Jon Powers likes to claim that his campaign is funded by everyday Western New Yorkers giving small amounts of money. According to him, about 80 percent of his donors give less than $100.

Well, he’s not telling the whole story.

For one thing, we already know that left-wing activists from outside of his district are funding his campaign, but also, a closer look at his campaign contributions shows that the true source of his campaign coffers comes from big donations.

In terms of unitemized dollar amounts, here is a quarterly breakdown of Powers campaign contributions under $200, in terms of percentage of his total fundraising for that quarter:

• 2nd Quarter 2008 - 9.17%
• 1st Quarter 2008 - 18.52%
• 4th Quarter 2007  - 9.84%
• 3rd Quarter 2007  - 20.63%
• 2nd Quarter 2007 - 12.04%

…which means that overall, a mere 13.66% of his total dollars raised have actually come from contributions of $200 or less. So, despite Jon Powers‘ claims that his campaign is being funded by small donors and everyday Western New Yorkers, in truth, more than 86% of his campaign coffers came from large donations.

Read Full Post »

Over the past few weeks, a few of us have been calling attention to the fact that a large portion of Jon Powers‘ campaign cash is coming from everywhere but within his district or his state… and it appears Powers is trying to cover up the truth about who’s funding his campaign: 

Powers said he was a teacher and a soldier, and not a millionaire. He said his campaign relies on donations, and he has raised about $900,000 so far. About 80 percent of his donors give less than $100, and 67 percent give less than $50. Powers said the donors were everyday Western New Yorkers.

Perhaps he meant “everyone but Western New Yorkers” not “everyday Western New Yorkers.” Or maybe he thinks strip-club owners like Rick Snowden are everyday Western New Yorkers?

Read Full Post »

Jon Powers, who has recently stepped up his criticisms of free trade policies which have actually contributed to economic in this country, took the opportunity of McCain’s visit to criticize Chris Lee for attending John McCain’s fundraiser at the Albright-Knox Monday night.

“Chris Lee was happy to appear with John McCain yesterday as he refused to talk to the voters of Western New York. Chris Lee must now respond to the unanswered questions and tell the voters what he will do to end the trade policies that have shipped Western New York jobs overseas,” said Powers for Congress Campaign Manager, John Gerken.

“Jon has been consistent in his opposition to the careless free trade policies of George Bush and John McCain. The working men and women of this district have recognized Jon’s commitment to saving jobs and we are proud to have their support.”

Now, the only free trade agreement mentioned on Jon Powers‘ website is NAFTA, which was enacted in 1994. Now, in case Jon Powers hasn’t been paying attention to history, George W. Bush wasn’t president in 1994 — Bill Clinton was… and further, NAFTA has enjoyed bipartisan support and praise. Despite this fact, Powers finds it easier to blame George W. Bush and John McCain.

Another supporter of NAFTA was Nancy Pelosi.  And the anti-free trade Jon Powers will be going to a DCCC fundraising event in Washington D.C. that is being hosted by the pro-free trade House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Will Jon Powers critcize Speaker Pelosi for her support of NAFTA?

And Nancy didn’t just endorse NAFTA, she pushed to get it passed, according this 1993 article from the San Francisco Chronicle (via LexisNexis): 

An influential friend of Clinton, Pelosi’s standing with the White House grew further in recent days, after she endorsed NAFTA and helped win other House members’ support.

How can Powers criticize John McCain and George W. Bush for supporting NAFTA with claims that it “shipped Western New York jobs overseas,”  and still attend Pelosi’s fundraiser for the DCCC. I’m willing to bet a lot of money that he’s not going to criticize Madame Speaker for her support and advocacy of NAFTA.

Another prominent Democrat who has supported NAFTA and free trade is Charles Rangel,  who is also joining Powers at the fundraiser next month. Powers probably won’t get into a debate with him over free trade either… we know he won’t return his money.

But, why should I be surprised that Jon Powers is a hypocrite? Hypocrisy is a prerequisite for joining the Democratic Party.

UPDATE, July 24, 2008: Monroe Rising has more…

Read Full Post »

On the campaign trail, Jack Davis touts his credentials as a businessman, but his rhetoric on the economy suggests he knows as much about business and economic as I know about brain surgery:

Congressman hopeful Jack Davis stood outside the former injected rubber plant on Platt Street in Albion on Thursday morning with a political message.

“Free trade is not free,” he began. A placard on his podium read “Save Jobs,” the Democrat’s campaign mot

to. “It’s time to put working people first.”

GM, Ford and Chrysler have announced the closing of more plants, he said. The loss of jobs is devastating to families.

“In our region, too many working men and women have had to explain to their families that they lost their job because it was cheaper to do the work in China or Mexico,” Davis said. “We don’t need more of the same policies that have given us the worst economy since the Great Depression.”

The worst economy since the Great Depression? If Jack Davis thinks the current economy bears any resemblance to the economy during the Great Depression or can justifiably be compared to it, then he’s just crazy, especially if he’s going to blame free trade. The raising of tariffs during the Great Depression significantly reduced international trade, making the depression even worse.

Ending free trade would effectively impose a tax increase on other countries, which would discourage trade between the United States and foreign countries, and causes prices of goods to just go up. 

The solution, he believes, is good-paying jobs that will keep taxes low and communities safe. Lobbyists, corporations and trade associations have too much power in Washington as they push Congress to pass more free trade deals, he said. 

“Special interest money doesn’t impre

ss me,” Davis said. “I am the only candidate to have joined Barack Obama in rejecting lobbyist and PAC money for my campaign, and I am the only candidate pledging to work for a dollar a year. … We cannot keep doing the same thing … and expect different results.”

It’s amusing to see Jack Davis trying to ride on Obama’s coattails, but let’s be honest here, if Jack Davis couldn’t afford to fund his own campaign then Jack Davis would be accepting campaign contributions from voters, lobbyists and PACs alike… just like Barack Obama, who, contrary to his own rhetoric, has enjoyed support from PACs and lobbyists:

Using campaign appearances, e-mails to supporters, and Iowa TV ads, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has repeatedly reminded voters that his presidential campaign does not accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, casting his decision as a noble departure from the ways of Washington.

[...]

But behind Obama’s campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A [Boston] Globe review of Obama’s campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama’s eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns — $296,000 of $461,000 — came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama’s US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton’s Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama’s own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions — including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries — to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

And, oh yes, even Obama’s presidential campaign has ties to lobbyists that cannot be ignored:

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February [2007], his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama’s campaign had reached out to lobbyists’ networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

If Jack Davis wasn’t funding his own campaign and refusing lobbyist and PAC money at the same time, then it be more fair of him to criticize his opponents for not doing the same. And while his criticisms of Jon Powers for taking contributions from strip-club owner Rick Snowden are legitimate criticisms, he would have gladly accepted the sleazy money if he had to raise money for his own campaign. 

Read Full Post »

…comes from Hillary Clinton’s remarks in Syracuse yesterday:

“It’s wonderful. It is so wonderful. It was the only part of campaigning that was kind of challenging. I really missed New York. I missed actually, physically being in the state and having a chance to see my friends and see a lot of what I care about around the state. So I’m back doing work that I love, and I feel very good about what we are going to be able to accomplish..”

Read Full Post »

Now this is isane. Jon Powers, who claims to be a fiscal conservative, has a news release on his website attacking President Bush for calling for more oil drilling.

“The Bush Administration’s national energy policy lacks any long-term solutions while Western New Yorkers are paying more than $4.00 for a gallon of gasoline with no clear plan to remedy this problem. It will be the job of the next Congress and future Administration to bring a realistic approach to solving our energy crisis.

I’m sorry, but why can’t the current do something about the energy crisis? Why must we wait for the next Congress? The sad thing is that Powers claims Bush’s proposal won’t work in the long term, but his Democrat friends in Congress haven’t offered any ideas for addressing the problem. President Bush offered a proposal that would not only lower gas prices, but also create thousands and thousands of jobs. Powers can’t even offer an alternative approach… he just says “the next congress will have to figure out,” and of course, lead by example.

The Democrats in Congress and Jon Powers are merely sitting on the problem, blocking all efforts to drill for oil here, meanwhile letting gas prices get higher and higher and higher. 

And Jon Powers is content with Congress doing nothing until the next session?

Yeah, real smart.

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 »

I still can’t help myself from perusing the nonsensical diatribe in Artvoice. And this week’s Earth Day edition (which bears no sign of being printed on recycled paper) features a real gem from Michael Niman, a recovering victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Niman, who still thinks Al Gore won Florida in 2000, despite all the recounts that proved the contrary, is hellbent on equating President Bush with Big Brother. The whole article is ludicrous but this part really got to me:

The problem is that during the course of this administration, government as we know it, on all levels, has lost whatever credibility it has had with the American people. We have a generation of college students, for example, that has lived their entire adult life under President George W. Bush. We are now hiring police officers from a demographic cohort that has grown up with “indefinite detention,” “coercive interrogation,” “preemptive” violence, “free speech zones,” and a comatose Bill of Rights. We have a new generation of voters that take as normal warrantless wiretaps and surveillance cameras at the end of their streets. Our journalists have become a spineless pack of mortgage-saddled career stenographers living under the thumb of a military entertainment complex, seduced by consumerism and terrified of jail. As a society we’ve come to value civic sterility more than civic engagement.

As of this moment, the only person in government found guilty of breaking federal wiretap laws is Democrat Jim McDermott, who violated the civil rights Republican Congressman John Boehner. I’m sure Artvoice would only have been outraged by that incident had McDermott leaked a tape terrorists plotting to attack America.

And then there’s Niman’s insinuation that so-called “free-speech zones” are the result of a Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfield/Fill-In-The-Blank-Member-of-The-Bush-Administration plot to stifle dissent. Now there’s a laugh. In recent years, the freedom of speech of pro-life activists has been gradually limited to larger and larger distances from abortion clinics… Deval Patrick, the Democrat Governor of Massachusetts, signed legislation last year that restricted freedom of speech within 35 feet of abortion clinics. Did Karl Rove make him do it?

But my favorite was during the 2004 Democratic National Convention, held in Boston, MA. I was there, and all protesters were literally put in a cage. A cage!
This so-called “free-speech zone” kept us protesters out of sight and out of mind from Democrats who have continually accused President Bush of trampling on the Bill of Rights. Had there been an abortion clinic in the neighborhood, they probably would have shipped all protestors to New Hampshire for the duration of the convention.

While the folks at Artvoice think up new imaginary ways that the Bush Administration has turned the Land of the Free to an Orwellian Dystopia, they ought to care more about real instances where the first amendment rights of myself and others have actually been infringed by Bush’s biggest critics.

Read Full Post »