats successfully regain the White house this year. He had better hope that his candidate,Barack Obama is the victorious candidate because if Hillary wins, Delahunt will be lucky to get a seat at the State of the Union speech. In the meantime, who is minding the store for the tenth district?

For further analysis read the Editorial in today's Boston Herald.

Real Presidential Issues

Following a long-standing tradition (since July) of not supporting particular primary candidates, The View has instead identified several key issues which are expected to play an important role in the presidential campaign, once we stop worrying about who cried and why. The topic for today is illegal immigration.

First and foremost it must be understood that we are a nation made up of immigrants and their descendants, differing only with respect to the date of the first arrival. If it makes you feel better to have descended from early arrivals, good for you. The U.S. continues to admit an estimated one million legal immigrants a year. Concern over today's immigration issues should not be dismissed as bigotry or Xenophobia.

Today, we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million people living in the United States in violation of existing immigration law. The fact that we don't have an actual number is testimony to the scope of the problem. In addition, this number increases by an estimated 500 thousand per year. While many of these have illegally crossed our borders, others come here legally, such as students, but then overstay their permitted residency.

The first point, then, is the extent to which the new president will enforce those immigration laws already on the books. Some would like to see our borders completely sealed, perhaps physically. While this may or may not be possible, there is ample room for improvement in our current efforts. Recognizing the problem and allocating adequate resources would be a good start. This would include a stepped up monitoring of those entering the country on temporary visas to ensure that they continue to follow the law once their allowable residency is finished.

The key to dealing with the vast number of illegal aliens now living in the US is through the employment venue. The key attraction to illegals is the opportunity for jobs. Requiring employers to hire only legal residents is a start, but systems must be developed to allow easy identification of those with legal status. This issue is fraught with civil liberties concerns, but it must be addressed. Such a system could also be used to keep track of temporary workers such as those in the agricultural industry. Broadly issued amnesty programs which would reward illegal activity with citizenship would send the wrong signal to the millions around the globe that would like to live here.

These are but two parts of a broader problem that badly needs addressing. No country can long endure if it cannot control its borders, especially given the current terrorist threat. It also impacts on our ability to deal with the needs of our citizens in such areas as health care and education. If we struggle with the wisdom, and costs, of various social programs, the considerations become even more complicated when we posit coverage for the “undocumented.” This problem is not easily resolved but it is one that demands to be addressed. While presidential candidates might not be able to present a full comprehensive solution, they should at least commit to developing one.

***********************************************************

With all the "excitement" surrounding today's Michigan primary, don't forget the registration deadline for our own Massachusetts primary, just 21 days from now. In order to vote on February 5th, you will need to be registered by tomorrow, January 16th.

In the meantime, here are a few things to keep in mind with regard to the big showdown in Michigan. First of all, the only major democrat candidate running is Hillary Clinton, so, presumably, she should be able to tout some good results. At the same time, the Michigan party registration rules, or lack thereof, allow voters to opt for either party's ballot at the polls. This means, of course, that democratic voters who might be frustrated by a lack of choice, might opt for a republican ballot in an effort to distort the opposition's results. It should be a lot of fun watching the pundits trying to make some sense out of this one.

Primary Envy

Its been difficult, to say the least, for many of us over the past week to see all the activity surrounding the presidential primary, held Tuesday in neighboring New Hampshire. Fear not, the primary circus will soon be with us here in the Bay State when, on February 5th, Massachusetts will hold its very own presidential primary. Of course, we will not capture the media focus the way our neighbors to the north did because our primary will be held on Super Tuesday, when 24 states hold cuacuses or primaries. By that time, we will also know the results from four additional primary elections: Michigan (1/15), Nevada (1/19), South Carolina (1/26), and Florida (1/29).

While Feb 5th is the actual day of reckoning here in Massachusetts, another date to keep in mind is January 16th. This is the date by which you must be registered in order to be eligible to vote in the primary. While most Plymouth residents are familiar with the rules for primary voting, it wouldn't hurt to give the ARTICLE written by Emily Wilcox in Wicked Local Plymouth a read. This is especially helpful if you are uncertain as to the political party for which you plan to vote.

Essentially, voters enrolled in a particular party must accept a ballot for that party's candidates; that is, registered republicans get a Republican ballot and registered democrats get a Democrat ballot. At the same time, if you are not registered for a particular party, i.e you are an independent voter, you may request any of the party ballots at the polls. If you are enrolled in one of the other parties, you may want to be sure that that party is represented on the ballot. While the Green Rainbow Party is in the Libertarian Party is out. If you are unclear about what you party registration is, you may want to take a few minutes to find out. This is especially true if you were an independent that opted for one of the parties in a previous primary. If you didn't change your registration back to independent, you might be in for a surprise at the polls.

And remember, when you cast that ballot on February 5th, it will be only 273 days until election day, November 4, 2008. Stay tuned.

Favors R Us

There is a fine line between an elected official doing a constituent a "favor" and outright cronyism. The case of William Hayhurst III and his burning desire (no pun intended) to continue his family's representation on the Boston Fire Department makes us wonder just where that line is located.

The View is admittedly a step behind on this story due to a New Year's trip to New York. For the gory details on this fiasco, read Harry's take at Squaring the Boston Globe.But given that the star of the show is Plymouth's own State Senate President Therese Murray, the issue begs for a local look.

In a nutshell, Hayhurst wants to be a Boston fireman. Among other qualifications, he cites the fact that the BFD has had a Hayhurst on its roster since 1913. He took the exam, but after three tries he ended up in 623rd place. Hey, its a "highly competitive" exam. Hayhurst's father had been a Fire Department Captain until his death in 2002. While the elder Hayhurst served a long and honorable career, it was determined, under civil service procedures, that he had not died in the line of duty. Had he done so, his son would have been eligible for top of the list status on that basis.

Enter Senator Murray, who with the support of the Boston City Council, passed a state law to provide William with a bump to the top of the list. I was impressed that the new law was passed in a record time of under two hours (that is not a typo). And all this on behalf of someone who may or may not be a family friend of Murray.

So now, William is in line to be the next person hired by the BFD and perhaps you feel a warm glow believing that Murray has used her office to right a grave oversight. Although it was determined that the elder Hayhurst did not die in the line of duty, Murray says that she suspects a strong link between his fatal cancer and his job. Who knew that our Senate President had such analytical talents? On the other hand, you might not feel as supportive of this slick parliamentary remedy if you end up being the guy or gal who gets bumped off the hiring list because there is a new guy in first place. In addition, the residents of Boston who look to their municipal public safety workers for protection, might well be concerned as to the capabilities of their newest fireman to-be given his poor performance on the qualifying exam. Then there's the rest of us who cringe at this blatant end run around established law.

Now William must get hired and pass through the Firfighters Academy. Should he have difficulty getting through the training program, perhaps Senator Murray could whip up another state law.