Recently in Democrats Category

Drivers are paying an average of $4 for a gallon of gasoline for the first time. AAA and the Oil Price Information Service say the national average price for a gallon of regular gas rose to $4.005 overnight from $3.988. But consumers in many parts of the country have already been paying well above that price for some time.

Gas is expected to keep climbing, putting greater pressure on consumers and businesses, because the price of oil is soaring in futures markets. Light, sweet crude shot up nearly $11 a barrel Friday and approached $140 for the first time.

Along with higher fuel costs, consumers are also contending with higher prices for food and other goods because of rising transportation costs.

As a reminder:

• Democrats have obstructed every attempt at expanding domestic oil production for the last 30 years.

• Democrats want to increase taxes on the oil companies, which will be passed directly to the consumer in the form of even higher gas prices.

I hope you Democrats are proud of yourselves.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Supporters for Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton staked out competing positions Saturday as Democrats searched for a compromise to seat disputed convention delegations from Florida and Michigan and clear the way for a smooth end to the marathon struggle for the presidential nomination.

In the opening hours of a daylong meeting of the convention's Rules and Bylaws Committee, Clinton's designated spokeswoman urged the panel to grant a full vote for each of Florida's 211 disputed delegates.

"In life you don't get everything you want. I want it all," California State Sen. Arthenia Joyner said with a smile.

But moments later, Obama's campaign called for half-votes for each of the 211. Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida said that marked an "extraordinary concession, in order to promote reconciliation with Florida's voters."

Wexler translated: "Florida's voters are only worth half as much as voters elsewhere, and should be so happy we've granted them half-person status that they'll fall in line with my guy Obama." Yep, that should promote reconciliation, alright.

It will be interesting to see how all of the bad feelings translate into real votes come November. Certainly there's no lack of bitterness about Hillary's supporters among the 'hope and change' set. A liberal Delaware blogger predicts:

Hillary Clinton supporters will continue to be the low class losers that we all know them to be.

Yeah. I can smell the bridge-building in the air. Can't you?

Via AP/Yahoo Green, more clinging to guns and xenophobia:

BUSKIRK, N.Y. - A few years ago, Kathleen Breault was just another suburban grandma, driving countless hours every week, stopping for lunch at McDonald's, buying clothes at the mall, watching TV in the evenings.

That was before Breault heard an author talk about the bleak future of the world's oil supply. Now, she's preparing for the world as we know it to disappear.

Breault cut her driving time in half. She switched to a diet of locally grown foods near her upstate New York home and lost 70 pounds. She sliced up her credit cards, banished her television and swore off plane travel. She began relying on a wood-burning stove.

"I was panic-stricken," the 50-year-old recalled, her voice shaking. "Devastated. Depressed. Afraid. Vulnerable. Weak. Alone. Just terrible."

Convinced the planet's oil supply is dwindling and the world's economies are heading for a crash, some people around the country are moving onto homesteads, learning to live off their land, conserving fuel and, in some cases, stocking up on guns they expect to use to defend themselves and their supplies from desperate crowds of people who didn't prepare.

Maybe some of these folks have seen too many post-apocalyptic science fiction movies. Many are convinced that we're headed for anarchy by 2012. So they're planning for a personal future that looks like half the content on the Sci-Fi channel. Think "Little House on the Prairie" with Mel Gibson and Ruger's entire product line in the starring roles.

Democrat oil policies obstructionism doesn't seem to be creating the utopia that the left promised, does it?

Since it's turning out to be "bitterness day" here at DGITL...

NARAL has endorsed the Messiah, and it's membership couldn't be unhappier:

"It's created a firestorm," said NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin, who was on the conference call. "Everyone was mystified ... saying, 'What is the upside for the organization? And, frankly, [there was] a lot of concern about the donor base. ... There was real concern there would be a backlash." There was a backlash, and it was swift, starting with NARAL's own website. At last count, there were more than 3,300 comments in an electronic chat about the endorsement, the overwhelming majority of them negative. "Shame shame shame!" read one, with many correspondents threatening never to support NARAL financially again. "No more donations from me!!!" wrote another.

In Washington, two dozen women members of Congress who support Clinton held a quickly organized press conference to tout her abortion-rights record Wednesday night. Ellen Malcolm, founder of the abortion-rights women's fundraising group EMILY's List, sharply rebuked NARAL for its endorsement. Two former members of Congress (and Clinton supporters) -- Geraldine Ferraro and Pat Schroeder -- jabbed at NARAL for endorsing before the general election. "Looks like some higher ups at NARAL are trying to get jobs in the new administration ... nothing else makes sense to us," they wrote in a joint letter.

A number of feminist donors -- including several Obama supporters -- were shaking their heads at the timing, said a source who has worked on women's health and reproductive rights issues for 25 years and meets routinely with top contributors to the cause. "Without exception, the response was, 'It's a really stupid thing to do,'" said the source.

And even former NARAL Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman, who is working on behalf of Obama, was taken by surprise, saying she learned of the endorsement only when a reporter called her. Although she wouldn't comment on the timing, she was clearly worried about damage to the larger cause of women's rights. "I don't think there's any question that there are strong Obama supporters who are pro-choice who are surprised by the decision, and probably some are upset by the decision, because NARAL's mission is of course to protect women's liberty -- especially reproductive rights, but women's liberty in general."

And here's this from the WomenCount PAC:

The newly formed WomenCount PAC strongly denounces the endorsement of Barack Obama by NARAL Pro-Choice America, joining mounting opposition to the move from Emily's List, a long list of woman Members of Congress, and other longtime supporters of NARAL.

"The idea that NARAL would create a divisive and potentially permanent rift in the pro-Choice movement is a shortsighted, irresponsible rush to judgment," says Allida Black, a founding member of WomenCount PAC and editor of The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers at George Washington University. "Using this important issue in such an irresponsible way can only be interpreted as blatant pandering."

Hey, gals, might I suggest redirecting your bitterness into guns, god, and xenophobia? It could prove to be therapeutic, and may even help you see an alternative to your abortion zeal.

Via AP/Yahoo:

"Women are feeling a lot of sadness, disappointment and some anger as they look back at what happened in this race," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

And at least part of that anger, Walsh says, is directed at the sexism that some feel seriously harmed the former first lady's candidacy — from T-shirts bearing photos of Clinton and Obama with the slogan "Bros Before Hos" to Hillary Clinton nutcrackers sold in airports.

Question for the feminists - have you tried clinging to guns, god, and xenophobia? It works for the rest of us.

Or, at least that's the way it appears in this Des Moines Register article I ran across this morning while searching Yahoo News for McCain stuff:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond that," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

"I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."
Advertisement

Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."

He said that "I just want to be very clear there's nothing wrong with a career in the military" and that he has friends who are generals and admirals who have served the country well.

"But now McCain is running for a higher office. He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian," Harkin said. "And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot."

No friends with lower rank than Admiral or General? Elitist.

That last graph says a lot about the twisted viewpoint that Sen. Harkin holds. McCain doesn't count as a civilian to him, and I assume that would apply to me and many more like me as well, as I was a volunteer for 20 years in the Air Force.

I have news for Sen. Harkin - my military career did not strip away my citizenship, and Sen. McCain's service didn't strip away his. After retirement or separation from the military, we become civilians - unless Sen. Harkin can find some basis in law why we should be treated as some sort of sub-class of citizen with less rights than folks who served unwillingly. The contempt that the left holds toward the military usually does not surprise me, but this kind of distorted and sick view coming from a Senator still gets my blood boiling.

Update: Considering the source - I had forgotten Sen Harkin's past regarding his own military record. Thanks to Glenn for his somewhat better memory.

The MSM is going scorched earth on Hillary. As she trounces Obama by a greater than 40 point margin in W. Va., an Obama-smitten media is going where they've never gone before in order to minimize the victory - racism in the Democrat party. From the New York Times, we're treated to this wrap-up on W. Va.:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won a lopsided victory on Tuesday over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary, where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. Mrs. Clinton drew strong support from white, working-class voters, who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.

The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.

Besides a few hints at the end, the article doesn't really say why the 80% for whom race was not an important factor voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. You'd think that would be the bigger story - that, for example, 53% of West Virginia voters felt that the Messiah was dishonest, apparently so much so that 8 of 10 of those actually favored the heroine of the Tuzla Dash at the polls.

For another good example, take this article by the Washington Post with the loaded title "Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause" filled with examples of Obama workers being treated to racism as they courted registered Democrats for the Indiana primary:

Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"

You might think the "ugly truths" I reference in the title is that Hillary's base (and by proxy the Democrat party in general) is swimming with racists. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Both parties do have some individuals who are racists, although those of us on the right have argued for years that the Democrat party's policies are racist, as they discourage assimilation into and participation in the American dream.) No, the "ugly truth" is that the media is willing to paint large parts of the population as racist in order to secure the victory of a favored candidate.

Willing, too, is Obama's campaign. All of this is telegraphing Obama's (and the fawning media's) strategy for the fall, as hinted to by Obama's own campaign manager, David Plouffe:

I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already.

If the Obama camp and the media are willing to go this route in a blue on blue contest, imagine what we'll see in the Fall. In spite of all the pretty rhetoric about new politics and civility, this is starting to shape up as the nastiest Presidential campaign in history.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Both the House and Senate are expected to approve, with bipartisan support, legislation Tuesday directing Bush to temporarily halt the shipment of about 70,000 barrels of oil a day to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Bush has refused to do so, arguing that this small amount of oil won't impact prices and that for security reasons he wants to increase the stockpile to its full capacity of 726 million barrels. It now has about 701 million barrels, equal to nearly two months of oil imports.

I have a relative who is a consultant to the oil industry - he tells me that this would have a small effect on prices, and would be factored out by the markets in short order. Of course, it also doesn't address the underlying problem - demand internationally is on the rise, and only tapping our own resources will provide a long term fix.

Yesterday I posted on the article from AP fact-checking the various proposals in play, but I didn't get back to it as I had planned. Two things stood out for me:

1. Each of the plans by Democrats would actually increase the pain at the pump. Increasing taxes and over-regulating always fails, nice to see an MSM article acknowledge it.

2. Each of the plans that would work have been stymied by Democrat obstructionism. The AP even inadvertently points out the irony of the ANWR debate - that results would be 10 years out, and had Democrats acted responsibly 13 years ago, we would be benefiting today.

Sadly, most politicians rarely look past the next election when considering policy. Help for the country that comes in a decade comes too late to help in re-election. Everyone should be reminding their Representatives and Senators that they have a greater responsibility.

I noticed the press' trumpeting Obama passing Clinton in super delegates today, and this from the AP story:

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama erased Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-imposing lead among superdelegates Saturday when he added more endorsements from the group of Democrats who will decide the party's nomination for president.

Remember, Democrats - in your party, only the elite decide. How does that make you all feel?

David Crary of AP has an article today about the divide among feminists in the current Democrat primary. While the article is intended to be sympathetic, Crary's premise highlights the moronic nature of identity politics in the Democrat party:

Are the activist women supporting front-runner Barack Obama betraying their gender? Are Clinton's feminist backers mired in an outdated, women's-liberation mind-set?

Anyone that feels these questions are valid and worthy of exploration needs to get out more. While there's no question that aligning one's self with folks who are similar to you brings comfort in social and personal settings, it only serves to replace critical thought with emotional baggage when applied to politics.

Some of the quotes from Gloria Feldt in the article:

"We're squandering an opportunity to be seen as a voting bloc that turns elections," Feldt said. "Unless we are working together, in a strategically thought-out effort to vote in our own best interests, we are in danger of never having another election where people will say women can determine the outcome."

"I'd feel very sad to miss this enormous opportunity to bring the United States of America into the circle of nations that have had women as their leaders," she said. "I feel strongly when you have the opportunity to support a women so clearly qualified and capable, do it. Do it for your daughter."

Not knowing Ms. Feldt personally, I'm going to assume that in all other areas of her life she probably exhibits some substantial amount of critical thought in most of her non-political life decisions. When she needs a medical procedure, does she choose her doctor based on qualification or gender? Did she buy her house based on the gender of the builder or the quality of construction?

Why, then, would she vote for something as important as the leader of the free world on something as trivial as bringing the "United States of America into the circle of nations that have had women as their leaders"? Does this concept really trump more mundane considerations such as qualifications, experience, or judgment?

We see the same kind of unreasoned thinking in some of the groups backing Obama as well. According to recent polls, 90% of blacks support Obama. While the polls don't exactly tell us why, it isn't hard to figure out. Obama's support from the black community isn't because of his leadership experience (he has none), his legislative achievements (he has none), or his ground-breaking new ideas for America (he's lock-step with his party on every issue).

Again, I pose that most black Americans would make rational decisions in other areas of their lives - they shop for price and quality, they pick the best housing situation they can afford, make the best decisions they can for their children, all based on other factors than race. Is the Presidency so unimportant that symbolism replaces reason?

Someone please tell me which candidate is running on an anti-female or anti-black platform. I haven't heard Clinton or McCain propose the reintroduction of slavery. I haven't heard Obama or McCain propose taking away women's voting rights (and please don't give me any crap about abortion - that argument isn't about feminism and you all know it).

My sincere hope is that this election will expose the folly of identity politics once and for all, and folks will start basing their votes on what's best for the country. But the signs are that it will continue to be a replacement for common sense.

Since this divide ultimately benefits conservatism, I suppose I should be glad. But I'm not. Is that wrong?

Some folks just can't wait for the non-stop giveaways and entitlements to come from either a Clinton or Obama presidency. This one's clever, though - buy his vote and he'll use the proceeds to buy more votes.

So let the bidding begin:

Just a thought - will he withhold his vote if he doesn't get the 20 mil?

LANSING, Mich. - Michigan Democratic leaders on Wednesday settled on a plan to give presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the national convention.

Because Democrats are all about fairness, right?






Added - had trouble finding a Hillary photo worthy of the seething rage and anguish she must be feeling over Michigan's proposal. This will have to do:

(H/T to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air (where my trackbacks no longer work - *sigh*))

Ed points out an article in the Telegraph for the "selected, not elected" file:

Plans for Al Gore to take the Democratic presidential nomination as the saviour of a bitterly divided party are being actively discussed by senior figures and aides to the former vice-president.

The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November's election to the Republican nominee, John McCain.

Former Gore aides now believe he could emerge as a compromise candidate acceptable to both camps at the party's convention in Denver during the last week of August.

Two former Gore campaign officials have told The Sunday Telegraph that a scenario first mapped out by members of Mr Gore's inner circle last May now has a sporting chance of coming true.

I find this to be an unlikely scenario. The screams from both Clinton and Obama (and their supporters) would be deafening if this were serious. And I wonder how the voters in 48 states would feel about getting the Florida/Michigan treatment when their votes don't mean squat at the convention.

Still, it's nice to dream - having Gore run again would be delicious. Videos of his bearded, pot-bellied unhinged rants against the U.S. after losing in 2000 would flow freely. The exaggerations and downright falsehoods of his "award-winning" movie (along with his hypocritical gas-guzzling lifestyle) would be discussed again and again. And his holier-than-thou, condescending tone would once again fill the airways to alienate voters of all stripes.

Please, Al. Run. Run.

Nothing really new in stories like this one, but they're still fun to read:

Party fears tight Obama-Clinton finish

WASHINGTON - For all their delight in soaring voter registration and strong poll numbers, some Democrats fear the contest between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton might have a nightmarish end, which could wreck a promising election year.

Enjoy.

This is your irony of the day. If you don't see it, I can offer no help for you.

Dean laments the fighting between Hillary and Barack as "too personal".

Also, there's this for the "selected, not elected" file:

"You bring both sides together and say, `Don't you think it's time that the two campaigns made a deal on how we're going to do this?'" Dean said.

The Reiddler is waxing mysterious about the Democrat primary.

From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Asked about it last week, Reid said he remains convinced the nominee will be decided well before the August national convention. He wore a serene and mysterious smile.

But Reid isn't one for lengthy explanations. The conversation went like this:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

I just want all of you on the left to remember this, and this phrase:

Selected, not elected

Enjoy!

By now, most of you are surely aware that Hillary made up the story about dodging sniper fire out of whole cloth. Her campaign offers no reasonable explanation to accompany their characterizations of "misstatement" and "minor blip". Had Hillary ever landed in a dangerous region under hostile fire (or the threat of same), they would have been quick to trot the details out as proof that Hillary simply remembered a detail or two incorrectly but her underlying story was indeed true.

Since that hasn't happened, we're left with the curtain completely pulled back in a way we rarely see when it comes to our politicians. So the blogosphere is having fun with the somewhat threadbare (in this case, anyway) "misspoke" language being utilized by Hillary's campaign. My favorite comes from John Hinderaker at Powerline:

It Lacked the Added Virtue of Being True

Follow the link for video of the CBS report that hammered the stake through Hillary's tale. Adding additional comic interest is that this helps Obama, whose resume is even thinner than Hillary's.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the five-year war to at least 4,000. The grim milestone came on a day when at least 61 people were killed across the country.

Well, I guess we know what the topic of the week is going to be for the Democrat candidates. Expect more dishonest tripe from both as Obama claims his ignorance-based stance on the war shows better judgment than that of those who actually had access to intel, and watch Hillary spin like a top as she regrets basing her Iraq war vote on facts instead of opinion polls of the moonbat wing of her party. And both will attack each other on which plan for surrender waves the white flag faster and higher.

Lost in all of this will be the troops, some of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom while the left continues to actively undermine the morale and mission of those that remain.

As a military retiree, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the men and women currently serving their country. Your tireless devotion, courage, and professionalism are appreciated.

Erica Jong (author of Fear of Flying), on Huffington Post:

We have two great candidates--one a hard working, never give up eager beaver, and one an inspiring, heart-leapingly brilliant stallion.

A beaver and a stallion? At first I wondered if the article was satire, but considering the overwhelmingly depressing and humorless tone at the Huffington Post and among the left in general...

Here's more:

the sooner they bring the beaver and the stallion together, the better off we'll all be.

and she ends with this:

So let's stop talking about race and gender and let the beaver and the stallion both serve our country--in their own inimitable ways.

With frightening imagery like this, Ms. Jong could have been a top seller of horror novels.

From the Chinese government, no less:

China lashed out Sunday at critics of its crackdown on Tibetan protesters, describing U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as "habitually bad tempered"...

While the Chinese score few points in any other area, on this one they seem to have it nailed.

Via AP/Yahoo:

And Richardson told of the time, during one of the many Democratic debates, when his attention wandered and he didn't hear the question that came at him. Obama, then his rival, bailed him out by whispering to him that it was about Hurricane Katrina.

"He could have thrown me under the bus," Richardson cracked, "but he stood behind me."

I suspect Grandma would be grateful her grandson has limits. Though had he done so, Bill, rest assured it would have been a very nice bus:

In the state of Michigan, Democrats want their delegates seated in the primary. While there's virtually no solution that would please everyone, some would be worse than others. Here's the most idiotic I've seen thus far:

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, an Obama supporter and former presidential candidate, promoted the idea of evenly splitting the delegates between Obama and Clinton. "The best outcome is to come to an arrangement where the delegates are apportioned fairly between Senators Obama and Clinton, so the Michigan delegation can participate fully in the Denver convention," he said in a statement.

"Don't bother thinking for yourselves, Michigan - we'll tell you how to vote" somehow doesn't seem very democratic. Sen. Dodd has an odd understanding of participating fully, eh?

Via Hot Air:

Is Billy Jeff’s culpability in not thoroughly vetting his audience the same as Obama’s in patronizing a hate merchant for 20 years? Not remotely, but anything that makes the Clintons squirm is worth linking.

Indeed. In other Obama/Wright news, Mike Huckabee has weighed in on the side of Wright. He thinks we should cut Wright some slack because Wright was just "caught up in the emotion" and lived through racism many years ago. Here's the video:

Of course, Wright wasn't railing against past racism, but current society. If you can't be with the one you blame, then blame the one you're with.

I didn't comment on the Obama speech, I was at work when it was broadcast and many other bloggers said mostly what needed to be said. In short, though, I think the pattern we're seeing emerge from Obama on this subject is fairly clear - a black person can dish out anti-American and racist tripe, even while in an official position of spiritual mentorship where his words are given more credence, and it's forgivable cause it's weighed against all the good that person's done. Besides, it's the fault of white folks who committed acts of racism in the past. It's like there's a special strain of Tourettes Syndrome affecting people of color, they just can't help it. Personal responsibility plays no part in the process. Oh, and it's also ok to teach these beliefs to children.

On the other hand, if you're one of the "rich white people" like Don Imus - then you deserve anything and everything that a vengeful nation can dish out. If your life is completely ruined, so much the better.

Is it wrong for me to feel that this is harmful to people of all races?

Mostly because Obama is blocking it - after all, he gains by disenfranchising the voters in Michigan and Florida because he doesn't run the risk of something going horribly wrong resulting in Hillary walking away with lots of gap-closing delegates.

The reason something might go wrong for Obama in Michigan is that Dem voters in large numbers (up to 72,000 Dems, and 247,000 Independents) voted in the Republican primary. This predates the famous Rush voters in Texas, BTW. Back then, Dems were all about tinkering with our candidate choices, now it might be the main reason that Michigan doesn't get a do-over:

LANSING, Mich. - One of the sticking points holding up a possible do-over election in Michigan is a rule that would ban anyone who voted in the Republican presidential primary from voting again.

That ban would apply even to Democrats or independents who asked for a GOP ballot because Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only major candidate left on the Jan. 15 Democratic ballot.

Obama's campaign has said they're reviewing the re-vote proposal and refuse to comment further.

I expect them to still be reviewing it when the clock runs out. Right now, Obama has the nomination almost sewn up - add a couple of populous states and increasing Obama negatives and it could be a much stronger Hillary come convention-time. And those banned cross-over voters were likely Obama supporters whose absence would help Hillary.

It takes true audacity to take away the hope of over a million voters in Michigan just to further your own political ambitions, eh, Obama?

Holiday Inn Express may make you smarter, but shacking up with an extra-marital sweetie is better at Days Inn, according to the newly sworn-in Gov. David Paterson. He recommended it to his staff as well:

As part of that relationship, Paterson said, he and the other woman sometimes stayed at an upper West Side hotel — the Days Inn at Broadway and W. 94th St.

He said members of his Albany legislative staff often used the same hotel when they visit the city.

Why? Convenience and price are apparently the answer. I checked the rates of the two discount hotels. $188.10/night for Days Inn vs. $228.00 for Holiday Inn Express (neither property offered "nooner" or hourly rates). Clearly the best choice for a penny-pinching Lt. Governor. As for convenience:

"It's convenient since it's only four subway stops from my Harlem office," Paterson said.

The versatility of Days Inn doesn't stop there, though. Once the affair has ended, it's a terrific place to patch things up with the ol' ball and chain:

He and his wife went to the West Side Days Inn when they were trying to rekindle the romance in their marriage, he said.

They did so after a marriage counselor he used recommended they introduce "new and exciting things" into their relationship, Paterson said, and so they could be alone and away from their children.

New and exciting indeed. Here's a view of a typical room at Days Inn:

The effect of this endorsement on the highly competitive mid-priced hotel market remains to be seen, though, as Holiday Inn Express has the endorsement of former Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee:

Days Inn is part of Wyndham Worldwide (stock symbol - WYN) which closed at $19.25 (-1.42) yesterday. Holiday Inn Express is part of the UK-based IHG, and is currently trading at 746.00p (+10.00p). dontgointothelight.com is not publishing this post as a stock recommendation.

We've seen it over and over again in recent weeks - Obama's claim to have better judgment than the other candidates. Here's one example below (H/T Hot Air):

Link: sevenload.com

He always uses the Iraq war vote as his shining example of superior judgment. Yet no one points out that as a state senator, he wasn't privy to any of the intelligence that led most of Congress to approve of military action against Saddam. None of it. How can judgment based on ignorance be so superior? I've always felt that this was the singular most dishonest claim from Obama, and have been vexed by the fact that few have seen his claim for the snake oil that it is.

The only way to get insight into a man's judgment is to review instances where the man has a full command of the necessary facts and makes a decision based on them. The few public examples of this applied to Obama are disturbing.

When he was a state senator, he routinely voted "present". Why he did depends on who interprets - either he was incapable of judgment regarding these votes (as his opponents claim), or he was being a party tool, too weak-minded to vote based on his oft-bandied "judgment" (as Obama himself claims). Either paints a picture of someone who is wholly unqualified to hold down a job where decisions aren't optional.

The most recent revelations about the church Obama attends gives us further insight into his ability to judge and act. Twenty years is a long time to be a member of a church and yet be completely blind to the racist tendencies of it's pastor, as Obama claims. His tepid responses once videos came to light were shown to be poor judgment by his own actions as the controversy failed to dissipate, and he had to give a more forceful repudiation of the Rev. Wright.

The lack of good judgment aside, it's difficult to believe that he was unaware of his church's views. The wild applause during Rev. Wright's sermons suggest the normalcy of those views within the walls of Trinity United. His wife's comments on the campaign trail display some of the same anger and rhetoric. Does anyone really believe Obama was blissfully ignorant over a twenty year period of the leanings of his church?

Shouldn't his honesty be an issue in addition to his judgment?

Rep. Robert Wexler has put up a website, in conjunction with Reps. Luis Gutierrez and Tammy Baldwin, asking for nutroots support of impeaching Cheney. On the page titled "Why We Need Hearings", we get a refreshingly honest view of what drives many Democrats, and it's what we all knew already:

I was serving in Congress and on the Judiciary Committee for the ridiculous and politically motivated impeachment hearings of President Clinton. During that witch hunt Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, and Ken Starr wasted a year and a half on investigations and hearings about President Clinton's personal relations. However, this attempted coup d'etat by Republicans against President Clinton was not and should not be the standard of impeachment that was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution.

First, impeachment hearings are only proper when significant allegations exist that the President or Vice-President, or others civil officers, committed actions – within their official duties – that constitute 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.' The allegations against Clinton – involving a personal affair - never reached this threshold. The serious charges against Cheney involve alleged crimes that are central to his duties of Vice-President; namely war and peace, the widespread violations of civil liberties, and the security of the United States and our covert agents.

Unlike the show trial put on by Republicans against President Clinton, a proper impeachment hearing would involve a fair and objective presentation of the facts without hyperbole or political gamesmanship.

Yup, that's right - it's all about getting even for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Oh, and here's Wexler in a supporting video - listen to his voice become louder and angrier - he practically spits into the camera - as he displays a "fair and objective presentation of the facts without hyperbole or political gamesmanship":

Hyperbole, indeed. Do you really think it's possible for someone so animated in his characterization of the administration's actions to be "fair and objective"?

Hope you caught the headlines in the background. I've linked them for you:

• "If Libby is Pardoned, Scrutiny Should Follow" - Since Libby wasn't pardoned, I guess scrutiny isn't necessary.

• "Former Press Secretary Points Finger at Bush, Cheney for Deceit in CIA Leak Scandal" - Noticing a pattern here?

• "A Judgment on Cheney Is Still to Come" - Wexler just can't get over Plame, can he? He must have missed the news about who the leaker really was. That matters little, though, since the theme is "any excuse for revenge".

It's a shame this soap opera was canceled last month. A year of impeachment hearings with this kind of tinfoil nonsense would give the Republicans their best hope of regaining Congress.

While browsing the WSJ this morning, I also came across a staff column called "The Delta House Congress". In it, a comparison is made between the Democrat Congress and a scene from the movie Animal House:

In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.

This, of course, reminded me of Glenn Reynolds' use of the "Flounder Principle" yesterday. It's worth noting for two reasons. One, that Glenn (you leading edge, you) was once again ahead of the pack with this theme.

Two, the theme seems to fit - should it be used more? It shouldn't be difficult to replace many of the arcane phrases we use now with references to scenes in a movie that nearly everyone has seen and understands. There must be some way to work "Toga Party", "Double Secret Probation", and "He's a sneaky little sh*t" into the arsenal of descriptive phrases we use in relation to the Democrat Congress, right?

On the other hand, folks might get the wrong idea:

While the Democrat Congress is easily as irresponsible as the characters in Animal House, Belushi and crew caused far less harm, and are endearing - something that Pelosi and Reid definitely aren't. Maybe we should pick another movie for next time, eh?

The Democrats held a debate/forum last night in Iowa, called the The Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum. It's described as "...the nation’s only presidential forum in which all candidates have an opportunity to answer essential concerns of African-Americans and Latinos."

Of course, those "essential concerns" mean little if you're an African-American or Latino who can't afford a High-Definition TV. Sorry, this debate wasn't meant for you.

It's really telling that the Democrat Presidential hopefuls are worried about cheating at the Iowa caucuses. After all, who would be more familiar with the typical Democrat election day shenanigans?

As both of my regular readers know, I scour though press releases in search of the interesting and newsworthy so that you don't have to. Normally, they're pretty dry and matter-of-fact - statements on policy, text of speeches, announcements of events, etc.

Sometimes, though, the writers of PRs get their literary juices flowing and serve up something, well, more. Case in point is a summary of a campaign stop by Dennis Kucinich yesterday, titled "Kucinich 'Connects' with Everyday Citizens at Massive Iowa Presidential Forum":

One especially poignant moment dramatically reflected the affinity between the coalition's populist agenda and Kucinich's deep involvement in those same issues. A community leader from Iowa recounted the events of Dec. 12, 2006, when federal immigration authorities raided a plant in search of undocumented immigrants. Among those detained and exiled to Mexico was the mother of five small children who lived in a modest home with her husband. It happened, the speaker said, her voice choked with emotion, on the hallowed feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Kucinich walked across the stage and asked her to look at his watch. "What does it say?" he asked her. "It's Our Lady of Guadalupe," she responded. Kucinich said the watch was a gift from friends in El Paso, Texas four years ago "when I was standing up for the rights of immigrants." The crowd's reaction swelled from sighs and gasps to sustained applause and cheering.

Add some descriptive lines about flowing hair and heaving bodice, along with perhaps a touch of glistening perspiration, and this would rival the best in romantic fiction available at your local supermarket. You can almost see Dennis' bronzed muscles straining through his torn shirt as the audience swelled, can't you?

I'm not saying that the event wasn't as the writer described, but I would have thought a more natural response to "What does it say?" might be "Six-fifteen".

Also, please note the description of the ICE raid in the first paragraph - "Among those detained and exiled to Mexico". Deporting an illegal alien is now exile? I don't think that word means what the writer thinks it means. Deportation, to the best of my recollection, is sending 'em back home.

Here's a bonus passage from the same press release:

The final "connection" with the loudly kindred audience came with the final question from the event leaders. Would the Congressman agree to meet with representatives of today's sponsoring community action organizations within the first 100 days of taking office, if elected President?

"I'll do better than that," he said. "You can sleep in the Lincoln bedroom."

Nice to know that it isn't necessary to elect Hillary in order to return to the Clinton era. I wonder if Obama or Edwards will announce plans to rent the Lincoln bedroom in return for votes and donations as well. You know, just to keep up...

The DNC shows us why you can't take Democrats for their word:

VIENNA, Va. - Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

But later in the article:

Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a member of the rules panel, said stripping the delegates from Michigan and Florida — and prohibiting candidates from campaigning there during the primaries — will hurt party-building efforts in those states.

Fowler also said that stripping the delegates was unnecessary, since many party insiders believe that the eventual nominee will have them restored at the convention.

"No one at this table believes that the delegates from Florida and Michigan will be absent from the convention," Fowler told the rules panel.

Everything they do is political. Everything.

As long as I'm catching up on my reading, why not share?

Here's a brief but illuminating history lesson from Gateway Pundit.

While I was over at Red State, this post caught my eye. H/T to Erick for the link to this:

When the lights go up on the Democratic presidential debate (the Iowa Brown and Black Forum) this Saturday, all the cameras will be HD. What's more, HDNet is the exclusive national broadcaster of the event.

Exclusively in high definition! John Edwards is right about the two Americas - and along with Hillary, Obama, and the rest, guess which America isn't invited to watch this debate?

Kinda hurts to look at it, eh?

New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Pollster John Zogby: "The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem."

I'm making popcorn if anyone wants some.

Yeah, I watched it. Here are my impressions:

The first 10-15 minutes were exciting due to the backbiting. After that, they settled down into the familiar Bush-bashing pattern.

Hillary was on-game. She needed to be aggressive without coming off as nasty and largely succeeded. She's still going to be the front runner for a while yet. The audience booed twice when Hillary was attacked. Playing the gender card is apparently effective.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden gave some good answers - particularly Dodd when answering about security vs. human rights. Making sense is death to your campaign when running with this crowd, though. Biden got bonus points for giving a one-word answer.

Obama had a very bad night. It took Wolfe nearly 5 minutes to get an answer about the drivers license issue. He also slipped and referred to illegals as "illegal aliens". That'll piss off the open borders crowd.

Speaking of pissed, Kucinich was. And with good reason, too. He had to prompt Wolfe to let him have a chance to answer a question. No matter how loony he is, as long as he's on stage with Hillary and Obama, and deserves equal time and consideration. Of course, it won't happen, since Democrats really don't care about fairness.

Edwards loves pandering to the nutroots. I heard him repeat the word "neocon" a few times, that resonates with the delusional fringe. He also mentioned Cheney a few times, which gets the nutroots speaking in tongues. He'll be the winner with the Daily Kos crowd.

Richardson pandered as well. He even managed to invoke "Haliburton" in an answer that had nothing to do with it.

Hypocrite alerts - Hillary for saying she's not playing the gender card and following with something that sounded a lot like "vote for me because I'm a woman". Dodd for saying he has no litmus test for judges then saying he won't appoint a pro-lifer.

The second half was interesting - CNN wanted the Dems to look good, as they lined up victims one by one. One said he was a victim of racial profiling caused by the Patriot Act, no one called him on it. Update (11:28 PM): One of the CNN's "victims" is a war protester. And that's CNN's idea of an "undecided voter"? And why isn't Dan Riehl on my blogroll? Fixed.

Also, what idiot let the question about jewelry get asked?

If I had to pick, I'd say Biden won - at least in debate terms. Since he doesn't have a chance, though, that matters little. What does matter is who lost - Obama. Most folks have open minds, if he had taken a decisive stance on the illegal alien question and attempted to explain why he felt that way, folks would have respected it. Instead, he wasted everyone's time trying to avoid being pinned down to an answer on a question that wasn't difficult. It made him look especially bad after attacking Hillary on the exact same thing for the past 2 weeks.

Since Obama's loss is likely to be Hillary's gain, she'll emerge as the apparent overall winner through default - even though she didn't win through her answers.

It's kinda like watching the game when you don't like either team.

From a press release today from the esteemed ufologist:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Made in China" has become a health and safety warning label for American consumers following the recalls of tens of millions of Chinese-made toys, but the "real warning label should say 'Made in Washington, D.C. by corporate lobbyists' because the life-threatening hazards of these products were either ignored or brushed off by members of the Congress seven yeas ago," Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today.

So Congress was supposed to know the Aqua Dots were toxic 6 years before they were introduced? Ridiculous. But Congress isn't the target of his ire over failure to properly read the tea leaves - it's Silky Pony:

"Senator Edwards knew seven years ago that people would be hurt, so why did he vote for China trade?" Kucinich asked. "How credible is his newfound consumer protectionism and his campaign advocacy for trade reform to save American jobs?"

Well, channeling the dead in court should indicate additional extra-sensory abilities, I suppose. But even though Edwards' crystal ball was limited to the recently deceased, apparently Dennis did know, else he wouldn't have the moral authority to attack those who were prognostication-challenged. But how? I think I've figured out what he's up to with the outstretched-arm thing:

That's right - he's positioning himself for better reception from the mothership.

Posted on Delaware Watch is the below video on Diego Garcia. I'm not studied on the primary subject of British policy in Diego Garcia, but the second minute of the piece paints the US military as baby killers. Sadly, this kind of disgusting totally untrue smear of the troops happens far too frequently in leftist circles. It is beyond dispute that no military in history has worked harder than ours to avoid civilian casualties.

The piece does show what appears to be horrible treatment of the indigenous population of Diego Garcia. However, its view of the U.S. military is so dishonestly wrong that the rest of the piece is highly suspect.

There's a lesson here. Journalists who really care about exposing injustices should check any ideology at the door else risk discrediting any good they might accomplish. Same goes for those who spread it.

Update: If the atrocities outlined in the film are real, then notable are the dates - the key years for the United States' involvement are between 1961 and 1968 - all during Democrat administrations.

I'm sure that makes it all OK, right? Since it was for the "common good", after all...

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

Unless you're not paying attention, the over-expansion of SCHIP has little to do with children and more to do with the gradual implementation of socialized medicine. If the Democrats fail to provide President Bush with a veto-proof bill, they'll need a replacement to further their desire for increased socialism. If they succeed, they'll need another target to exploit. Where will that target come from? Win or lose, SCHIP will soon be difficult, if not impossible, target for further expansion - at least the short term. The next target might be a perennial favorite - veterans.

Friday's New York Times offers an unsigned editorial giving us a heads up on what might be next on their agenda:

Although many Americans believe that the nation’s veterans have ready access to health care, that is far from the case. A new study by researchers at the Harvard Medical School has found that millions of veterans and their dependents have no access to care in veterans’ hospitals and clinics and no health insurance to pay for care elsewhere. Their plight represents yet another failure of our disjointed health care system to provide coverage for all Americans.

The new study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, estimated that in 2004 nearly 1.8 million veterans were uninsured and unable to get care in veterans’ facilities. An additional 3.8 million members of their households faced the same predicament. All told, this group made up roughly 12 percent of the huge population of uninsured Americans.

First, the study (which can be found here) is very specific that the numbers are for those who don't qualify for VA medical care in the first place. Yet the Times neglects to mention it, leading the uninformed to believe that we have soldiers maimed in combat going without medical care.

The VA provides medical care to those with service-related illness and veterans who are demonstrably poor. All other veterans used to be able to seek care on a space-available basis - these are known as "group 8", and are defined as follows by the VA:

Group 8: All other non service-connected veterans and zero percent, non-compensable service-connected veterans who agree to pay co-pays.

Note that families are not included in the definition.

Group 8 veterans were seen less frequently in VA hospitals as the draw down during the 90's reduced the number of facilities while increasing the number of veterans, and the VA stopped enrolling Group 8 vets in 2003.

Even the number of uninsured veterans isn't necessarily the tragedy that the Times wishes you to believe. The study, although newly published, is itself not new. One of the authors, Stephanie J. Woolhandler, testified before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs back in June of this year. She admitted to the true nature of these uninsured vets:

Only about half of the 1.8 million uninsured veterans are classified Priority 8, Woolhandler said. The rest may technically be eligible for some VA care but live too far from its facilities for it to be a real option, she said.

In other words, even if they were eligible they likely wouldn't be getting VA health care, due to lack of either capacity or proximity.

We're also provided some insight in to the Ms. Woolhandler's motivations as well:

Woolhandler is a well-known advocate of guaranteeing access to health care for all Americans through a government-run national health insurance program.

Also, the study includes this graph showing that veterans have a measurably lower uninsured rate than the general population, and rate of increase in number of uninsured correlates to that of the general population as well:

Match the graph to the alarmist Bush bashing in the author's press release:

“Since President Bush took office the number of uninsured vets has skyrocketed, and he’s cut eligibility, barring hundreds of thousands of veterans from care. This administration has put troops in harm’s way overseas and abandoned them and their families once they got home,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, co-author of the study and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. “We need a solution that works for veterans, their families, and all Americans - single payer national health insurance.”

While the version of the study published in the American Journal of Public Health doesn't have an overly-large agenda-driven bent, this version of it does, as its conclusion illustrates:

We believe that only a single payer national health insurance system can affordably cover all Americans – including veterans.

The NYT finishes this disingenuous editorial with this:

An even better solution would be some form of universal health coverage for all Americans. Then even veterans who live far from a V.A. facility, and a host of dependents who are not now eligible, could get the care they need.

So here we have the New York Times using a highly agenda-driven study with politically-motivated conclusions as evidence that we need socialized medicine. In true form, they ignore the parts of the study that conflict with their assertions. Despicably, they're using veterans and their families as their vehicle of choice to advance their socialist agenda. Don't be surprised if this becomes the replacement for SCHIP in the Democrat's march to socialism.

Funny how much they love the troops when it advances their agenda, isn't it?.

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

"The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences."

Actually, I think "No immigration reform" is a good thing, but it's a small quibble. Please go read the whole article. I'm bookmarking this one.

Hideous.

Lamentably, I killed your cat while trying just to sting it. It was crouched, as usual, under one of our bird feeders & I fired from some distance with bird shot.

Had the Iranians been hanging around under his bird feeder in 1979, we might not have a terrorist threat today.

Well, his antics over the last few days helped his image with someone:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In the first real test of grassroots support for the eight Democratic Presidential candidates, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich scored a stunning first place finish nationally and topped every other candidate in 41 of 50 states, according to results released late last night by Democracy for America (DFA).

Of the 150,000-plus ballots cast, Kucinich received more votes than former Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama combined. Kucinich tallied 49,364 (31.97%), compared with Edwards' 24,078 (15.6%), Obama's 21,403 (13.86%), and Senator Hillary Clinton's 6,504 (4.21%).

Of course, it's a self-parodying poll:

Undeclared write-in candidate and former Vice President Al Gore scored second nationally with 24.77% of the vote, and he "won" six states: New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida.

Hmmm. Unscientific web poll with numbers dramatically at odds with any respected national poll, over-the-top fanaticism for wildly non-mainstream views.... Wonder how much bleed-over from the fans of Ron Paul? Come to think of it, has anyone ever seen Ron Paul's supporters in the same place and time as Kucinich's supporters? Hmmm?

Had the Republican's gambit worked, the house would have debated for an hour followed by a vote. Republicans would have had a field day shaming the ludicrous assertions in the resolution, such as "Keeping all options on the table" meaning that Cheney was conspiring to wage war with Iran.

Back later with more...

Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

WASHINGTON - House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Bruising indeed. It would have been fun to watch, too. Statement from the White House in the same article:

The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

And I managed to make it all the way through the post without exploiting the extraterrestrial angle!

It's kind of a girl fight story with a little moonbatty BDS thrown in to stroke the base:

"Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire," Edwards said, referring to two crucial early-voting states.

"She's giving the administration exactly what it wants again."

Edwards also warned in a speech in Iowa City, that the Bush administration was trying to use attacks on US forces in Iraq, to justify a war with Iran.

"George Bush, Dick Cheney and the neocon warmongers used 9/11 to start a war with Iraq, now they're trying to use Iraq to start a war with Iran," he said.

This stuff from Edwards and the others is going to be pure gold for the Republicans next year. We've already seen Hillary play the "victim girl" card, so expect it to be played after she wins the nomination and the Republican candidate points out any inconsistency, no matter how accurate, in her positions. Having Democrats make the point instead will be so much easier.

Do you think these folks are going to rally around Hillary after she gets the nod? Count on it. And even the least amount of critical review from the press will prompt the best tap-dancin' you've ever seen. All the latest dust-ups between Hillary and the other candidates also serve to illustrate that they know how dishonest their positions are - it just takes a heated primary to get 'em to admit it.

I tried to call, but couldn't get through at all. Of course he'll say that the "interested citizens" are all supports of his impeachment effort. My guess is that folks on the right tipped 'em over the edge. Yay, team. Or perhaps he couldn't establish an up-link with the mother ship:

Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is planning to re-schedule a nationwide conference call to discuss Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard B. Cheney after tonight's planned event encountered technical problems stemming largely from the overwhelming volume of calls from interested citizens.

The Kucinich campaign apologized for the snafu, explaining that staff had significantly underestimated the number of call-ins, and public interest in the issue exceeded technological capacity. The call will be re-scheduled within the next few days.

Kucinich, author and prime sponsor of the impeachment measure against Cheney, will be introducing a privileged resolution to the House tomorrow (Tuesday) to force a vote on the matter of impeachment.

I'll let you know if/when they reschedule.

Update (11/6/07 7:45AM): "Stay tuned for the day-long circus."

Update (11/6/07 9:48AM): Welcome Michelle Malkin readers! Thanks for the link, Michelle!

Oh, and if you didn't make it here through Michelle's post, head over there - she has the full text of the UFO-fueled resolution to impeach Cheney in all it's lunatic glory!

Three guesses who she blames, and the first two don't count:

"For too long, President Musharraf failed to confront effectively his growing unpopularity. The Bush Administration enabled Musharraf's delusion by ignoring his undemocratic acts and lack of internal support in exchange for his assistance in efforts against terrorism.

"Pakistan will only be a reliable and capable ally against terrorism when its government is not seen as an enemy by its own people. The interests of the United States are best advanced by policies that do not promote one goal at the expense of the other."

It's always Bush's fault with these people, isn't it? However, there's more than a little irony in Nancy taking a jab at Musharraf failing to address his unpopularity as she leads a House with the lowest approval rating in history. Instead of taking cheap BDS-driven shots at the administration, maybe she should address her own "growing unpopularity".

Update (11/6/07 7:08AM): Patrick Leahy blames Bush, too.

• The call-in number is (641) 715-3300.
• When the operator asks for an access code, key in 324341#.
• The call is  open to all interested citizens.

Update: Thanks for the link, Hot Air!  And welcome Hot Air readers!  We're just getting going again after a very, very long break, so not many recent posts yet - but feel free to look around!

Only in the extraterrestrially-addled brain of Dennis Kucinich could the phrase " ... if we fail in Iraq, it will advantage Iran" be transmogrified into "From the Oval Office on down, this Administration has been targeting Iran as the next domino it wants to topple..."

Shame and embarrassment over being associated with an obvious loony like Kucinich is surely going to cause a drop in the numbers for the next national poll about UFO sightings and abductions.

In a rare but surely fleeting moment of productivity on behalf of the country's best interests for the most unpopular congress in history, the ban was extended for 7 years.

Don't expect it to last, though. The Democrat-controlled Congress (with the lowest approval rating in history) will get back to their usual investigations, pork-barrel spending, corruption,, and shorter work week any minute now.

From yesterday evening on Fox News (via Hot Air):

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

A few folks were willing to give him a pass the last time. Not me, and I knew he'd repeat it sooner or later. To Charlie, our troops are greedy and/or desperate mercenaries who lack the civic spirit to join the military for altruistic reasons.

And we get some insight as to why he feels this way: "...as I did when I was 18 years old". Since the only reason Charlie joined was to escape his own poor neighborhood, that must be why everyone else joins. Very sad.

Maybe the lack of opportunity was what drove him to seek public office as well. You know, 'cause nobody would submit to being interviewed on Fox News if they had a decent career.

Over at Hot Air, watch the video of Charlie defending his proposal to reinstate the draft (something he's done before, if you'll remember).

Allahpundit couldn't follow it. Michelle couldn't follow it. It's mostly nonsense.

However....

It really sounds to me like he's suggesting that the troops aren't patriotic since money was all that lured them into service.

Added to Kerry's infamous moment of Freudian clarity and Murtha's characterizations, does that mean that Democratic leadership views the troops as stupid, lazy, cold-blooded mercenaries?

Maybe he'd like to eliminate pay, benefits, and bonuses to the troops. You know, so only the real patriots would want to serve be conscripted...

Well, good luck with that, Charlie.

Other bloggers confused by what Rangel said:

Conservative Blog Therapy
Jeremayakovka
Right Voices

After all, we've been thinking the same as Mort for some time now...

Update: Thanks for the link, Gary. And you don't need to steal it, you're welcome to use it anytime!

Naturally I'm talking about oil, folks. Something that's cheaper and easier to get everywhere else on the planet - and as a result, domestic production is a rusting shadow of it's former self.

The good news is the Dems' regognition that given the lack of a mandate for their reign in Congress, there's a limited amount of punishment they can mete out:

Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground given the narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

The bad news is that energy independence has a different meaning to the left than it should. Indeed, their plan is to discourage it:

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over the first 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion dollar subsidies for Big Oil."

The subsidies in question are intended to encourage domestic production, something that has become excessively cumbersome and costly due to decades of liberal regulation and roadblocking:

Topping the list for repeal are:

_Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration.

_A measure passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they chose to drill in this country instead of going abroad.

Of course, these are going to be easy targets for the Democrats, as the oil companies are none too popular with folks on the right or left after posting record profits in recent quarters. I accept that I'm in the minority on this issue.

But a little common sense should be applied here. Shouldn't any legislation pitched as promoting "energy independence" make domestic harvesting and refining of oil cheaper and easier? Seems to me this will have the exact opposite effect.

Keep an eye on the horizon, though, as there are darker views on the oil companies that if acted upon, will serve to punish the poor and middle class even further:

Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said if the country is to reduce its addiction to oil and high energy prices it needs a "crash program" to develop more alternative energy sources, dramatically increase conservation and examine "whether or not we should break up the big oil companies."

Next year, Schumer assumes the No. 3 leadership position among Senate Democrats and will be one of the party's top strategists.

I'm tempted to quote Milton, who wrote several good passages about the petty behaviour the left's proposals demonstrate. Instead, I'm going to butcher a quote from Jean Baudrillard - originally in reference to Halloween, it easily and accurately adapts to our new Congressional majority:

There is nothing funny about the left. This sarcastic festival reflects, rather, an infernal demand for revenge by children on the adult world.

Yesterday gave us a couple of closely-related profiles in negativity:

Halfway around the world, a man driven by hatred performs an old ritual intended to cause ill toward President Bush:

Ki Gendeng Pamungkas slit the throat of a goat, a small snake and stabbed a black crow in the chest, stirred their blood with spice and broccoli before drank the "potion" and smeared some on his face.

"I don't hate Americans, but I don't like Bush," said Pamungkas, who believed the ritual would succeed as, "the devil is with me today."

Closer to home, a group of people driven by hatred performed an old ritual intended to cause ill toward President Bush:

WASHINGTON - Nancy Pelosi was unanimously named speaker-elect by House Democrats Thursday, the first woman set to take the post that is second in line of succession to the presidency.

Like Mr. Pamungkas, the Dems even had their own sacrifice, a carefully selected old goat offered up by a snake who crowed about the goat all week:

Nancy Pelosi, set to become the first woman to head the U.S. House of Representatives, suffered an embarrassing defeat on Thursday when fellow Democrats rejected her choice of a key foe of the Iraq war as her deputy.

At least the Dems had the good taste not to smear any of their sacrifice on their faces.

Added: Before I get tons of angry emails saying that these two events aren't even remotely similar - yes, I know, the Dems didn't use Broccoli. But Pelosi comes from a state that grows it. So there.

Anyone who really believed that the left would behave better that the right regarding pork and spending discipline need look no further than Nancy Pelosi over the next two years to see if that faith was deserved:

"There's a long tradition where not only can you bring back your average pork as a member of Congress, but speaker pork gives you a lot of money, a lot of influence over the purse," said Julian E. Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University.

Pelosi, a Democrat, will be the first Californian to hold the post, and congressional watchdogs say they'll be observing her new spending clout with great interest.

There are "a lot of peeping chicks everywhere," said Tim Ransdell, executive director of the California Institute for Federal Policy Research in Washington, D.C. "And implicitly the House speaker has a nice war chest to start with."

Aides to Pelosi don't dispute that the state will benefit from a changing of the guard at the Capitol. "From the speaker's chair to committee chairs, Californians in Congress will have additional clout to help the home state," said Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider.

While it's possible that Rep. Pelosi has indeed repaired and will become the champion of responsible budgeting, Pelosi's own aides hint at the misplaced faith of the electorate. And the history of the California Representative suggests the type of pattern that politicians rarely abandon.

As a reminder, Pelosi verbally pandered on earmark reform but was too too busy picking out drapes to study for the test. And the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste gives her a lifetime score of 13.

And with President Bush's reluctance to use his veto power... well, all I gotta say is get ready for the spending spree.

Now that campaign rhetoric is no longer necessary, they can stop pretending:

WASHINGTON - Legislation aimed at President Bush's once-secret program for wiretapping U.S.-foreign phone calls and computer traffic of suspected terrorists without warrants shows all the signs of not moving ahead, notwithstanding President Bush's request this week that a lame-duck Congress give it to him.

Senate Democrats, emboldened by Election Day wins that put them in control of Congress as of January, say they would rather wait until next year to look at the issue. "I can't say that we won't do it, but there's no guarantee that we're going spend a lot of time on controversial measures," Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois said Thursday.

In Senate parlance, that means no.

Of course, we knew this all along, didn't we? Indeed, rather than risk accidentally finding out what the terrorists are up to, the Democrats would rather follow Conyer's dream of endless investigations and impeachment:

Indeed, rather than move to authorize the program, Democrats said they would push in January to investigate how the program had been run and would seek legislation to restrict or ban outright the use of wiretaps without warrants.

Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who is all but assured of taking over the House Judiciary Committee, has been one of the fiercest critics of the program and some other counterterrorism operations, saying he considers them abusive and potentially illegal infringements on civil liberties.

The shedding of such tears for the trampled rights of terrorists in far-away countries is because they care, folks. They care.

Update: To those in unwrapped territory eagerly anticipating that the new Congress will sate their hate-driven lust for presidential blood, the operative word is "Joyous".

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said Friday he would step down as Palestinian prime minister if that would persuade the West to lift debilitating economic sanctions.

Now if he can convince the rest of his pals to join him, we might have something.

Lieberman says "Call me a Democrat".

C'mon, is anyone really surprised?

Hey CREW, if you folks are still into attacking churches, how's about checking this out?

NASHVILLE -- In his race for U.S. Senate, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) has been outspent by millions, and his image has been battered by a barrage of negative ads, including the now-infamous spot with a blonde floozy that has been pulled off the air. Several polls show him trailing.

But being an underdog has its own righteous appeal, and the campaign used that status yesterday not only to rally voters but as evidence that God had looked with favor upon the Democratic campaign.

The fact that they are still in the race despite the odds, Ford told an African American crowd at Mount Zion Baptist Church here, was evidence that "we got something else at work."

"I think the congressman said something wise -- we got another manager in this race," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told the group.

(crickets chirping)

um, guys?

(crickets chirping)

I thought so.

The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat weighed in yesterday with their thoughts on the Murtha - Irey Congressional race, and it's not pretty (H/T Irey campaign). Unlike the NYT editorial endorsing Lamont, this one actually talks about the candidate they endorse - and they have little nice to say about him besides approving of his "cut and run" war stance. Emphasis added:

On his famous love for pork:

While we endorse the local congressman in his re-election bid, we fear the spending spree that might result from a shift in power...

On his smearing of the troops, which has made him very unpopular with the military:

We would also urge Murtha to sit down with area veterans who clearly have different views on the Iraq conflict than he does.

On his alignment with the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party:

We are frightened by Murtha’s willingness to align himself with California Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, Murtha is hoping that relationship paves the way for his ascension to a position of higher power in the House. But we don’t believe our region’s values match well with Pelosi’s, and we don’t see much good coming for the 12th district – even if the relationship benefits the congressman.

Beyond that, Murtha has endeared himself to liberals on both coasts – raising money for his allies in California, New England and elsewhere. We hope he can keep these “friends” and their spending ways in check if the Democrats retake the House.

They even acknowlege how corrupt he is, hoping he can restrain his urges:

But we urge him to remain faithful to his fiscally and socially conservative western Pennsylvania roots – even if it costs him in personal gain and national influence.

Read the whole editorial. It's painfully clear what the Tribune-Democrat is saying here - "Murtha sucks, but vote for him anyway 'cause he's a Democrat."

The Tribune-Democrat's editorial staff has surely reached new lows when their bias toward the left causes them to endorse a candidate whom they acknowlege is unsuitable in most ways. Do they really believe the voters in Johnstown are dense enough to buy it?

Update: Those troops that Murtha rushes to condemn have a few thoughts about cutting and running (H/T Captain's Quarters). The Tribune-Democrat is right, the troops simply don't agree with Murtha.

Via Little Green Footballs, a revealing view of Ned Lamont's base:

It certainly fits the pattern I've noticed among some Lamont supporters. I'm not ready to put a label on it, save to say that even just a small hint of it here and there is certainly disturbing and sad.

The nutroots know how utterly unappealing these views are to most Americans, and some are trying to keep a lid on any open discussion that may cast them in a bad light. Right now, in some places, if you use a normally acceptable far-left greeting such as "Gaza is a gulag", you might be answered with "...let’s leave this subject alone until next Wednesday. Please."

How very sad.

H/T to KnightHawk for this chilling view of how terrorist leaders are viewing the prospects of a Democratic Party win next week:

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Nancy Pelosi recently suggested on "60 Minutes" that the insurgency would stop if only we left. Not so, say the terrorists:

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Once shown that their tactics are a success, what incentive would they have to stop? Why would a winning team throw away their playbook?

If the left wins, it will be a victory indeed - if you're a terrorist.

From Kerry's website earlier:

Statement of Senator John Kerry

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative..." - In other words, "It's a shame that the troops (and the rest of you ignorant peasants as well) are too lazy and uneducated to understand the finely nuanced humor from my superior intellect."

This is as forced an apology as I've ever heard. And the addition of swipes at the right just give the impression that he hasn't had a change of heart since he made the "I don't apologize" speech yesterday. He's sorry anyone was offended, but not sorry he said it.

Even if, as he says, was making a joke about Bush, it would still warrant an apology. I've griped about the level of discourse in politics before, nowhere is it more of a problem than among our elected officials. The decline of statesmanship in Congress over the last thirty years is truly shameful. As a country, we deserve for our elected officials to set standards for dignity and grace. They can and should disagree - just act like adults.

Making jokes about the troops or the president in this manner is simply juvenile. It shows a distinct lack of maturity and character. The inability to offer a simple and contrite apology when necessary is a serious flaw - one that Kerry seems determined to display over and over.

Nope - this didn't cut it.

Here's a sad tale about someone who probably would have cheered Kerry's meltdown as a good thing for the left. That is, he would if he hadn't been so busy with problems of his own:

A US lawyer who released information in 2000 about President George W Bush's drunken driving conviction has been arrested after he dressed up as al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and waved a fake gun at traffic.

Police in South Portland, Maine, arrested Thomas Connolly, 49, of Scarborough, Maine, and charged him with criminal threatening.

An earlier version of the story (now removed) included this:

Police said the costume included plastic dynamite, grenades, and a replica of an AK-47 assault rifle.

The earlier version also stated that Mr. Connolly has been doing this kind of thing for years, frequently donning a George Bush Mask and dancing around on overpasses. This fellow didn't just snap yesterday, folks. He's been simmering in a BDS stew for a very long time.

Now you might think that someone this disturbed would be a loner - after all, what kind of family would out up with a guy who hates Bush so much that he dresses up in terrorist garb to harrass motorists? Just to prove that there really is someone out there for everyone:

His wife has described him as "marvelously eccentric."

This should give hope to sane singles everywhere. If he can find and keep a mate, then truly nobody should have to be alone if they don't wish it.

Connolly ran for Governor of Maine in 1998, and is considered a hero by many on the left for releasing details about George Bush's DWI back in 2000.

Sometimes we all wonder at the lunacy of the leading lights of the left without remembering that someone out there approves of and supports these "real men". Connolly is one such supporter.

Speaking as a 20 year veteran of the U.S. Air Force, I'd like to let John Kerry know that I didn't join because I was lazy and stupid. Even more insulting than his statement is this attempt to blame others for his greasy smear against the troops:

Washington – Senator John Kerry issued the following statement in response to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, assorted right wing nut-jobs, and right wing talk show hosts desperately distorting Kerry’s comments about President Bush to divert attention from their disastrous record:

Nut-jobs? What Kerry said was clear as day. But if you quote it, you're a nut-job?

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

Yes I do think a veteran would - if he's in the Democratic Party. Kerry forgets about his own remarks about our troops "terrorizing women and children in the dark of night", and the infamous verbal criminal conviction bestowed on our troops by his pal Murtha. Oh, and I did serve - a hell of a lot longer than Kerry, too. Having met Kerry's criteria, I suppose he would respect my right to speak out:

Mr. Kerry, you're a despicable excuse for a human being. To denigrate me and the millions of veterans and active duty in order to get a cheap shot during a political speech shows you to be lacking in both intelligence and soul.

Ahem. Back to Kerry's misdirection:

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

Typical - drag in the sick guy as a sympathetic victim - maybe it will distract someone from Kerry's sad remarks about our military professionals.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

This entire line has been proven a lie time and time again. Oh, and when did Katrina become a country?

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.”

"Real Men"? Going for laughs won't get him out of this. Kerry has shown his contempt for servicemen over and over again, even as he aspired to lead them. Thank God he didn't get the chance.

Kerry screwed up big this time. And has the gall to declare himself a "real man" while he tries to blame his mistakes on President Bush and "right wing nut-jobs". In the meantime, real men (and women) are putting their asses on the line in Iraq and elsewhere. And Mr. Kerry better hope for all our sakes that what he thinks about them isn't true.

Update: Kerry makes a statement to the press, says it was a botched joke. I'm hoping to link a site with video soon.

Update 2: As usual, Hot Air has it!

With only a week to go until election day, this would be a good day for these two to come out of hiding.

That's two houses you shouldn't take your kids to. Neither is a treat.

We fully expected that the New York Times, given its strong anti-war stance and clear partisan agenda, would repeat their misguided primary endorsement of Ned Lamont for the general election. But we never imagined the Times of all papers would produce such an intellectually dishonest and shoddy editorial as they published Sunday.

Personally, I think it's a mistake for Lieberman's campaign to respond in such an angry manner. Instead, pointing out how in 11 paragraphs the only nice thing they had to say about Lamont is that he's not Lieberman as I did yesterday would have done more to educate the voters. After all, when even the NYT admits that Lamont is an empty suit...

On the other hand, the editorial was pretty dishonest, and it's understandable that Joe's campaign felt it deserved some sort of response. Now that Joe is outside the (D) bubble, he's having to deal with a vicious media just like us on the right. Hell of a learning curve he's got ahead of him - the NYT won't care about any facts Joe has to offer. Neither will many on the left, either.

Why, just responding at all is liable to make him seem desperate to folks in the land of blackface and bigotry. And here's a suggestion from one of their commenters on where someone like Joe could go if he loses the election:

That's two. I really hope it's not what it looks like. Very sad indeed.

This comes up every election - the agreement made with the Dems promising not to notice voter fraud unless it happens right in front of a poll-watcher's nose:

That consent decree prohibits the RNC from engaging in, assisting in or participating in any "ballot security program," other than "normal poll watch functions," "unless the program (including the method and timing of any challenges resulting from the program) has been determined by this Court to comply with the provisions of the Consent Order and applicable law." Applications by the RNC "for determination of ballot security programs by the Court shall be made following 20 days notice to the DNC which notice shall include a description of the program to be undertaken, the purpose(s) to be served and the reasons why the program complies with the Consent Order and applicable law."

At this point, it is too late for the RNC to comply with the 20 day deadline for notifying the DNC of any intended application to the Court for approval of any ballot security program. We assume, therefore, that the RNC does not intend to apply to the Court for approval of any such program, and that you intend to respect both the letter and the spirit of the law. For that reason, we also assume that the RNC will refrain from engaging in, assisting in or participating in any "ballot security program" carried out by anyone, including the RNC itself, its state or local parties, Republican candidates or allied organizations such as the Republican National Lawyers Association or National Republican Senatorial Committee.

It doesn't matter 25 years after the fact why there's a consent decree - it's what the Dems use it for here and now. And if a Republican sees voter fraud outside the scope of the decree, the Dems will use the decree to prevent any consequences.

It's comical that Howard would issue this letter decades after its relevance ended when in much more recent times, he and his party have blocked (or attempted to block) every single proposal to stem voter fraud. And illegal immigrants, imaginary people, and the dead are voting in droves, mostly for Democrats.

No, I guess it really isn't comical, is it?

...but occasionally it comes out for all to see. There's a pattern this year - the racist treatment of Steele, racism (and yesterday's possible anti-semitism) in liberal blogs. The constant screeching of "racism" at conservatives in cases where there is none.

Hate does this - nothing else can.

Does anyone really think these people will calm down and start acting like adults if they win?

Of course, we know where they aren't:

Jack Carter has tried to reach out to Nevada voters who the Carters say 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry ignored. He talks openly about his Baptist faith, and appeared last weekend with his father at a black church in Las Vegas.

But it's okay when they do it....

When Lynne Cheney was ambushed last Friday on CNN, she make Blitzer look like an idiot. So it should be unsurprising that CNN would retaliate:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lynne Cheney is deflecting talk of the sexual content in her novel "Sisters," a 25-year-old book that resurfaced in a campaign Friday and is stirring up controversy.

The novel, featuring a lesbian love affair, was brought up Friday amid a contentious Senate race in Virginia. Soon a Democratic committee and Cheney herself -- in an interview on CNN -- were weighing in.

This is probably one of the weakest hit jobs ever, though. The author of the article clearly has not read the book "Sisters", makes no quotes to back up the assertion, and is confident that you won't be able to either:

Readers will have a hard time judging the content of the book for themselves. The few copies available are selling for hundreds of dollars each.

On Amazon.com Sunday, four used copies of "Sisters" were being sold, ranging from $695.95 for one in "acceptable" condition to $999 for a copy in "collectible -- good" condition. Ebay had two copies available, with requested opening bids of $200 and $500. Froogle.com, on Sunday afternoon, found the cheapest copies available barely under $300.

Some of these prices were set before the latest blow-up over the work of fiction. It was not immediately clear what impact the last few days have had.

So where does CNN expect you to get the information to judge for yourself? The Democrats:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a news release listing sexual passages in books by Cheney and other GOP conservatives, including Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The DSCC said Cheney's books featured brothels and attempted rape.

'Cause we all know the Dems would never say anything mean or untrue about a Republican, right? And after all, that seems to be where CNN gets much of their news nowadays, so why shouldn't you?

Harold Ford shoots a campaign commercial in a church. Seems like material support to me...

Think Melanie Sloan will notice?

The NYT today wrote an endorsement of Ned Lamont that strangely mentions almost nothing about Ned Lamont. For the NYT, it all boils down to one thing:

He and Mr. Bush are still on the very same page, encouraging the American people to believe that there is a happy ending for American involvement in Iraq, and that all it takes is the perseverance to keep marching toward the end of the rainbow.

Save for the war, Ned Lamont's positions are not mentioned. For that matter, Leiberman's aren't either. The entire endorsement is a nutty wild-eyed "Leiberman = Bush so vote Lamont because he's not" rant.

It's so pathetic and narrow I'd be surprised if it wasn't taken as an insult by Connecticut voters.

BTW, I cheer for neither. Lieberman, despite his views on the GWOT, is a liberal through and through. Ned Lamont is simply an empty shirt who apparently can't form complete sentences without his handlers flapping his lips. I just think it's a pity that the NYT apparently thinks the voters in Connecticut are that one-dimensional.

Update: What does Ned Lamont's biggest fan and full-time cheerleader think of the Times belittling the voters of CT as sad one-dimensional comic-strip characters mindlessly blinded to all but the NYT's BDS-driven hatred for Joe? No surprise here:

"I think this rocks."

And from the comments, a somewhat dark and disturbing reason to vote for Lamont. Well, what apparently passes for one from this FDL commenter:

...Joe has a lot of nose hairs and that really bothers me.

Hmmm. Is that what it really sounds like?

Gee, I sure hope not. Such tolerance. Very, very sad.

Update 2: Here's an example of an endorsement that actually considers the candidate being endorsed.

Update 3: Come to think about it, I can't imagine this spurring a whole lot of high-fiving over at Lamont headquarters. Lamont can't be happy about getting an endorsement based on nothing more than "we hate Joe". Kinda like being the next to the last guy picked at a sandlot game - nobody wants him, but they want the last guy even less....

If you heard of a company:

- A large U.S. company.
- A company whose suppliers were almost all overseas.
- A company whose profit has increased at high levels for years.
- A company who, upon learning that of of it's third world supplier nations was attempting to increase wages for its impoverished workers, actively worked to block them in order to keep costs low.

What would you think? If you're on the left, you're might be thinking I'm talking about Wal-Mart. But you'd be wrong:

Starbucks, the giant US coffee chain, has used its muscle to block an attempt by Ethiopia's farmers to copyright their most famous coffee bean types, denying them potential earnings of up to £47m a year, said Oxfam.

The development agency said the Ethiopian government last year filed copyright applications to trademark its most famous coffee names - Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe. Securing the rights to these names would enable the impoverished African country to control their use in the market and allow farmers to receive a greater share of the retail price.

The move would have increased its annual export earnings from coffee by 25%.

But Oxfam said Starbucks, which enjoyed a 22% rise in annual global turnover to £7.8bn in the year to October, has acted to block Ethiopia's application to the US patent and trademark office.

Starbucks claims they pay an average of $1.28 / lb for coffee worldwide, but in Ethiopia, it's as low as 60 cents. No wonder they feature an Ethiopian blend on the Starbucks website.

Hmmm. I wonder if a price increase would affect its sustainability?

Considering their target demographic here in the US, you'd think Starbucks would be more sensitive. On the other hand, considering where the money goes, do ya think the left will even notice? Next time you enter a Starbucks, if you happen to pass a couple of forty-something women with unshaved legs and "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers on the lids of their laptops discussing the evils of Wal-Mart, smile and nod as you pass.

One of the left's most repugnant figures is Michael Rogers. He's the sleaze who's been claiming to have a list of gay Republicans he intends to expose. The rest of the left seems to at least privately applaud his disgusting campaign - as long as it helps the cause, right, guys?

Outing a few minor staffers has been greeted by collective snores, I guess he's decided to up the ante with a little guilt by association. Press release here.

Anyway, the pond was left uncovered for a brief time today as Rogers set his sights on none other than Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican Party. Apparently in Michael Roger's world, if you have a gay friend, you must be gay yourself:

Today, I challenge to James Dobson to ask Ken directly: Are you a member of the so-called "homosexual lifestyle" and do you expect my followers to support you at the polls?

Rogers seem to forget an itty bitty fact - Ken Mehlman isn't running for office, and Dobson's "followers" won't see Ken's name on any ballot. Oh, and there's also a very lame video there with nothing to support his innuendo. Zzzzzzzzzz.

I'm waiting for his claim that President Bush is gay cause he knows Dick Cheney's daughter. What a pathetic loser.

The left, through their shills in the media, have been enjoying themselves thoroughly over the remarks made by Rush about Michael J. Fox. Here's what they're reporting about the interview had last night with Katie Couric:

NEW YORK (AP) -- In a response to charges by conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox defended his appearance in recent political campaign ads, saying he was neither acting nor off his medication for Parkinson's disease.

On the contrary, he had been overmedicated, the actor said during an interview aired on Thursday's "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric."

"The irony of it is that I was too medicated," Fox told Couric, adding that his jumpy condition as he spoke to her reflected "a dearth of medication -- not by design. I just take it, and it kicks in when it kicks in."

"That's funny -- the notion that you could calculate it for effect," he said. "Would that we could."

The 7 1/2-minute interview with Fox, whose shaking at one point dislodged the microphone clipped to his jacket lapel, aired in two segments taped Thursday afternoon on the "Evening News" set. (Watch fox tell Couric that he doesn't want pity -- :32)

Fox drew some conservative criticism after an ad began running in Missouri during the World Series. It showed Fox visibly shaking while urging fans to vote yes for stem-cell research and Democratic Senate challenger Claire McCaskill -- and no to the Republican incumbent Jim Talent. (Watch the visibly ill Fox make a pitch for McCatskill -- 2:35)

"They say all politics is local, but it's not always the case," Fox says in the 30-second spot. "What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans -- Americans like me."

The Democrats have largely succeeded with the ads - a prominent conservative figure gave them the soundbite they wanted: "either off his medication or acting". And Ann Coulter, despite her ill-chosen words about the 9-11 widows, has been proven right once again about the tactics of the left. The right is villified as cruel and uncaring about the sick and dying in the ads, and in the aftermath, now stand accused of attacking the sick and defenseless messenger.

Were it not for the fact that left's entire argument is built on a lie, it would be perfect. As a result, I predict little effect on the elections. While the ads will sway a few of the gullible, those who already have views that disagree with their premise will just be angered.

In the interview last night, Fox claims to respect the views of those who object to killing human embryos for medical research. But the message in his ads shows that he in fact has none. Indeed, Michael's message is "If you don't vote for the Democrats, I will suffer. If the Republicans win, my blood will be on your hands." How selfish and cynical he is in this galling demagoguery. Rather than tiptoe around Fox's illness (wouldn't want to offend, after all), the true nature of these repugnant ads should be held up as an example of the of why the left is unfit to lead.

To Michael (and the Democrats who you support):

How dare you?

How dare you suggest that my belief that we shouldn't kill the unborn for medical research equates to a desire for you to suffer?

How dare you infer that my belief that all lives are equally important and deserving of our protection equates to a desire for you to die?

Again, how dare you? You and those you campaign for show an ugliness that should have become extinct long ago, along with the medical experiments that were routinely performed on those who couldn't defend themselves in asylums, prisons, and most recently, concentration camps. To those of us who believe that life begins at conception, your side has ressurected that barbaristic and inhumane mindset. Apparently the presence of shiny stainless steel equipment and starched white labcoats makes it all oh-so clinical, emotionless, and acceptable to you. To me, it's same twisted reasoning that defended slavery as natural order because "they aren't really human".

You also claim you want respect and not pity. But if the only way, in your view, for that respect to be shown is to accede to your selfish and barbaristic wants, then you shall not have it. For your small-minded and disrespectful view of my beliefs, and your inability to shed a brutal ethos that should have perished at Dachau, you have earned my pity.

Oh, and about the flap with Rush - his statements have been argued completely elsewhere, I feel no need to go into them at length. For what it's worth, though, I disagree with Captain Ed, who appears to feel that Rush's remarks were appropriate. Instead, I fall on the side that feels Rush erred in his phrasing. He nearly got it right - then he backed off, fearing what the reaction would be. I wish he had been more bold instead.

Yes, CREW gave me a visit. I didn't believe it at first, so I emailed CREW through their contact page and received confirmation that the comment was genuine. I'll have to admit to being very surprised - I'm not usually kind in my posts about CREW.

I posted a few days ago about CREW's complaint to the DOJ concerning Curt Weldon. A comment was posted by Naomi Seligman Steiner, CREW's Deputy Director, taking issue with what I posted. Here's her comment:

In response to your wrongful assertion, CREW did recieve the e-mails as they appear. They were redacted upon receipt. CREW did not edit them in any way.

Naomi Seligman Steiner
CREW

The statement challenged by Ms. Stein was this sentence following the images of the emails:

"All of the dark line redacting was CREW's doing, I smudged out a few names they left in place."

I wrote this to explain the two visually different types of editing done on the images - the heavy black lines vs the smudging I added. No other point was intended by the statement. However, I should have worded it differently. CREW's letter to the DOJ states that the emails were provided to them in pre-redacted form:

"Although the emails CREW received were heavily redacted, we have been able to authenticate them."

My apologies to CREW for the error, and the original post has been corrected.

The remainder of the post stays as is - please note that no other portions of the post were challenged in any way.

Well, they're at it again - a second October surprise for Curt Weldon. This hasn't shown up yet in the usual places, so this is from CREW's press release:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Earlier today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) violated the law by threatening those who made contributions to his political opponent Joe Sestak with retribution.

CREW received two emails describing Rep. Weldon's efforts. The first, sent to Mr. Sestak on June 29, 2006, described a "hit list" compiled by someone on Rep. Weldon's staff identifying people in the national security field who had made contributions to Mr. Sestak. The email indicates that a retired Navy flag officer reported that Rep. Weldon said something to the effect of "If they don't think there will be retribution before or after the election, they're kidding themselves." A second email, sent on July 21, 2006 states that Rep. Weldon had his staff contact Navy personnel to get information on Mr. Sestak.

Here are the emails, from CREW's blog:

All of the dark line redacting was CREW's doing already present in the documents I downloaded from CREW (They received them in pre-redacted condition). I smudged out a few names they left in place. (see this post for explanation of the change.)

I really like Curt Weldon. He's done a fine job for his district. But if this turns out to be genuine, it doesn't look good. Not being a lawyer, I can't say whether any of this would amount to any more than that. Of course, if it turns out that Weldon actually committed a crime, I'll applaud as he leaves office.

Also, notice that once again, CREW is admitting that they have hip-pocketed evidence of a crime (so they say) for several months in order to use it for political advantage. This time, apparently, with the assistance and knowlege of Sestak's campaign.

A few folks have predicted that these tactics will backlash against the Dems. I hope so. CREW (and their accomplices in the Sestak campaign) gets no points for their behavior here. Either they hid a crime for 3-4 months for political convenience, or it's a vile smear launched late enough into the campaign so that an investigation wouldn't be complete to clear Weldon before the election.

CREW and the Democrats have attained a new low in politics. These tactics should be enough alone to show the American public how unsuited to lead the Democratic Party really is.

And the Democrats are outraged. How do we know they are outraged? Because they leaked it:

A conference call to the committee's nine Democrats on Wednesday to inform them of the aide's suspension prompted outrage, said two congressional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal committee business.

The officials said that the National Intelligence Estimate was marked "secret," rather than "top secret" or another more restrictive classification. As a result, thousands of people would have had access to it, including the intelligence, armed services and international relations committees of the House.

While I'm encouraged that some effort is being made to determine the sources of the leaks, this story is near zero for me. Why? 'Cause there is nothing but suspicion here so far. The Democrats correctly state that a large number of people have access to the NIE, and we don't know if the staffer ordered the report for someone else or for himself.

What I still don't get is why Congress ignores the press (and their role) in all of this. Classified information requires controls and boundaries. Once it crosses outside of those boundaries, it's no longer classified information - it's stolen classified information. One would think the government could leverage this to compell reporters to reveal the leakers as part of a criminal investigation, since receiving stolen goods is a crime. Until we do, the leaks will never stop. And while the left may think it's cute to leak classified data for political purposes, the fact is that it harms our country when they do so.

So until I see someone being prosecuted, I'm going to have to assume that this staffer suspension (along with all of the promises of investigation for past leaks) is simply intended to be eyewash - red meat for the base.

For me, though, it's a flavorless meal that leaves me not just unsatified, but starving.

A press release this morning from Harry Reid:

To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor

Contact: The Office of Sen. Harry Reid, 702-388-5020

News Advisory:

WHO:

-- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

-- Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco

-- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

-- Citibank

-- Nevada State Bank

-- ACORN Housing

WHAT: Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, (FHLBank San Francisco) will co-host a homebuyer fair to increase first-time homebuyers in the Las Vegas valley. The fair will include English and Spanish language workshops to provide valuable information that will help first- time homebuyers.

Participants will learn how to qualify for home loans, repair their credit, and access up to $25,000 in down payment assistance. The fair is a collaborative effort of the FHLBank San Francisco in partnership with financial services and housing community leaders to increase first-time homebuyers through education and access to affordable housing programs. Since 1990, the FHLBank San Francisco has awarded more than $12 million to 55 affordable housing projects in Nevada to increase the supply of affordable housing. The event is free and open to the public. Activities for children will also be available.

WHEN: Saturday, Oct. 21 (Light lunch will be provided to program participants) 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. (Doors will open at 9:30 a.m.)

WHERE: Advance Technology Academy, 2501 Vegas Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89106

Makes sense to me. After all, he's an expert on creative real estate strategies!

Thanks, AllahPundit! Welcome, Hot Air readers!

John Conyers has released a new book, based on his "Constitution in Crisis" report. From the press release:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A report by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers and the Democratic staff, "George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution", is now available in book form, with an introduction by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, is a former CIA agent, outed and harassed by the Administration, and a Foreword by Congressman Conyers.

Having an introduction by "Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, is a former CIA agent, outed and harassed by the Administration", gives an appropriately delusional beginning to a tome that promises to be full of delusion and deception. I'm sure Conyers and his partners in this saw the news last month on Plamegate. To continue this nutty tinfoil hat stuff when even the NYT now concedes that there wasn't a coordinated outing from the White House of Valerie Plame, places Rep. Conyers outside the mainstream of sane and rational thought. Don't expect the rest of the book to reverse that trend.

But it's not just his thoughts at play here. The press release claims the book is based on "A report by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers and the Democratic staff". It isn't even that. This report started, as I said above, as a document titled "Constitution in Crisis", a 350 page document you can download here. Written by him and his staff? Maybe partially, but the real credit belongs to a bunch even more delusional and ill-informed than Rep. Conyers (Screen cap here):

Much of the research in this report is a product of the input and hard work of DailyKos, Huffington Post and Conyersblog readers over the last six months (the help with my "timeline project" was particularly useful). I also am so grateful to progressive talk radio hosts and listeners, who have refused to allow the American people to forget the nation was deceived into war.

Get it? Conyers goes past the the arguably nutty Kos and Arianna and shoots staight for their readers. Yup - when you really need info about classified documents and intelligence practices, no better source than the comment threads of Kos and HuffPo. And every single loony BDS theory is in there - from the venerable "BushLied" meme, to the notion that the terrorist surveilance program tapped "millions" of American's domestic calls. Each and every one has been thoroughly disproven countless times, so I won't rehash them here. Consider the source, folks. It was mostly researched not by a respected investigatory agency, but by the readers of the Daily Kos.

This basic document, with the addition of some scary sounding mischaracterizations of the terrorist surveilance program, forms the new book. I'd like to get some tips from Rep. Conyers - usually when I try to get the foil that tight, it rips.

Conyers believes this material forms the justification for his oft-stated desire to impeach President Bush. And if the Democrats get control of the House, he's made no secret of the fact that he intends to utilize his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee for that exact purpose.

All based on the fever-swamp conspiracy theories of the readers of Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.

More later (maybe) when my lunch digests a little more...

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium. Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use.

Questioned about the campaign expenditures by The Associated Press, Reid's office said Monday his lawyers had approved them but he nonetheless was personally reimbursing his campaign for the $3,300 he had directed to the staff holiday fund at his residence.

Reid also announced he was amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a Las Vegas land deal, highlighted in an AP story last week, that allowed him to collect $1.1 million in 2004 for property he hadn't personally owned in three years.

A pattern emerging?

A terrific column about the Harry Reid real estate scandal by Ed Morrissey (of Captain's Quarters fame): Reid's Smelly Windfall.

...in today's Washington Post to decry Republican name-calling. In the process, he continues to show why Democrats like him don't deserve to be in power. His message is unmistakably clear - Iraq is hard, we might lose, so we should give up.

Had the forefathers of this country decided that the possibility of losing was enough not to try, we'd still be a colony today. How about WWII? Winning wasn't a given when we engaged in Europe - matter of fact, we went over there because our allies were losing. Murtha's head-in-the-sand brand of defeatism would have condemned Europe to defeat at the hands of Hitler all because it was too hard.

Is Iraq a mess? Yes. Do the Iraqi people deserve the even worse chaos and loss of life that would ensue if we simply pulled up stakes and abandoned them? No.

Murtha was quite the humanitarian when speaking out on the loss of Iraqi life when he claimed our troops were killing them in cold blood without the benefit of a complete investigation. If our continued presence while the Iraqis gradually take over saves lives that would otherwise be lost in the expanded sectarian violence that would surely erupt if we left now, why wouldn't Murtha support that? Cause it wouldn't further his political ambitions? Some humanitarian, eh?

Lots of things are hard, Jack. Lots are painful, too. Running away from things that are right because they might be hard and/or painful shouldn't be the trademark of a decorated veteran.

I had to read it twice, as this is the most dramatic departure from established Democratic Party patterns that I've ever seen:

BATON ROUGE, La. - The Louisiana Democratic Party turned down eight-term U.S. Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) on Saturday and endorsed state Rep. Karen Carter, one of a dozen challengers who emerged after Jefferson became the target of a federal bribery investigation.

The State Central Committee's 69-53 vote, at a special meeting to decide whom to endorse in Louisiana's open primaries Nov. 7, was the first time in recent memory that an incumbent had failed to win the state party's endorsement.

Of course, he still has endorsements of labor and local Dem committees. Still, it's a start. Color me shocked. Maybe the left is starting to look inward a little.

That's what it sounds like, anyway:

Clooney told reporters at a dinner honoring him on Friday night that he had no intention of entering the political arena. "I'm not running for office. I like my life," Clooney said.

The article suggests this may come as a relief to us on the right. Personally, I feel that he would be a wonderful source of blogging material should he change his mind and run one day.

I guess AP had to run it before someone else did. Dingy Harry adds to the stench of corruption he excreted while accepting money from Abramoff:

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

Captain Ed is on the story with some spot on commentary:

Hilariously, this appears just days after James Webb tried smearing George Allen with a pseudoscandal over stock options that Allen disclosed and never exercised, meaning that he never cleared a dime from the options. Now we have the Democratic caucus leader dodging disclosures and failing to disclose $800,000 in profits from a project on which he partnered with a lawyer suspected of connections to organized crime and a bribery scandal.

Organized crime? My, our filthy little hatemonger has been busy, hasn't he?

Of course, some will be tempted to call for Reid's resignation. No, no, no, no, and no. The right thing to do is call for a complete investigation. We on the right should not sink to the opportunistic low that the power greedy left demonstrated regarding Hastert recently.

It's the right thing to do after all.

Saw this over at Polipundit earlier speculating about Kerry running in '08. Of course that would be a good this for us, with Waffles continuing to say something idiotic nearly every time he opens his mouth.

But I'd have to say to stop speculating. A press release this afternoon gives me confidence that Kerry is not only planning to run, he's pre-ordering the most important supplies for his campaign, giving a needed shot in the arm (well, a shot somewhere) to an industry that's surely missed him since the last election. Lot's of potentially good intel here - the presser also says what their next big thing (or "holy grail") is, but it would be tasteless of me to attach a lefty name to it...

By the way, W.C., I see him as more of a Edgar Winter with darker hair and a chemically-induced tan. Think "Free Ride".

Anchoress: "…something is not sitting just right with me."

I tend to agree. As I theorized yesterday, the House's investigations will lead nowhere. Unless Hastert buckles under pressure and resigns, the damage will be limited to one Republican gone in shame, and a few points lost in the polls. There's still plenty of time for the numbers to recover, so what did the Dems purchase with all this effort?

Anchoress thinks the current Democratic vapors about the Foley mess might be a diversion to keep the GOP busy while they prepare something else. I considered that too - the question is what? Voter fraud occurs every election cycle, I can't imagine how this could provide cover for it. But I won't rule it out, either.

Of course, this may not be the "true" October surprise we've all expected, and the Foley thing was meant just to tank the career of a single Republican. The story subsequently grew much longer legs than anyone anticipated, thus encouraging more attention from the Dem leadership than originally planned - hence the ham-handed and hypocritical rantings from the left that we've all been exposed to.

So is there another shoe yet to drop? Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what it might be?

This revelation from Bill Keller as to who the White House supposedly asked to intervene on the lastest exposure of secret anti-terror programs.

Are you ready?

Jack Murtha.

Yeah, the one and only.

Keller insists that "not all of them urged us not to publish". Bryan at Hot Air deduces that Murtha was the odd man out.

If this is the case, Murtha has some big-time 'splainin to do. But don't count on the NYT to tell us - Keller doesn't mind publishing national security related secrets, but considers his conversation with Murtha to be confidential.

Earlier this month, I posted about how the arguments by the left simply don't hold water when applied to the debate about estate taxes. The repeal effort on the table at the time failed in the Senate, but the issue is back. Thursday the House passed a partial repeal - upping the exemption from its current 2 million to 5 for individuals and 10 million for couples. While this "lite" version is a mistake in that it still embraces inequality in the tax code, it's a step in the right direction and should make later efforts to repeal the death tax easier.

In my previous post, I discussed why the arguments of the left on this issue are based on deception. I saw a couple more examples raised earlier this week that further serve to illustrate my point. First, an unsigned editorial in the Washington Post gives the usual dishonest tripe so popular with many on the left:

LIKE THE GHOUL in the horror movie that refuses to die, estate tax repeal has returned from the grave to stalk the halls of Congress. Just two weeks after abolitionists failed in the Senate, they have regrouped behind a new bill that would achieve most of what they want -- not quite the elimination of the tax but its "reform" into insignificance. Like full repeal, this reform would expand the budget deficit and exacerbate inequality.

The deficit canard is the cornerstone of robotic liberal groupthink whenever government and money are discussed lately. In this case (as in most), it's being used dishonestly. The deficit does not exist because of tax cuts - the simple and irrefutable fact is that revenues have increased dramatically for the government in spite of (or more accurately, because of) the previous cuts. The deficit is a product of one thing and one thing only - irresponsible spending habits in Congress. Until this fact is recognized and addressed universally by both left and right alike, no serious deficit reduction is possible.

"Exacerbate inequality" - this one is rooted entirely in raw emotion and couldn't be more dishonest since it really doesn't have anything to do with fairness unless you're viewing it through the eyes of a six year old. "Timmy has a newer bicycle than me. It's not fair!" should not be the type of argument that mature people employ. Only a mortally flawed sense of fairness rooted in envy and greed view a progressive tax code as fair.

But what is fair? I have a friend that believes that if government costs 3 trillion to run, each of the 300 million people in the US should chip in ten grand, since all citizens benefit equally from the government's core responsibilities (common defense, domestic tranquility, etc). While it's hard not to appreciate the brutal simplicity of his argument, it's a model that doesn't take into account that a large portion of our population doesn't generate income, i.e., the very young and the very old being the largest groups to use as examples. So in recognition of this, we tax based on income. In such a system, fairness is also a simple concept if you can set aside greed and envy:

If I make 10 times more than you, I should pay 10 times the taxes.
If I make 100 times more than you, I should pay 100 times the taxes.

Seem fair? Not to the left, where childishness reigns. Add a "liberal" dose of covetousness, and "fair" suddenly becomes a grotesque caricature where an impaired syllogism views the following as just:

- You make 10 times more than I do, so you should pay 20 times more taxes.
- You make 100 times more than I do, so you should pay 400 times more taxes.

And it's just comical when applied to estate taxes:

- Your estate is worth 100 times more than mine, so I should pay no taxes, and you should pay 46%.

The truth is that fairness has nothing to do with the liberal views on taxation. Period. The Post article gives us a hint of why(emphasis mine):

The nation faces the expensive retirement of the baby boomers. It is grappling with rising inequality. Its prized social mobility may ultimately be threatened if the richest members of society are allowed to pass unlimited riches to their children.

I don't recall which part of the tax code addressed "social mobility". Can anyone help with a reference? This green-eyed phenomenon is even more plainly illustrated in a post I came across in FireDogLake yesterday. The author, Ian Welsh, should be lauded for his honesty in showing the true basis of the liberal view of taxes (I've included the bulk of the post so that context won't be an issue, only leaving out the graphs about income inequality and estate tax distribution. Please follow the link to see the graphs. Emphasis added.):

To summarize:

The top 1% pays 94.8% of all estate taxes.
The top 1/2 a percent pays 86.5% of all estate taxes
The top .1% pays 51.3% of all estate taxes

Most people will never be effected by the Estate Tax. Ever. But you will be effected if it’s repealed.

Here he shows clearly that the estate tax is unfair. Either 1% is being unfairly targeted, or 99% is skating out of their responsibilities. It's a point he misses altogether, though.

The general estimate of the cost of repeal is a trillion dollars a decade. A hundred billion a year. The government is already bleeding money, in both deficit and substantial debt. Any tax repeal - whether estate, or capital gains, or corporate taxes, wille eventually have to be made up (yes, the creditors will eventually want their money back.) Estate tax repeal will be paid for at some point, by the middle class. And by your children.

TANSTAAFL - There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. If you want a tax cut now, you pay for it later - with interest. If the rich want a tax cut now, the middle class will pay for it later, with interest.

This, as I pointed out before, is demonstrably false. Revenues have increased dramatically due to prior tax cuts, the problem is runaway spending. Fix that problem, and the middle class and children will be fine. By the way, 100 billion dollars a year, if correct (Not saying it isn't, but there are competing estimates of the effect of estate tax repeal) taken away from government control (where it would be badly mismanaged) and left in the private sector could create/sustain 3.2 million $15/hour jobs. Think the government would use the money even a fraction as well?

But I want to say something more about the estate tax.

There is no fairer tax. If it were up to me, it wouldn’t just be reinstated to it’s full 1999 level, it’d be increased to tax even more from the richest DEAD PEOPLE.

That’s right - dead people. By all means, let’s call it the death tax.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect to take it with me. I don’t think my money goes with me wherever it is I go when my heart stops beating. I don’t think I need money after I’m dead.

This has a morbid "They're dead! Quick, take the watches and wallets! No, leave the Timex - but get the Rolex from that guy over there!" quality to it that should offend anyone's sense of morals. If you think this isn't a popular view among the left, read the comments - Mr. Welsh gets lots of praise for his canonization of this grave-robbing mindset.

And I don’t think my heirs need more than a few million dollar head start over everyone else. Sure, if I ever have kids, I’d want to give them a head start, but I don’t deceive myself that they did anything to, like, deserve it, other than with the "lucky sperm contest".

Now we get to the heart of his argument. Jealousy. Greed. Envy. We should tax estates because the heirs don't deserve their inheritance. What I can't figure out: Why they don't display this level of contempt for the Kennedys?

Taxation is a zero sum game. You can take the money from dead people - who don’t need it or you can take it from living people who do need it.

Except heirs are living people, aren't they?

You can tax it from the kids of the rich, who did nothing to deserve it and who can probably make it on a few million from Daddy and Mummy; or you can tax it from people who actually earned it by the sweat of their own brow.

Moving from envy to hatred... They don't deserve it because Ian wasn't born lucky. Does arrogance trump aristocracy?

Oh, and those stories about people losing their family farms to the estate tax? Myth - no one has ever been able to find even one.

I'll agree with that one. Farms are indeed protected as far as I know. Now, about the medium-sized privately owned businesses...

The estate tax, the death tax, is about letting people have more money when they’re alive, and only taxing it when they’re dead.

And that, to me, makes it better than every other tax in existence.

Except you'd have more money if the government didn't tax the dead. Like it or don't, even Paris Hilton will use her money for your benefit. How? She'll spend it. She'll invest it. Every dollar that stays in the private sector helps improve the economy for all of us, increasing the chances that you or I will be able to induct our children into the "lucky sperm club". And the purpose of any tax should be to fund the government - not perform social engineering.

So forget estate tax repeal - let’s turn it around and increase the estate tax. Because dead people don’t need money, and living people do, and no matter how much rich people love their kids they didn’t do anything for the money, and a head start of a few million is enough for anyone.

But we're talking about fairness. And a twisted sense of fairness borne of contempt and envy isn't fair by any rational standards. A tax policy based on some masterbatory Robin Hood-ish fantasy is neither fair nor workable.

But government needs to be funded, right? So let's talk fair. Right and wrong do not change because of scale. If Paris Hilton doesn't deserve her inheritance because she didn't earn it, then equally do my children not deserve their comparatively meager one. An inheritance, if you believe it's unearned therefore undeserved, remains so whether it's 20 grand or 20 million.

So the fair answer is once again very simple. If you want to tax estates, then tax them all equally. No exceptions and the same rate for all, or my preference - tax none. Anything in between is counter to the principles upon which our republic was founded.

I say repeal the death tax. Then get to work bringing fairness and transparency to the rest of the tax code. That means eliminating regressive taxes that unfairly target the poor (like corporate taxes), and making every earned dollar look the same to each and every American.

Today promises to be another big day for Republicans as the Democrats attempt a repeat of last week's Iraq debate:

WASHINGTON - Fierce election-year debate on Iraq spilled over into a second week on Capitol Hill with Senate Democrats lining up behind a proposal to start U.S. troop withdrawals this year and Republicans chastising them for espousing a "cut-and-run" strategy.

The Republicans are standing firm, as they should:

"Let me be clear: Retreat is not a solution," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans."

Democrats seem to think that keeping our word to the Iraqi government is a bad idea for a very anti-liberal reason:

"The administration's policy to date, that we'll be there for as long as Iraq needs us, will result in Iraq's depending on us longer," said Levin, top-ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. "Three-and-a-half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent."

Would that they applied the same logic to their beloved entitlement programs here at home.

In a weird deja vu kind of way, Senator Kerry wants to ressurect his proposal from last week for yet another overwhelming defeat:

It would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving in place only U.S. troops essential to training Iraqi security forces, conducting counterterrorism operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities.

Also joining Kerry is Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold (who doesn't support the war but supports nearly 86% of the constitution). I guess they felt left out last week.

Ultimately, today's debate in the Senate should prove to be a positive for Republicans as Democrats line up once again to show their lack of resolve on security issues.

I saw the headline yesterday about the violence in New Orleans, but it didn't seem worth commenting on. Apparently, Nagin has realized that his police force isn't enough and has asked for reinforcements:

NEW ORLEANS - Gov. Kathleen Blanco ordered National Guardsmen to help police patrol the city for the first time since Hurricane Katrina, following a bloody weekend that brought fears of crime disrupting the city's delicate reconstruction.

At Mayor Ray Nagin's request, Blanco ordered 100 troops — and committed to send 200 more soon — and 60 state police troopers to head to the city Tuesday to support the Police Department. Six people were killed over the weekend, including five teenagers in one incident.

"The situation is urgent," Blanco said. "Things like this should never happen, and I am going to do all I can to stop it."

Blanco said reinforcements would cycle in-and-out of the city. No deadline has been set for their mission, which did not require a special order because Louisiana is still under a state of emergency 10 months after Katrina hit on Aug. 29.

The violence itself is not unusual - New Orleans has a long history of such problems. But calling in the guard to assist is an unusual move for a city administration that also has a history - one of being slow to act.

You think Cindy Sheehan will decry Blanco's "occupation" of New Orleans?

Greenwald posts today about Glenn Reynolds and others who he perceives as "extremists" on the right. I don't want to comment on the back and forth between Reynolds and Greenwald, but instead want to focus on ideology. This caught my attention from the post (emphasis mine):

More importantly, it is incomparably beneficial to expose the extremist, dishonest underbelly of the pro-Bush movement. They have made great political strides by focusing as much as possible on easily disliked political figures on the Left who are susceptible to being depicted (rightly or wrongly) as extremists (Ward Churchill, Harry Belafonte, Michael Moore, etc.) and then turning them into illustrative symbols of Democrats generally.

Consider the apolitical blanket that Greenwald wraps himself in (at least according to his book reviews). Also, consider that Greenwald considers Howard Dean and Markos Moulitsas to be "perfectly mainstream".

I think it would be interesting to know: Which of the three mentioned in the quote above (Churchill, Belafonte, Moore) does he consider to be wrongly depicted as an extremist?

Just asking...

I'm sure over the course of this week there will be lots of pixels devoted to the shameful defeatist posturing of Rep. John Murtha yesterday on Meet the Press. Indeed, there already has. Today's Wall Street Journal has a terrific twofer on the politics of cut 'n run^TM and the war in general.

The first, Iraq and Congress, says of Murtha:

As for Mr. Murtha's proposal that U.S. forces should redeploy to some nearby part of the Middle East, this is merely a disguise for what everyone would understand was a defeat in Iraq. Anyone who doubts it should merely listen to Mr. Murtha, who said again yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press that "We can't win a war like this." It's more accurate to say that our troops have a harder time winning a war with political leaders as inconstant as Mr. Murtha, who voted to commit U.S. troops but now lacks the will to finish the job.

Certainly Rep. Murtha deserves the credit for being the loudest of those who would abandon Iraq and prove to the world that the United States can't be counted on to keep its word. And who could blame him? After all, what use is our integrity as a nation when the Majority Leader post is on the line? And the thrust of his message should not be mistaken by anyone, considering the ill-chosen comparison to Beirut or Somalia, both of which cost the US dearly by emboldening the ideology and strategy of Al-Qaeda.

It simply cannot be other than raw stupidity to repeatedly claim a need to "change directions" and offer only examples that abandoned friends and contributed greatly to 9/11. Murtha would have us take that route again, once and for all eliminating any measure of trust that might be placed in us by a nation in need.

But Murtha isn't alone - he has the backing of an opportunistic party so hell-bent on regaining power that they eagerly anticipate our nation's failure so that they can cynically sweep in and pick up the pieces. Nancy Pelosi referred to the war as a "grotesque mistake" recently. I wonder how the groups in Iraq most subject to the murderous whims of Saddam Hussein feel about the suggestion that their plight under Saddam was just fine by Nancy, and any attempt to liberate them was a "mistake"? Her political posturing fails to consider that the real mistakes have already been judged by history:

Most terrorism experts are agreed that the precipitous withdrawal from both places emboldened our enemies by convincing them the U.S. could always be made to back down in any conflict. Not repeating those mistakes may be reason enough to stay the course in Iraq.

It would be foolhardy to believe otherwise. Surrender in Iraq would be Al-Qaeda's greatest victory - not only would it embolden Bin Laden to plan more attacks, it would make his recruiting far easier.

Now Dianne Feinstein wants to followup the spectacular failure of the Kerry plan last week with a repeat of the surrender-based politics that have worked so well for the Democrats Republicans of late. Good. Let them bring it up every week if they want - right up to the mid-term elections. Let them ask the American people if our national integrity has any value at all.

Captain Ed reviews the latest version of the Democratic Party agenda. He notes what's dropped off the radar:

Does anyone notice what the Democrats did not have on their agenda yesterday? Not a mention was made about investigations into the Bush administration, which was central to the agenda they announced five weeks ago.

I'd add that there's not one word about raising taxes, a fundamental theme for the Dems.

They're also continuing to spin like tops on the economy, the war, and ethics - the truth on all of these topics expose them as horribly wrong. The economy is sound, and we're winning the war. Even though Nancy Pelosi would love to have you believe that they're the exclusive to the right, ethics problems are demonstrably non-partisan.

There's a lot of fear under the surface of the Dem's plan. Fear that if they run on what they really believe, they'll lose. And they've got more reason to fear in the upcoming mid-terms than ever.

Or at least that's the plan (H/T Protein Wisdom):

Marine may call Murtha as witness

A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.

Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.

"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.

Mr. Puckett represents Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, an eight-year Marine who was a key participant in the Haditha operations that resulted in the 24 civilian deaths.

I don't know if the claim of unlawful command influence will have any traction - but somebody in the command structure thought these Marines were guilty. And the choice of Murtha as a recipient of the leak shows malice as it should have been predictable what would be done with it.

But the fact is that we don't yet know what the truth is regarding Haditha. I'm hoping they're innocent, but recognize that it could go the way of those who hope that they're guilty. If you're reading this and saying "but I don't hope they're guilty - I just know they are" then you're being dishonest. You can't know any more than I can since the facts haven't all been revealed. Only a fool driven by more emotion than brains could reach a conclusion of innocence or guilt on the public facts as they currently stand.

So if you believe they're guilty, it's not fact, but hope alone that drives you, and I don't have it in me to even pity you.

Murtha has hope, too. Political gain seems like such a petty motive, doesn't it? But his reprehensable act cuts both ways - if there is something that the Marines should be brought to justice for, Murtha and his informant may have given them the tools to avoid it. If they're innocent, they'll never be able to remove the stain that's been smeared on them.

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how courageous and patriotic Murtha is - OK?

Update (5:00pm EST): Okay, okay - I had a change of heart on the drive home from work. "Patriotism" is overused nowadays anyway - just like "integrity". Both are terrific concepts, but the application of each changes dramatically depending on perspective.

So in all fairness, it's entirely possible that Murtha believes that selling out a few Marines to achieve his party's and his own objectives is beneficial to the country, therefore, patriotic. You know, kinda like that woman down in Texas who claimed that the only way to save her kids was to drown them. So, in that spirit, the last paragraph of this post is corrected to read:

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how Murtha did the right thing - OK?

There. I feel so much better now.

Now that the gay marriage ban amendment has been relegated to the dust-bin of past pandering, the Senate has scheduled a vote tomorrow on a far more important issue - estate taxes.

This one has been labeled as pandering by some on the left as well, but has ramifications that belie such a guileful dismissal. Indeed, the results of this debate say much about who we are and what kind of nation we wish to be.

I do really dislike having to levy generalities on an entire group of people (in this case, the left), but in this instance I find it difficult to believe that they really buy their own line on this issue. For example, the left says that repealing estate taxes will have disatrous effects on the budget. From a United for a Fair Economy press release today:

"At a time of rising deficits and big due bills like the war in Iraq, we cannot afford either the cost of repeal-a trillion dollars over the first ten years-or the aristocracy of wealth that repeal would leave us," said Chuck Collins, senior fellow at United for a Fair Economy.

From another United for a Fair Economy press release:

Estate tax repeal would mean adding another $1 trillion to the national debt over the next 20 years.

This is from an op-ed by Peter Rothberg in The Nation:

This change in the tax code would benefit less than half of one percent of American citizens but would harm many more by creating a one trillion dollar hole in future federal reserves.

The elephant in the room that each and every person on the left knows (but will not publicly ackowledge) is that revenues have soared in the wake of the Bush tax cuts. The singular reason for continuing deficits is the lack of fiscal discipline in Congress. Sadly, this is currently across the board, and the subject is only raised as a political weapon, long on hot air and short on action. Regardless, the notion of higher deficits as a result of estate tax repeal is a provably fraudulent one. If you're one of the few who really do buy into it, please drop me a line via email with your contact information as I'd like to discuss selling you a bridge (I have a picture post card if you wish to see it).

The other reasons the left gives for "preserving" (like it's a good thing - we also preserve old buildings and pickles) the estate tax center around "fairness". And everyone values fairness, right? That's why I picked United for a Fair Economy for quotes above - the word "fair" is in their name. So lets talk about fairness.

Nearly every argument made in favor of the estate tax mentions that >99% don't pay it. But fairness is treating all Amercans equally. In other words, under current tax code, we're being unfair to either 1% or 99% of the population. To remedy this inequality, we should either expand the estate tax to the 99% who have been getting away with not paying it, or repeal the estate tax all together. No other solution save those two would be fair.

I also love the this claim, also nearly universal:

Over the last decade, 18 of the wealthiest families in the country have spent more than $200 million lobbying to repeal the estate tax, according to lobby disclosure reports analyzed by two groups that favor retaining the estate tax, United for a Fair Economy and Ralph Nader's organization, Public Citizen. The wealthy families include the Mars candy family; the Gallo wine family; the Wegman supermarket family; the Dorrance family, which controls Campbell soup; and the Waltons, who control Wal-Mart.

Here's a variation from Barack Obama:

"Let's call this trillion-dollar giveaway what it is. This is the Paris Hilton tax break," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Lobbying is nothing new. But when farmers lobby for more subsidies, no one villifies the farmers. Here's some reality for you - the folks most likely to benefit from a particular cause are likely to be the ones who lobby for it. Just because some rich folks are lobbying for estate tax reform doesn't automatically make tax reform a bad thing. Unless, of course, you're one of those folks who think anything having to do with Wal-Mart is automatically evil. But for everyone else, doing the right thing is still right even if people you don't like support it as well.

I'd really like to know what the "punish the rich" crowd thinks the rich does with all that money.

Just in case some of you are curious what I think they do with it, I'll tell you:

1. They spend it, creating/sustaining employment and growing wealth for others (like you and me).
2. They invest it, fueling the economy that creates jobs and grows wealth for others (like you and me).
3. They hide some of it from the tax man.

This is not overly simplistic, either. Short of stuffing their mattresses, the weathy's cash is always being put to some use.

Changing the estate tax affects all three behaviours. High taxes mean less money for 1 and 2 (very bad for you and me), and more money for number 3 (also bad for you and me, because they aren't spending or investing much of what they hide). Low (or no) taxes mean more money for nos. 1 and 2 (very good for you and me), and less reason to hide money from the tax man (which means even more money for 1 and 2, which is very, very good for you and me).

So once the usual arguments against fixing the inequalities of estate taxes don't work, what's left?

Arianna hits bottom and digs yesterday as she shows her utter contempt for the troops and advises Democrats to sell out our military for political gain as "drugged up, hallucinating, and stressed out" killers for whom Haditha is an everyday occurance.

She starts by extending allegations about Haditha to all the troops.

It means the killings in Haditha -- like Abu Ghraib, like Bagram, like Guantanamo, like all the everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians -- have made America less safe.

After all, says Arianna, smearing our troops is the moral thing to do. She continues by expressing her approval of Murtha's use of the tactic:

This is the issue that nationalizes the 2006 races. It's the right stance strategically (as Jack Murtha has been saying for months). It's the right stance morally. And it's also the right stance politically.

This is disgustingly cold and calculating by anyone's standards. But hey, it's about regaining power, right? After all, painting them as "baby killers" worked before...

And to Arianna, this represents an opportunity to be exploited - nothing more.

If Democrats can make this their defining issue, they can stop worrying about the laundry list of "what ifs" they are now obsessing over: What if people forget about Katrina and Abramoff and DeLay? What if gas prices come down? What if GOP gerrymandering trumps voter unrest? What if the gay marriage ruse works again? What if, what if, what if...

They need to calm their nerves and keep it simple. It's about making us safe, stupid. And keeping our worn-out, stressed-out, missionless troops in Iraq is making us less -- much less -- safe.

This is not just sick - it exposes an icy vacuum where heart and soul should be. In Arianna's case, I think the last thin veil of "I support the troops" - if indeed it was ever visible - has forever fallen away.

Update: Welcome Blackfive readers!

AP/Yahoo on the makeup of a potential Democratic House leadership:

Only two of 20 earned grades of less than 90 percent on last year's voting records from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action interest group. Half had perfect scores of 100 from the ADA — or would have had it not been for missed votes.

Read the whole article. If this doesn't frighten you, nothing will. And it's a possible future unless the Republican Party pulls it's collective head out.

What's notable is that they're doing it to each other:

State Treasurer Phil Angelides and Controller Steve Westly are spending millions on attack ads heading into Tuesday's primary, trading accusations of being corrupt, indulging in dirty politics and wanting to raise taxes.

And they say there's no honesty in politics.

And ready to re-live their glorious past:

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Democratic Party leaders are wondering what to do about a candidate for attorney general who denies the Holocaust occurred and wants to "reawaken white racial awareness."

Larry Darby, the founder of the Atheist Law Center, made an abortive bid for the AG job as a Libertarian in 2002, but only recently have his views on race and the Holocaust come to light.

He has no money for campaign advertising and has made only a few campaign speeches, but garnered 12 percent support in the June 6 primary in a poll of 400 registered voters last month.

I'm sure that he'll lose the primary - but the stunner is that he has 12% support among Democrats.

Lester Maddox would be proud.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - Rep. Patrick Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) said Friday he was entering treatment for addiction to prescription pain medication, a decision made after a highly publicized car crash near the Capitol that the congressman said he cannot recall.

He also now says he can't remember the accident and the police at all:

"I simply do not remember getting out of bed, being pulled over by the police, or being cited for three driving infractions," Kennedy said.

Well, he gets a point for owning up to his problem, although belatedly. Take away a point for the mutations his story has undergone.

As long as he is no longer endangering the lives of others, this, as far as I'm concerned, is now his private business. The real issue may be, as bulldogpundit says:

But the big story to me is why the Capitol Police officers did not even take him in for a blood alcohol test, or a urine test, which would have easily confirmed or ruled out the use of alcohol (and the urine test possible showing traces of Ambien).

Are free passes for elected politicians routine for the Capitol Police? If so, it's no wonder Cynthia McKinney was angry at getting stopped...

Ed Morrissey posts about John Kerry's morning on George Stephanopolous' show. Kerry manages to suggest the real reason for classification and declassification, and surprise, it's the same for each:

"You know, classification in Washington is a tool that is used to hide the truth from the American people. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was eloquent and forceful in always talking about how we needed to, you know, end this endless declassification that takes place in this city, and it has become a tool to hide the truth from Americans."

It frightens me how close we were to having this kind of thought process in charge of the country.

This time it's about gas prices (H/T Ex-Donkey Blog):

Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices

Gary makes the point that this should backfire on the Dems since their record on energy would have to be viewed through rose-colored glasses to appear merely abysmal.

It may be useful to talk about why gas prices are so high, though. I have a close relative who works with the petrochemical industry, and he passes along a nugget or two from time to time. First, here's an average breakdown of the cost of a gallon of gas from September 7, 2005 (when gas prices were much higher than they are now). Keep in mind that taxes and emissions rules vary widely from state to state, so treat this as typical:

Distribution and marketing costs: $0.07
Credit card fees: $0.09
State excise tax: $0.18
Federal excise tax: $0.18
Dealer Markup $0.20
State and local sales tax: $0.23
Refinery cost and profit: $0.89
Crude oil cost: $1.54
RETAIL PRICE $3.38

Now here's what's happened in the US market since the beginning of the year:

1. All gasolines have to meet new environmental specifications for sulfur content (30 ppm). For those regions that had reformulated gasoline (RFG)(like California), it wasn't as big a shock since most of those 'boutique' gasolines had lower sulfur content. However, 'conventional' gasoline, which comprises most of the market, averaged around 250 ppm+ of sulfur. So going to 30 ppm wasn't a no cost exercise. Refiners have had to built specialty units (one project my relative told me of cost $100 million to construct) to remove all that icky sulfur from the gasoline.

2. Many states have mandated elimination of MTBE. MTBE in gasoline helped refiners meet oxygen requirements as well as add more gallons to supply. One requirement in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) mandates ethanol in gasoline. MTBE can be blended at the refinery, then shipped as part of the gasoline via pipeline from Houston up to Virginia, for example. You can't do that with ethanol. It has to blended with the gasoline at the local terminal in your city. You can't add as much ethanol as you can MTBE due to vapor pressure limits. Ethanol is subsidized and costs more than MTBE. In effect, a multi-whammy - higher cost, less supply. And added to the pain is the spectre of shortages in some regions as terminal owners deplete their stocks since they can't mix the two blends together.

3. It is during Feb-Apr period that the refining industry has to change from 'winter' gasoline to 'summer' gasoline specifications. That is a costly change in that you can't put as much of the 'cheap' stuff into what you sell as you can in the winter (like butane) due to tighter vapor pressure, NOx, toxics limits. Summer gasoline has and will cost more. Period. Thank the Democrats and the environmentalists for the regulations that drive the prices up in the summer.

4. It's fine to talk about price hikes as gouging, but does it make logical sense that the oil industry would let the average price drop by over 80 cents/gal as it did from Sept to Nov last year? If they were really gouging as too many people claim, they could have easily done so - crude oil prices dropped to the high fifties during that period (about a 15% drop) yet gas dropped by a third. What many people also forget is that part of the cost of refining isn't just crude oil (which makes up over 50%), but also the cost of energy. With high natural gas prices, you have a higher cost to refine.

5. A lot of hay has been made about the record profits made by oil companies. The Democrats have already set out it's attack dogs like the ultra-lefty Foundation For Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) with the message of profit=gouging. Oil companies are like most businesses, their models for markup are based on a percentage of the cost. I don't know what the margins are at Exxon (I could probably find out) but lets assume that it's 10%. At $1 /gallon, they make 10 cents. At $2, its 20 cents. Gas prices are higher, so the profit will be as well due to their business model - not because of "gouging".

If you're interested, here's more on the subject:

Fortune Magazine - The Truth About Oil - Oct 2005
Energy Information Administration - A Primer on Gasoline Prices (a little dated, but mostly holds up well)

Todays Wall Street Journal has a good take on the small number of former generals speaking out for Rumsfeld's resignation:

"The anti-Rumsfeld generals have a right to their opinion. But there's a reason the Founders provided for civilian control of the military, and a danger in military men using their presumed authority to push elected Administrations around. As for Democrats and their media allies, we can only admire their sudden new deference to the senior U.S. officer corps, which follows their strange new respect for the "intelligence community" they also once despised. U.S. military recruiters might not be welcome on Ivy League campuses, but they're heroes when they trash the Bush Administration."

Worth a read.

The left has been in a frenzy all week in response to the news that the White House defended itself from the dishonest attack by Joe Wilson. Here's Nancy Pelosi's bleat:

But when someone on the left exposed the Terrorist Surveilance Program, unambiguously undermining national security for cheap partisan political points, that was OK, right, Nancy?

Here's the Reiddler's take:

You gotta love their ability to twist and spin. The White House unsurprisingly and rightfully releases truth to counter a lie and Reid feigns outrage over Bush's candor?

Anyone desiring a good explanation of why Pelosi and Reid are once again being dishonest in the quest for political points should read John Podhoretz's op-ed in the New York Post (H/T Austin Bay). Excerpt:

"On Oct. 7, 2002, nine months before Bush's supposed "leak," the administration released an unclassified version of the very same NIE at the urging of Senate Democrats."

You can't leak what is already public. Period. Even if parts of what Libby passed on were still classified, the President had the right to declassify it. It's in his job description, and Nancy and Harry can't lie away that fact. And that means it couldn't be a leak. "The President released truth to fight slander" should be the headline.

BDS seems to drive people to believe things that simply aren't true. This latest repugnant slander from Reid, Pelosi, and their pals is designed to feed emotion that obscures fact.

Don't go into the light, folks.

Via Powerline, here's a story about our brave Democrats looking to pile on now that former Congressman Randy Cunningham is sufficiently helpless:

A senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee has prompted an investigation of the last three defense authorization bills, to review requests made by disgraced former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, CongressDaily reported Thursday.

It's not that I have no taste for justice - indeed, if they find evidence of more wrongdoing, Cunningham should be taken to task for it. But the Dems have a history for this kind of bloodlust, and let's face it - they're not looking for crimes, but for political ammunition. Their pursuit of Tom Delay is a terrific example of this. And who could forget this recent quote about a rare deviation from the Dem's usual tactics:

"I'm amazed at Democrats ... cowering with this president's numbers so low..."

(Of course, that was Russ Feingold, who apparently thinks it's time to scrap Article III of the constitution in favor of having guilt or innocence determined by legislative decree.)

I guess it's been a slow news week for some on the left side of the blogosphere. They're still arguing the merits of the Feingold resolution.

Several bloggers are trying to push a grassroots effort to support what is undeniably an opportunistic political stunt. Most are along the lines of "call your congressfolk and tell them to change their minds" variety. This fellow over at Huffington Post gives talking points for his readers to use when they encounter resistance during the calls. He provides the faithful with ammunition made from carefully selected snippets of FISA, and taking the Attorney General out of context. Using that along with the absurd "I think X is illegal (even though I haven't the foggiest idea of what X really is), Bush said he did X, therefore Bush explicitly confessed to a crime" meme is typical enough for the left's discussion on the topic - once you've made such leaps, it can't be much farther to "forget the judge - get a rope".

Why Greenwald's arguments stood out as the best example of many displaying the left's irresponsibility stems from his bio:

For the past 10 years, Glenn Greenwald was a litigator in New York with a practice focused on, among other areas, constitutional law and First Amendment challenges.

And on his personal blog:

For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges (including some of the highest-profile free speech cases over the past few years), civil rights cases, and corporate and security fraud matters.

OK, OK, ignore the differences. We'll consider them "targeted" resumes. But I find it strange that a lawyer with constitutional law and civil rights experience would advocate the pre-judgement by legislative decree of a person's guilt. I wonder if Mr. Greenwald would have tolerated such behavior directed at any of his clients?

But in stark contrast to Issue 2, all the facts necessary to know the answer to Issue 1 are already disclosed, are publicly available, and have been admitted by the Administration. Therefore, while an investigation into Issue 2 is imperative, all of the facts relevant to the question of whether the President broke the law (the only issue raised by the Feingold Resolution) are already known, and for that reason it is illogical to claim that an investigation is needed before that question can be answered. Put simply, we don't know the scope and extent of the President's illegal eavesdropping, but we do know that the eavesdropping he ordered was illegal.

What if that were a prosecutor arguing this? Would Greenwald allow his client to be convicted on an incomplete set of facts?

I woke up this morning at 4:30 AM on March 24, 2006 in the United States of America. Not in Moscow in the 1950s. Although the over-the-top rhetoric from many Democrats in congress suggesting that the legality and criminality of the President's actions are a foregone conclusion, they know (except for Feingold, apparenty) that in practice they can't officially take that step. Doing so would be antithetical to our system of justice, effectively shredding Article III of the constitution. After all, why do we need courts when congress can declare guilt with a resolution?

And that's what Feingold asks for. And he's certainly fortunate to have minions such as those we find in the blogoshere. "Investigation? We don't need no stinking investigation! He's guilty! Get a rope!" is the cry from Mr. Greenwald - and he gets a couple of hundred comments mostly giving variations of "You da man!".

I really want to know. Does hate really make them this blind?

Update: Link fixed.

Harry Reid has set the strategy for Senate incumbents (H/T Carol Platt Liebau):

Senate Democrats have mapped a political battle plan for the March congressional recess that calls on lawmakers to stage press events with active duty military personnel, veterans and emergency responders to bash President Bush on virtually every one of his national security policies.

The game plan, devised by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is contained in a six-page memo distributed to Democratic senators on Thursday at a closed-door meeting at the Capitol and provided to The Washington Times by a congressional staffer.

Keeping up? It gets better:

Titled "Real Security," the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.

"Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event," the battle plan states.

OK - it's called "Real Security", but you have to stage photo ops with GIs to sell it? Cynicism, thy name is Democrat.

And it's pretty sad when you have to remind U.S. Senators about flags, anthems, etc. In other words, "Don't forget to act patriotic".

In almost every issue in the Reid memo, Democratic lawmakers are called upon to criticize the president for not spending enough federal dollars.

But haven't they been complaining that Bush is spending too much?

The article lists a variety of manufactured press opportunities for participating Senators - all designed to bash the administration. Jim Manley, Reid's spokesperson, sums up the Democrats' plan best:

"It's an effort to paint the White House and the Republican Congress as having a failed effort on national security issues..."

Not "prove", "demonstrate", "illustrate", or "show" - "paint" is the best they can do. Carol is spot on in her assessment on this cynical ploy:

"Notably absent is any policy, plan or vision for the future. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. Their only strategy is to try to make Americans feel worse about everything."

All of which reminds me of what happens when you use people, places, and things you have no regard for as a prop just to score cheap political points in an election year:

Judge Feingold appears to have laid an egg, and he's none too happy with his Dem cohorts:

"I'm concerned about the approach Democrats are taking, which is too often cowering," he said.

Uh... We've been telling you that for a while, Russ. And he's 100% right on the next point:

"I'm amazed at Democrats ... cowering with this president's numbers so low," Feingold said.

I'm surspised, too. After all, kicking this president when he's down has been their stock in trade. I guess their gratuitous political posturing at the expense of the American people has garnered enough negative attention that they're thinking twice about the level of disingenuousity they publicly display.

But the Dem's real cowering this week is from the media:

Next in the Senate TV gallery came Schumer. An aide hung up a poster showing a port. The senator called the ports situation "extremely troubling." The aide hung up a poster of an Exxon cartoon. "Obscene profits," decreed Schumer, equally passionately.

CNN's Henry asked the Feingold question. Schumer ended the news conference.

And all of this begs the question of the week: How many Democrats does it take to make Sen. Feingold look foolish?

comes this from earlier today:

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Democratic National Committee said Sunday he supports having racially diverse states vote early in the presidential selection process, although there was "wiggle room" in the details.

"It's certainly a good idea to have more geographic diversity and more ethnic diversity in the Democratic nominating process," said Howard Dean. "We are committed to leaving Iowa first as the first caucus in the country and New Hampshire as the first primary in the country."

On Saturday, the Democratic Party's rules and bylaws committee agreed to move one or two state caucuses ahead of New Hampshire, a decision that could cause a confrontation with that state, traditionally the site of the nation's first presidential primary.

Dean, speaking on CNN's "Late Edition," said he hadn't met yet with the rules committee but was committed to having diversity early in the selection process.

"There's some wiggle room," he said. "There will be earlier events, and there will be some events, or at least one event in between Iowa and New Hampshire."

Minorities have been pushing for more of a voice in the early voting, noting that Iowa and New Hampshire are overwhelmingly white. The new early states could come from the South and West to provide regional diversity as well.

That's why they haven't been winning elections, you know. The candidates have been chosen by the (nudge, nudge) wrong people (wink, wink).

I guess what Howie and the DNC must be telling us is that liberals in New Hampshire and Iowa are racists. Who knew?

Big tent, indeed.

Having failed miserably to get much political milage out of the NSA "domestic" wiretapping issue, Russ Feingold joins John Conyers as poster child for what's wrong with today's Democratic Party and the level (or lack) of civility in DC:

WASHINGTON - A liberal Democrat and potential White House contender is proposing censuring President Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping, saying the White House misled Americans about its legality.

"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview.

A censure resolution, which simply would scold the president, has been used just once in U.S. history — against Andrew Jackson in 1834.

The text of the resolution isn't yet available, here's a "fact" sheet and press release from Feingold's office.

Since there are no real consequences associated with censure other than bad press for the President, the intent is crystal-clear. This is yet another cheap grand-standing effort to score political points. But this continues to highlight the secondary gift the NSA program has brought us (the first was increased protection from terrorism) - it gives the Democrats another opportunity to be themselves (as opposed to what they claim to be) and they deliver in bulk.

Disrepect the conviction (and sentencing) of a killer? No problem for liberals, as long as the killer is a lefty, or doing so scores points among their base. But when it comes to Bush (and the rest of the right), well... Lets skip any sane semblance of a fair trial or even a fair hearing. Announce that he's GUILTY - GUILTY - GUILTY of this crime and that crime without the mess or risk of involving the courts. After all, they have the MSM to repeat their baseless charges ad nauseum with nary an opposing viewpoint. Repetition in the press makes for transforming Joe and Jane Ordinary into liberal voters, they figure. After all, how many Americans believe Bush lied about WMD even though it's been proven to five nines that he didn't?

But the NSA flap showed us a different side of the electorate. The media, well coached by liberal talking points, disengenuously uses labels such as "domestic spying", "domestic eavesdropping", and "domestic wiretapping" trying to dredge up images of entire offices full of machine-like political operatives scrutinizing your phone conversation with Grandma for any hint of anti-American or anti-administration sentiment in the apple pie recipe she just gave you. Democrat politicians got lots of air time mischaracterizing it as "spying on ordinary American citizens", avoiding the inconvenient fact that the program was about finding out what the bad guys overseas were up to. The majority of the public, not surprisingly, didn't buy it. In fact, it turns out that they actually want someone using every means available to protect us from the next terrorist attack, and saw through the veil of partisanship being presented them. The over-the-top rhetoric of the Democrats, in large part, swung the pendulum of opinion toward the President. After all, in the week following the NYT story, the loudest voices of the left about the supposed legality of the program were from those that knew the least about it.

So Russ now proposes the final gasp of an issue that displays the hatred of the left toward this President nearly as well as the basement play-acting impeachment hearings. That it will fail is a given, but that's not the purpose. Reasonable heads will prevail, and the Dems will use it to frame Congressional Republicans in the upcoming election as [gasp] Bush supporters.

But this will fail as well. The public supports Bush on this one, and will likely support any sane politician who voted down an attempt to label a national security matter as criminal without the benefit of a disinterested review. Indeed, most folks take a dim view of sidestepping the courts, and there's a strong likelihood that this will backfire on the Democrats. There's a grim irony in their wanting to sidestep judicial review in order to punish a President who they claim is doing the same.

In spite of the conspiritorial views of many on the left, there's a good reason that impeachment hasn't been a serious possibility. There's just no proof that a crime has been committed. If such proof were offered, Republicans would do the right thing and the public would support it. If you could convince me, I would support it.

Labeling an act as illegal prior to knowing any facts isn't enough. Grandstanding to score political points doesn't do it either. And pandering to your base even in light of evidence that you were wrong ("Bush Lied", for example) just helps us win elections.

On second thought, just keep it up. You're doing just fine. We're scared. Have a nice day.

Hillary's past connection with Wal-Mart. Do you think it might be because of this guy?

As I said over a month ago when Tasini started using Wal-Mart as a club to whack other liberals with - Chuckle, hell. I'm laughing.

H/T Jayson at Polipundit.

On a side note, this Tasini fellow is so far to the left he actually makes Howard Dean look good in comparison (As an example, he's proud to have Cindy Sheehan as a supporter). No small feat indeed.

More spirited children's games (this time, it's Hot Potato) using Wal-Mart from Jonathan Tasini in Huffington Post:

I would argue this: you can't call yourself a Democrat if you're doing business with Wal-Mart. What Wal-Mart does and what it means for our future is the opposite of the historic mission and the principles of the Democratic Party. In throwing in his lot with an abuser of civil rights, Andy Young has sullied his own past record fighting for the liberation of African-Americans.

Applied to a wider level, is he also advocating for a Democrat boycott of Wal-Mart? And what about Democrat employees? Should they quit their jobs? Should manufacturers owned by Democrats stop selling their goods to Wal-Mart?

If Jonathan really believes what he wrote, he's being dishonest unless he goes full-tilt moonbat and also calls for boycotts by consumers, suppliers, and employees.

Otherwise, he's just being an average Democrat politician.

Well, we're used to seeing the left use Wal-Mart as a club. But using it as a club on each other....

"For those not in the know, Clinton served on Wal-Mart’s board for six years prior to her husband’s run for the presidency. She recently received $5,000 from Wal-Mart. I’ve raised the Wal-Mart relationship repeatedly in my current race against Clinton and it causes deep unease among voters. I believe it speaks to the incumbent’s close ties to abusive corporate power: her large corporate financial contributions, her support for so-called “free trade” (which is simply trade to benefit corporations) and her unwillingness to confront corporate power that denies every American, among other things, universal health insurance.

"So, I had to chuckle when I read that Clinton, having never said a bad word about the company in the past, recently said that Wal-Mart should pay more for its workers’ health benefits. And, to boot, she returned the $5,000 she had received from the company. But, when asked what she did about the company’s benefits for workers when she served on the board, she replied, “Well, you know, I, that was a long time ago ... have to remember…”

"You can’t have it both ways. You can’t promote an image of being an intelligent woman who has a pile of facts at her fingertips but, at the same time, you suffer a sudden bout of amnesia when asked to answer for your record. And it would be an inconvenient record to defend."

Chuckle, hell. I'm laughing.

As a political prop first reared it's ugly head at the Wellstone memorial rally in Minnesota during the last election. It was tasteless and crass then. It was beyond exploitive when Cindy Sheehan, cheered by the left, ground her filthy sneakers into her dead son's corpse to promote a political agenda, and no less so now as Rev. Joseph Lowry turned the Coretta Scott King funeral into a Bush bash. This is a disgusting practice, and today's display was even more so coming from a religious leader.

Maybe no one else will say this, but I will. There are cultures in the world that routinely use death and martyrdom as a tool for inciting the masses. The left should be careful what tactics they adopt - it may lead to comparison.

Captain Ed pans Begala and Carville's flight of fantasy into campaign finance reform.

Yet another must read from Captain Ed.

This quote from this morning's NSA hearings is one of the most shamelessly dishonest I've heard from the Democrats:

Sen. Patrick Leahy: "My concern is for peaceful Quakers who are being spied upon, and other law-abiding Americans and babies and nuns who are placed on terrorist watch lists..."

I guess that sets the tone for today, doesn't it? The Dems appear to want to top their performance in the Alito confirmation hearing.

Yesterday I discussed my weekly visit to the swamps of the Huffington Post. While a lot of blogs have commented on Kennedy and Kerry inciting the eternally angry over at Daily Kos, the real hotbed of echodom is occuring under Arianna's flag.

During last week's State of the Union Address, President Bush called for setting aside partisanship and promoted a more civil approach to running the country. After the SOTU address, where did the Dems go to show how civil they can be? Huffington Post, of course. Kos isn't the only moonbat magnet on the web, you know. Here a list of some of the notables along with some examples of what they're echoing:

Rep. John Conyers:

"In a week where a journalist is being held hostage and another was seriously wounded, it is clear Iraq is falling apart and the President has no plan to get us out."

I guess he feels the bad fortune of two journalists are the sole indicator of our success or failure. Conyers gets a bonus quote from a post dripping with political envy:

"This was followed by the same old deceptions about his secret domestic spying program. His stubborn defense of lawlessness bears a striking resemblance to his defense of using fabricated intelligence to manipulate the nation into war."

He manages to tout two themes in one statement here. First, without so much as a hearing, much less an indictment, he repeats the Democrat mantra of "illegal" and "lawless" (you'll recall this from the same left that fought so hard to save a convicted killer in California not so long ago...).

Next is Rep. Hilda L. Solis:

"President Bush also spoke of reducing America’s dependency on foreign oil and being a democratic leader in the world, yet since he took office America’s dependency has increased by nearly 10 percent and he has engaged in a campaign to violate Americans’ civil liberties."

I love her ability to combine unrelated topics, don't you? And by the way, whose civil liberties have been violated? Have 'em step forward, please...

Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

"It Was a Nice Break from Reality TV"

"The State of the Union showed that once again, the President is choosing lobbyists and special interests over the American people."

Nice try, Nancy. Hard to buy that "special interest" crap from someone who sounds like a PR hack for NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Of course, if the wicked witch of the west didn't spend so much time watching TV, maybe she could produce an agenda for her constituency that consisted of something more substantial than "I hate Bush".

Sen. Russ Feingold:

"the explanations about the President's illegal program to spy on the American people were inadequate."

"the President just repeated his pattern of insisting that we should trust his leadership, while he takes a pass on the tough issues."

So much for being civil. Others you'll find on HuffPo:

Rep. John Murtha
Sen. John Kerry
Rep. Jim McDermott
Rep. George Miller
Sen. Harry Reid
Harry, as the leader of the Senate side of the Cut n' Run^TM party, stunningly admits to the lack of honor among liberals - "Democrats agree with the President when he says there is no honor in retreat."

Rep. Louise Slaughter
Rep. John F. Tierney

I think this is a very good thing for Republicans. As the Democrats continue to pander to the lunatic fringe of their party, they paint themselves as crazed idealogs and unattractive to the voting public.

This is going to be a very fun election year.

Via Ap/Yahoo:

GOP Chairman: Hillary Shows Lot of Anger

Gee, Ken, do you really think so?

Okay, folks, pretend you're Harry Reid for a moment...

If your smearing of Judge Alito has made you and your party look like a bunch of buffoons;

If your breathless accusations over Abramoff and his clients' donations haven't successfully washed away the $66,000 you received;

As your accusations of illegality over the NSA's efforts, become more and more shrill and dishonest;

If your insistance that President Bush fire an employee that hadn't even been charged, or indicted, or convicted of any wrongdoing makes you sound childish;

If your continuous attacks and repeating the phrase "culture of corruption" over and over have made the Democrats in congress even more unpopular than the Republicans;

And just having finished directing your fellow Democratic Senators to ignore Judge Alito's qualifications and vote for partisan political gain only;

What do you think your next move should be? Change directions, maybe?

Not if you're Harry - nope, you set up an organization to step up the same types of attacks that have failed so miserably:

WASHINGTON - An organization with strong backing from the top Democrats in Congress intends to launch a costly election-year campaign to promote issues on the party's agenda, officials said Tuesday, beginning with a television commercial arguing it's "time for a change" after a season of political corruption.

Americans United "will use all the campaign-style tactics which characterize political campaigns," ranging from paid advertising to grassroots organizing, according to a memo describing the group's plans.

"Campaign-style tactics" means attack ads. And lots of fund-raising, too:

Officials said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California met with potential donors in Los Angeles earlier this month, underscoring their personal interest in the group's efforts.

Americans United got it's start-up funds from MoveOn.Org and several large unions. The unions involved so far appear to be:

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
National Education Association
American Federation of Teachers
AFL-CIO
Service Employees International Union

The ethics-minded lefties have cleverly set this up as a 501(c) so that donors don't have to be disclosed. Also, the group will not support any individual candidate, so there will be no limits on the size of donations. This dovetails nicely with the Democrats' primary campaign strategy - since they don't as of yet have an agenda of their own, right-bashing is their only tactic at present. And AU can easily run ads supporting each individual Democratic candidates' platform of Bush and Right-bashing and still run a disclaimer on each ad stating their non-affiliation. Pretty clever, eh?

And there's more - the group is designed to emulate the very methodology of what Dems call the "Culture of Corruption":

"Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are very supportive of efforts to advance progressive issues, much like the Republicans have done for years with conservative causes through such groups as Progress For America," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid.

I would think that the last thing Reid would want to do is copy his "corrupt" adversaries.

This coming election season promises to be the most fun ever.

Dick gave the Democrat radio address Saturday. The transcipt of his address can be found here, and audio can be found here. I didn't hear it live, but took an interest after I ran across the transcript. It contains a few things the media didn't include in their coverage.

Here are a few excerpts, in no particular order:

"Instead of a reliable Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors, we have a complicated mess that wastes tens of billions of dollars on giveaways to pharmaceutical companies and big insurance companies."

The polticians giving these addresses should be required to give their voting record on topics they wish to discuss. It would shut them up in many cases - for example, would Dick be railing on this program if he had to disclose the fact that he voted for it?

"The litany of corruption today in Washington reaches the highest levels you can imagine: from the White House, to Congress, to the well-appointed corporate suites on K Street.

"Now, neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on virtue. The leadership that brought us to this moment, though, is undeniable. For the last five years, Republicans have enjoyed almost total control of the federal government. This nearly unprecedented concentration of power has produced, sadly, a culture of corruption that is preventing government from dealing with the real needs of our nation.

Disclosure would have been useful here as well. Sen. Durbin recieved ~$8,000 in Abramoff-related money. And because it was tainted, gave it away (plus an extra 3 grand) to a charity. It still frustrates me that so many are giving this "tainted" money to charity. Why not give it back to the donors? Is it a fear that doing so would give the same appearance of impropriety that keeping it does? If you rob a bank, and give the money to a church, does it really wash away your guilt? Note - I'm not suggesting that Dick or anyone else stole the money - it's just an easily relatable analogy.

Dick also mentions that "neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on virtue". Is this an ad lib or did it pass muster with party leadership? For the last couple of weeks, Pelosi, Dean, Reid, et al have been saying that the Abramoff scandal is a purely Republican one, using primarily as their reasoning that Democrats didn't get personal donations from Abramoff. It's a fundamentally flawed argument - the donations by Abramoff's clients (made on Jack's directive) inherently have a higher "taint" level than the relatively smaller personal donations. The Democrats are in this up to their necks, same as the Republicans. But the Dems think they smell blood in the water, even though many are simply catching the scent of their own hands.

It should not be lost on anyone that the new Democratic plan for reform is anything but an attempt to pre-empt the announcement the week before of work to begin on a Republican plan:

"When the President delivers his annual State of the Union address at the end of the month, I hope he will join us, on a bipartisan basis, in reforming the way Washington does business."

I predict that even if the resulting plans are nearly identical, failure of the Republicans to favor the Democrat plan will result in cries of "foul" from the Dems - after all, bipartisanship almost never means working with the other party - it means them working with you.

"neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on virtue" - could this be the beginning of a softening of tone for the Democrats? If so, I haven't seen it yet from any other Dem. The alternative is that Durbin is trying to distance himself from his own party. Either would be a dramatic development - the Democrats have made so much political hay about this that it would be a stunning admission. Durbin breaking ranks would serve to highlight future division in the ranks.

Either way, wire brushes and lye soap won't remove the stains. Being honest about the issue won't either, but in the long run would be entirely more healthy - for both parties. And maybe in time the stains will fade.

Deep in the swamps of Huffington Post, Arianna is having a little fun with the Republican party's email encouraging State of the Union parties. Since I'm sure she gets the same Democratic Party spam-o-grams that I do in addition to the Republican ones, it surprises me that she fails to mentions that the Dems are hosting parties as well. This is from the email I received yesterday:

Dear Friend,

On January 31st, George Bush will deliver his State of the Union address, to be followed by the Democratic response. We can't afford to sit back and listen -- we have to act if we're going to change the direction of this country. You can kick off this year of change by hosting a Watch Party that night.

Don't let the name fool you -- these Watch Parties are about more than watching. Your event will provide crucial information to Democrats in your community before the speech, and the opportunity to hear directly from our party's leaders immediately after.

Besides connecting with your friends and neighbors to discuss the state of our nation, you and your guests can join a nationwide conference call with Governor Howard Dean, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, offering immediate reaction and opportunities for rapid response.

You can start planning your Watch Party in a few simple steps by visiting:

http://www.democrats.org/events/create

Throwing a Watch Party is simple. If this is your first time planning one, our online event tool takes care of planning your event and inviting others.

As the event approaches we will also make sure you get the latest research and information about what will be in the president's speech so that you and your guests are prepared to respond everywhere -- from the letters to the editor column to the water cooler.

Online event tool, eh? I'll admit I'm a sucker for neat and clever web gizmos designed to make my life easier. So I visited the above mentioned link and planned a "Watch Party" - all in good fun, of course. The theme is intervention for distraught liberals - I figure after the embarrassing week they just had with the Alito hearings, news of more successes for the administration may be more than some of them can bear.

You can look up my party by going here. Do it fast, though, as I fear it won't be there long. If you get there too late, I saved a screen shot (click on the image for bigger view:

Who knows? Maybe it'll catch on. After all, bitterness and hatred hasn't worked so far - maybe it's time for the Democrats to change.

Update 1/17/2005: The DNC website deleted my party. If you missed it, there's a screen shot above.

This from CNS is speculative but interesting:

Having ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has long downplayed the controversy and the bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam.

Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.

A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha's former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.

"[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong," Bailey told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in 1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967.

You'd think after the beating he's taken over the cut and run statements, Murtha would want to keep this issue from causing even more damage.

Of course, his medals could very well be legit. Rep Murtha, why not end the speculation by releasing your complete military record? All it takes is one simple form - after you get done, you can give lessons to John Kerry...

Update (12:15 PM EST): Ya gotta admit the folks at CNS know how to stir the pot - now they have the Washington Post on their trail - duck, guys! The WaPo quotes Nancy Pelosi, who predictably and breathlessly says:

"The Swift Boat-like attacks on an American hero, Congressman Jack Murtha, are despicable and have no place in politics."

Since we all know the Swift Boat crowd was never effectively disputed, Nancy must be telling us the CNS story is true. Although her contention that truth is despicable and has no place in politics is a little over the top...

Update 2 (1:19 PM EST): Ed Morrissey throws down on CNS' story:

If someone wants to attack John Murtha's policy statements, there's ample room for criticism there. If people have issues with his defeatism, then they should specifically call Murtha out for that. Let's not get into denigrating a former Marine's commendations when he has not abused them himself for political purposes, especially when he has such a long record of honorable military service.

As I said in the comments - Murtha has made his own bed politically by his statements made in this century. There's no need to go back fifty years for irrelevant stuff.

Also, here's Murtha's response, from of all places, the Huffington Post (thanks, Cap'n Ed):

"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves."

"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear."

Update 3 (2:00 PM EST): Greyhawk weighs in as well:

Let me be clear: attacks on Murtha's Vietnam record are pointless. Murtha's latest statements against the success of US troops in Iraq speak for themselves; his current behavior renders his past insignificant. Democrats, grown tired of waiting for an attack on Murtha's war record from the Right, have created their own. He's painted as a victim now - of "right wing chickenhawk" contempt for real war heroes. But those serious about standing up to the current John Murtha would be well advised to let his fellow Democrats and the mainstream media keep this war "unilateral".

Joe Biden thinks the confirmation hearing process is broken and should be deep-sixed:

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominees are so mum about the major legal issues at their Senate confirmation hearings that the hearings serve little purpose and should probably be abandoned, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden said Thursday.

"The system's kind of broken," said Biden, a member of the Judiciary Committee considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.

"Nominees now, Democrat and Republican nominees, come before the United States Congress and resolve not to let the people know what they think about the important issues," such as a president's authority to go to war, said Biden.

As the committee headed into its fourth day of hearings on the Alito nomination, Biden told NBC's "Today" show that a better solution might be to skip hearings and send nominations straight to the Senate floor for a vote.

"Just go to the Senate floor and debate the nominee's statements," the Delaware senator said, "instead of this game."

I'm sure that many would agree. Personally, I hope we keep the confirmation process intact so that the public can see what an embarrassment the Dems have made of it. But what evades Sen Biden is that it's the questions and those doing the asking that are the problem, not the nominee's answers:

Biden defended Democratic senators' questions about Alito's membership in a university group, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, known for its opposition to opening the school to women and bringing in more minorities. Alito's wife, Martha-Ann Bomgardner, was moved to tears during the hearing Wednesday because of questions concerning whether her husband held any bias against women or minorities.

"I take him at his word that he didn't know what the group stood for, but I'm required to ask him," Biden said. He said membership in the group raised questions about "how sensitive he is to the plight of women."

And ask him again, and again... but you take him at his word. Nice that he gives such a good example of what's really broken in the same interview, yet he refuses to see it for what it is. Major legal issues, indeed. Crazy Politico nails it on the head:

"With over 4000 cases before the 3rd District Court, the opposition party has spent 3 days worrying about his time at Princeton 15 years before that, and not going over problems with his opinions in those cases. The reason is there are no problems with them. Even liberal judges and lawyers have sent in letters praising his conduct on the bench."

Crazy Politico has more as well. I'll add to his list the questions asked solely to give the Democrat Senators yet another opportunity to bash the President. Totally inappropriate and off-topic. And a shameful lack of respect toward Judge Alito and the American public whose interests are supposed to be represented here.

That's the name of the "water dog" in Sen. Kennedy's new book for children:

NEW YORK - Meet the latest children's author, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, Splash, his co-protagonist in "My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, D.C."

Scholastic Inc. will release the book in May.

"I am very excited about the opportunity to create a book for young readers and their families that will deepen their understanding of how our American government works," Kennedy said in a statement Monday issued by Scholastic.

So Teddy is going to show kids how government works using a water dog named Splash? This could only be better if he dedicates the book to Mary Jo Kopechne.

Ted Kennedy's book is 56 pages and includes illustrations by David Small, winner of the 2001 Caldecott Medal for his pictures in Judith St. George's "So You Want to Be President?"

Here's the cover:

From Howard Dean on today's CNN’s Late Edition via press release:

“There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money and we’ve looked through all of the F.E.C. reports to make sure that’s true…I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people, and now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.”

Why then, Howie, are they all scrambling to give all the tainted money away?

Yesterday All Things Beautiful posted a nice roundup of the former Army sergeant Mark Seavey's exchange with Mothra and Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.). The video of the exchange is available at Michelle Malkin. Here's the words of Mark Seavey:

"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)

"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.

"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

I'll add my comment to the fray, albeit late. It's beyond belief that an elected servant chooses to ignore a constituent like this - and in public, too. I hope some Republican shows this tape on the house floor the next time support for the troops comes up as a subject.

This tape would be a terrific cornerstone of a Republican ad campaign as well.

It's a new year, but the moonbats remain the same. The Senorita of Shameless Exploitation yesterday shows us once again the immeasurable distance between her thought processes and reality:

"Then we have the unfortunate innocents of Iraq. I have heard reports of up to as many as 200 of them killed yesterday. So if 200 were reported, one has to really wonder what the true count was. Bill O'Reilly and George Bush define a terrorist as someone who "kills innocent men, women and children." Am I the only one who sees the irony and stunning hypocrisy in this statement?" Who do Bill and George think are being killed in Iraq? Well-trained and an organized Army? Terrorists? We all know that is false. This is who is being killed in Iraq: living breathing human beings, identical to Americans, or any other human beings on earth, who are just trying to go about their lives trying to survive in a war torn country that was no threat to America or our way of life."

Cindy suggests that the "200" deaths are attributable to Bush, therefore the artificially low number reported. Here's who really killed 200 people two days ago:

KERBALA/RAMADI, Iraq (Reuters) - Two suicide bombers killed 120 people and wounded more than 200 in attacks near a Shi'ite holy shrine and a police recruiting center on Thursday, the bloodiest day in Iraq for four months.

Seven U.S. soldiers were killed in two roadside bomb attacks, three bombs exploded in Baghdad and insurgents sabotaged an oil pipeline near the northern city of Kirkuk, causing a huge fire.

Coming a day after 58 people died in a wave of bombings and shootings, the latest bloodshed ratcheted up tension between Iraq's minority Sunni Arabs and majority Shi'ite Muslims.

Am I the only one who sees the irony and stunning hypocrisy in Cindy's refusal to see that her beloved "freedom fighters" are the terrorists responsible for the deaths?

In a rare moment of clarity, Cindy admits the ineffectiveness of her (along with the rest of the hate America crowd) tactics of marches and vigils:

"Apparently, candlelight vigils do very little to stop, or even slow down a little, the carnage committed by the war criminals in DC."

I wonder if this revelation affects her plans for a moonbat convergience in Crawford this Easter. So what to do to correct it? More of the same!

"Hold your vigils and marches in relevant places: such as warmongering local Congressional offices."

Yeah, Cindy, that should do it. (snicker)

Nancy issued this statement today:

"When I learned that the National Security Agency had been authorized to conduct the activities that President Bush referred to in his December 17 radio address, I expressed my strong concerns in a classified letter to the Administration and later verbally.

"Today, in an effort to shed light on my concerns, I requested that the director of National Intelligence quickly declassify my letter and the Administration's response to it and make them both available to the public.

"The president must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people. That intelligence, however, must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation to protect the American people and our freedoms."

Of course, terrorists need good intel, too. And if Nancy and Howie have their way, they'll get it.

Careful how closely you follow Howard, Nancy. If he stops suddenly...

I knew Howie couldn't stay sidelined for long - and the NSA flap was just too tempting for him to ignore:

I got a spamogram from the DNC today (click to view). In it, Dean is asking for signatures to a FOIA request for - oh, I think I'll let him say it:

"According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

"I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released..."

So parts of a secret program is illegally leaked to the press, and Dean thinks that more of it should be made available to our enemies?

What a maroon....

Of course I've been following the story - Michelle Malkin, as usual, has been an invaluable addition to the news feeds and television reporting. I've stayed out of posting on it, with the exception of this about the reason for the sudden urgency at the New York Times.

It's not that I'm disinterested. Far from it. But I'm not a lawyer, or a constitutional scholar. I'm just a humble teacher. And the conversation very quickly centered on the legal aspects of the issue, and little else. So I've held back.

Now, the talking heads are starting to repeat themselves, and the media is turning to the more emotional aspects of the story. Case in point, Barbara Boxer's inquiry of legal scholars about whether the President has committed an impeachable offense:

"On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today."

"...Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible."

I'm not going to fisk this, even though she deserves it. Others will no doubt do so. No, I only quoted Sen. Boxer to illustrate the tone that I expect to spead over the next few weeks as the Dems take up their limp, non-violent swords over this