I have just received word from Washington D.C. that Chris Lee has been assigned to the House Financial Services Committee.

UPDATE: Press Release from Ranking Member Spencer Bachus:

Bachus Welcomes Chris Lee to Financial Services Committee

Ranking Member Spencer Bachus announced today that Congressman Chris Lee (R-NY) will join the Financial Services Committee for the 111^th Congress. 

Ranking Member Bachus said, “Chris Lee’s background creating jobs in manufacturing and working in the private sector makes him the right kind of leader to have on the Financial Services Committee at this critical juncture in our nation’s history. He will be a strong voice on behalf of Main Street taxpayers for much-needed reforms of the way the financial services industry operates. Chris will add valuable perspective to the committee and I certainly look forward to working with him.”

Congressman Chris Lee is serving his first term in Congress. He has two decades of experience in the private sector with a strong background in economics and finance.

###

Read Full Post »

It really never ends with this guy.

Representative Charles B. Rangel’s legal team is reviewing his tax records to determine whether the congressman received a homestead exemption on a house he owned in Washington while living in several rent-stabilized apartments in New York City.

The situation is potentially troublesome for Mr. Rangel, a Harlem Democrat who is already the subject of a wide-ranging internal House investigation stemming from an assortment of ethical concerns.

Rent laws in New York City and the state require that tenants occupying rent-stabilized apartments use those units as their primary residences. At the same time, the District of Columbia’s Office of Tax and Revenue extends the homestead tax deduction only to properties that are primary residences.

The internal review by Mr. Rangel’s legal team was prompted by a report in Sunday’s edition of The New York Post quoting a District of Columbia tax official as saying that Mr. Rangel received a homestead tax exemption for a four-bedroom home he owned in Washington. The official told the newspaper that the congressman received the tax exemptions from 1995 through 2000, when he also had the use of rent-stabilized apartments in his district in Harlem.

As chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Rangel should know better. But I don’t think this is a case of ignorance. This is corruption, plain and simple. It is just one thing after another, and the excuses he keeps making are increasingly hard to swallow. If he was a Republican he would have been forced to resign already… or lost reelection. Rangel needs to go… It is time for the Democrats to clean up their party.

Read Full Post »

Buffalo Pundit still enthusiastically supports the idea that should Hillary become the next secretary of state (which I still have doubts over) that Brian Higgins would be the best choice if Governor Paterson chooses to throw a bone to Western New York with his appointment. Buffalo Pundit offers this thought.

My only question is whether Higgins could build a statewide following to get re-elected. If anyone from upstate or WNY could, it is he.

I have to disagree. As much as I dislike Brian Higgins, I wouldn’t be bothered by him being appointed to the Senate – as I have previously stated — but for different reasons than Buffalo Pundit.  But, should he be appointed, he’ll have less than two years before having to run for the position again in a special election. And as an appointee, that election will certainly attract primary challengers… and I don’t think Higgins will have the time or the clout to walk away with the party nomination for the U.S. Senate.

UPDATE: Now the New York Times is saying she will accept…

UPDATE: Politico:

Breaking: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) plans to accept an offer of secretary of State from President-elect Obama and resign from the Senate, a top Clinton adviser said. An announcement is expected shortly after Thanksgiving, officials said. “She knew this was the right thing to do but just needed to sit with it for a bit to make sure,” the adviser said.

I still say that this a bad move for Hillary… and Comrade Obama.

Read Full Post »

That is the current buzz going around…

Pressure is mounting for an upstater to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton in the U.S. Senate should she be asked by President-elect Barack Obama to join his cabinet as secretary of state.

Erie County Democratic Chairman Leonard R. Lenihan is already campaigning for Rep. Brian Higgins of Buffalo and others speculate that Gov. David A. Paterson may consider someone from outside the group of usual candidates, given the new and total domination of state government by New York City Democrats.

“Here is an opportunity for the governor to make Western New York really important,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic political consultant from Manhattan. “He needs to get someone of high quality and substance from Western New York. It’s the fair and right thing to do.”

I am skeptical of either scenario panning out.

First, I don’t think Hillary is under serious consideration — if she is under consideration at all. Second, she would make a horrible secretary of state, for one thing, and I can’t imagine that she would want the job. Hillary wants to be in a position to make her own mark on the world, and the last thing Obama wants is someone like Hillary in that position.

Dick Morris suggests it could just be a rumor started by the Clintonistas. I wouldn’t be surprised

If the republic survives after four years under Comrade Obama, then he is bound to be a one-termer. Even if not, administrations tend to undergo facelifts, meaning Hillary would be lucky to have a longer than four year run as the country’s top diplomat. She needs her Senate seat as a fallback for any potential climb up the power ladder. She likely won’t give that up.

But, let’s say I am wrong. I am just as skeptical about the idea that Western New York’s favorite camera whore would be appointed to fill her spot. Anecdotallly, I have heard that David Paterson really doesn’t have much love for upstate, and even if that is not true, I don’t think he will seriously consider choosing a Western New York congressman who isn’t well known across the state.

That being said, I welcome the possibility. If Higgins leaves his seat in the House, that seat has the potential to become competitive during an environment that historically should be good for Republicans. He also would likely face primary challenges in 2010 when that Senate seat would have an election for a permanent replacement an could easily be dropped for a more popular and well known Democrat. Perhaps Rudy Giuliani might have a shot at it — especially if the political climate is a good one for Republicans, which is not only historically likely, but a great possibility considering the mess the Democrats are going to get us into.

So really, I actually welcome the possibliliy of Higgins being appointed to the Senate in the unlikely scenario of Hillary being appointed as secretary of state. It actually presents the Republican Party with some good opportunities.

Read Full Post »

Jim over at Opinerlog had an interesting encounter with Rep. Louise Slaughter yesterday:

Following the usual pleasantries and before the festivities were underway, I asked Louise what she thought about Sen. Schumer’s characterization of conservative talk radio as “pornography”, and whether or not that was symptomatic of Democrats’ wanting to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine which, to me, was tantamount to breaching free speech. Her carefree demeanor morphed into a decidedly defensive posture and she quickly countered that the doctrine had been around since 1939 and that it was nothing to worry about. (Her logic was interesting. Slavery was the law of the land for a very long time too before that abysmally odious practice was outlawed.) She proceeded to quickly deny that Sen. Schumer said what he had reportedly said and went on to pronounce that the airwaves belong to the people and that equal time for both points of view was needed. Calmly maintaining eye contact and without wavering, I politely pointed out that the free market belonged to “us” all as does “our” choice as to which station “we” can tune in. I asked if she had any problem with “our” exercising “free choice” in this regard and informed her that I periodically listen to Air America, but that owing to the station’s sophomoric and mean-spirited dialogue I could never stomach more than 10 minutes at a time and invariably switched to other stations for balance and information. She appeared a tad taken aback by my unwillingness to allow her “congressional awe” to deter me. She countered by saying that the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with free speech. “Of course it does,” I gently countered.

There’s more there, so check it out. Slaughter’s view is, as Jim says, “revealing and, yes, so very, very unsettling.”

Read Full Post »

Nancy Pelosi may be publicly supporting Charlie Rangel by saying she won’t ask him to step aside, but the New York Post says sources tell them that privately, Pelosi is urging Rangel to step aside.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday privately pushed Rep. Charlie Rangel to give up his chairmanship of the influential House tax-rules committee amid explosive revelations that his personal tax filings were riddled with errors and omissions, a wellplaced source said.

[...]

One member of the New York congressional delegation who supported Pelosi’s decision said, “You have to have one standard - you can’t have one for [Republicans] and one for us.”

Rangel himself remained mum on his sitdown with Pelosi after exiting a later, separate meeting with fellow Democratic committee members.

“I am unable to say anything,” he said before bizarrely rattling off his name, rank and serial number from his Korean War days. “Do to me what you want, I’m not talking.”

The 76-year-old politician smiled when asked if he was still chairman of the powerful tax panel.

Pelosi later denied through spokesperson Nadeam Elshami that she has asked Rangel to step aside.

 If Pelosi doesn’t ask Rangel to step aside as chairman, then John McCain stands to benefit significantly, as he supports the fact that unlike his fellow Democrats, he’s willing to target corruption within his own party. As the Democrats’ presidential nominee, Barack Obama should have called for Rangel to step aside when the allegations first surfaced. But, he didn’t, thus missing his chance to match his rhetoric with actions. But then again, when your campaign is based on slogans over substance, what else were we to expect?

Read Full Post »

Isn’t it great that Nancy Pelosi, who promised to lead the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history, won’t strip Charlie Rangel of his chairmanship?

Even when Rep. Charles Rangel tries to explain how he got into his tax mess, he mangles the facts so much it’s easy to see how his accounts - and accountants - are muddled. And this from the lawmaker who has such a big say in determining who pays taxes and how much.

The chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee spent the past week reeling from a series of embarrassing revelations: He failed to report about $75,000 in rental income over two decades from a beach villa he owns in the Dominican Republic; he owes about $5,000 in back taxes to the government; he never knew he paid no interest on the villa’s mortgage for more than a decade.

Rangel’s actions are not just innocent omissions or minor blunders. There is no excuse. He needs to either step down or be stripped of his chairmanship.

Rangel’s basic defense is that he paid little or no attention to a building he bought, the mortgage he got to buy it or the rent it earned to pay the mortgage. Or the taxes due on someone else paying his mortgage. He claims to have no idea what the house is even worth.

Davis says that will change now that he has hired a second lawyer to monitor “all his tax and financial statements going forward and be sure they are meticulously correct.”

Republicans say Rangel had to have known exactly what he was doing.

“It is a sick irony that the top legislator on tax policy in the House is circumventing the very tax laws that he himself has authored,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the GOP’s House campaign committee.

The fact that he is being protected by his party should bother all voters, regardless of whether they’re a Republican or Democrat. We’re supposed to expect more of our political leaders and hold them to a higher standard. Charlie Rangel has violated the trust of his constituents and the American people. 

UPDATE: Even the New York Times is calling on Rangel to step aside.

Mounting embarrassment for taxpayers and Congress makes it imperative that Representative Charles Rangel step aside as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while his ethical problems are investigated.

[...]

Mr. Rangel has hurt his case with clumsy, combative pleas of ignorance of the facts and law involving his Dominican villa. “We do make errors, even though we consider ourselves experts in terms of tax policy for the nation,” said the lawmaker, who has three decades’ experience on Ways and Means.

His excuse of “cultural and language barriers” with Dominican officials was, simply, offensive. “Every time I thought I was getting somewhere, they’d start speaking Spanish,” complained Mr. Rangel.

Excuses. Excuses. Excuses. For once, I agree with the New York Times. Mr. Rangel, step aside.

Read Full Post »

Jack Davis certainly couldn’t count on much love from the liberal bloggers of Western New York before, but now that his anti-Jon Powers spoof site has been exposed they are out for blood with a typical “attack the messenger” strategy, right out of the DNC playbook.

The other day it was accusing Davis of copyright infringement and of phishing tactics.

Today’s talking point is that Davis is a former Republican who has donated money to Republicans in the past, and received PAC money during previous campaigns.

Now, hypocrisy from a Democrat is hardly anything new, but it seems kind of strange that they’d want to out Jack Davis as a former Republican, when Jon Powers, by his own admission, is a former Republican as well,  according to this interview from July 2007:

Q: Have you always been a Democrat?

A: No. I grew up Republican. I switched when I got back from Iraq because I came home and I looked at who was in charge of this country. At the time, there was one party in charge. It was the party I grew up with but it was not the party I grew up believing in.

I’ve never been political growing up, my parents aren’t political. … I went to war for America. I didn’t go to war for a specific party.

While Jon Powers suggests that he has more divisions with the Republican Party aside from their commitment to fighting and winning the war on terror, his positions on other issues suggest that his political views have only more recently evolved, or perhaps that his leftward shift on the issues has been manufactured for his campaign. 

As I reported back in May, Jon Powers has previously described himself as s “fiscally conservative and socially progressive.” Though his campaign rhetoric against free trade and tax cuts prove he can hardly claim to be a fiscal conservative. As for social issues, Powers has in the past ducked questions about his position on abortion, saying that his Irish Catholic background made it an issue he struggled with. It was only after Powers was criticized by NOW for not being pro-abortion and opposing gay marriage that he finally decided to declare his pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage positions. 

After all, how else can he attract all that out-of-state left-winger cash?

Jack Davis may be a hypocrite for accepting PAC money one cycle, then criticizing his opponents for accepting PAC money in the next, but if Jack Davis is going to be condemned by the nutroots for being a former Republican, then Jon Powers ought to be condemned by them as well, especially since he’s only as liberal as the talking points he receives on a daily basis.

UPDATE: … apparently they’re all former Republican… via 26th District.

UPDATE: Looks like Buffalo Pundit missed the point…

UPDATE: Alice Kryzan’s campaign responds: “Both Davis & Powers were registered Republicans, both of whom switched after personal experiences while Ms. Kryzan has been a lifelong Democrat.”

Read Full Post »

I hate the Skyway. I drive over it twice everyday of the week, and it sucks. When I moved here in March, it was the thing I was least looking forward to. I must admit that I was pleased when I discovered that Brian Higgins was a strong advocate for tearing the thing down… In fact, it’s one of the key issues of his agenda on his campaign website.

Brian has been vocal in his support to remove the Buffalo Skyway bridge.  For Brian, this issue isn’t about tearing something down, it is about building something up. 

Unfortunately, since I’ve been following this, it’s become clear that Higgins hasn’t been able to do a thing to get it done. And apparently, most believe the Skyway is here to stay, according to this story from Business First.

The Buffalo Skyway, it appears, will be around for a while. Maybe a long while.

Efforts to remove the elevated highway gained momentum last year as plans were rolled out for development of the city’s inner and outer harbors. But momentum to tear down the mile-long roadway has slowed.

At a Business First-hosted Power Breakfast last month, Erie Canal Harbor Development Corp. Chairman Jordan Levy seemed to drive a stake through the hope of tearing down the 110-foot-tall structure. Standing in the Harbour Club at HSBC Arena, with the Skyway looming directly outside the windows behind him, Levy delivered a punchy response when asked about the prospects of demolishing it.

“It’s not coming down,” Levy said. “It’s just reality. We just have to move on.”

And what does our fearless advocate for tearing down the Skyway say about this?

Rep. Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo, is a longtime advocate of demolishment and says the battle is not over. However, he concedes that any decision about the Skyway’s fate is years away.

“For the next five or 10 years, the Skyway will continue to be subject to debate,” Higgins said. “As the waterfront continues to develop, it will become more and more apparent that the Skyway sits on and represents hundreds of acres of prime waterfront land that could, and should, be developed.”

I’m sorry, but I thought tearing down the Skyway was a priority for Higgins. His campaign even launched a website devoted to the effort, Skyway Alternatives (warning, extremely slow website) so I can’t understand how this went from a high priority campaign promise to a back-burner issue that we’re apparently supposed to wait 10 years before we can say goodbye to the Skyway? Higgins’ campaign website says “the Skyway, while designed to be functional for the Buffalo of the 1950s, has since become a dangerous and costly eyesore.” If it’s dangerous, why must we wait ten years before we can consider safer alternatives?

And, let’s face it, as The Waterfront continues to be developed, options for Skyway alternatives will become significantly reduced, more burdensome, and more costly. Maybe if Higgins drove over the thing everyday like I do, he’d be less willing to wait ten years to solve the problem. Meanwhile, I have at least another decade of driving on a dangerous highway while Higgins spends his time down in Washington D.C. pretending to be working on behalf of his district.

Brian Higgins‘ website touts the slogan, “Demonstrating Leadership. Getting Results.” Some results. I’m driving daily over the results of his “leadership”.

UPDATE: Higgins’ congressional webpage has this to say about the safety concerns of the Skyway:

The Skyway is a 1.4 mile long, 55 mile-per-hour bridge with no shoulders located 110 feet above Buffalo’s Inner Harbor.  This environment leaves stranded motorists in a very precarious situation, and Buffalo Police records reveal a very high incidence of accidents and fatalities.  Additionally, because of it high elevation at a specific location where it takes some of the worst of Lake Erie’s winter winds, the Skyway is closed so frequently that it is the only bridge in New York State with a mechanized closing system which lights up and tells commuters in distant suburbs when it is closed.  Engineers have also indicated that the tight turning radii of several of the Skyway’s access ramps, coupled with the grade at which they are inclined, are a cause for serious safety concerns – ramps like these could not be built today under current federal highway safety regulations.

I guess just not serious enough that we can wait at least wait 10 years to keep debating what to do about it.

Read Full Post »

Jon Powers has some explaining to do.

According to this interview from July 2007 about his running for Congress, Jon Powers said he hasn’t always been a Democrat.

Q: Have you always been a Democrat?

A: No. I grew up Republican. I switched when I got back from Iraq because I came home and I looked at who was in charge of this country. At the time, there was one party in charge. It was the party I grew up with but it was not the party I grew up believing in.

I’ve never been political growing up, my parents aren’t political. … I went to war for America. I didn’t go to war for a specific party.

Is this Jon Powers‘ way of trying to appeal to independents and moderates? I don’t know. But, with congressional approval at historic lows, Powers would certainly find it beneficial to not appear as if he’s a typical far left Democrat, especially since NY-26 is a more conservative district. Powers certainly has tried to paint himself as more moderate than the party that has chosen to embrace him today. In an article from the Buffalo News last year (’Powers gets a early start’, July 1, 2007), Powers described himself as fiscally conservative and socially progressive, but avoided giving any position on abortion:

But so far he labels himself primarily as “fiscally conservative and socially progressive” — ducking answers on hotbed issues like abortion.

“I’m an Irish Catholic and that’s something I struggle with,” he said. “Soon I’ll be in a position to make a decision on it.”

Jon Powers only recently decided to come out in favor of abortion, (Buffalo News, ‘Powers clarifies stance on abortion, gay rights,’ March 27, 2008):

Democratic congressional candidate Jon Powers says he is pro- choice.

Always has been, the Iraq War veteran said Wednesday.

Powers clarified his stance on abortion rights — he supports them; and same sex marriages — he opposes a constitutional ban against them — in light of new allegations from a womens’ rights group.

“I’m pro-choice,” said the Clarence Democrat. “The only reason I didn’t say so before is because I didn’t want my grandmother to read about it first in the paper.”

But, that explanation doesn’t exactly hold water. Powers only decided to go public with his newfound pro-abortion position after being criticized a couple months ago by the Rochester chapter of the liberal women’s group, NOW.

Jon Powers, an Iraq war veteran from Clarence, Erie County, and a Democratic candidate in the 26th District, was accused of not being committed to the pro-choice cause and being opposed to same-sex marriage, based on an honor bestowed on him by a Catholic organization.

In 2003, while Powers was serving in Iraq, he received a “Man of the Year” award from the Ancient Order of Hibernians.

Efforts to reach the group were unsuccessful, but a letter from the New York state president of the organization, on its Web site, notes that no one who holds views that contradict the Catholic faith can be publicly honored by the order. The Roman Catholic Church does not condone abortion or same-sex marriage.

Powers’ honor by the Hibernians is “a serious problem” for the candidate, said Linda Stephens, political action committee chairwoman for Rochester NOW, a chapter of the National Organization for Women.

But, it’s not just the issue of abortion that weakens his claims of being a moderate Democrat. If you check out website for his positions on various issues, you’ll find mostly vague or politically neutral positions on various issues, but, mixed in there are surefire examples of DNC talkings points that contradict Powers’ claim to be a fiscal conservative, such as ending trade deals with other countries, ending so-called “tax cuts for the rich,” and expanding S-CHIP.

The lack of clarity surround his positions on the issues isn’t too surprising… Powers has largely defined his candidacy around his status as an Iraq war veteran and his views about Iraq — and even his position on Iraq isn’t very clear.

Now that Powers has received endorsements from local Democrat committees and other liberal groups and individual, it is certainly time for him to be more specific about his positions on various fiscal and social issues. As he becomes more beholden to the Democratic Party, I’m sure any last trace of fiscal conservatism has been obliterated… but we’ll never know unless someone asks him these important questions.

Based on what we’ve seen so far, Jon Powers has either flip-flopped on both fiscal and social issues in order to obtain important endorsements in his congressional campaign, or he’s truly become a fiscal and social liberal who can’t possibly represent NY-26.

Read Full Post »

In reviewing past statements by Jon Powers about Iraq, I find myself confused and unsure just what his position on Iraq is. Back in 2005, likely well before he considered running for Congress, he said the following in an interview with the BBC:

“We talk about exit strategies, we talk about pulling out, I think it is more important that we talk about setting objectives that are attainable so that the soldiers know what they are doing there… Talk about pulling out after you have set those goals and then guys will feel like they have accomplished something, not just spent 14 months of their lives and lost their friends.”

And he’s also called for a far more reasonable and balanced approach than his fellow Democrats currently in Congress.

Right now the debate in Washington right now is wrong. It’s Stay the Course 2.0 or withdrawal. Neither of those are solutions.

So, once he set his sights on Congress, his position started to more closely resemble the cut-and-run strategy of the Democratic Party. In a blog entry at the liberal Huffington Post a year ago, he advocated President Bush sign the war-funding bill that would establish immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

You have the opportunity to sign Congress’s bill which provides your own funding requests, your own milestones, and a timetable to force the hand of Iraq’s leaders. The American people support this timetable, the troops support this timetable, Iraq’s leaders support this timetable, and Congress has approved this timetable. It is time to get on board.

Mr. President, this is not a time to expand our military involvement in this war. This bill gives you a reasonable way to de-escalate our troop’s involvement and push the Iraqi leadership into the social, economic, and political solutions needed to bring stability to the people of the region.

In January of last year as well, Powers was calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

It is time for this new Congress to fulfill the promises they made during this past election that was so commonly referred to as “a referendum on the war in Iraq”. It is time for our leaders to make the tough decisions that have to be made.

What I would like to know is does Jon Powers support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, or does he favor a more reasonable and balanced approach. If the latter, then when is he going to speak out against the Democrats in Congress who are calling for an immediate withdrawal?

I’m not counting on it. Powers appears to have gone from an independent thinker to just another Democrat regurgitating DNC talking points.

Read Full Post »

Jon Powers may claim to be an agent of change, but it seems like everything that comes out of his mouth (besides “lead by example” of course) are the same old Democratic Party talking points that have been proven false:

America has long been committed to public school education, but our current U.S. policy is failing our teachers and, more importantly, failing our children. No Child Left Behind is an unfunded federal mandate that evaluates teachers and schools based on test scores, not the quality of education they provide. It takes the teacher out of the classroom.

Democrats have been making these claims for years, despite the fact that according to the nonpartisan General Accounting Office (GAO), No Child Left Behind “did not meet the definition of a mandate.”

For starters, education funding has only increased, and No Child Left Behind is neither unfunded or a mandate.

The No Child Left Behind Act is a well-known example that has intergovernmental implications, but was not identified as a federal mandate under [The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995]. No Child Left Behind provides federal grants for a host of education programs, requires states to design and implement standards and assessments, and provides financial penalties for states that fail to achieve certain standards over 2 consecutive years.

And perhaps even more important, education funding only increased under No Child Left Behind.

But i’m sure those facts were left out of the talking points Jon Powers got from the DNC.

Read Full Post »

Yesterday, retiring Congressman Tom Reynolds endorsed Christopher J. Lee’s bid to fill his seat in the House.

At Erie County Republican headquarters in Buffalo, Reynolds said he’ll work “tirelessly” to help Lee’s candidacy.

“Chris brings to the table the necessary experience and understanding of how to get results. That is exactly what Western New Yorkers need in a representative,” Reynolds said. “I believe he will be a fighter for lower taxes, working families, a great advocate for local industry and an ardent supporter of our fighting men and women in harm’s way.”

Amongst other things, it looks like Reynolds will be able help Lee with cash from his political action committee. Funny enough, the Buffalo News made this observation:

[...] Reynolds, who has always ranked as a prolific political fundraiser throughout a 35- year career, leaves with an extraordinary amount of money. He can now use it for a variety of purposes (although he cannot use the campaign account personally) to help candidates, contribute to charities or even create a foundation. Some former members of Congress have used their campaign kitties to further new Washington careers as lobbyists.

Was that a reference to the Democrats’ candidate, Jon Powers, who violated election laws by using campaign funds to pay his rent? Perhaps not, but it’s nice to know that a political news reporter at The Buffalo News is aware of election laws, even if Jon Powers, isn’t.

Read Full Post »

Jon Powers may have “charisma” but what he apparently doesn’t have is a lot of original ideas. It was brought to my attention that a quick perusal of his campaign website could overwhelm you with déjà vu, so here’s what I’ve found:

About Jon Powers:

Jon Powers, an Army Captain and decorated Iraq War veteran, schoolteacher and nonprofit leader, will take to Washington an exceptional standard for “leadership by example.”

Powers’ campaign of “leadership by example” is about listening to everyday Western New Yorkers …

On “Why We Need Change.”

Western New York is ready for real leadership and a real change in Washington and is ready [...] for an America that leads our world by example.

…and a new kind of leadership by example for a change.

His “Plan for the Future”

I believe that “leadership by example” means listening to everyday Western New Yorkers.

On “Jobs and the Economy”

Jon Powers believes America must lead by example and will work in Congress to invest in an innovation economy.

On “21st Century Schools”

America’s schools have been falling behind the rest of the world when we should be leading by example.

On “Energy Independence”

Powers will take a different approach because he believes America can lead by example in the development of sustainable energy.

On “Trade and Consumer Protection”

It is time for a leader to step forward and lead by example.

On “Foreign Policy/Iraq”

Jon Powers believes that America must return to leading this world by example.

On “Healthcare, Medicare, and Prescription Drugs”

We must lead by example and support policies that provide affordable and secure health insurance to all Americans …

Powers’ “Club 26″

Club 26 is about empowering real people like you to lead by example…

Notice the theme? In between the same old DNC talking points and empty promises it’s “lead by example” this and “lead by example” that. And what example does Powers mean exactly? Does the example set by the Democratic majority? Broken promises and a 14% approval rating? Or maybe it’s violating election laws?

Some example.

Read Full Post »

Christopher Lee kicked off his campaign to replace Tom Reynolds in Congress, today, making a number of stops across the 26th Congressional district.

Lee, a business executive from Clarence, introduced himself briefly in five stops around the U.S. House 26th district, including a late afternoon visit to Main Street, Lockport, where he was flanked by family and a contingent of GOP figures from the city, town and county.

Lee, 44, said he’s aiming to replace retiring incumbent Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, R-Clarence, so he can give the Capitol the perspective of a small businessman from a region stunted by high taxes, hyper-regulation and the flight of native talent.

“For too long, we have heard about creating jobs, lowering taxes and eliminating needless regulation. Unfortunately, the results have not matched the rhetoric,” Lee said. “Western New Yorkers are demanding real reform, real change, real leadership and real solutions.”

Since my move to New York, I’ve heard lots of people (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) complain about how non-business friendly this state is. Lee’s years as a successful small businessman clearly have given him the appropriate insight and experience needed in Congress during this current period of economic slowdown. Democrat Jon Powers offers a lot of the same old DNC talking points on his website, but as we’ve experienced, Democrat rhetoric and reality are two completely different things.

Read Full Post »

Following the tradition of Rahm Emanuel’s 2006 strategy for taking over the House, Democrat leaders in the 26th Congressional District snubbed Jack Davis in favor of Jon Powers, a political novice and Iraq War veteran:

Democratic leaders from across the 26th Congressional District have decided to endorse Iraq war veteran Jon Powers. Powers received the endorsement of Erie County’s Democratic committee on Tuesday, the last of the seven counties to make an endorsement.

Powers seeks to replace Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-Clarence, who is retiring. In a primary, he is slated to face Alice Kryzan, an environmental lawyer from Amherst, and Jack Davis, a Clarence businessman, who has run for the seat twice before.

In light of the enthusiastic support Barack Obama has been receiving in his presidential bid, one has to wonder if this year Democrats have a newfound love for inexperienced but charismatic candidates whose appeal is more based on slogans and superficialities than true experience. While Powers’ service in Iraq is honorable, even his own website biography says virtually nothing about other experience relevant to him being qualified to be a member of Congress. Even Alan over at Buffalo Pundit (a Powers supporter) said a couple months ago, “Jon Powers has the people skills and charisma that Davis only dreams about.”

Well, even a crappy present can be covered in pretty wrapping paper. My former governor, Deval Patrick, has been such a crappy gift for Massachusetts in sparkling wrapping paper covered in slogans like “Together We Can,” and buzzwords like “Hope,” “Change,” and “Leadership.” Only after he took office did a majority of Massachusetts voters realize they been duped. They’re now paying the price.

Charisma on the campaign trail doesn’t necessarily translate to leadership in government. Just look at Bill Clinton, Deval Patrick, and Barack Obama.

Read Full Post »