Recently in Republicans Category

Yesterday I got an email from the NRCC blog:

If you're reading this blog, chances are you're not happy with Washington. A bipartisan poll conducted this month shows that 73% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. Americans are frustrated, and rightfully so.

Families today face challenges that yesterday's laws simply don't address. We need to fix government, and one solution is to update our laws so they provide America's families with more freedom in their jobs; greater healthcare and retirement security; safer communities; access to quality, affordable education; and the ability for future generations to compete in the global economy.

I read it to TB with the party identifiers removed, and she thought it came from a liberal. Apparently others see it that way, too, as the post has received close to 700 comments, nearly all of them negative.

When I first viewed the post there were only a handful of comments. The big boost seemed to occur after Michelle Malkin posted on it (No, I won't link - go find it yourself.).

One wonders if Tom Cole reads the comments to his posts. I further wonder if any of the comments will be taken seriously.

Somehow, I doubt it. And I hope they're not counting on donations from me.

Update (5:37 PM EST): Now nearing 1,000 comments. No change in mood.

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.

That's the title of Peggy Noonan's column in today's WSJ. In it, she wonders if Reagan would survive in a party increasingly obsessed by religion. I suspect she's right, he wouldn't. Of late, religion has become at least a partial eclipse, blotting out many of the attributes we once found far more important when selecting a candidate. When coverage of the primary is centered on Huckabee and Romney's faiths, the far more important messages about what Republicans can accomplish if elected are being sorely neglected - a very bad thing, IMO.

Read the whole piece, though. She offers an interesting take on the troubles with Hillary's campaign as well.

H/T Hot Air, here's Kerr saying that it ain't vegetable:

Regardless, he's a partisan attached to the Clinton campaign, in spite of his insistence that he only lent his name at the request of a couple of friends:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced today the formation of “LGBT Americans for Hillary”—a national steering committee made up of more than 65 LGBT leaders (full list included below), all of whom have personally endorsed Clinton for president.

If he had any problem with his name used that way, he had ample time to detach it before he allowed it to happen a second time.

It's still possible that he's a plant, but not Hillary's or CNN's. He's also attached to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (he's on their advisory council), self-described as:

SLDN is a national, non-profit legal services, watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment of military personnel affected by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and related forms of intolerance.

From their press release today that appears to take credit for Gen. Kerr's performance:

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., Nov. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination expressed support this evening for the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law which bans openly lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel from the armed forces. The candidates were queried on the topic by retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr, CSMR (Ret.), a member of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's (SLDN) military advisory council who 'came out' in 2003 and identified as a Republican voter. General Kerr served for 43 years in the military, including as Commanding General of the Northern Area Command of the California State Military Reserve. His question was part of this evening's CNN/YouTube debate of Republican presidential contenders.

By the way, CNN could have easily found out about his ties to SLDN. It's expected that partisans with an ax to grind would try to participate in the YouTube debate. It was CNN's job to vet the questions and questioners, and whether intentional or no, failed miserably.

Update: Here's a post from SLDN's own blog posted prior to the debate.

Wow, I missed all the fun by going to bed. Having a job that gets you up early can be a handicap for a blogger.

Remember how CNN trotted out "undecided voters" in the last Democrat debate that turned out to be somewhat less undecided than advertised? While I was sleeping, folks all over were demonstrating their google-fu on the questioners at last night's debate. So far, at least 4 of the questioners were either declared hyper-partisan lefties or actual campaign workers for Dem candidates! Details at Michelle Malkin(who is apparently still awake and posting) here and here.

The most egregious of the plants is the gay retired general, who is on a steering committee for Hillary Clinton. His performance started the ball rolling on the outings, as suspicions arose when CNN brought him in to the auditorium to flog the candidates after they gave answers that he didn't like. As Kevin at Wizbang puts it:

Anderson Cooper would have you believe that a network that could select this question, find that 13-year-old Romney quote, create the trap for Romney (which he fell face first into), and (presumably) fly Kerr to the debate, could not type "Keith Kerr, retired Colonel" into Google and find the link to the Hillary Clinton press release, which prior to the debate appeared in the first 10 results for that search?

Yeah, right...

I think Kerr was simply too good to check. Imagine the CNN question pickers' joy at finding Kerr, who has victim status as a gay, and the absolute moral authority of being a veteran? The question could have been asked by anyone, CNN chose Kerr because it would put the Republican candidates in the worst possible light. I don't recall any equivalent popping up at the Democrat Debate - I'm sure CNN could have found a few had they tried.

As to the subject of winners and losers of the debate itself - John Hawkins (whose live-blogging I followed) thinks McCain won. I heartily disagree. Each of the candidates put in a poor performance compared to the previous debates. I'd have to say nobody won. Expect the recent polling success of the 5 top Republicans to dissolve over the next few days.

It wasn't a complete rout, however. As I said in a previous post, McCain did get the best soundbites out of the debate, particularly the exchange with nutjob Ron Paul over Iraq. Here's the clip where the only comeback from Paul is a weak retort about campaign contributions from some military officers:

Getting campaign contributions from some military folks doesn't translate into all the troops supporting you, Ron. It's stupid to suggest so. And by the way, Ron - where were you over Thanksgiving? Not in Iraq getting opinions firsthand from the troops, I'll wager. Here's Ron again, seemingly saying that we're occupying Saudi - skip to about 2:40:

Here's my wrap up and grades:

McCain - C-. He had some good moments, especially when dealing with security issues. That was tempered by his remarks about torture, where he appears to be too personally attached to be objective or rational, and his inability to see shamnesty as the mistake that it was.

Thompson - C+. Had good answers, but no fire. CNN did him a favor by giving him less air time than the other front-runners. He made a serious blunder by submitting an attack ad for the debate.

Tancredo - C. He's still a one-issue candidate, but gives good answers when given a chance.

Romney - D. I agree with John, he can't take a punch. This is going to hurt him if he makes it to the general election, where he needs to be a whole lot more nimble when attacked.

Guliani - D. Everyone knows he was Mayor of New York by now. Also, he came off as a little harsh in his exchanges with the other candidates.

Huckabee - C+. Good speaker, mostly good answers. Although the religious right loves him, he scares a lot of center and left-leaning folks when he starts getting preachy.

Hunter - C-. Did he get any questions? I can't remember.

Paul - D-. CNN obviously intended to waylay him with the conspiracy question early in the show, and in spite of Paul's attempt to moderate the tone of his answer, got what they wanted. Later rants from Paul only cemented the impression of being crazed, as his demeanor became less and less presidential and more unhinged. I'm sure his supporters will give him an A+, though. Update (11/29/07, 7:36 AM): Glenn Reynolds on Paul's demeanor - "His voice is too high, he can't remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station." LOL.

CNN - D-. The real winner of the debate, if you ask me. Although their moderation was incompetent (remember when they used to keep the audiences quiet?), and their bias was too clear for even the most rabid partisan lefty to miss, they managed to set up a successful venue in which to make the Republicans look bad - not that they needed the help.

Overall, the performance of all the candidates was sub-par. They all have a lot of work to do on both message and presentation if they want to defeat Hillary or Obama.

I'll give more in the morning, but I think Huckabee was very strong, McCain had the best sound-bite moments, Romney was clearly off his game.

Ron Paul would have won if judged by audience reaction. Fortunately, we grade candidates on other criteria. Ron said it best when he said he was lucky to be in the middle of his own campaign. I agree, he has no business being there and is lucky that he is for the short time it's gonna last.

CNN couldn't resist another "diamond or pearls" question - since no women on stage, they disguised it as a sports question.

Thompson has all the right answers, but no fire. Everyone's getting another beer while he speaks, no matter how right he is, it's not compelling when he says it.

More tomorrow, folks. Good night!

8:00 EST on CNN. I'll be watching, will you? As mentioned on lots of other blogs, CNN's teaser gives the impression that their bias will be showing in the choice of questions.

Since I don't type fast enough to live blog, I'll save my impressions for a post-debate post. If you're interested in live-blogging, I recommend John Hawkins, who hears that candidates asked for CNN to give them serious questions instead of going for laughs with snowmen and rednecks. I wonder if CNN can resist the temptation, though.

Update: I had a comment on this post flagged as spam due to an excessive number of links. I had considered approving the comment, but after reviewing the comment and the links decided to leave it alone. If you want to discuss, fine, but if you're just buzzing through to drop links to your site, that's spam. I don't do it on your site, please don't do it here.

A lot to like here:

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson proposed an income tax plan Sunday that would allow Americans to choose a simplified system with only two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.

Thompson's proposal, announced on "Fox News Sunday," would allow filers to remain under the current, complex tax code or use the flat tax rates.

From the Fred08 site, here's the whole thing:

1. Permanently Extend the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts. Tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 has proved critical to generating a strong economy that has experienced growth despite the war on terror, the collapse in the housing market, and other economic challenges over the last six years. Unless action is taken, every American taxpayer will see a massive tax increase after December 31, 2010. Allowing this tax hike will impose an enormous financial burden on American families, slow economic growth, cost America jobs, and make it more difficult to address the country's long-term budget, economic, and security challenges. The Thompson plan ensures the following:

• Reduced individual income tax rates, saving every tax-paying family a minimum of $600.
• Preserving the $1000 child tax credit, which was doubled from $500 per child.
• Protecting Marriage penalty relief.
• Retaining Education tax incentives, including Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, 529 college savingsplans, and deductions for higher education expenses.
• Reduced tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends.
• Increased expensing of investment for small businesses.

2. Permanently Repeal the Death Tax. Current law provides death tax relief, but only through 2010. The death tax is inherently unfair. Under the Thompson Plan, the death tax would be permanently repealed, thus protecting millions of American families, including small business owners and family farmers, from double taxation at rates ranging as high as 55 percent.

3. Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a separate tax system that was intended to ensure that a few high income Americans could not use deductions and credits to eliminate their tax liability. However, because the AMT is not indexed to inflation, it is penalizing Americans it was never intended to affect. While in the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson authored legislation that would have repealed the AMT. Consistent with that earlier proposal, the Thompson plan will eliminate the AMT as part of broader tax and spending reform. Until comprehensive reform is feasible, the Thompson plan would index the exemption amounts annually so that millions of middle class families will not become subject to this tax.

4. Reduce the Corporate Tax Rate. The United States has one of the highest rates of tax on businesses of the industrialized nations, second only to Japan. Even Japan is currently considering reducing its corporate tax rate. Economic studies suggest that the U.S. Treasury is actually losing tax revenue by keeping the corporate tax rate so high. In order to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the global marketplace, the Thompson plan would reduce the U.S. top corporate tax rate (including the corporate capital gains tax rate) from 35 percent to no more than 27 percent, which is the approximate average of the world's leading economies—the nations of the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development. This tax reduction will promote U.S. competitiveness, encourage companies to keep their operations (and jobs) in the U.S., and spur continued economic expansion and growth.

5. Permanently Extend Small Business Expensing. Small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs in America, and employ nearly 59 million Americans -- more than half of the nation's private-sector workforce. Women own a quarter of all small businesses, minorities are nearing the 20% mark, and Hispanic Americans are opening their own businesses at a rate three times the national average. Current law allows small businesses to write-off purchases of equipment of up to $125,000 per year, rather than depreciating those assets over time. Making expensing of equipment and other small business items permanent will encourage greater investment and growth.

6. Update and Simplify Depreciation Schedules. The current depreciation schedules are outdated and in many cases do not reflect the realistic useful life of an asset. This is particularly true for investments in high technology. For example, computers must be depreciated over three years, even though they become obsolete in half that time. The Thompson plan would simplify and update these schedules to allow American businesses to make the investments they need to compete and create more high-quality jobs.

7. Expand Taxpayer Choice. The Thompson plan would give Americans greater choice about how to pay their federal taxes. This plan is based on a proposal developed by the House of Representatives Republican Study Committee that would provide taxpayers the option of remaining under the current, complex tax code or opting for a simplified, flat tax code. The simplified tax code would contain two tax rates: 10% for joint filers on income of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and 25% on income above these amounts. The standard deduction would be more than doubled to $25,000 for joint filers and $12,500 for singles. The personal exemption amount would be increased to $3,500. Therefore, a family of 4 would be exempt from income tax on the first $39,000 of income. The simplified tax code would contain no other tax credits or deductions. It would also retain the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends. This approach would dramatically simplify taxes for tens of millions of Americans. In addition, the larger standard deduction and personal exemption amounts will still provide significant tax relief to families with children. This proposal would serve as a stepping-stone to fundamental tax reform.

Everyone wins on this plan. It's really going to be hard to beat as the other candidates rush to get their plans out.

The problem I see with this plan is that the liberals will paint it with the same dishonest brush as the Bush tax cuts - "tax cuts for the rich", etc. But any truly fair tax regime would get the same treatment.

I saw this yesterday, but didn't have time to post on it:

Nice video, should go over well in Iowa. There are still lots of folks who hear his name and think "actor", Fred needs to get the word out that he's more than that. This video certainly helps in that regard.

The ad's message is obviously crafted to draw a distinction between Fred and the rest of the front-runners. Rudy and Mitt are proven strong campaigners but each has warts that may keep values voters at home next November. Fred is the perfect candidate to motivate those folks to the polls.

I wish he had a little more fire, though. Some folks may view him as a little too laid back, validating the charges of laziness made in the media when he was still in exploratory mode. Others charge that he's too "folksy". I think these views will come mostly from outside of Iowa, though, where "folksy" isn't a bad thing.

The part where he says "our rights come from God, not from government" will be the subjected to criticism from those spittle-flecked fringe lefties who cry "theocracy" every time they hear the word "God" come from the mouth of a politician (except when it comes from a liberal using a church for a stump speech).

By now, you're wondering if I'm a Fred supporter. I'm not. I really haven't made up my mind. Each of the Republican field has their strengths, Ron Paul's rabid fanaticism not withstanding. Over the next few days I'll post about my observations for each of them.

The latest Pew poll is generating a lot of discussion. Ken Mehlman is issuing press releases. Rush Limbaugh even mentioned Captain Ed's analysis on the air a little while ago.

I don't know if the polls are accurate, just as I don't know about previous polls. Certainly plenty of folks have spent lots of time shooting holes in them - folks who know lots about how polls work. But it sure does look like a trend to me.

So I'm happy to see it. Good news excites the base and helps the GOTV effort, which will be the deciding factor in the election.

And don't forget to vote tomorrow!

Ken Mehlman replies to Howard Dean's request to look the other way while Democrats commit voter fraud:

Dear Chairman Dean:

I write in response to your October 30, 2006 letter, in which you asked me to join in working to make next week's election one in which "all eligible registered voters can be assured of a fair election and of having the opportunity to vote free from harassment, intimidation or other efforts to deny them the right to cast their vote and have it counted." The Republican Party works to further these goals in every election. It is my hope that you are making the Democrat Party, and all of its affiliated and allied organizations, aware of your own support for this concept. I request that you please do so.

As I stated in my October 6, 2006 letter to you, recent history suggests some in your Party view the right to vote merely as a political tool. For example, just two years ago, a Democratic "Election Day Manual" (a copy of which is attached) encouraged Democrats to launch "preemptive strikes" and report voter suppression where none exists. It is my hope that this year Democrats will refrain from such activity; the right to vote is not a partisan issue.

As you are also aware, recent elections have revealed your party's actions in this regard to be cause for serious concern. For example, in 2004 Florida Seminole Circuit Judge Nancy Alley had to issue an order before the DNC, Florida Democratic Party, and Democratic Executive Committee of Seminole County stopped "further intimidation, (and) further dissemination of () materials ... designed or intended to intimidate or unduly threaten the activities of poll watchers who are duly carrying out their responsibilities" under Florida law.

The following are other recent examples demonstrating that your party's efforts in support of your stated goal have been less than genuine.

Marion County Ohio Court Enjoined Democrat Operatives Targeting Ohio Voters With Phone Calls Providing Deceptive Information to Voters

-- Ohio voters who had identified themselves as Republicans received telephone calls telling them that the election was to be held a day later than Election Day, that their polling locations had been changed, and that they could only vote if they brought four separate pieces of identification to the poll.

-- The Marion County Common Pleas Court issued a temporary restraining order against the Marion and Greene County Democratic Parties, the Ohio Democratic Party and America Coming Together (ACT) enjoining them from making inaccurate and deceptive phone calls to targeted voters.

Intimidating And Misleading Phone Calls Made in Florida To GOP Volunteers By, Among Others, The DNC's General Counsel.

-- In addition to the aforementioned intimidating material sent by the DNC to Republican volunteers in Seminole County, the DNC paid for recorded phone calls to Republican poll observers' homes in Florida featuring the same message that the court found to be intimidating.

-- These phone calls were recorded by former President Bill Clinton and the DNC General Counsel.

Five Democrat Operatives In Milwaukee Criminally Charged For Slashing Tires Of Republican Vans On Morning Of Election Day

-- Democrat Party employees and operatives slashed 40 tires on 25 separate get-out-the-vote vehicles, causing $4,192.35 of damage to the tires, plus $1,125 in towing charges. Five Democrat employees and operatives were charged with felony "criminal damage to property," which carries a maximum punishment of 3 1/2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

-- While the Kerry-Edwards campaign and Wisconsin Democrat Party denied knowledge of the plan to vandalize the Republican get-out-the-vote vehicles, the vehicle used by the defendants was rented by a political consultant working for the DNC in Wisconsin. When questioned by police on the night of November 2, the consultant said he knew that five of his workers were involved in slashing tires at Republican headquarters early that morning, and identified all five defendants to police.

-- According to the criminal complaint, when one of the defendants saw the newspaper article he stated that he wanted to frame it and put it on his wall.

Ohio Lucas County Court Ordered Democrat Polling Place Challengers To Remove Deceptive Arm Bands and Badges.

-- On Election Day, several Lucas County voters brought suit against the Lucas County Board of Elections and Democratic challengers in the polling place who were wearing armbands and/or badges identifying them as "Voter Protection Staff," "Voting Rights Staff," and other similar terms. The Lucas County Court of Common Pleas granted the temporary restraining order prohibiting the use of such intimidating insignia.

Cuyahoga County Ohio Prosecutor Sent Letters Threatening Criminal Prosecution To Republican Poll Watchers. Virtually identical letters to the prosecutor's (containing the same spelling errors) were sent to the same poll watchers by the DNC.

Vote fraud is another example of, in your words, "other efforts to deny voters the right to cast their vote and have it counted." Unfortunately, the list of fraudulent election activity connected to Democrat affiliated groups such as ACORN is long and growing longer. For example, this month alone, the St. Louis Election Board has found nearly 1,500 potentially fraudulent registration cards, all submitted by Democrat- affiliated ACORN. In 2004, more than 1,000 similar fraudulent cards were uncovered in St. Louis. The Kansas City Election Board has found more than 3,000 fraudulent cards, all submitted by ACORN. Similar occurrences have taken place in, among other states, Ohio and Pennsylvania. It has also been reported that some of these Democrat-affiliated groups have gone so far as submitting false change of address cards for legitimate voters - in order to prevent those voters from being able to cast a ballot on Election Day. Indeed, recent press reports indicate that ACORN is being investigated by the local United States Attorney in Missouri. Yet you have remained silent.

Sadly, this list of intimidation and fraud by Democrats is not exhaustive. It is my hope that this year Democrats' rhetoric concerning the right to vote will be matched by action, and that you will do your best stop such suppressive and intimidating Democrat activity.

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman

Chairman, Republican National Committee

Well said, Ken.

You know, I like this guy more and more all the time...

And apparently not listening, either. When the GOP candidate says an NRCC ad is "over the line", someone there should pay attention:

SYRACUSE, N.Y. - A Democratic congressional candidate accused in a political ad of billing taxpayers for a call to a phone-sex line suggested he may have misdialed the number while trying to reach a state agency.

The ad that began airing Friday shows Democrat Michael Arcuri leering at the silhouette of a dancing woman who says, "Hi, sexy. You've reached the live, one-on-one fantasy line."

But Arcuri's campaign released records showing the call two years ago from his New York City hotel room to the 800-number sex line was followed the next minute by a call to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. The last seven digits of the two numbers are the same.

Arcuri, the district attorney in Oneida County, said the ad was "clearly libelous" and threatened to file a lawsuit. His GOP opponent, state Sen. Ray Meier, described it as "way over the line."

At least seven television stations in Syracuse, Utica and Binghamton refused to run the ad, Arcuri said.

The ad's sponsor, the National Republican Congressional Committee, stood by the 30-second message. Spokesman Ed Patru insisted it was "totally true" and said Meier was not consulted.

The two candidates, who say they are friends, are running to fill the seat left open by the retirement of Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (news, bio, voting record). Political analysts have said the race is among the nation's most competitive.

Arcuri said he had "never seen such an unfair commercial. I have a 12-year-old daughter. She's going to have to go to school and hear other kids talk about this."

I have to agree with Arcuri on this. A single call, 2 years ago, to a sex line that was immediately followed in records by a similar number belonging to a government department? It's not enough to base an ad on, and Rebublicans should be more responsible than this. We have enough trouble this election season without having to defend our own employing the same tactics we've been complaining about from the left.

NRCC, please let it go and stick to the issues - something the Dems can't compete against.

The National Republican Congressional Committee needs to pull the ad and issue an apology. Period.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley will reveal to the Archdiocese of Miami the name of the Roman Catholic clergyman he says abused him as a teenager, Foley's civil attorney said Tuesday.

"It's going to be very clear in the coming days that it is a fact as opposed to any possible allegations that it was a fantasy or something made up for political purposes," attorney Gerald Richman said.

Who the hell cares? It doesn't erase what he did. And he's not going to get his seat back. In the event he faces some charges out of all this (either civil or criminal), it's probably not going to help him there, either. I can't possibly imagine what he thinks these announcements will gain for him. Simply asinine.

Looks like there really is an investigation:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal agents on Monday searched the home of U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon's daughter, an FBI spokeswoman said, amid reports the Pennsylvania Republican used his influence to help his lobbyist daughter win contracts.

As is customary, the FBI didn't divulge what they were looking for. And they also searched the home of an associate:

Debbie Weierman, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Washington field office, said agents also went to the home of a local Republican activist who is close to Weldon.

According to newspaper reports, law enforcement officials are investigating whether Weldon used his influence to help his daughter obtain lobbying contracts of significant value with foreign clients.

Weierman would not provide details on what federal agents were looking for at Karen Weldon's Philadelphia home or the Springfield, Pennsylvania, house of Charles Sexton.

The Philadelphia Inquirer and other newspapers reported that federal agents removed several boxes from the homes of Weldon's daughter and Sexton.

Weierman also would not confirm that the FBI's investigation was related to Rep. Weldon, saying the "affidavits are sealed."

How much ya wanna bet the party of "innocent until proven guilty" will lay off this story until the investigation is complete?

I glad you asked - they won't, since they may be up to their hips in the story. From the Philly Inquirer:

At an event earlier today at Philadelphia International Airport to discuss airport noise, Weldon said the investigation was politically motivated - blaming a complaint filed by Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

"She is the only one I know of who went to the Justice Department and asked for an investigation," Weldon said. "I know that because I have her letter."

He added, "I haven't helped get my daughter anything."

Weldon, who is involved in a tight race for reelection, has said that he has done nothing wrong.

The $1 million contract under investigation was first reported in 2004 by the Los Angeles Times. Sources said the FBI and Justice Department investigation was based on the Times story.

The Inquirer reported in 2004 that Weldon had lobbied federal officials on behalf of Itera, the huge and controversial Russian natural gas company. Weldon also complained to Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, about Itera's treatment by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.

Itera paid $500,000 to Karen Weldon and Sexton's firm. The contract was signed Sept. 30, 2002, six days after the congressman helped arrange a dinner at the Library of Congress to honor Itera and Igor Makarov, the firm's chief executive officer.

About noon today, a group of 17 protesters arrived outside Weldon's district office in Upper Darby, carrying signs and the kind of foam hands usually seen at sporting events to proclaim "Number One." But these rose-colored hands said "Caught Red-Handed."

"This is the first time I've come out and done something like this," said Judy Voet of Rose Valley. "This Congress is just so corrupt."

Most of the protesters were Democrats, but they said they were not involved in the campaign of Weldon's opponent, Joe Sestak, and they included at least one Republican, Chuck Ries of Havertown.

"I don't know what to believe anymore, they lie so much," said Ries, holding a sign linking Weldon to current and former Republican colleagues Tom DeLay, Mark Foley and Bob Ney - all of whom have been embroiled in career-ending scandals.

CREW (the same bunch behind the Foley October surprise), according to Rep. Weldon, might have engineered this one as well. Weldon mentions Melanie Sloan, director of CREW. Here's video with her admitting to filing the complaint 2 1/2 years ago from CNN:

She doesn't claim to have been active on this since, however. In the video, they report that Rep. Weldon provided documentation to the Ethics committee at the time and was cleared.

A few things stand out to me from the above stories:

1. It appears that the McClatchy story over the weekend forced the FBI to start speaking publically about their actions. This shores up my suspicion that the folks who leaked this have hampered the investigation, whoever it is deserves a little attention from the FBI as well.

2. The protesters showed up pretty fast after the warrents were issued, didn't they? All prepared with props, no less.

3. CREW filed the complaint 2 1/2 years ago, and the CNN piece suggests that the investigation is around six months old. I simply don't buy that the FBI waited 2 years to begin this. Someone pressed them, CREW is the most likely source. Six months ago they would have been working the Foley complaint as well and forming their Fall election strategy.

4. CNN headlined this pretty quick as well, didn't they?

As I said before, if Weldon is dirty, I'll be first in line to wave goodbye. This post and the previous ones are about the disgusting election season tactics. In the Foley case they may have endangered young folks by holding on to information until maximum political effect could be achieved. In this case, they may have jeopardized an investigation and obstructed justice in order to score some cheap political points.

Update: Allahpundit weighed in earlier this afternoon:

It’s true, CREW did contact the DOJ about Weldon’s possible influence peddling — two and a half years ago. The case suddenly and mysteriously got hot again this past Friday, though, with Weldon currently in a dead heat with Democratic opponent Joe Sestak.

Which is suspicious. But not as suspicious as the fact that there’s enough probable cause here to justify six federal search warrants.

I dealt with the time issue above. But I see the search warrants as desperation to salvage a case that was compromised by the McClatchy story on Saturday exposing an investigation that the FBI wanted to keep confidential. As I believe is fair in any such case, it's best to wait until the justice system does its job before assuming guilt or innocence.

He does take a nice shot at Ms. Sloan, though.

Previous:
Weldon in trouble?
Weldon "investigation" story picked up by AP

Yesterday I wrote about left-wing McClatchy Newspapers pushing the story of an alleged FBI investigation of Representative Curt Weldon regarding some business dealings of his daughter. Today the story is getting drawn into the mainstream news cycle:

WASHINGTON - The FBI is investigating whether Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, two people familiar with the inquiry said Saturday.

The story contains all the elements that we've come to expect from the left when any issue is used by them for political gain - shadowy informants and Democratic party knowledge of a supposedly secret investigation pre-dating the leak to the media:

...They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the criminal investigation.

...This account cited two individuals with specific knowledge of the existence of the investigation; they declined to be identified because of the confidentiality of criminal investigations.

...Over the last few days, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has mailed fliers to voters in Weldon's district accusing Karen Weldon of getting help from her father on lobbying projects.

Well, it's not confidential now, is it?

As I said yesterday, if Rep. Weldon has done something wrong, I'll be the first to wave goodbye. No room in my party for that kind of shenanigans. Unlike the left, though, I prefer that the FBI come to the right conclusion in their investigation. Depending on the reason they kept it confidential, that goal no longer be attainable. Obstructing justice for political gain - is this the kind of political party you want in power?

That said, the actions of the left in this matter are disgusting. The investigation was apparently secret enough so that Weldon's office wasn't informed, and now it has been compromised by the left for political gain. The fact that leakers went to the DCCC prior to approaching the media shows all you need to know. Presumably the two "people familiar with the investigation" approached the DCCC and the media for the most cynical of reasons - It had become evident to them that the investigation would not be complete in time for the election. So a decision was made to sacrifice the FBI's sleuthing in favor of politics.

Truly vile.

Update: A reader (name withheld by request) points out correctly that Weldon has been accused by the left over his daughter's contracts for a couple of years, and the story is not new. However, the FBI's involvement, along with the apparent interferance in that investigation by left operatives/sympathizers, is new and newsworthy. It's ironic that the left claims to stand for accountability when the leak and opportunistic use of it may actually prevent that accountability that they pretend to want.

Sigh - another October surprise. I don't know yet what to make of this, as Weldon's office say's there's no investigation. Still, it could be that the FBI simply hasn't told Weldon yet, as the story implies:

FBI investigates Rep. Curt Weldon:

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is investigating whether Republican Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, according to sources with direct knowledge of the inquiry.

The FBI, which opened an investigation in recent months, has formally referred the matter to the department's Public Integrity Section for additional scrutiny. At issue are Weldon's efforts between 2002 and 2004 to aid two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers with ties to strongman Slobodan Milosevic, a federal law enforcement official said.

The Russian companies and a Serbian foundation run by the brothers' family each hired a firm co-owned by Weldon's daughter, Karen, for fees totaling nearly $1 million a year, public records show.

The race between Weldon and Joe Sestak, his Democrat challenger, is yet another very tight race. This brings the timing of the article, along with the leaks from what is apparently an investigation so confidential that the FBI saw fit not to notify Weldon about it, into question. That is, if there really is an investigation:

Word of the inquiry, which has been closely held within the Justice Department and the FBI, comes from two individuals with specific knowledge of the existence of the investigation. They both declined to be identified because of the confidentiality of criminal investigations.

Spokesmen for the FBI and the Justice Department declined to confirm or deny that an inquiry is under way.

William Canfield, a lawyer who represented Weldon when a Los Angeles Times report prompted the House ethics committee to briefly explore the issue two years ago, said the congressman is unaware of a Justice Department investigation and is confident that none exists.

"Is there is an inquiry going on in the Justice Department?" Canfield asked. "The answer is no. . . . Curt knows nothing about this, his chief of staff knows nothing about it and I know nothing about it. I think we would have heard about it."

Canfield said Weldon, a 10-term House member who's vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and active in U.S. foreign affairs, dismissed the report as "crazy" while campaigning for reelection in a tight contest in Philadelphia's southwestern suburbs.

But McClatchy Newspapers' sources said the FBI only over the last few months obtained evidence suggesting that the congressman may have broken the law. One of the sources, a federal law enforcement official, said that Weldon had not yet been told about the inquiry.

The official said that the FBI recently sought the assistance of federal prosecutors in pressuring an unidentified person to provide evidence about the 59-year-old congressman. The attempt to "squeeze" this individual appeared to be an early step, the two sources said.

It is uncertain whether the current investigation will blossom into a full-blown inquiry that will result in criminal charges being filed. It is possible at this stage of the investigation that nothing will come of it. But the FBI typically does not seek the involvement of the Justice Department unless it finds substance to the evidence it has gathered.

I'll be keeping an eye on this and update if anything more develops. At the very least, this is the pattern for the Dems at election time - the timing, the (likely) illegal leaks, the anonymous sources to a sympathetic lefty news agency all fit. Another October surprise.

Of course, there's also the chance that Curt Weldon has indeed done something wrong. If so, I'll be the first to wave goodbye.

Update: Here's a story from William Bender of the Delaware County Times:

A glossy Democratic mailer has been circulating the district all week about how U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon allegedly used his political influence to steer lucrative contracts to his daughter. Today, McClatchy Newspapers is expected to publish a report that could further diminish Weldon’s chances of holding on to his seat in what will likely be the closest 7th District election since 1984.

It appears the local Democratic Party knew about this before McClatchy Newspapers saw fit to inform the public - far enough in advance to have glossy mailers published and mailed. Question the timing.

After all that bluster about the search of Jefferson's office comes this about Speaker Hastert:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is probing corruption in Congress, ABC News reported on Wednesday.

ABC, citing high level Justice Department sources, said information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with those of other tribes.

Hastert's Press Secretary told ABC in a statement: "We are not aware of this." Hastert's spokespeople were not immediately available for comment.

Of course, the implication is that Abramoff has fingered Hastert. This will be interesting to watch as it develops. And since Abramoff's generosity touched lots in Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, I wouldn't at all be surprised if we hear of more investigations.

I'm with Glenn - Search 'em all.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Appearing with Bush on the White House South Lawn just before the president boarded a helicopter at the start a trip to Alabama, McClellan, who has parried especially fiercely with reporters on Iraq and on intelligence issues, told Bush: "I have given it my all sir and I have given you my all sir, and I will continue to do so as we transition to a new press secretary."

Bush said McClellan had "a challenging assignment."

"I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity," the president said. "It's going to be hard to replace Scott, but nevertheless he made the decision and I accepted it. One of these days, he and I are going to be rocking in chairs in Texas and talking about the good old days."

I'd be surprised if this were true, though.

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.

Last night the President made yet another forceful speech. I especially liked the way he framed the choice as victory or defeat. This is the proper way to view it – there’s no gray area here.

What I didn’t like was the way Bush took responsibility for the war. Not that he shouldn’t – he is the President, and as such should take responsibility. But the way he framed it was entirely wrong, exposing a disturbing memory loss in the White House. Glenn Reynolds wrote:

Why did he do that? Because he thinks we're winning, and he wants credit. By November 2006, and especially November 2008, he thinks that'll be obvious, and he wants to lay down his marker now on what he believed -- and what the other side did. That's my guess, anyway.

That may very well be, but I still feel it was a grave error to frame the decision for the war around WMDs alone. This simply shores up the false accusations of the left. And it’s exactly why Sen. Reid is applauding the President’s candor, even though it's nothing of the sort.

Bush should have reminded the public that there were many more reasons for going to war in Iraq. And he should have done by using the text of the resolution that gave him the authority to do so.

The Democrats have framed WMDs as the sole reason for far too long. The administration should be getting more specific in answering the left’s increasingly disingenuous and shrill rhetoric, not pandering to it.

For other opinions, try here.

Thanks to reading about it at lots of blogs, I knew all about the new GOP ad featuring Howard Dean's committment to surrender and defeat. But I couldn't watch it at work, and had to wait until now.

I think Polipundit, as he often does, sums it up quite nicely.

In a sudden fit of balance, AP gives us some interesting reporting on the Abramoff Scandal:

Abramoff Tied to Dorgan Donation, Tribe Says

WASHINGTON - New evidence is emerging that the top Democrat on the Senate committee currently investigating Jack Abramoff got political money arranged by the lobbyist back in 2002 shortly after the lawmaker took action favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients.

A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushatta Indians told The Associated Press that Abramoff instructed the tribe to send $5,000 to Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record)'s political group just three weeks after the North Dakota Democrat urged fellow senators to fund a tribal school program Abramoff's clients wanted to use.

The check was one of about five dozen the Coushattas listed in a tribal ledger as being issued on March 6, 2002, to various lawmakers' campaigns and political causes at the instruction of Abramoff, tribal attorney Jimmy Fairchild said Monday.

Many of the recipients were lawmakers who had just written letters to the Bush administration or Congress supportive of Abramoff's tribal causes, documents show.

In Dorgan's case, at issue is $20,000 in donations recieved from tribes represented by Abramoff and the appearance that it was payment for a letter he wrote to the President supporting a tribal school program.

Previously, reporting in this has been focused primarily on Republicans, and the left has made numerous statements about the Republican's involvement while turning a blind eye to their own members caught up in the scandal. As the reporting has shifted toward something more balanced, the left, particularly the DNC, has adopted silence. Considering the aggressiveness of the DNC attacks at the outset of the story, I can't help but surmise that the DNC was blind-sided by the media on this, having been able to depend on the MSM's portward tilt in the past for cover.

In my previous posts, I've commented on the problematic nature of this particular scandal for the Democrats. After all, how can you deride the Republican "culture of corruption" when Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, Mary Landrieu, and others are part of the same club? Defending their own is equally difficult when by default, they defend Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt and the rest. Not that Dorgan doesn't try, albeit weakly:

Dorgan's staff said Dorgan believes the letter was drafted by Sen. Conrad Burns (news, bio, voting record), R-Mont., who also signed it and got similar donations from Abramoff's clients in the same time frame.

Considering the treatment Republicans received from the DNC over this, I find it curious that Senator Dorgan would use the "he did it, too!" defence.

So far, everyone involved is saying the same thing:

"The suggestion in the story that I may have supported that school construction program because of Jack Abramoff or because of campaign contributions from Indian tribes is clearly and despicably wrong," Dorgan said.

But Dorgan's position as ranking Democrat on the committee charged with investigating the scandal adds another dimension to the story. He denies that it affects his duties, though:

Dorgan's spokesman, Barry E. Piatt, said he believed his boss had pursued the congressional investigation of Abramoff aggressively.

Asked why that investigation hasn't focused more on donations to lawmakers who wrote letters favorable to Abramoff's clients, Piatt said, "They're investigating what appears to be massive fraud, and there's lots of ground to cover and it is still early."

Honestly, folks. If Chuck Grassley was on that committee, what would the Democratic reaction be? And they'd be right. Even if this all turns out to be just a tempest in a teapot, the appearance of suspects conducting their own investigations casts a pall over any resulting conclusions that can't be ignored.

The appearance of impropriety is unmistakable. Senator Dorgan should step aside from the investigation. And if anyone on the Indian Affairs Committee is implicated in the Abramoff scandal, they should join him.

On the other hand, staying on simply reinforces what we've known all along - Democrats are only interested in dealing with corruption when it occurs in someone else's party. And this time it appears that the press is noticing.

Via AP/CNN:

SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in bribes in a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and antiques.

Yes, yes, it's terrible. And it's sad to see a Republican in this situation. However, as I've said before about others - if he's guilty, punish him and good riddance. We have too much trouble with bogus accusations to tolerate the real ones.

But that's not why I brought you here. In the same article, about 800 pixels down, is this:

House Ethics rules say that any lawmaker convicted of a felony no longer should vote or participate in committee work.

Should? Please think about that word "should" for a moment. It's okay, I'll wait.

Now - have we just stumbled on to a root problem here?

Update: Head House Moonbat invokes her favorite catchphrase. Is she starting to sound like a trained parrot, or what?

The media is in full attack mode.

From Vice President Cheney's speech today:

"My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror and the Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented briefly on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline, "Cheney says war critics 'dishonest,' 'reprehensible.'"

"One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're Vice President, you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I do have a quarrel with that headline, and it's important to make this point at the outset. I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way."

From minutes later at AP/Yahoo: Cheney Lashes Out at Bush's Iraq Critics

CBS News: Cheney Takes Aim At War Critics

New York Times: Cheney Assails Critics but Says Debate on Iraq Is Healthy (I guess they listened to half of it)

ABC News subtitle: Cheney Punches Back at Critics of Bush's Iraq Policies Calling Some 'Dishonest and Reprehensible'

Reuters: Cheney shifts attack on war critics

"Vice President Dick Cheney denied on Monday that the administration was trying to stifle dissent by lashing out at Iraq war critics" (Nevermind that it's true that the administration never tried to stifle dissent, Cheney evidently has to "deny" it)

Indy Channel (Indianapolis Channel 6): Cheney Sends Mixed Messages To War Critics

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney said there's nothing wrong with dissent or debate on the war in Iraq or on anything else, but then proceeded to lash out at senators who accuse the administration of deliberately deceiving the American people on pre-war intelligence. (They just don't get it, do they?)

Democratic Underground: "Bush tortures Bat Boy!"

More as they come in...

News 8 (Austin): Cheney renews attack on war critics, defends debate on war

Brisbane Courier-Mail (just to add an international flavor): Cheney slams Iraq war critics

UPI: Cheney takes swipe at Iraq critics

L.A. Times: Cheney Blasts Iraq War Critics

Terrance Hunt, AP's White House Correspondant apparently thinks so:

Bush Lowers Temperature of Iraq War Debate

BEIJING - After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."

The president also praised Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible.

The suggestion that the President has somehow changed his tone on the Iraq war debate is a specious assertion by Mr. Hunt. Each and every time Bush has spoken on the topic, he has acknowleged that disagreement with his policies wasn't a problem, but being dishonest about it was. This is even illustrated later in the same article through a quote fom the President:

"This is not an issue of who's patriotic and who's not patriotic," he said. "It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

Of course, if the media were more responsible in their reporting, President Bush wouldn't have to address his critics at all.

Yesterday, I posted about the DNC's attacks on Republicans with potential ties to the Abramoff scandal. In concert with the DNC's theme of ignoring the elephant in the living room, the New Yok Times covers the story today:

Corruption Inquiry Threatens to Ensnare Lawmakers

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 - The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.

The investigation by a federal grand jury, which began more than a year ago, has created alarm on Capitol Hill, especially with the announcement Friday of criminal charges against Michael Scanlon, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying partner and a former top House aide to Representative Tom DeLay.

The article weighs in at 1254 words, but not one of them is "Reid" or "Landrieu" or "Breaux". In fact, Democrats aren't mentioned anywhere in the article save for this one vague hint:

Scholars who specialize in the history and operations of Congress say that given the brazenness of Mr. Abramoff's lobbying efforts, as measured by the huge fees he charged clients and the extravagant gifts he showered on friends on Capitol Hill, almost all of them Republicans, the investigation could end up costing several lawmakers their careers, if not their freedom.

One really has to wonder - if the worst actually happens and all of the players are indicted, will the NYT acknowlege Harry Reid in its coverage? Will the DNC still be able to maintain their own effrontery, brashly shouting "Culture of Corruption" at conservatives while ignoring the involvement of their own?

Seems to me that this isn't a scandal the Democrats would want to wecome so openly.

Update: Here's another from the NYT today with no mention of Democrats involved (emphasis added):

What may be equally troubling for Republicans is the filing on Friday of a criminal conspiracy charge against a former senior Republican House aide, Michael Scanlon. Mr. Scanlon was once a spokesman for Mr. DeLay and was a partner of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who is the subject of a federal investigation and had close ties to some House Republicans. The charges hint at potential legal exposure for lawmakers who were wined and dined by the two, adding to Republican ethics cases.

House Resolution 571

For: 3 Against: 403 Present: 6

All Ayes and Present votes were Democrat, 16 Rs and 6 Ds did not vote.

It's gonna be awful hard for some of the Dems to face their anti-war constituents. Snicker. Snort.

Of course, the outcome was guaranteed:

Pelosi sent word to rank-and-file Democrats to vote - with the Republicans - against immediate withdrawal of American troops.

I'll try to give a roundup in the morning.

By the way, I spent most of my time over at Euphoric Reality where the vote was being live blogged. It was great fun!

The Republican Party has a new ad countering the smears and lies of the left.

This one is only 60 seconds, and is in part boiled down from the much longer version (which is still available) from earlier this week.

They also changed the background music - something I kinda liked from the first one. And the audio of Ken Mehlman
at the end sounds like he called it in from his cell phone. Given that small amout of caveat, it looks like a winner.

Considering the shorter length, this one looks destined for the airwaves. Cool.

Welcome Michelle Malkin readers! Feel free to look around while you're here.

Thanks again, Lorie!

House Speaker Dennis Hastert responds to Mothra's comments to the press earlier. I don't normally quote entire speeches, but this one hits the mark:

"I am saddened by the comments made today by Rep. Murtha. It is clear that as Nancy Pelosi's top lieutenant on armed services, Rep. Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the President is on foreign soil.

"Four years ago, America as we knew it changed. The terrorists attacked our people and attacked our nation. Nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives. Families were destroyed, and our children lost their sense of peace. On that day, we learned that we no longer had a choice. Failure to act -- and act strongly -- left our nation vulnerable to Osama bin Laden and his band of terrorist followers.

"But now, Rep. Murtha and other Democrats want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world. It is unfortunate that this is all politics all the time. We need to have a strong consistent policy that will protect our men and women who are fighting to protect us overseas. We must not cower like European nations who are now fighting terrorists on their soil.

"This is the highest insult to the brave men and women serving overseas. They have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our citizens, our way of life and our ideals of freedom and democracy. And they have done excellent work. In the four years since September 11th, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 major terrorist attacks. Three of those attacks were planned on U.S. soil.

"I have known John Murtha to be a long-term veteran of this institution. He has stood up for our troops and has helped to provide them with the right equipment to do their job. We all saw the same pained faces among Americans when terrorists slammed into the Twin Towers. Did he see the faces the rest of America saw when terrorists plowed into the Pentagon or when the plane that was headed for a Washington target went down in Pennsylvania? I saw the faces that day, and, Mr. Murtha, that was no illusion."

Very nice job, Rep. Hastert.

Via AP/Yahoo:

"Turns out, we were wrong," Stephen Hadley told "Late Edition" on CNN. "But I think the point that needs to be emphasized ... allegations now that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people, are flat wrong."

Republican lawmakers and other officials who appeared on Sunday news shows echoed Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he defended his decision to invade Iraq.

And John McCain is chipping in as well:

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Regardless of the President's late awakening, you should have been doing this all along. But, better late than never, so thumbs up, guys.

The House GOP scuttles a vote on reducing spending after ripping out the ANWR and coastal drilling provisions.

Extending tax cuts gets no debate for now due to not enough GOP support.

And some in the Blogosphere are livid, including me.

Michelle Malkin has loads of angry letters here.

Here's a short roundup of Blogger reax:

Bulldog Pundit at Ankle Biting Pundits: "I swear to God, I'm going to go postal. I just can't take the stupidity of alleged Republican members of the US Senate. The frustration with this bunch is almost equal to the hopelessness and despair I feel as a Philadelphia sports fan."

Michelle Malkin: "Ugh. Just ugh."

Jayson at Polipundit: "I just want whatever they’re smoking over there."

Blanton at Red State: "This is a fight that the moderates cannot be allowed to win."

The Anchoress: "I can’t think of a single reason to vote to re-elect any one of you."

Neal Boortz: "Sounds like somebody faxed Howard Dean's talking points to Representative Bass' office by mistake."

Jeff Goldstein: "Today’s GOP: Just because we control Congress and the presidency doesn’t mean we’re too afraid to surrender!"

John Hawkins at Right Wing News: "Voting to allow drilling in ANWR should be the easiest decision the clowns up in Congress ever had to make -- and they still can't get it right. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic..."

Mark Tapscott: "This one is going to spark more conservatives to throw up their hands and say "that's it, how do I change my registration to the Libertarian or Constitution party?""

Kevin Aylward of Wizbang: "The Republicans have only been in the majority 11 years, but in that time they've become every bit the disassociated fat cats that Tip O'Neil and his crew were."

Kate O'Beirne at The Corner: "Another Revolution Betrayed"

Robert Bidinotto: "Not a damned thing distinguishes the Republicans from the Democrats anymore...not a damned thing."

And I agree with all of them. I'll try and add some more later.

Update: Here's a couple more:

RightWingSparkle: "Why are Republicans such wimps and compromisers when they are in power?"

Aaron at Lifelike Pundits: "I smell another crackdown coming."

That is, if he read The Anchoress' response to the Republican Representatives who removed ANWR and coastal drilling from the budget reduction bill.

Via Lorie Byrd at Polipundit.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - A solid phalanx of Republican moderates drove House GOP leaders to drop a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wilderness area to oil drilling as a sweeping budget bill headed toward a vote Thursday.

A plan to allow states to lift a moratorium on oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts was also axed.

"Phalanx"? Should be "Phallus". The removal of the ANWR drilling provision was spearheaded by Rep. Charles Bass of New Hampshire. And the coastal drilling part was axed due to efforts of Florida Republicans.

Note to the House: Cowardice will not solve any problems. Capitulation for political expediency ill serves the needs of your constituency. Please start serving the public who put you where you are.

Via Michelle Malkin

I heard the press conference on the radio while driving home from work. Fitzgerald seemed to have the press firmly at bay as they asked questions about matters he is required to keep confidential. On the Libby indictment, he was very articulate and sounded very confident of the charges. And well he should - that's his job. However, Libby also has a story to tell, and as this goes to trial we'll get more information. That is unless he gets a plea bargain.

Also, Fitzgerald was pretty clear that the current grand jury was to be dismissed. While he reserved the right to continue the investigation with other grand juries, it seems to me (as a non-lawyer) that he would have to re-cover considerable ground to do so. This alone tells me that it probably won't happen unless Fitzgerald gets something damning that he doesn't already have.

In the meantime, the left is has become even more delusional. Take for instance, Howard Dean's statement about the indictment (hat tip Polipundit):

"Beyond the evidence that the White House manipulated the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, a group of senior White House officials not only orchestrated efforts to smear a critic of the war, but worked to cover up this smear campaign. In so doing, they ignored the rule of law, endangering our national security and the brave men and women who dedicate their lives to protecting our nation's security. I. Lewis Libby was a part of this internal White House group."

Obviously the radio in my car is broken, else I would have heard at least some of what Howard did. Here's one from Nancy Pelosi:

"The criminal indictments of a top White House official mark a sad day for America and another chapter in the Republicans' culture of corruption. At the heart of these indictments was the effort by the Bush Administration to discredit critics of its Iraq policy with reckless disregard for national security and the public trust."

Two extra points to Nancy for working in the now ubiquitous "Culture of Corruption". Of course, whenever Nancy speaks, her buddy Harry Reid can't be far behind:

"This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president."

More disturbing are the comments from John Conyers. As many of you know, he's been lurking in the dark and dangerous halls of the Huffington Post:

"I believe it is imperative that Congress pursue these questions and determine how these charges fit into the entire web of deception, manipulation and obfuscation laid bare by the Downing Street Minutes and Treasongate. As a result, I have directed my staff to conduct a comprehensive investigation and review of the facts concerning not only alleged efforts to misuse the White House to out a CIA operative, but misinformation concerning the run up to the Iraq War, and all legal violations and breaches of trust by the Administration concerning the War."

I know "treasongate" is a popular term in moonbat circles nowadays, but a member of congress shouldn't be so cavalier about using the "T" word. It doesn't apply here. Conyers has been one of the nuttiest thoughout the Plame investigation, wanting to impeach Rove before anyone has determined whether any crime was actually committed. And this is the same Conyers who held a mock impeachment trial of the President earlier this year. If they had awards for the most reckless and delusional political attacks, Conyers would get my vote easily.

But back to Libby. If he did lie to the grand jury, well, that will come out, and he'll get his due. But the feverish and irresponsible treatment of this affair by the left and the media have caused damge to Libby and others that can't be reversed.

As if we don't have enough scandals already, there's this:

Noe indicted for laundering money to Bush campaign

Not good for us. I hope he really didn't do it, but if he did, send him to jail and good riddance. We're having enough problems with witch hunts and false accusations without having this added to the equation.

Via the Toledo Blade.

I wonder how long before someone on the left ties this to Bush and screeches, "Culture of Corruption?

Evidently, not long.

The "collective" is swarming over Kay Bailey Huchison's remarks yesterday on Meet the Press. Some examples from the left-wing blogs:

Kos: "This Sunday we got a preview of the GOP post-Fitzmas spin -- that perjury isn't a crime."

Atrios: "Republicans to Americans: It's Okay to Lie Under Oath in a Criminal Investigation!"

John in DC: "Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has a soft spot in her heart for traitors."

Democratic Underground: "Bat Boy Spotted in DU Comment Area!"

Several on Huffington Post:

Alec Baldwin: "Why are contemporary Republicans so full of shit?"

Trey Ellis: "It’s Only a “Technicality” in a Culture of Corruption"

Robert Schlesinger: "Hutchison didn’t always feel this way."

Interestingly, some right wing blogs have joined the fray. Examples follow:

Michelle Malkin: "...I found Hutchison's pooh-poohing more than a bit disturbing."

BullDogPundit: "A Memo To Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison: Please Shut Up"

John Hawkins: "That is not the sort of behavior Republicans should engage in..."

It bothers me a little to see some of the critisism from the right side. I don't think Sen Hutchison was saying that perjury or obstruction should not be prosecuted. I'm not even sure that she was attacking Fitzgerald directly as some have indicated, although I think she could have been clearer with her remarks.

Controversy over those two issues aside, I do agree with her remarks in general. The left would love to have an indictment on the "outing" of Plame. Given only perjury, they will try to make the charge just as serious in their attacks anyway by dragging in peripheral issues. To them, this is about a wider issue on the war itself, and they will use any straw they can grab.

Look for Sen Hutchison and others who understand this to try and deny them that straw. Yes, perjury should be prosecuted. But put it in perspective. If there was no "outing" of a CIA agent, then perjury should stand alone without any attachment to peripheral issues. That is, unless the left goes unchallenged when they suggest otherwise.

The administration gets a black eye either way. This is about how long it will take to heal.

Perhaps I'm just being hopeful to interpret her remarks this way. Hopefully she'll find an opportunity to clarify her remarks.

From AP/Yahoo:

Hearing Set for DeLay Judge Request

C. W. Duncan, a former state district judge, will hold a hearing Nov. 1 on DeLay's request that Perkins leave the case because he has contributed money to candidates and Democratic causes that oppose DeLay.

And not a moment too soon. The bogus nature of the charges not withstanding, time is a real issue for DeLay.

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

"Suggest"? "Appear to differ"? The NYT is normally not cautious or shy when it comes to throwing negatives at this administration. Sounds like the NYT is taking some interpretive license here, and I "suggest" not getting wrapped around the axle on this unless something more substantial comes out.

Also, note that there's no suggestion that Cheney directed Libby to do anything with the information. I don't think the Times would have passed up on even a vague hint in that area.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Bush Won't Release All Miers Documents

But the disagreement will be over what is privileged and what isn't. Hopefully it won't matter and Harriet Miers will withdraw.

Hey, I can dream can't I?