Ed Naile, CNHT

Hear Ed Naile every Wednesday morning on WLMW 90.7 FM on the Girard at Large radio show or listen to the archives at Voter Fraud Radio


Because I wish this primary was over my mind has drifted off towards what has been left out of the race so far, how about a serious look at endorsements, as serious as this 2008 primary deserves anyway.

By now, John Edwards is wandering around his 50,000 square foot mansion in his favorite extra short terry cloth bathrobe, cold cup of coffee in one hand, mirror in the other, wondering what the hell happened to his political career, no endorsement from him. Ditto Bill Richards.

And where is the last guy whose turn it was? Where is Bob Dole when we need an endorsement? Maybe no endorsement from a battle scarred WWI survivor who was parked in the US Senate for half a lifetime IS and endorsement of sorts.

Obama endorser Oprah is back on the trail with her bro. This is bound to make her some life-long enemies she never had to deal with before. But then she can always have herself on as an Oprah guest later and pour out her hurt feelings to one of the most moonbat audiences in TV history. That would crank out a few bucks and make her a victim as well. When one crunches the financials of it, it’s a no lose proposition for Oprah.

Then there is THE endorsement of all endorsements, except for “The Gloved One” who is busy at some day care center in Abu Dhabi, this is the Hollywood endorsement where the entire audience of the last Democrat debate was made up of Gucci-shoed tinsel toes from Tinsel Town. They sit in nodding approval, unknowing of mistakes of history, collapsing economies, military defense, market forces, or any number of issues. Their support is based on the most superficial of all reasons – feelings. They live in an insular world of self awareness to the exclusion of all else – much like many of the puppets on our political stage.

When you think about it, a Hollywood personality can not possibly pass up a chance to endorse a candidate. The people who surround and worship these stars in their everyday super star life would never, ever question anything they do or say. So when a Hollywood type spouts off about all things political, he or she, or the one in transition, is once again swooned over. It’s like tapping into a brand new, never objecting audience, kind of like Madonna re-inventing herself for a constantly rotating group of 12 year old concert goers.

Me – I need to know what Shirley McLain’s squirrelly brother or Garrison Keillor thinks about my candidate before I make up my mind.

I think the only endorsement that matters is one from an issue advocating political entity. They will at least dig up dirt on an opponent or pound home their own study proving candidate A did this or that better than candidate B. This is a much more fair and balanced way of advocating for your guy. Just spin on behalf of a credible organization.

The most effective endorsement isn’t really an endorsement at all. A free pass from the major news media who feed off of Washington by using past connections and free print or airtime is a huge bonus. They can, for instance, “forget” that a candidate stole 900 FBI files.

The media will chose their favorites and least favorites in any given race and simply repeat the name of the chosen in a good light over and over, again and again, until it is burned into the public memory, or cast a scornful eye into their least favorite candidate’s past or present positions until any thought of that candidate brings up bad responses.

The constant barrage of unscientific polls is one way to do this.

“He can’t win.” “He has it sewn up.” “She is unbeatable.” “He is dropping in our polls.”

And when the “polls” are wrong? This is the instant reply: “If only he had a few more days to continue the momentum our polls showed.”

Just a few months left folks and we can get on with finding a replacement for this nonsense and the exciting Ms. Spears.


Wife Swap

I am going out on a limb here folks. I am making an offer you shouldn’t refuse.

This Wednesday, Jan. 29, ABC is airing a new episode in a reality program called “Wife Swap.” One of the Jack and Jill lumberjack competitor teams I know, Wally and Andrea Robarge, are “competitors.”

Wally Robarge is a shop teacher in upstate New York, his wife Andrea is his cross cut saw partner and competitor in her own right. The have three little boys.

I use the term “boys” loosely. They are more like a pack of mongooses. I have watched them growing up over the years at Timbersports events from Alabama to Wisconsin and points in between.

Wally told me he and Andrea were selected to be on this show, the film crew was with them eleven days, and that they were to swap with a family where the other wife is a burlesque dancer.

I don’t watch Wife Swap or any other major network shows but I will be tuned in for this event for one simple reason – the boys.

This year in Alabama, two of the three were facing off in your standard male sibling rivalry pattern – you know the one where two knee high’s spit in each other’s face at nose to nose range until one gives up. Well spit came to shove and they hit the dirt and started elbowing each other in a fashion the UFC would be proud of.

I was on our competitor’s deck with several other guys watching this unfold. We were laughing so hard we caught the attention of one of the smaller boys who stood up and stared at us like we were next. It was kind of creepy and hilarious at the same time. I hope to be retired form Timbersports before one of these kids hits six feet.

I asked Wally how this reality show handled this box of ferrets and he said they tended to egg them on a bit. So I assume it should be an interesting show.


In The Distance I Hear A Train Whistle

Confusion reigns after reading through the Governor’s 2008 State Of The State address.

What ever happened to the word BIPARTISAN? How can the little fella fabricate a speech without his favorite word?

There was a whole lot of “I did this” and “we did that” but except for a small introduction of the House and Senate majority leaders – nada on his old pals in the GOP.

Ah but this is a good thing when you look at the train wreck in the making. You might say that Governor Lynch has some moonbats by their silky tails.

I have seen some of the new liberals who were elected in the anti-Iraq tidal wave of goodbye to small government. (It raises one question though. Why is it that Troskyites can never crank up the urge or ability to comb their hair? This is just an observation. It is why I get paid the big bucks to write this stuff.)

So maybe this is a good time to drop the bipartisan nonsense. This is a Democrat deficit after all and it was certainly caused by the Democrat’s state treasury hog trough over feeding. Make that a reckless 17.5% increase in any spending that was not funded by some federal program if you need details.

Left to their silly passions, the new liberal majority in Concord will do the same again this year and I do not think Governor Lynch has the guts to stop them. Governor Benson vetoed a budget he did not like. Governor John Lynch sat on his hands and watched this occur.

The trick for the Democrats will be to float some trial balloons of blame someone else to see if any will stick.

Good luck Governor Lynch. See you in about $200 million more dollars.


Time For New Critters In The Zoo

Anyone who has followed the education funding lawsuits across this country knows that the big three cases that brought New Hampshire into this mess are the 1989-1991Texas, Montana and Kentucky education funding lawsuits, along with a reference to a similar suit in Massachusetts.

45 states have fallen victim to this scheme whereby state supreme courts reinterpret their constitutions in favor of anyone with any faint complaint asking for mandated funding to either “equalize” or provide and “adequate” education. This state interest started after an attempt in California in the late 60’s to make education a fundamental right and unlock voter’s pocketbooks by court order as opposed to ballots.

Now these lawsuits have had a chance to settle the problem of “under funding.” And what have we learned from the endless litigation?

Let’s look at 1989 Kentucky ruling in Rose v. Council for Better Education in which the Kentucky Supreme Court declared education a fundamental right and mandated equitable and adequate funding for public schools. This was the camel’s nose under the tent.

On February 13, 2007 Judge Thomas Wingate of the Franklin Circuit Court dismissed Young v. Williams, Kentucky’s school funding lawsuit. Plaintiffs in the case argued that the school funding system in Kentucky is “inadequate and arbitrarily determined.” The plaintiffs wanted another cost of education study. Judge Wingate said that the Kentucky Constitution’s strong separation of powers clause prevents him from ordering a study. In addition, he ruled that there was no “objective evidence of shortcomings in Kentucky’s education system,” and that the significant improvement in student output measures following the legislative response to Rose is evidence in itself of the adequacy of Kentucky schools.

June 12, 2007, coalition of Kentucky school districts dropped a lawsuit aimed at forcing state lawmakers to spend more money on the schools. (How much have they spent in school funds so far on lawyers?)

I agree Judge Wingate has no power to order the legislature to implement yet another Augenblick type study, in fact he has no power, nor does the State Supreme Court to order the Kentucky Legislature to do anything regarding the legislative branch representing the people of Kentucky. But his statement “significant improvement” is another matter. Kentucky was plagued with phony testing showing improvement after the first of several billions in lawsuit money was pumped into the system. It would be nice to see Judge Wingate’s proof of “significant improvement.”

Then we have Texas where in 2005 the State Supreme Court said this:

"We recognize that the standard of arbitrariness we have applied is very deferential to the Legislature, but as we have explained, we believe that standard is what the Constitution requires. Nevertheless, the standard can be violated. There is substantial evidence, which again the district court credited, that the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change, whether that change take the form of increased funding, improved efficiencies, or better methods of education . ... But an impending constitutional violation is not an existing one, and it remains to be seen whether the system’s predicted drift toward constitutional inadequacy will be avoided by legislative reaction to widespread calls for changes."

The Texas court wants to retain control but there is the significant problem they have explaining where the money will come from for new school spending and where it has gone since 1989. The Supreme Court in Texas is elected and they have to be careful about whom they order around.

How about Montana? There is a new Democrat Governor there and he has pumped a 26% increase into the K-12 schools and $57 into colleges since 2005 after his election. This is recent 26% is on top of the untold millions “invested by court mandate” since their 1989 Helena suit.

Governor Schweitzer is now desperately calling for some accountability from the school spenders. He wants to see consolidation of administration but that looks a little grim as long as he has the courts in control of the legislature’s job and – his own.

The Montana Quality Education Coalition, the organization that filed an earlier lawsuit, began gathering information in 2007 from districts statewide for use in pressing for a legislative fix before the 2009 regular session. They have not ruled out another suit. Good luck Governor!

Does more money solve education problems?

Do courts have the answers to how education should be funded?

Have schools learned anything other than how to litigate if you can’t educate?

New Hampshire voters can learn from the thirty years of education funding lawsuits and keep the quality of education and life we have here. All we have to do is find and vote for legislators and a governor who will not surrender their obligations as elected officials or trade away our good local schools.


Go Fish

The latest news is the same old news about New Hampshire Fish and game being broke. So what do you think we are going to do about it?

One suggestion, besides a saltwater fishing license, kayak permit, grabbing some rooms and meals taxes, or instituting a hiking fee is to change the name of the commission.

Here is one sample of a new name: The New Hampshire Fish and Wildlife Department. I don’t know, does this sound inspiring enough to gain any momentum and rake in the big bucks?

How about doing what we did recently with another unique New Hampshire entity – the Manchester Airport. Some genius thought that re-naming the Manchester Airport the Manchester Boston Regional Airport would improve its financial situation. The same name game was done in Fitchburg Ma. We must have one big happy family of airports now.

So does the New Hampshire Boston Regional Fish and Wildlife Department moniker have a tempting, outdoorsy feel to it enough to lure into our countryside people we can tax? It doesn’t get me excited but then every time I go to the Manchester Boston Regional Airport I think what a stupid thing it was to associate Boston with New Hampshire. But then I am kind of stodgy like that.

Without new revenue sources the only thing the poor Fish and Game Dept. can do is to try is either new taxes or new and exciting names (looking at cost savings?). Fishing license sales are dropping like a non-lead sinker since they became an expense you need a payday loan for.

I quit buying hunting licenses years ago and only get a fishing license when I take some youngster out to drown a few worms.

But then maybe the people looking at rescuing Fish and Game from bankruptcy aren’t considering overpriced licenses the problem. A spanking new name might just do the trick.