Recently in Your Government at Work Category

I missed this one on Monday, but it's a perfect example of Congressional incompetence that spans party lines:

...in budget years 2003 through 2007, Senate restaurants racked up deficits of $4.7 million...

Things are so bad, the Senate is moving to privatize the restaurants:

The Senate last week passed a bill authorizing Senate restaurants, now run by the Architect of the Capitol, to go private, ending months of back-and-forth between Democrats appalled by the operation's money-losing ways and other Democrats worried that restaurant workers would get thrown out like the ham bones.

The measure is expected to win easy approval in the House, where privately run restaurants and food courts run profits and draw good crowds every day of House members and employees, tourists and disaffected Senate staff.

The really sad part is that some Senators tried to block privatization because they feared a responsible business might, you know, act like a responsible business:

But Feinstein's efforts to change the system ran into obstacles from four Democratic senators: Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who questioned whether current workers would face lower wages, reduced benefits and be deprived of union representation.

Remember this the next time one of these morons starts preaching about fiscal responsibility.

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.

AP's H. Josef Hebert has an article out on the divide in Congress over how to deal with gas prices, and there's actually some well-deserved but rare (for AP) criticism of the Democrat's plans. They miss the boat somewhat on the analysis of the Republican proposals, but I'll take it overall as a refreshing view of the issues involved.

I don't often quote articles in their entirety, but I suspect this one won't survive the morning meetings at AP and will be altered to give a less-balanced view or pulled entirely.

WASHINGTON - As millions of people approach the summer vacation season under the threat of $4-per-gallon gasoline, Congress is scrambling to respond. But don't wait for anything that will drive down prices at the pump.

A Senate vote on a GOP plan is scheduled for Tuesday, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised to bring up a Democratic package before the Memorial Day congressional recess. Except for halting the flow of oil into the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, neither plan is likely to go very far. Both will be challenged by filibusters by opponents, meaning they would require 60 votes to advance.

Here is a rundown:

THE DEMOCRATIC PROPOSALS.

_Enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

SPIN: Oil companies are making too much money, earning $123 billion last year while motorists faced soaring gasoline costs. Imposing a 25 percent windfall profits tax on the five largest oil companies and repealing $17 billion in tax breaks could help the shift away from fossil fuels toward alternatives. Taxes could be avoided if profits are used for refinery expansion or development of wind, solar or biomass projects.

FACT: Profits are large because the companies are huge, and oil now sells for well over $120 a barrel. The taxes could spur some new alternative energy projects, but economists say they also could reduce investments in oil and gas exploration, and are unlikely to affect prices. They could do more harm than good, says Robert Hansen, senior associate dean at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. "Anytime you put in a tax you create an incentive to avoid it," says Hansen.

___

_Create a law against energy price gouging and new rules to stem energy market speculation.

SPIN: The government must police the energy markets with a federal law against price gouging and new rules against market speculation. The proposal creates a federal price gouging law with civil penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency. The law would prohibit refiners, wholesalers and retailers from charging an "unconscionably excessive price." Traders would be required to put up more cash collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.

FACT: Energy price gouging laws now in 28 states are uneven and inadequate to deal with energy market abuses. Congress has considered a gouging law since 2005. Separate versions have passed both the House and Senate, but never gained final approval. Critics say gouging is ill defined and the law amounts to price controls. Bush has threatened a veto.

A former Federal Trade Commission chairman argued such a law could do consumers more harm than good and may result in higher prices if providers, fearing stiff penalties, avoid selling fuel when prices soar.

Increasing cash collateral, or margins, in energy futures trading could curb speculation, but there might be unintended consequences. Such new requirements, said a spokesman for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which would enforce the new rules, "may drive traders to unregulated trading or overseas" without reducing market abuses.

___

_Take on the OPEC oil cartel.

SPIN: We need to stand up to the OPEC oil cartel. The Justice Department would be given authority to bring antitrust cases against countries that collude to fix prices as part of OPEC.

FACT: While politically popular, such a measure would probably not change OPEC production decisions and could provoke retaliation. Similar proposals have been debated in Congress since 2005. "It's a catchy phrase, but it doesn't have any substance," says energy consultant Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS.

_Pump oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, now off limits.

SPIN: The coastal strip of ANWR, as the refuge is called, probably has 11 billion barrels of oil. At the rate of 1 million barrels a day, it would add to domestic production, reduce U.S. reliance on imports, lower prices and produce jobs. With modern technology wildlife and the environment can be protected.

FACT: Drilling in ANWR has been debated for 28 years and remains one of the most contentious environmental issues. Several times the House, under GOP control, has approved development; it passed Congress in 1995 only to be vetoed by President Clinton. Drilling supporters repeatedly have been unable to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters and are unlikely to do so this time.

While ANWR has substantial oil, none would flow for 10 years. Even then, its impact on global production of 87 billion barrels a day will be minimal, energy experts say, as OPEC could adjust to compensate.

___

_Develop vast amounts of oil and natural gas in offshore waters now off limits.

SPIN: For a quarter century, energy development has been blocked in more than 80 percent of U.S. coastal waters, depriving the country of vast oil and gas resources. States should be allowed waivers to the moratoria and get some of the revenues from development.

FACT: Most areas of federal offshore waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico and off much of Alaska have been placed off limits to drilling by a succession of presidential orders and congressional action to protect tourist industries and avoid the risk of spills and environmental damage. The House has twice approved giving states the right to opt out of the federal ban.

___

_Ease permitting for new refineries.

SPIN: A shortage of refineries is fueling high gasoline and diesel prices. There has not been a new one built in 30 years, with environmental and other permitting problems contributing to the reluctance of oil companies to build new refineries.

FACT: The lack of new refinery construction has been more an issue of economics, not government regulations. While the oil industry has complained about permitting and environmental regulations, oil company executives also have said the permitting issue has not been a deciding factor over refinery expansion or construction. Refinery investments are based in expectations of increased demand.

Oil company executives, asked recently if they wanted to build new refineries, said no. In part, this is because of the growth of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. The industry prefers to expand existing refineries.

___

_Allow coal-based diesel be used as motor fuel.

SPIN: Coal is the country's most abundant energy resource, and technology exists to produce diesel fuel from coal. A mandate to produce 6 billion gallons a year of coal-derived motor fuel by 2022 would contribute to greater energy independence and spur the industry's development.

FACT: The process requires large amounts of energy and results in greenhouse gas emissions, running counter to efforts to combat global warming.

I'll try to have more on this subject later today.

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!

Due to budget cuts.

Considering the success and popularity of the Mars rover program, you'd think they could find another area to trim. Perhaps some enterprising NASA fans could help them find the $4 mil (PDF) needed to keep the rover alive.

Hey, I wonder how Dr. Death feels about the rights of robots to be "put to sleep"?

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.

And the two Republican Representatives on the house page board have resigned out of frustration over the lack of leadership from the Democrats:

WASHINGTON - Two Republican House members resigned Thursday from the board supervising teenage pages, accusing a Democratic official of failing to inform them about sexual and criminal activity by at least four youngsters.

The board's Democratic chairman supported the Republicans, blaming House Clerk Lorraine Miller — the day-to-day administrator of the page program — for failing to immediately notify Page Board members of all the inappropriate conduct.

Miller, appointed by the House Democratic leadership, said she followed a zero-tolerance policy toward the teenagers, who were expelled and sent home. But she did not directly respond to the accusation that she was lax in telling the board what had happened.

The Representatives that resigned from the page board were Reps. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida and Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia, both Republicans.

Brown-Waite wrote a scathing letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., charging that she "learned nothing from the lessons of the Mark Foley scandal."

The Florida congresswoman said four pages have been dismissed this year "for serious criminal acts and for inappropriate sexual indiscretions." A House Republican official said the criminal activity involved shoplifting. The official could not be quoted by name because he wasn't authorized to comment on the issue.

Besides blaming Pelosi, Brown-Waite said Miller, the House clerk, was "slow to share information with members of the board.

"In at least one vitally important incident, we were intentionally kept in the dark about dismissals for more than a week, and were only given the details after personally confronting the clerk with rumors we had heard," Brown-Waite wrote.

The Page Board chairman, Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., said in a statement said, "The board was not satisfied with the manner and timeliness in which it was informed of these actions. Therefore, in our Page Board meeting of Nov. 9, 2007, the board unanimously agreed that the clerk of the House should immediately and simultaneously inform all members in cases where pages were dismissed from the program. Indeed, that was the case in the most recent incident."

Pelosi has promised an investigation:

"The House Page Board must undertake an immediate and thorough review of the adequacy of the supervision and security at the Page dorm. As a mother and a grandmother, nothing is more important to me than the safety and security of our House pages."

She needs an investigation, all right. It should, however, concentrate on the lack of leadership that continues to allow this program to be a mess. Specifically, the House Clerk, Lorraine Miller needs to be looked at regarding her unwillingness to inform the Republican members of the page board about serious incidents. When the safety and welfare of children entrusted to the government is at stake, there's no place for the kind of petty partisanship that Ms. Miller seems to have displayed. Someone with the kind of judgment that would even consider such partisan differences when dealing with the security and safety of these kids should be relieved of any responsibilities regarding the page program in addition to disciplinary action.

And Pelosi needs to beg the two Republicans to return - the balancing of political parties on the board was a good idea, and must be restored quickly.

The Wall Street Journal answers your questions - apparently, it's a lot like the good ol' days, when service was more than a bag of peanuts and a soda:

Airman Fauci, a diminutive blonde, was working in supply management on the flight line of an F-16 squadron in New Mexico two years ago. When she told her base commander she planned to leave the service at the end of her four-year stint and apply to be a flight attendant at Southwest Airlines, the officer put her in touch with the 89th Airlift Wing. Soon after she was selected, Ms. Fauci re-enlisted for four more years. She has traveled to foreign destinations ranging from Australia to Belgium, serving first lady Laura Bush and members of Congress.

When it came time to serve the new cookies on Secretary Gates's trip to College Station, the extra work paid off. They "were so much better," she says. And when the passengers noticed they were shaped like Texas, "they thought that was awesome."

Just doing the jobs that American flight attendants (and Southwest, Northwest, Delta, US Air, Continental, etc.) won't do.

If Rat Island had oil under it, would the environmentalists (and the left) be blocking this?

State and federal wildlife biologists are gearing up for an assault on the rats of still-uninhabited Rat Island, hoping to exterminate them with rat poison dropped from helicopters. If they succeed, the birds will sing again on Rat Island. And it will be the third-largest island in the world to be made rat-free.

Just askin'.

"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.

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!

This time it's Finance Department employees stealing your money:

Finance Department employees may have stolen as much as $1 million in the last two years using an intricate fraud scheme targeting refunds for unclaimed stock certificates, bank accounts and other abandoned assets that revert to state ownership.

Abandoned financial property -- known as escheat -- is one of the state's largest revenue sources, bringing in about $364.9 million last year alone. Money comes from abandoned assets that have been dormant for five or more years or unredeemed retail store gift cards.

As an aside - gift cards? Looks like they glossed over another type of theft. Next time I'm giving cash.

State Auditor R. Thomas Wagner Jr. says, "This could be the largest case of government fraud we've ever had...".

More later...

Update (11/06/07 10:58AM): Good Question.

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.

Sunday, Ace posted on this article about how enforcing our nation's laws is allegedly hurting farmers. In a similar vein, there was a front page feature in my local paper, the Wilmington News Journal, about immigration policy harming Delaware's horse racing industry (emphasis added):

Trainer Klesaris, who has 65 horses at Delaware Park and Maryland's Fair Hill Training Center, said that because of the work force problems, he won't expand his business. "The industry will continue to shrink if Congress doesn't do something about the visas," he said.

Horse racing, Lake said, is a "dying industry."

Delaware Park depends on its H2B workers, Wayne said. So much so that in March a representative traveled to Mexico to meet with the government and to arrange employment for Mexicans to come work at the facility, he said.

Klesaris called the Hispanic workers his "main soldiers."

"If this industry is to survive, we need more immigrant workers," he said. "The unemployment office isn't sending people to the racetrack. Our country has quite a bit of unemployment, but those people aren't coming our way to work, and they won't."

The article details how employers are supposed to advertise for American workers before hiring non-citizens, but a quick search of the News-Journal shows this to be a light effort. The state's workforce job listing also comes up empty.

Perhaps they aren't trying hard enough. BTW, a groom at Delaware Park gets $650+ a week plus bonuses. So how are the folks replacing the H2B workers as their visas expire? The article gives us a hint:

One 40-year-old groom, who would not give his name because his visa expired, said it's much easier to live on park grounds instead of "afuera."

The illegal quoted above is referring to the fact that Delaware Park, much like the farm mentioned in the first article, has living quarters on-site where illegals are harbored. Anyone at ICE taking notes?

Here's another from the News-Journal with a similar theme:

HAZLETON, Pa. -- The city's highly publicized campaign of targeting illegal immigrants threatens to drive away business and industry and damage prospects for economic revitalization, a new report asserts.

That's a bold claim considering the policy was blocked by the courts and never started.

I expect this theme to intensify as the election approaches. Stay tuned.

Update: Link fixed.

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

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".

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

Kit has chapter 2 and chapter 3 of her series about the Pendleton Eight posted. Doesn't disappoint. We disagree on a point or two, but I'll wait until the series is completely posted to comment. Suffice to say that on most of her major points, I agree. These men appear to be getting a raw deal and the military needs to address the problem.

is being discussed in a series of posts starting today by the always excellent Kit Jarrell of Euphoric Reality. This is not only the must read of the day, but the rest of the series as it gets posted should be watched for as well:

Now imagine that you are sitting in an 8×8 cell, as are seven of your brothers, waiting to find out if your promise to remain faithful will in fact result in your death–not in a hail of enemy fire, not in the blinding explosion of a terrorist’s bomb, but by the sterile needle of a lethal injection, administered by the very country you spent your adult life defending. You have been shackled, wearing a label that says “PVD”: potentially violent and dangerous. You have been here for over a month now, in solitary confinement for almost 24 hours a day, with nothing to do but pray that someone stands up for you, just as you did for them. But hope is dwindling. Your military attorneys don’t have time to help you, and your civilian attorneys are being denied access to evidence that would prove you’re innocent–no autopsy of the man they say you murdered in cold blood, no witnesses, nothing.

Kit also provides links for those who wish to help - also recommended.

It matters little if you believe these men innocent or guilty - they deserve to be treated fairly by the military justice system, and by all indication, they haven't been.

I would also recommend writing to your elected officials in Congress. Unless, of course, you live in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, where your representative is likely in his favorite rocking chair knitting nooses instead of flags. Those folks should write to someone else's Representative instead.

Hopefully this won't survive the House:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. customs and border security agents would be banned from seizing prescription drugs that Americans import from Canada under a measure passed by the Senate on Tuesday.

The Senate voted 68-32 in favor of the provision, with supporters saying the federal government should stay out of the way of Americans seeking cheaper medicines in Canada for personal use. Many Americans import prescription drugs from abroad even though the practice is illegal.

I understand the emotional side to the argument. But Canada isn't the answer to drug costs. And ordering law enforcement to ignore the law is just plain stupid.

If this survives, expect Canada to crack down from their side. "Cheap" drugs will be no more available than before, and we'll have busloads of seniors going to Canada not for drugs, but for their court dates.

Well, it looks like NJ's casinos are back in business.

I guess that's a bad thing here in Delaware, since the casinos here enjoyed increased business while the competition was down.

On the other hand, we have Biden shilling for 7-11 and Dunkin' Donuts to make up for it....

Via AP/Yahoo:

The government announced Thursday that a person officials would not identify had turned in the laptop and external drive, which were stolen from a VA data analyst on May 3. The FBI said an initial review determined that the contents had not been accessed or copied.

This turns yesterday's good news in to today's very good news. While issues surrounding privacy and computer security urgently need addressing, the most immediate concern should be the welfare of the veterans affected by the theft. The FBI is conducting additional forensic testing of the computer, but a gut read of this suggests high confidence that the data wasn't used, else the FBI would have deferred making a statement until deeper tests had been performed.

VA Secretary Jim Nicholson isn't off the hook, though. While disaster may have been avoided, the fact remains that improper handling of personal data caused a situation that could have been much worse. The recovery of the laptop should not in any way reduce the sense of urgency to investigate the causes and take corrective action.

The AP reports it has documents showing the permission level of the VA analyst in the stolen laptop case:

WASHINGTON - The Veterans Affairs worker faulted for losing veterans' personal information had permission to access millions of Social Security numbers on a laptop from home, agency documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

The story summarized the documents:

The documents show that the data analyst, whose name was being withheld, had approval as early as Sept. 5, 2002, to use special software at home that was designed to manipulate large amounts of data.

A separate agreement, dated Feb. 5, 2002, from the office of the assistant secretary for policy and planning, allowed the worker to access Social Security numbers for millions of veterans.

A third document, also issued in 2002, gave the analyst permission to take a laptop computer and accessories for work outside of the VA building.

"These data are protected under the Privacy Act," one document states. The analyst is the "lead programmer within the Policy Analysis Service and as such needs access to real Social Security numbers."

There's also going to be a hearing in the House tomorrow featuring the testimony of VA Secretary Jim Nicholson and others.

The piling on and upchanneling of blame is starting as well:

"The gross negligence in this case are the people above him," said Rep. Bob Filner (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., the acting top Democrat on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. "They gave him express permission to take the information home. When it was stolen, he reported it right away."

"They're trying to pin it on this one guy, but I think it's other people we need to be looking at," he said.

Meanwhile, President Bush requested funds to help the VA deal with the fallout:

Separately, the president asked in a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., for the $160.5 million to help the VA cover the costs of credit monitoring and fraud watch services.

The money would be taken from programs in the departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Labor, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs whose money would otherwise go unused or from programs previously set for elimination, according to Scott Milburn, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.

And the requisite bickering to go along with it:

Some Democrats said money to pay for veterans' protection should not come at the expense of other programs.

"It's outrageous to first expose millions of Americans to credit fraud and identity theft and then to try to cut food stamps, student loans, and youth programs to pay for it," said Sen. Patty Murray (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash. "This is a new problem that needs to be solved with new money."

The budget is fixed each year, and even discretionary funds get spoken for pretty quickly. Be afraid whenever a politician is looking for "new money". At least the rationale for the funds is a good one:

Nicholson told lawmakers this week that the money would cover monitoring for about half of the 17.5 million people whose Social Security numbers were compromised. He said it also would pay for out-of-pocket expenses ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 for those whose identities are stolen.

If there are any identities stolen - and so far, none have - this sounds like it would take care of all but the very worst cases.

Kinda makes you wonder how much the lawyers who brought suit have the troops' interests at heart - remember, they've blocked the VA from publicizing this assistance out of concern that it would diminish their award.

Additionally, from the descriptions of the documents the AP gives, I'm unconvinced that the unnamed worker had permission to take the personal data home with him, as the article suggests. The first document apparently deals with software - not data. The second gives permission to access social security numbers - something that would be necessary for work performed at the office, AP doesn't directly say that the permission extended to home in the document's description. And the third simply gives permission to take the laptop ouside the facility - something that would be required if he was subject to travel on department business. All three seem fairly ordinary.

My problem with AP's description is the lack of anything that looks like a smoking gun. The type of documents described above would be government forms or boilerplate letters, and very specific in scope. If any of the documents gave specific permission to take the live database home, why no quote?

Hopefully some of this will get clarified as the AP updates the story, or during the testimony in the House tomorrow. I'm still fairly angry about the situation, but not ready to assign blame until I learn more.

One of the left talking points of late has been the notion that the NYT disclosure didn't harm national security because it didn't include the most intimate operational details of the program. Besides, they say, the terrorists aren't that dumb - they know we're trying to track the money flow of terrorism.

Damage to the program, however, needs to be assessed not in terms of what the terrorists knew or assumed prior to its disclosure. The real damage will be from decreased cooperation from the participants in the program.

Early this week, the administration was on the phone reassuring allies of the importance of keeping the program running. But now that the program is common knowledge, objectors are coming out in droves. In Belgium, SWIFT is under fire:

June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The Belgian government has ordered an investigation into the decision by Belgium-based cooperative Swift to provide bank-transfer data to the U.S. government as part of President George W. Bush's efforts to fight terrorism.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt's office said today it asked intelligence and security officials to determine ``if the interests of certain Belgian nationals were possibly affected and if Belgian law was respected.'' The office also said in today's e-mailed statement that it is trying to ascertain whether Belgian oversight needs ``adaptations.''

And as many as 32 governments are also being challenged by a UK based civil liberties group:

BRUSSELS, June 27 — A human rights group in London said today that it had lodged formal complaints in 32 countries against the Brussels-based banking consortium known as Swift, contending that it violated European and Asian data protection rules by providing the United States with confidential information about international money transfers.

Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said the organization filed the complaints in the hope of halting what it called "illegal transfers" of private information by Swift, whose full name is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications.

The complaints were filed in all 25 member nations of the European Union, plus Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Iceland. The group said it also filed a complaint in the semiautonomous Chinese territory of Hong Kong.

"Swift appears to have violated data protection rules in Europe by making these transfers without the consent of the individuals involved, and without the approval of European judicial or administrative authorities," Mr. Davies said. "The scale of the operation, involving millions of records, places this disclosure in the realm of a fishing exercise rather than a legally authorized investigation."

There can be no doubt that the result of all this activity will be reduced participation in and cooperation for US-led anti-terrorism intelligence efforts. That's the real nature of the damage.

Update: Captain Ed feels the program may be over. Could be, but I think it's a safe bet that if it continues it will no longer be of much use.

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'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.

And the liberals are seething, claiming this to be a political stunt.

They don't look very happy, do they?

WASHINGTON - The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.

In a 256-153 vote that mirrored the position taken by the Senate earlier, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

**snip**

Democrats denounced the debate and vote as a politically motivated charade, and most, including Pelosi, voted against the measure.

It appears to me that Murtha and his pals are now mired in an intractable war. He was there for the wrong reasons and has mismanaged it terribly. Indeed, this is a war that he cannot win, and made worse by the fact that many in his own party don't support the cut 'n run^TM strategy and are apparently now engaged in a civil war within the Democratic Party. Maybe it's time for Murtha to re-deploy back to Pennsylvania.

Political stunt? You bet it was. Democrats have had free reign to run from channel to channel crying "Time frame! We need a time frame! Bring 'em home now!" while ducking the harder question of what it means to advocate abandoning those we've sworn to help. A long-running dishonest stunt by the Democrats for cheap political points.

They'll find it harder to earn those points now.

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.

Somehow his trackback hit the bit bucket, so I didn't know DragonFlyEye had responded to my last post on VNRs until yesterday. Which is a shame, because although this isn't really a burning-bush issue requiring great speed, I really don't want multiple days passing between posts as it makes the debate more difficult both to write and to follow. Oh, well. You blog with the internet you have, as it were...

Please do visit DragonFlyEye's response to my last post here. I'll quote a few things, but I encourage my readers to follow the links to insure nothing is out of context. It also gets me a few emails taking me to the woodshed if I misquote, thus keeping me straight.

One of the subjects I touched on was my bewilderment about the Bush administration's poor handling of the media. DragonFly made an astute observation:

Now, here’s the thing: I’ve heard nothing from Conservatives for years except how the media is the quote “Liberal Media,” and since Bush has come to the presidency, I’ve heard nothing from Liberals but that the media is quote the “Conservative Media,” and I think they’re both basically nuts. I am guessing LB would be inclined to agree with me on this point.

Good guess - to a point. We on the right spend an enormous amount of time whining about the media, and it surprises and amuses many of us when we see the left doing the reverse. I think the media is a lot more complicated than any of us give it credit for, it isn't like a school of fish that changes directions simultaneously without rhyme or reason. While I feel there's evidence that the media leans left overall, some of the negative reporting I see is less about ideology and more about business. If it bleeds, it leads is a very real maxim invented long before Bush took the oath of office, and while it's easy (and perhaps a bit lazy) to automatically assign the dearth of good news coming out of Iraq to ideology, the difficult truth is that opening schools and setting up governments are nowhere near as gripping as blown up bodies, mayhem, and controversy.

Ideology does rear its ugly head too frequently and there are lots of good examples. For instance, who on either side could argue that Mary Mapes or Helen Thomas are objective? And many have noticed the rush to judgement on the Haditha incident. I'll leave it to DragonFly to provide examples from the leftward point of view, I can think of a couple but they may not be as meaningful.

I've also noticed a tendency for us as bloggers to selectively switch hit out of convenience. The New York Times gets skinned alive on a weekly basis by the right, we rip apart every story we don't like - then turn around and use them as a trusted source when something they publish shores up a point we're making (you'll see me do it later in this post!). I see the same trend on the left as well - again I'll leave it to DragonFly to show the best examples, as he's far better equipped than I.

On the meat of the issue - the VNRs themselves, we have a little less agreement. But there is still some common ground here:

I agree with the first portion of this paragraph, along with the tacit acknowlegment in the next para, that this is certainly grey area where legality comes to mind and definitely sneaky. It might be hard to pin the Administration down on this one for illegalty, but of course this has been the Administration’s modus operandi throughout its history.

Sneaky I said, and sneaky I meant. The Clinton administration (calm down, it's not what you think) spent as much as $125 million on VNRs. I don't watch much television nowadays, but I did during the 1990s. I can't recall ever seeing something during a newscast that I labeled as government made. Even if a notice had been given in the segue or in the lower right corner of the screen identified it (and they all could have) I don't remember it. Chances are, most of you don't either. When an effort is made to have a government message seamlessly blend in with the trappings of a professional newscast, it's not unreasonable to assume that the video didn't self identify in an obvious fashion for a reason.

Motive, however, is the proverbial fried rat in the bucket of chicken. I speculated in my previous post that the administration was determined to get their message out in spite of a hostile media. DragonFly agrees in part, but wonders why the stations are so willing to air VNRs without disclosure (emphasis mine):

Follow me through this, if you could. . . The State Department releases a tape that says “Produced by the US Department of State,” right on the box, which has a title in the movie that says “Iraqi’s Really Dig Us. Produced by the US Department of State” and then Joe Smith, Program Director for the Podunk Awake and Semi-Alert at Five televison news broadcast just. . . strips all that information? For what? Esthetic quality?

That’s the dot no one is connecting right now. The Bush Administration department or corporation that put out these VNRs properly identified them, but for some reason, theres a rash of journalists going out of thier way not to let anyone know? And of thier own accord? That doesn’t come close to passing the smell test; indeed, I would go one step further and say that the rot has a specific stench of government/corporatists collusion.

It's good that he mentions the corporations here, as they put out the vast majority of VNRs. Unlike the government, their motivations are simple - they just want to get free/cheap advertising, sell more product, and improve their bottom line. For a business, these are actually virtuous desires, and we're only questioning the methodology. The normal method of achieving this goal involves marketing through paid advertising. Open-air networks - those that don't depend on subscription revenue - make their entire living from it. So why, then do the stations air VNRs - in effect, free advertising? And can we extend that reasoning to government VNRs, which are somewhat more diverse in purpose?

I'm not willing to throw away all of DragonFly's reasoning quoted above. There may very well be some pressure involved - but I'm Missouran about such things - I'd need more than speculation. At least a partial answer that can be sourced comes from this NYT article by David Barstow and Robin Stein - probably the most complete on the subject (side note - the anti-drug example came from here as well):

WCIA is a small station with a big job in central Illinois.

Each weekday, WCIA's news department produces a three-hour morning program, a noon broadcast and three evening programs. There are plans to add a 9 p.m. broadcast. The staff, though, has been cut to 37 from 39. "We are doing more with the same," said Jim P. Gee, the news director.

Farming is crucial in Mr. Gee's market, yet with so many demands, he said, "it is hard for us to justify having a reporter just focusing on agriculture."

To fill the gap, WCIA turned to the Agriculture Department, which has assembled one of the most effective public relations operations inside the federal government. The department has a Broadcast Media and Technology Center with an annual budget of $3.2 million that each year produces some 90 "mission messages" for local stations - mostly feature segments about the good works of the Agriculture Department.

"I don't want to use the word 'filler,' per se, but they meet a need we have," Mr. Gee said.

In this example, the station used the VNRs as a "cheat" to get free programming and avoid full staffing. I suspect that's the case at many other stations as well.

Incidently, I thought the article was a little unfair to the USDA - they make it seem as if the segments exist just to blow Secretary Mike Johanns' horn. However, the USDA is probably the most helpful government agency, with many important and beneficial programs under its control. When Congress passes a relief bill, for example, this is one of the ways the USDA gets word of its availabilty out. That's why it's difficult to take an absolutist view of the subject. Fact is, most of the government VNRs are beneficial. The exclusion of criticism is not necessarily the devil you may think - once a citrus canker compensation program has been passed and funded by Congress, the arguments used against it in debate are moot, and the priority rightly becomes public awareness to notify affected growers. It's not a matter of pushing an agenda, but enacting public policy.

Even with that recognition in mind, I still remain an absolutist as to the ethics of VNRs. Even the beneficial topics can be disseminated adequately via other means. And some agencies have shifted away from the practice since the original flap occurred, which is good news:

At the State Department, Mr. Tappan said the broadcasting office is moving away from producing narrated feature segments. Instead, the department is increasingly supplying only the ingredients for reports - sound bites and raw video. Since the shift, he said, even more State Department material is making its way into news broadcasts.

Providing sound bites and raw video completely avoids the ethical problems of VNRs, and the stations are free to balance them as they choose. All in all, a much healthier approach that I'd like to see the other agencies adopt.

On the topic of propaganda, I'll stick by my guns - the formal definition is entirely inadequate and would include the examples I gave. The inclusion of Harry Reid wasn't intended as a "inflexive jab". Regular readers know that when I'm of a mood to take a cheap shot at Harry Reid, I tend to be far less nuanced.

The word "propaganda", as I hinted in my previous post, has evolved so that it almost always means something negative. Under the classic definition, the Easter Egg Roll (be sure to view the webcast by White House Curator Bill Allman) fits quite well.

With the exception of a cleanup post or two, I suspect that DragonFly and I have debated this issue as far as possible. I'm surprised and pleased that we were able to find more to agree on that I would have predicted - enough so that should this issue become active again (on the government front, that is) we could comfortably collaborate on it. It's interesting to note that some some of that agreement is borne of differing rationales - an indication to me that this type of exercise probably wouldn't succeed for some topics.

It was fun - I hope we get a chance to do it again.

The senate chose lower job growth, decreased investment, and off-shoring of wealth today.

Constituents of Sen. George Voinovich and Sen. Lincoln Chafee especially should take note. The bill wouldn't have advanced anyway had they sided with the Republicans (cloture failed 57-41, 3 votes short), but folks should be aware that they sided with the politics of envy and class warfare.

I'm very disappointed.

About three months is all Michael Cristofaro and Susette Kelo have left:

NEW LONDON, Conn. - City officials voted to evict two residents whose refusal to give up their riverfront houses helped lead to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling that governments may seize property for private development projects.

The City Council voted 5-2 in favor of eviction Monday. An attorney for the residents said they are considering continuing to fight.

The city attorney plans go to court to seek removal of the remaining two families and obtain the properties in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, a process that could take three months. Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the residents, said they will consider asking the state to pull funding for the development.

It's a shame that so few on the city council have a conscience. I'll let one of the two city council members that do have the last word:

But Charles Frink, one of the two council members who voted against the plan, said supporters should admit their mistake.

"I can't accept a possible reduction in taxes by having neighbors thrown out of their property," he said. "This is morally abhorrent to me. I refuse to profit from my neighbor's pain."

House Votes to Keep Offshore Drilling Ban

And after all that breast-beating about gas prices, too. Sooner or later coastal states are gonna figure out that aesthetics mean little when folks can't afford to drive there for their vacations. And just out of view, the most likely source of a spill is gonna be those Chinese and Indian oil rigs. Someone is going to get that oil - why can't it be us?

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.

A home run? No. But good nonetheless.

The State of the Union Address was, for me, a refreshing change from past Bush speeches. Not necessarily the content - thanks to the President's increased (and much needed) communication with "the folks" over the last few months, most of last night's address was not new. But the delivery was great.

The passion which carries even his worst deliveries was still there - and much of the annoying non-verbals (nervous smiles, head-bobbing, etc.) was missing. Pauses between sentences were shorter, although still too many - dramatic pause is best used sparingly. And his eye contact was superb - he looked directly into the camera often, and directly at the Democrat side of the room when emphasis was necessary as to who he was referring to.

The left actually helped his address by showing their stripes continuously throughout the 51 minute presentation. My favorite part was when he chided Democrats for obstructing Social Security reform, and the Democrats stood up and cheered. What a fitting display to the American public of what they really stand for. Like a four-year-old embroiled in a battle with siblings, the Democrats engage in contrarianism, opposing and obstructing anything the administration does regardless of the merits. Even when they agree, Democrats will publically oppose for the sole reason of scoring political points.

Time and time again, sane, mainstream statements were followed by applause from the right, and silence from the left. Sen. Reid appeared bored, Sen Kerry studied his shoes, and Hillary - some unusual expressions from Sen. Clinton. And did anyone else but me think the cameras of Fox News visited her way too often?

It was also gratifying to see Justice Alito enter the hall. After all the cash thrown to Dems by NARAL, NOW, and all of the other groups singularly focused on abortion as more important than any other challenge this nation faces, Alito's swearing-in earlier in the day allowed the President to formally introduce him to the American people during the SOTU - further highlighting how the Democrats have place partisan hackery above duty.

Speaking of partisan hackery, Rep. Lynn Woolsey's decision to invite Cindy Sheehan was the winner for the evening. The only possible reason to extend the invitation was in hopes that Cindy would disrupt the address, and Woolsey's act deserves significant scorn from left and right alike. Shame that it won't happen.

Cindy, by the way, plans on filing a 1st amendment lawsuit. I'm sure she'll claim that she was ejected because she disagrees with the administration. Beverly Young will stand as a testament to the false nature of her claim.

As for the content of the speech - thumbs up to his defense of the NSA wiretaps (provoking one of many sour displays from the left), as well as the energy portion. Thumbs down to border control (not nearly strong enough).

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.

[Scroll down for update...]

Via InstaPundit:

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Here's a joint statement by a number of bloggers on the House leadership election:

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.

Signed,

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear

Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com

Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com

Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!

La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner

Lorie Byrd, Polipundit

Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom

John Hawkins, Right Wing News

John Hinderaker, Power Line

Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO

James Joyner, Outside The Beltway

Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org

Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com

Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters

Scott Ott, Scrappleface

John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

The fiscal irresponsibility of our current congress really irks me, so naturally I signed up as soon as I heard. You can go and sign up here.

One thing I noticed that I hope gets corrected - NZ Bear appears to be soliciting cosigners to this statement, but not a single one of the 160+ signers in the comments have been elevated to the list of supporters in the article. It kinda makes it look like the statement is a vehicle to get attention for a select few bloggers and anyone else who may feel strongly about the PorkBusters cause is relegated to a background cheerleading post for those who are the real supporters - i.e., the names that don't show up in the comments. Don't misunderstand - I don't care about getting a mention in the article, as it's not about getting links for me. But maybe a few of the commenters won't see it the way I do and be terribly disappointed.

However, maybe NZ doesn't want to add any signers-on. If that's the case, fine, but he needs to clarify the the statement

"If you would like to be known as also supporting this statement, please include a comment below, or Trackback to this post on your blog."

to something sounding a little less inclusive.

Either way, I still support the cause, and will continue to in the future.

Update (22 Jan 06 1:18 PM EST): James Joyner of Outside The Beltway points out in a comment that I misread the intent of NZ Bear's statement:

LB,

I'm not sure how one would interpret "If you would like to be known as also supporting this statement" as "If you would like me to edit this statement to include your name."

Those who fought in the War for Independence thereby signaled their support for the Declaration of Independence. They were not, however, asked to sign the document post hoc.

Upon taking a second look, I realize he's right. My humble apologies for the error - I misread this one - badly, I'm afraid. Thank you to James for setting me straight.

A bill passed the Senate last month for a new themed coin program:

WASHINGTON - New dollar coins featuring all 37 of the nation's dead presidents will begin rolling out of the U.S. Mint in 2007 under a bill Congress is sending to President Bush.

Lawmakers hope the coins — and an accompanying $10 gold piece for collectors featuring former first ladies — will be a big money raiser for the government like the 50-state quarter program. They also hope the dollar pieces will rev up interest in the Sacagawea dollars, which have been little-used.

But halfway into the article, this pops up:

The front of the coins would depict former presidents, but not those who are living or have been dead for less than two years, and the backs would show the Statue of Liberty.

Only one former President has died in the last two years - Ronald Reagan in June of 2004.

Why the slight, congress? What the hell were you thinking?

Nancy Pelosi issued this press release today on President Bush's Iraq war plan. Although it was filled with the usual tripe we've come to expect from Rep. Pelosi, notable was the last paragraph:

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable."

But when faced with having to put up or shut up, she bolted away from the Mothra Cut and Run Plan as if it had cooties.

I'm sure her opinion's just evolved - right?

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.

You should recall the story earlier this month about the IRS investigating Rev. George Regas and All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena about a sermon titled "What if Jesus were to debate John Kerry and George Bush?"

Now comes another allegation:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today filed an Internal Revenue Services (IRS) complaint against Focus on the Family, a conservative, non-profit organization led by its founder and chairman James C. Dobson. The complaint asks for the IRS to investigate activities by the group which may violate IRS regulations and require a revocation of its tax-exempt status.

Although barred from electioneering, Dobson has endorsed candidates for political office several times. In early April, 2004, Dobson endorsed Republican Representative Patrick J. Toomey in his race for Senate in Pennsylvania. In addition, it was reported that Dobson actively campaigned during a rally for Rep. Toomey. Other candidates that Dobson reportedly endorsed in 2004 include North Carolina Republican candidate Pat Ballentine for Govenor and Oklahoma Republican candidate Tom Coburn for Senate.

"Mr. Dobson's egregious violations of IRS code demand an investigation into his improper activities that break both the spirit and the letter of IRS law," Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today.

I don't think this will go very far. Endorsing a candidate as an individual is a far cry from making political speeches disguised as a sermon. But the real question is: Why did CREW make the complaint?

Recently, the IRS has actively pursued investigations against several perceived liberal groups. The IRS targeted the NAACP's chairman Julian Bond for a July 2004 speech in which he criticized the Bush administration's policies on civil rights and the war in Iraq. Additionally, the IRS has threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California because of an antiwar sermon there during the 2004 presidential election. In his sermon "If Jesus Debated Sen. Kerry and President Bush," the Rector Emeritus of the church, George Regas, never encouraged parishoners to vote for one candidate over another, but only to vote their deepest values.

Sloan continued, "The IRS has established a track record of scrutinizing organizations, in particular liberal ones, that have purportedly violated electioneering regulations. We hope that the IRS will fully investigate Focus on the Family activities as vigorously as it has targeted those of progressive organizations."

You know, my four year-old does the same thing.

Just in:

Justice Department Sues Missouri for Alleged Violations of Voter Rights

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Justice Department announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against the State of Missouri and the Missouri Secretary of State for violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleges that the state has failed to meet its legal responsibilities to conduct a general program to maintain its voter registration list for federal elections as required under Section 8 of the NVRA. It alleges that, in some parts of Missouri, voters have been removed from registration lists without notification in direct violation of mandatory NVRA procedural protections,and that,in other areas, ineligible voters have not been removed from registration lists. The complaint further alleges that the state's failure to comply with the voter registration list maintenance provisions of the NVRA has resulted in registration lists that provide inaccurate voting information, including one county where the number of registered voters is over 150% of its voting age population.

"The National Voter Registration Act requires that states protect the rights of all voters by notifying them before removal from a voter registration list. It also requires states to remove ineligible voters," said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "With this lawsuit, the Department of Justice will ensure that all Missouri voters are able to go to the polls and cast ballots in free and fair elections."

We all heard about some of this during the last election. Doesn't matter to me who's behind it, any voter fraud is bad. Nice to see some action in getting it cleaned up.

Update: More here.

May only be getting worse. After the fire he took last week when he advocated surrendering Iraq to Al-Zarqawi (something even Al-Zarqawi's family wouldn't do), now he may be facing an ethics probe:

Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.

I think the timing isn't good on this, as the left will surely paint it as retribution no matter how valid the reasons for the probe. Considering the cries of "corruption" from the left every time a Republican sneezes and the bloodlust displayed in pursuit of Plamegate, Delay, Frist, etc., it's certainly a cynical paint job, though - a point that hopefully won't be missed by the public.

Even if the ethics allegations are true, it's no more than a pimple on the butt of the damage Murtha's already inflicted on himself.

Check out the rest of the story at NeoCon Central.

Howard Dean, responding to the Murtha controversy, sent a letter to Democrats yesterday defending the former Marine. What's in it is fairly ordinary for this type of communication from Dean, lots and lots of mud-slinging against the Republicans. What's notable is what he doesn't include - there's not a word about what the fuss was really all about. Here's Dean's masterpiece of illusion in its entirety:

Dear Friend,

I want to tell you about John Murtha. He's a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. He's also a combat veteran and retired Marine Corps colonel.

Murtha spent 37 years in Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. And for the last thirty years he's been one of the most respected voices in Congress on military issues -- universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and military brass alike.

Until now.

Republicans have disgraced themselves by viciously attacking John Murtha with such disrespect that not only veterans, but every decent American should be angry.

What did Murtha, a decorated combat veteran, do to draw fire from a White House led by a president and vice president who evaded service in Vietnam? He questioned their management of the war in Iraq. Here's part of what he had to say:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. ...

"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. ...

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected 5 deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called Murtha's comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman, who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha, who volunteered for two wars, wanted to "surrender to the terrorists". A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.

Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

I will deliver your message to him personally, along with my own thanks for his service to our country and his continuing courage in the face of threats.

Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership.

First it was Senator Max Cleland, who left limbs in Vietnam, being savagely attacked in 2002. Then John Kerry, who received three purple hearts, being smeared in 2004. The history of this war has shown that Republicans value political posturing more than the service of America's veterans.

Republicans don't want a serious debate about Iraq because they know the American people are simply not with them. They cannot respond to the substance of Murtha's criticism -- or any criticism -- because they are wrong.

Jack Murtha is already fighting back. When told of Cheney's comments he reminded people where Cheney was while he was in Vietnam: "I like guys who got five deferments and have never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

But Jack can't beat this back alone. Show him that Americans know that Republicans should be ashamed of themselves:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

Enough is enough -- we cannot allow another veteran to be smeared by George Bush's cronies.

Thank you for taking a stand.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

What he fails to pass on to the rank and file is the part of Murtha's statement that got everyone riled up - the part about immediate withdrawal:

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats.

"To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

"I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy."

Not everyone follows the news as closely as the average blogger, and I'm sure that many Democrats had not heard the whole of Murtha's statement, if any of it at all. Obviously Dean was trying to capitalize on it by omitting key facts which would have revealed the true nature of Murtha's "Cut and Run" message.

All this from Howie, who in the letter says:

Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership.

Yet it's Howie using lies and manipulation to sway the voting public once again.

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!

Yesterday, President Bush said:

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will."

Today, conservatives are still celebrating that the President finally stood up to the vile smear attacks the left have levied against him. However, there's one group who could not (or would not) hear a word of it. The left. Here's Henry Waxman's take from today:

"There are many unanswered questions about why the Bush Administration led the nation into war in Iraq. Why did the President and his top advisors make literally hundreds of misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq? Were these honest mistakes, as the President insists, or was the intelligence deliberately twisted, as mounting evidence would indicate?"

Howard Dean:

"The fact remains that pre-war intelligence was manipulated and cherry-picked. Instead of trying to pass the buck to members of Congress, who like so many Americans were willing to trust their Commander-in-Chief, the President should tell the truth to our troops and their families about how they were sent to war."

Harry Reid called the president's comments a return to what Reid calls "his old playbook of discredited rhetoric about the war on terror."

Edward Kennedy says it is "regrettable" that the president is attacking those "who seek the truth" about how intelligence was manipulated before the war.

Nancy Pelosi says it is "never appropriate" to try to play politics with war or with veterans. She says the president is doing "a disservice" to U.S. troops and the nation by trying to silence those asking questions about putting U.S. forces in harm's way.

Oddly, Dianne Feinstein seems almost reasonable when placed against the backdrop of the above smearmongers. No mean feat, considering I've never found her to be reasonable before:

``If I knew then what I know now, I never would have voted that way,'' Feinstein said. ``I'm pretty good about trying to do my homework. . . . This was the first vote of its type for me, so it was a very big vote. And I was convinced that there was an imminent threat.''

At least she admits to supporting the war, something most of the left now runs away from.

It's obvious the President has to continue what he began Friday, and aggressively so. The left is so driven by hate that truth no longer means anything. All that matters is defeating Bush at any cost. They will continue to repeat the lies again and again depending on the persuasive power of repetition to drive the public toward untrue conclusions about the Iraq war.

Bush not only needs to push back hard and often, he needs to take the fight beyond words. Re-release the portions of the intelligence committee's report showing that the left is wrong. Scour the documents from the lead-up to the war and release those that prove that the administration didn't mislead or lie. I know lots of that stuff is classified, but surely there are lots that are no longer sensitive.

The media can't be counted on to help. The president's speech has already been relegated to the talking head shows on cable, blogs, and the op/ed pages, while the left's relentless smear campaign is still front page news. The President needs to learn a new skill - public relations. Failure to do so harms the GWOT and the effort in Iraq every bit as much as the dishonesty shown by the left does.

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

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?

Via AP/Yahoo:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - The author of a new state law that allows felony charges against owners of dangerous dogs was hospitalized over the weekend after his own dog attacked him.

Does he have to turn himself in now?

Can somebody tell me what the hell is wrong with these people?

Berkeley's Veterans Day ceremony, scheduled for Nov. 11, was abruptly canceled on Monday because the volunteer organizing committee split over the political content.

Go read the whole thing.

Speaking as a veteran (retired Air Force), the folks who wanted to inject politics into a day to honor veterans are despicable. But the decision to cancel the event because the anti-war crowd didn't get their way is far worse.

And a quick civics lesson for the Berkeley City Council. The first amendment guarantees free speech. It does not guarantee a venue.

Via Michelle Malkin

Let's go into the fascinating world of make-believe for a moment.

Let's say you own a spacious home in the mountains with terrific view and a nice big backyard. One sunny spring day, a man knocks on the door. He explains that he's from American Consolidated Mineral Extraction (ACME), and he believes that underneath your backyard are vast deposits of superballium, a raw material in great demand in auto production, electronics manufacturing, and is the primary component in the manufacture of bouncy balls. He further explains that ACME would like to bring a team of experts into your backyard to verify his suspicions.

You agree, and the nice, trained professionals from ACME come into your backyard to dig a few holes and collect a few soil samples. A couple of months pass, and a representative from ACME calls to tell you the good news - your yard indeed has abundant and quite valuable deposits of superballium, and ACME wants to mine it.

So after careful consideration, you decide on a plan of action: you decide to sell your backyard, and the mineral rights, to ACME. The agreed on price? $5.00.

What's that? You'd never agree to something so incredibly stupid? Sure you would. You already have.

Via AP/Yahoo:

CRESTED BUTTE, Colo. - The ruddy slopes of 12,392-foot Mount Emmons loom over this town, drawing hikers, backcountry skiers and snowshoers. But to residents such as Jim Starr, they also stand for what is wrong with the nation's antiquated mining laws.

Those laws allowed the Bush administration to sell 155 acres of public land on the "Red Lady" to a mining company for less than $900. The land has deposits of molybdenum, a gray metal used to make steel, alloys and lubricants.

OK, so it's not superballium. But 155 acres for only $900! Bet you folks in San Fransisco and Boston can't remember when land was so cheap, huh?

The sale was made possible by an 1872 mining law that lets the government sell, for just $2.50 or $5 an acre, public lands that contain minerals. This land sale, known as a patent, gives companies absolute title to the property.

The article goes on to describe how a few opportunistic folks use this law that was designed to encourage settlement in the wild west to get land for ski resorts and other non-mining uses:

The department acknowledges cases in which lands that companies had patented for mining were used for private, commercial development, such as at the ski resorts of Aspen, Breckendridge, Keystone and Telluride in Colorado and Park City in Utah.

At Keystone, developers fetched $11,000 an acre in 1989 selling off more than one-quarter of the 160 acres the government had sold. The land was never mined.

In Arizona, a Phoenix luxury hotel sits on 61 acres, part of an area that a businessman patented in 1970 for $153. He sold it to a developer for $400,000, plus a 1 percent share in future profits.

And here's how our elected officials are looking out for us:

The Bush administration and Congress have made a push to approve the remaining applications — approximately 200 — that were unresolved when President Bush took office. Under the Bush administration, 139 were approved and 50 remain to be considered.

Here's the bottom line stuff:

The remaining applications, mostly in Nevada, Arizona, California and Montana, involve selling 71 square miles of federal land in 11 states for just $130,000, according to Westerners for Responsible Mining, a coalition of 12 state and national conservation groups.

The lands' real value is $178 million, the coalition has estimated, based on figures from local assessors and real estate agents. Some $85 million of that total is in just one parcel — 3,000 acres near Arizona's popular Roosevelt Lake — that could be sold for $8,500, the coalition said.

Other patents, the coalition said, would allow the sale of 995 acres of California's Inyo National Forest, worth $7.5 million, for $3,100; 673 acres of California's Mojave National Preserve, worth up to $1 million, for $2,300; and 100 acres of Washington state's Mount Baker National Forest, worth up to $937,000, for $470.

Folks, I'm a Republican. I'm conservative on nearly any litmus test issue you could imagine. But this is unsupportable. I'm fine with breaks designed to help relieve shortages of natural resources. Hell, I fully support drilling in ANWR. But the private companies that benefit better damn well lease, not buy, the property at a fair price. And if someone wants to build a resort, they should find another place. This is a law that screams for an update.

Oh, and yes, I know the figures are from a liberal special interest group and most likely spun a little high. But even if the land is only worth $78 million vs. $178 million, my view of this doesn't change. It's even worse than pork barrel spending.

Lets forget about the environ-mentals that seem to be the only ones pushing for a change. The government owns vast parcels of land. But the government owns it on our behalf. It's our land, folks.

We're running huge deficits, and have made check-bouncing promises to rebuild the gulf coast. And nearly none of our elected representatives, Republican and Democrat alike, can seem to find any pork to cut from the transportation bill (or any other bill for that matter). But they can sell public land at five bucks an acre? This is no different than eminent domain, except that the government is taking from us all to give to private industry.

Again, I have no problem with mining resources that we need. Just don't pay the miners to do it. Lease the land for a fair price, and use the resulting revenue to help pay for Katrina and Rita.

Via AP/Yahoo:

NEW ORLEANS - New Orleans must lay off as many as 3,000 city workers, Mayor Ray Nagin announced Tuesday.

I think he should ask Mary Landrieu for advice on who should get pink-slipped.