Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > August > 20
Monday, August 20, 2007
Canadians have always been a suspicious-looking lot
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
In Quebec, President Bush sat down Monday for some friendly conversations with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.
The three-way summit was under the guise of something called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, a compact intended to allow the three nations to address mutual problems on health, security and commercial issues.
The meeting sent a bolt of — well, to say “paranoia” would be too loaded. Let’s say, “extreme concern.”
Bush’s meeting sent a bolt of extreme concern through the ranks of hardcore opponents of illegal immigration in Georgia, who held their own gathering at the State Capitol even as Bush held his.
D.A. King and two state legislators, Sen. Nancy Schaefer (R-Turnerville) and Rep. Tim Bearden (R-Villa Rica), led the way in condemning the Mexico-United States-Canadian event as a secretive kabal to loosen borders and allow illegal immigration to flourish.
“I have been very aware for a very long time that a lot of the governmental and media elite have a goal of open borders. That goal has not changed. It has just been blacked out and gone underground since 9/11,” King said.
In other words, the Security and Prosperity Partnership is the Trilateral Commission of the new century. The purpose of the SPP is to “integrate and deeply integrate the United States of America with those two nations,” said King.
Just as the first President Bush was suspected of collaboration with internationalists on the TC, the second Bush is suspected of colluding with the two other members of the SPP. One-continent government versus one-world government. The son’s ambitions are smaller.
King reminded the two dozen people in attendance of Bush No. 43’s roots, reading a line from a speech King said W. made as a candidate in 2000 in Miami: “By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.”
The news out of the noon presser:
First, King has formed a new group, called Americans for Sovereignty.
Secondly, King displayed a letter signed by 22 members of Congress, including U.S. Reps. Tom Price of Roswell and Phil Gingrey of Marietta. “The SPP process…is being conducted in a secretive manner with a view to ‘harmonizing’ U.S., Canadian and Mexican policies…in ways that may actually undermine our security and sovereignty,” the missive said.
Said King: “I am …curious about the lack of signatures from anybody else in the Georgia delegation.”
Now should that — or should it not — cause some extreme concern among the five other members of the Georgia GOP delegation?
One last time: Karl Rove on Max Cleland and the 2002 race
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
You can’t be surprised by the fact that, when Karl Rove made the rounds on Sunday for his final round of interviews as President Bush’s top in-house political advisor, Max Cleland was there to haunt him.
Here’s a snippet of the Associated Press transcript from “FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace”:
WALLACE: All right. There are a few big raps against Karl Rove, and I want to give you the…
ROVE: Only a few?
WALLACE: Well, yeah. In any event, we had to winnow them down.
ROVE: Thank you.
WALLACE: And I want to give you an opportunity to give your side on a few of them.The first is that with unprecedented national unity after 9/11 that you decided to turn the war on terror into a campaign issue.
And Exhibit A in that is an ad that was run in the 2002 Senate campaign against Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam. Let’s take a look.
BEGIN VIDEO CLIP
ANNOUNCER: America faces terrorists and extremist dictators. Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead. He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that’s not the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Now, I understand that as the chief strategist to the president, you weren’t sitting there writing ads in Georgia for Max Cleland or against Max Cleland, but were that and other attacks on Democrats, turning the war on terror into a campaign issue, just in 2002 — was that a mistake?
ROVE: First of all, you’re right. They did that ad. The White House didn’t. It would be — surprise you, but we’ve got better things to do than write television ads in Senate campaigns in Georgia.
I do think it’s important to look at the context of this. Senator Cleland was running a television ad saying that he supported the president on homeland security, when he was one of the senators who was blocking the passage of the homeland security bill because of a special interest provision that would have allowed the labor unions to organize the Department of Homeland Security.
You know, we have — John Kennedy set in place a policy in the early ’60s that said that government departments connected with national security had the right to declare certain parts of those agencies off-limits to union organizing. This was signed into law by James Earl Carter.
And what the homeland security bill had was a provision that would undo that for the Department of Homeland Security.
WALLACE: Forgive me. I don’t want to re-fight the Cleland race in Georgia in 2002. I want to ask a bigger question, though, because this was far from the only time that you called — you — called Democrats soft on terror.
Let’s take a quick look at some of Karl Rove’s greatest hits.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROVE: Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding to our attackers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROVE: When it gets tough and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party’s old pattern of cutting and running.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Now, Democrats are clearly far from blameless in all of this, but should you and the president — we’re talking now just a year after 9/11 and ever since. Should you have made the war on terror something that unified the country, not divided it?
Isakson on a run for governor: ‘I’ll be on the ballot in ‘10 — I just haven’t decided where’
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
In an article in Sunday’s Marietta Daily Journal, U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson gave what we think is the first indication from the man himself that he’s giving some thought to a run for governor in ‘10.
The link to the newspaper this morning has some sort of glitch, but here’s the quote:
“I love the state of Georgia. I’m going to be on the ballot in 2010, and where I am on the ballot depends on what I decide after the 2008 elections are over.”
Clear enough?
Services »
