Rhymes With Right (2024)

The Case Against Ron Paul

John Hawkins of Right Wing News and Conservative Grapevine makes his case against the Ron Paul candidacy in this week's column over at Townhall.com.

After noting Paul's flirtations with Trutherism, NAU conspiracism, and isolationism (among other things), He really gets to the heart of the matter in the final point of his column.

#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Granted, Paul would do considerably better than that if he ran at the top of the Republican Party ticket, but it's hard to imagine his winning more than, say 35%, of the national vote and a state or two -- even if he were very lucky. In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election.

Now I don't know that I entirely agree with the assessment that he is the least electable major candidate -- I think that the American people would be more inclined to send Dennis Kucinich back to keep billy goats from crossing his bridge -- but Hawkins is correct in pointing out that the American people would not accept much of what Ron Paul stands for. Even in his district, he maintains his hold less because his constituents are in lockstep with him than because he is an incumbent with a war chest drawn from a national base who is therefore able to discourage primary challenges.

Posted by: Greg at01:43 AM| Comments (453) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

Happy Flag Day From The Democrats

Posted by: Greg at05:59 PM| Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Jefferson Loan Incriminates Him Further

The FBI gave him $100,000. They found $90,000 in his freezer a short time later. I think we just found out where the missing $10,000 went.

Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) notified the House ethics committee weeks ago of a two-year-old loan he made to Vernon Jackson, the Kentucky businessman now in prison for bribing him, according to financial disclosures released on Thursday.

The late disclosure of the $10,000 loan could further hobble JeffersonÂ’s defense when his case goes to trial in January and embolden the members of both parties calling for his resignation. According to media reports in Kentucky, Jackson reported the loan to the FBI soon after he agreed to cooperate with the Jefferson inquiry in August 2005.

The $10,000 loan, which is still outstanding on Jefferson’s 2006 financial statement, may play a more infamous role in the government’s case against the embattled Louisianan. The $90,000 found in Jefferson’s freezer came from $100,000 offered him by government informant Lori Mody in July 2005, but little is known of the remaining $10,000 — other than its FBI status as accounted-for.

When will the DemocRATS start abandoning the sinking ship?

Posted by: Greg at11:54 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

F.O.O. (Friend Of Obama)

Just a reminder of the high personal standards set by Barack Obama in his personal and political life.

Antoin Rezko, an entrepreneur of considerable charm who found riches in fast food and real estate, is known around Chicago as a collector of politicians.

Back in the 1990s, Mr. RezkoÂ’s office was adorned with framed photos of candidates he viewed as up-and-comers. Among them was Barack Obama, a state legislator whose first campaign donations included $2,000 from Mr. RezkoÂ’s companies. As Mr. Obama built a career that carried him to the Senate in 2004, Mr. Rezko was there with him, holding fund-raisers and rallying support.

Now, as Mr. Obama runs for president, the once-beneficial relationship with his old friend and patron has become problematic.

Last fall, Mr. Rezko was indicted on federal charges of business fraud and influence peddling involving the administration of Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois, whose picture was also on Mr. RezkoÂ’s wall. Since then, Mr. Obama, a Democrat, has had to answer questions about a land deal with Mr. RezkoÂ’s wife, Rita, and about other ties to him.

Since early June, Mr. Obama has given to charity more than $21,000 in donations that his Senate campaign had received from Rezko associates now linked to the federal inquiries. He gave away $11,500 from Mr. Rezko himself last fall.

And for all that Obama tries to distance himself from Rezko, he'll never be able to escape this one.

And when Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, bought a house in 2005, Mr. Rezko stepped in again. Even though his finances were deteriorating, Mr. Rezko arranged for his wife to buy an adjacent lot, and she later sold the Obamas a 10-foot-wide strip of land that expanded their yard.

The land sale occurred after it had been reported that Mr. Rezko was under federal investigation. That awkward fact prompted Mr. Obama, who has cast himself as largely free from the normal influences of politics, to express regret over what he called his own bad judgment.

“Senator Obama is a very intelligent man, and everyone by then was very familiar with who Tony Rezko was,” said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a nonpartisan research group. “So it was a little stunning that so late in the game Senator Obama would still have such close involvement with Rezko.”

D.

I.

R.

T.

Y.

Seems to me he'd be a good fit on the ticked with Hillary, don't you think, given the high ethical standards they set for their friends and associates (and spouses).

Posted by: Greg at01:00 AM| Comments (236) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Bettencourt Not A Candidate In CD22!

Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, this does not strike me as particularly good news for the GOP in CD22.

From an email sent out by Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill about a meeting held today for party activists involved in taking back CD22 for the GOP.

Paul Bettencourt, Harris County Tax Assessor/Collector, was invited to attend the meeting to discuss the demographics of the district and his future plans. At the meeting, Mr. Bettencourt stated: “I want to encourage an open primary for anyone who wants to serve the citizens of Congressional 22.” Mr. Bettencourt also stated that, at this time, he is not planning to run in CD22. (emphasis mine)

The decision of Paul Bettencourt not to run for Congress in CD22 is the most momentous thing to happen since the courts ruled that Tom DeLay could not be replaced n the ballot last summer. Bettencourt, if he were to run, would be the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination and take back the congressional seat in this overwhelmingly Republican district.

More At Texas Safety Forum, Professors R-Squared, Texas Politics

Posted by: Greg at12:48 PM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

Who Does CAIR Represent? (UPDATED)

One has to wonder, given that they've lost 90% of their members since 2001 and are primarily bankrolled by just two-dozen individuals.

Membership in the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has declined more than 90 percent since the 2001 terrorist attacks, Audrey Hudson will report in Tuesday's editions of The Washington Times.

According to tax documents obtained by The Times, the number of reported members spiraled down from more than 29,000 in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006, a loss of membership that caused the Muslim rights group's annual income from dues to drop from $732,765 in 2000, when yearly dues cost $25, to $58,750 last year, when the group charged $35.

The organization instead is relying on about two dozen individual donors a year to contribute the majority of the money for CAIR's budget, which reached nearly $3 million last year.

Word is that tomorrow we will learn the names of the organization's major contributors, courtesy of the FOIA request filed by the Washington Times. This could be interesting.

UPDATE: Cover-up? All donor names redacted by the IRS.

Posted by: Greg at06:10 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Conservatives Against Rudy?

Frankly, I don't see there being much likelihood of conservatives bolting the party if Rudy gets the GOP nomination, despite the premise of this article.

A growing number of influential social conservatives are speaking out against Rudy Giuliani, with some threatening that they will take flight from the Republican Party in 2008 if the former New York mayor is the GOP nominee.

Giuliani's support for abortion rights and gay rights has not to date prevented him from winning the support of a sizable number of socially conservative voters, according to polls. But the continued strength of his candidacy is causing alarm among leaders of conservative advocacy groups, many of which have been major players in Republican politics.

Why don't I see this happening? Simple -- I don't see Rudy being on the GOP ticket in 2008, and certainly not in the top spot. He's going to the convention with a bunch of delegates, but not enough to win. And if we end up with some sort of brokered convention, my guess will be that we get a Romney-Thompson or Thompson-Romney ticket -- with Rudy offered the AG spot and an eventual Supreme Court seat and McCain installed as Secretary of Defense.

But let's assume for a minute that we are going to see Giuliani at the head of a GOP ticket -- what then? Are these conservatives really going to stay home or vote for a third-party ticket when the result will be the election fo a president much more hostile to their values? Will President Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, or President John Edwards really help advance the pro-life, pro-family agenda more than President Rudy Giuliani? I'd like to think that these folks will recognize that the impact of that third-party vote would be infinitely worse that the impact for a vote for Rudy and a GOP Congress.

Posted by: Greg at02:11 AM| Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

Republican Policies Equal Prosperity

Just a little reminder from George Will.

In the 102 quarters since Ronald Reagan's tax cuts went into effect more than 25 years ago, there have been 96 quarters of growth. Since the Bush tax cuts and the current expansion began, the economy's growth has averaged 3 percent per quarter, and more than 8 million jobs have been created. The deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product is below the post-World War II average.

So, why would any sensible American want to vote for a Democrat?

And remember -- this is what happens when the Bush tax cuts expire.

Twenty-three months after the next president is inaugurated, the Bush tax cuts expire. The winner of the 2008 election and her or his congressional allies will determine what is done about the fact that, unless action is taken, in 2011 the economy will be walloped:

The five income tax brackets (10, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent) will be increased 50, 12, 10.7, 9.1 and 13.1 percent, respectively, to 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6 percent. The child tax credit reverts to $500 from $1,000. The estate tax rate, which falls to zero in 2009, will snap back to a 60 percent maximum, and exemptions that have increased will decrease. The capital gains rate will rise, and the marriage penalty will be revived, as will the double taxation of dividends.

Furthermore, the alternative minimum tax was enacted by Democratic moralists in 1969 because 21 millionaires had legally avoided paying any income tax. The AMT, which allows almost no deductions, had one rate (24 percent) until 1993, when Democrats replaced it with two (26 percent and 28 percent). It has never been indexed for inflation and in the current tax year will hit almost one in five households -- 23 million of them.

Interesting, isn't it, that the group seeing the largest tax increase when the "tax cuts for the rich" expire during the next presidential term will be those making the least? And I wonder how many of those low income Americans removed from the tax rolls completely by the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" will find themselves once again required to pay income taxes with the return to Clinton-era tax policies?

Still, the Democrats want to insist that putting them in power means that "Happy Days Are here Again" -- but I would contend that will be the case only if you believe that the dark days of the Great Depression was a time of joy for Americans

Posted by: Greg at07:56 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

NRA And Dems Comproise On Background Checks

To the degree this keeps guns out of the hands of the truly mentally ill, I don't have a particular problem with this agreement between two adversaries.

Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.

To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks. Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.

"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a former NRA board member, who led the talks.

My questions:

1) How difficult will it be for victims of faulty information to correct it?

2) How long will purchase records be retained by the government?

I'm also concerned about the issue of allowing folks with minor infractions to be removed from the database. I'd personally like to see such a program expanded to include those convicted of non-violent felonies -- why should a conviction for tax evasion, for example, be the basis for losing the right to keep and bear arms?

However, this agreement does seem to be a reasonable step towards public safety -- but we must remain vigilant lest it become one more effort to unnecessarily restrict a liberty enshrined in the Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at07:26 AM| Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

Romney, Clinton Surge In New Hampshire

Could this be a sign of the eventual presidential contest?

In the the aftermath of this week's presidential debates in New Hampshire, Clinton and Romney come out on top in a new Mason-Dixon poll of likely primary voters there. Among likely Democratic primary voters, Clinton leads Obama, 26%-21%, with Edwards at 18%, Richardson at 9%, and Biden at 6%; no other Democratic presidential contender gets more than 1%.

Among likely GOP primary voters, Romney leads McCain, 27%-16%, followed by Giuliani at 15%, Fred Thompson at 12%, and Huckabee at 5%.

Romney is also quite strong in Iowa, while the other major candidates are abandoning the state by their refusal to participate in the Ames straw poll. If the former Massachusetts governor can win these two early contests, he could effectively shut the door on his GOP opponents. Granted that we are still early in the process and the impact of the Fred Thompson candidacy has not really been felt yet, but we may be seeing the beginning of the Mitt Romney charge to the head of the pack.

The question is -- faced with a Hillary Mitt race, which way would the American people go? Would they vote for the Mormon or the harridan.

Posted by: Greg at02:08 AM| Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

Has Immigration Deal Sunk Bush

Well, he never had any support among the irreconcilable Democrats, who have been out to sink his presidency since before it ever began. And he has lost the support of many Americans, who have been led astray by the constant media focus on bad news in Iraq to the exclusion of the many positive developments there. And now he has alienated much of the GOP base by supporting the illegal immigration amnesty bill. Does this mean that Bush is irrelevant for the next 18 months?

The breakthrough on the “grand bargain” on immigration a few weeks ago had brought new life to a White House under siege, putting a long-sought goal suddenly within reach. After many grim months, there was almost giddiness at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But that early euphoria only made the grand bargainÂ’s grand collapse on Thursday night all the more of a blow, pointing up a stubbornly unshakable dynamic for President Bush in the final 19 months of his term: With low approval ratings and the race to succeed him well under way, his ability to push his agenda has faded to the point where he can fairly be judged to have entered his lame duck period.

In all, 38 of the 48 Senate Republicans effectively voted against the White House on the crucial procedural vote on the immigration bill, leaving the presidentÂ’s No. 1 domestic priority somewhere between stalled and dead.

The White House has similarly been through a sharp reversal on the domestic politics of the Iraq war. After receiving a lift last month in the defeat of Democratic efforts to link war finances to Iraq withdrawal dates, the White House acknowledged Friday that it could not renominate Mr. BushÂ’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, because of expected opposition on Capitol Hill.

For a president whose muscular assertions of executive authority had overshadowed Congress for years, it was a striking indicator of how the balance of power in Washington has shifted away from him.

Sadly, I think it may be that this is the case. Having been abandoned by the white House on immigration, I find it hard to find any motivation to back the administration on anything other than the War in Iraq -- and that not because of Bush, but because of the essential security issues that would be compromised by failing to pursue victory.

Expect to see the GOP candidates for president run against the President as much as they do against the Democrats. After all, he has abandoned us -- why should we remain loyal to him?

Posted by: Greg at02:00 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

Jefferson Pleads Not Guilty

Well, what else is he going to do. If William Jefferson had any honor, he would have never have engaged in these acts in the first place.

Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) pleaded not guilty Friday to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa.

Jefferson, D-La., said he understood the charges during the federal court hearing. He was released on $100,000 unsecured bond.

"I am absolutely innocent of the charges that have been leveled against me," Jefferson said afterward. "I'm going to fight my heart out to clear my name."

And with all the folks around him who have already been convicted or entered guilty pleas, can you believe he is going to claim that he was somehow entrapped?

According to court records, FBI agents videotaped Jefferson picking up a $100,000 cash bribe in 2005 from an informant in a hotel parking garage. Two days later, FBI agents raided Jefferson's home in Washington and found $90,000 in cash stuffed in a box in his freezer.

Jefferson alluded to that money on Friday, but he declined to answer any questions.

"The $90,000 was the FBI's money," he said. "The FBI gave it to me as part of its plan — part of their plan — that I would give it to the Nigerian vice president, but I did not do that. When all the facts are understood, I trust that I will be vindicated."

According to court records, Jefferson told associates he needed cash to pay bribes to the country's vice president, Atiku Abubakar. Abubakar has denied the allegations.

He is caught, dead to rights. Too bad he is going to sting this thing along to delay justice as long as possible.

Posted by: Greg at06:47 AM| Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Horrors! Policy Differences Within Bush Administration

And here I thought debate and discussion and disagreement were a good thing in the process of policy formation. How is it that this one is presented as bad?

Vice President Cheney told Justice Department officials that he disagreed with their objections to a secret surveillance program during a high-level White House meeting in March 2004, a former senior Justice official told senators yesterday.

The meeting came one day before White House officials tried to get approval for the same program from then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who lay recovering from surgery in a hospital, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey.

Comey's disclosures, made in response to written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicate that Cheney and his aides were more closely involved than previously known in a fierce internal battle over the legality of the warrantless surveillance program. The program allowed the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas.

Oh, I see the problem -- Cheney and the folks hated by the Left actually came out on top in this policy debate. We just can't have the elected leadership win such battles, for that would imply that elections mean something when Republicans win. Nor does it matter that the policy adopted was in conformity witht eh requirements of a Supreme Court decision that went in favor of the Carter Administration doing the same thing.

No story here -- just a boat-load of liberal bias.

Posted by: Greg at11:10 PM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

Democratic Profiles In Cowardice

Roger Ailes of Fox News Channel gets this one exactly right when talking about the boycott of debates on the network by Democrat presidential candidates.

“The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda,” said Mr. Ailes. “And that’s what’s coming.”

What are they afraid of -- having to answer a tough question? What will they do when they have to respond to an al-Qaeda attack?

Posted by: Greg at11:38 AM| Comments (181) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Will Dems Return Tainted Jefferson Cash?

Or donate it to charity?

You know -- apply the same standard to themselves and their newly indicted member that they insisted Republicans apply to contributions from Tom DeLay when he was indicted for an offense that did not exist under Texas law.

Following U.S. Representative Tom DeLayÂ’s indictment at the hands of a local district attorney with whom he frequently battled, the DCCC called on GOP candidates to return contributions they received from the then-House Majority Leader.

Jefferson donated nearly $140,000 to the DemocratsÂ’ campaign committee. Jefferson also gave thousands to Democrat House members and candidates, including freshmen Nick Lampson, D-TX, Heath Shuler, D-NC, and Ciro Rodriguez, D-TX.

Lampson and Shuler received contributions from JeffersonÂ’s re-election committee, while Rodriguez received $1,000 from JeffersonÂ’s political action committee, the Future PAC.

Only Lampson is reported to have returned JeffersonÂ’s contribution.

Other Democrats who received financial support from Jefferson are: Sanford Bishop, $1000; Corrine Brown, $2000; Lois Capps, $500; Julia Carson, $1000; Donna Christensen, $1000; Emanuel Cleaver, $2000; Chet Edwards, $1000; Al Green, $2000; Alcee Hastings, $1000; Barbara Lee, $1000; John Lewis, $500; Carolyn McCarthy, $1000; Charlie Melancon, $2000; Gwendolynne Moore, $1000; Brad Sherman, $1000; and Mel Watt, $1000.

Jefferson also contributed a total of $5,680 to the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) PAC.

JeffersonÂ’s Future PAC gave $1,000 each to Democrat Representatives Corrine Brown, Julia Carson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Carloyn McCarthy, Kendrick Meek, Mike Ross, and Linda Sanchez.

That's a lot of dirty cash, folks -- and only one member returning it (probably the only good thing I have to say about soon-to-be-former Congressman Nick Lampson). I guess the Democrat culture of corruption runs mighty deep -- and the hypocrisy even deeper.

H/T GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at03:28 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Excusing Democrat Lapses

Because after all, it can't be that the national Democrats are corrupt -- so the Houston Chronicle would prefer to slime an entire state instead.

The indictment of Jefferson, a Democrat, shifts some of the attention and shame from the Republican side of the aisle after a string of Republican congressmen, aides and lobbyists — including the notorious Jack Abramoff, whose name has become synonymous with lobbying excess and improper favors — were indicted for bribery and other forms of official corruption.

If there is a distinction to be made, it is that Jefferson's behavior seems less the product of Washington's ethical void than of Louisiana's. Jefferson's constituents, perhaps inured to a culture of rampant official corruption, apparently regard $90,000 in a politician's freezer as a commonplace and re-elected him to Congress last November by a wide margin.

Now granted, Louisiana Democratic politics is known for its corruption, and Democrats have long turned a blind eye to such unethical behavior in that state because it has allowed them to retain power. But to trash the entire state?

But why stop there -- we could point out a disturbing tendency for official corruption among black public officials (at least anecdotally) that proportionally outstrips such corruption on the part of whites. Or perhaps we could go digging into religion or other demographic breakdowns -- anything to try to avoid the clear truth of the matter. You know, that William Jefferson is just one of a long string of corrupt Democrats that have highlighted the party for decades.

Posted by: Greg at02:28 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

An Interesting Observation

How can Clinton and Edwards (and Biden and Dodd, for that matter) "take responsibility" for their "incorrect" votes on the Iraq War, claim the war is not their responsibility at all but that of George W. Bush, and at the same time insist upon their fitness for the presidency?

The thing about a war is that once it has started, you can't take it back. Yes, Bush did push for the Iraq war. Yes, Bush asserted that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Bush also had help -- a 296-to-133 House vote and 77-to-23 Senate vote in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, with Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards, and Sens. Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd voting in the "yes" column.

This is Bush's war, the Democrats claim, because that dunderhead president misled them -- which is interesting, because presidential frontrunners Clinton and Edwards told debate host Wolf Blitzer that it did not matter that neither of them had read the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate before they voted for the war resolution. They had been briefed. Edwards read the five-page summary.

So now it's: Bush lied, we read the CliffsNotes.

In other words, they dared to vote for war without bothering to get informed -- they were not leaders, they were blind followers. Hardly a great qualification for a would-be president.

But there is more.

Maybe this attitude works in a primary election dominated by far-left partisans, but in the general election, I have to think that a more adult approach would work better for Candidate Clinton -- especially considering that the facts get in the way of her version of events. Clinton would look much better in the long run if she said not that she had been gulled, but that she had good reason to believe Hussein had WMD.

As reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. -- authors of "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton" -- wrote in a Sunday New York Times story that dissected Clinton's pro-war vote, while she did not read the full intelligence estimate, Clinton believed firmly that Iraq had WMD.

Of course she did. Her husband launched more than 400 cruise missiles at suspected WMD sites in Iraq when he was president.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton said of Saddam Hussein's WMD arsenal: "Someday, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."

Sen. Clinton claimed Sunday that she had expected that her vote for the war resolution would allow U.N. inspectors to finish their job -- even though Bush had made clear before the Senate vote that he was prepared to strike Iraq if Hussein did not back down.

Let me add, the figure who was really wrong was Hussein for his refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Hussein misled the world into thinking he had WMD.

And so i am curious about Senator Clinton -- at what point is she prepared to condemn her husband for having misled the world on Saddam Hussein's WMDs? At what point is she willing to condemn his actions against Iraq over the "nonexistent" stockpiles of chemical biological, and (potentially) nuclear materials? Why does Bill get a pass? Well, maybe the fact that offering the same sort of "fair-minded" critique applied to the Bush Administration would completely undermine the "Bush lied us into war" mantra chanted by the Democrat Left, and point to the fact that the Iraq War was and is the logical outcome of over a decade of bipartisan American policy related to Saddam Hussein's rogue regime.

And as for Edwards, there is this.

As for Edwards, his idea of leadership is to claim in February, "I think I was the first, at least close to being the first, to say very publicly that I was wrong." To me, that makes Edwards the first, or nearly the first candidate, to let down troops who can't go home -- and fallen troops who cannot be brought back to life -- just because Edwards admits he was wrong.

And as Sen. Barack Obama pointed out: "John, the fact is, is that I opposed this war from the start. So you are about four-and-a-half years late on leadership on this issue."

Indeed, it shows Edwards to be an intellectual light-weight who is more interested in poll numbers than principle -- so much so that he must be seen as either willing to sacrifice the lives of American troops to bolster his popularity or to abandon them when it become politically expedient. Or both.

Indeed, the columnist Debra Saunders really gets it right with her conclusion -- any candidate who supported the war at its inception but claims now to have been wrong or misled needs to actually take responsibility for their "mistake" by sitting out the 2008 presidential race.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rightlinx, sissunchi, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Maggie's Notebook, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Colloquium, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at03:39 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 874 words, total size 7 kb.

Death Of A Senator

RIP -- Senator Craig Thomas

Wyoming Sen. Craig Thomas, a three-term conservative Republican who stayed clear of the Washington limelight and political catfights, died Monday. He was 74.

The senator's family issued a statement saying he died Monday evening at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. He had been receiving chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia.

Just before the 2006 election, Thomas was hospitalized with pneumonia and had to cancel his last campaign stops. He nonetheless won with 70 percent of the vote, monitoring the election from his hospital bed.

Two days after the election, Thomas announced that he had just been diagnosed with leukemia.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, will appoint a successor from one of three finalists chosen by the state Republican party.

Frankly, Senator Thomas showed great courage and dignity in how he dealt with his illness. His death is sudden, unexpected, and very sad. He and his loved ones are in my prayers at this time.

Wyoming law seems to establish a process for keeping the seat in the hands of the party that won it in the last election, but that means this seat is also in play in 2008. This could make for some interesting dynamics in the 2008 election cycle.

Posted by: Greg at01:31 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

Stories From The Campaign Trail

Ann Romney is a very attractive woman -- and Mitt Romney's high school sweetheart.

I know you'd have to have a great relationship with your wife to tell this story to the whole world.

The campaign trail is not all about policy and meetings, however. We have had quite a few good laughs. Last week, my finance director Spencer Zwick and I wanted to make some phone calls to several potential donors. We were going to call from my hotel room, but Ann was in her bathrobe getting ready for an event. So, we went down the hall to call from the lobby. Well, Ann figured that she'd just need a minute to slip on her dress and that we could come back to the room to make the calls. So she opened the door, poked her head out and said: "Hey, do you want to come in here?" But we were now out of sight. And right next to the room in the hallway was a hotel maintenance worker. He looked at Ann, got a big grin, pointed to himself and said: "Who, me?" We're still laughing about that one.

Tell me, could you imagine this scenario happening with any of our recent presidents and first ladies -- Republican or Democrat? Could you imagine them telling this story -- and could you find it believable if they did?

H/T Race42008

Posted by: Greg at06:04 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Another Bush Aide Departs

My question is why this should come as any great surprise. After all, we are six-and-a-half years into an administration that has had relatively few major personnel changes over its lifetime.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett, one of President Bush's closest and most trusted aides, said yesterday that he will resign his post in July, leaving a void in an administration that has seen a string of departures as it struggles with sagging public approval ratings.

Bartlett, the father of three young children, said he will seek work in the private sector so he can spend more time with his family. The announcement came on his 36th birthday. "I've had competing families. And, unfortunately, the Bush family has prevailed too many times, and it's high time for the Bartlett family to prevail," he told reporters.

With twin three-year-olds and a six-month-old, it is not unreasonable for a guy who has worked for Bush since he was a 22-year-old fresh out of college to decide that the time had come to move on so that he doesn't lose any more time with his family. Besides, this is a time period when many two-term administrations have seen folks move on in a different direction -- why should this administration be any different?

Posted by: Greg at12:34 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

The Sun Will Come Out

Tommorrow?

Hillary Clinton's campaign might want to keep a dictionary handy when their candidate's out trolling for support.

The Democratic presidential hopeful pitched a technology plan to Silicon Valley executives in California Thursday, with the misspelled message, "New Jobs for Tommorrow," plastered in large white letters on a banner behind her podium.

Bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow, there'll be spell check -- and firings.

It's a good thing the sign didn't include a misspelling of potato -- it might have derailed her entire presidential campaign.

Posted by: Greg at12:25 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Demo-Hypocrisy On Earmarks

They were supposed to be the root of all evil -- and Democrats campaigned against them and promised to end them.

Guess what? Earmarks are the hallmark of Democrat pork-barrel spending. Not only that, but they want to hide it from you.

Sailing into majority status by running against the GOP “culture of corruption,” which included charges of widespread abuse of earmarks, Democrats have since turned their backs on promised reforms and instead have adopted rules that guarantee a continuation of the practice.

In the House Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., has made it clear that anonymous earmarking will continue, as will the practice of including the extra spending in the House-Senate conference report — behind closed doors with no debate whatsoever on the efficacy of the earmark while the bill is under consideration on the floor.

Obey’s arrogant response to questions about abandoning a major campaign pledge of the Democrats? “I don’t give a damn if people criticize me or not.”

Guess what, America -- they didn't mend it, they didn't end it. Obey and the rest have said "Screw you" to the American people. There's no better example of that than the refusal to condemn Jack Murtha's threats against a GOP colleague for exposing his earmarks to the public.

Turn them out in 2008 -- and elect real conservatives who have been acting to end earmarks.

Posted by: Greg at01:41 AM| Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Be Afraid -- Be Very Afraid

At last -- a potential presidential candidate I can treat with less seriousness than Ron Paul!

On May 25, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney participated in a 23-minute interview on Radio Station WBAI. The hosts asked her about the possibility that she may seek the Green Party presidential nomination in 2008. She said, “With the failure of the Democratic Congress to repeal the Patriot Act, the Secret Evidence Act, the Military Tribunals Act, I have to seriously question my relationship with the Democratic Party. The idea has not been ruled out. All the current Democrats running for president support the principle of potential military action against Iran; none of them is for impeachment of the President. They can’t speak for me. I am open to a lot of ideas in 2008.”

The Hit & Run blog over at Reason.com offers these questions.

Remaining questions:

1: Would McKinney get more or fewer votes than Nader did in 2004?

1a: Would the Libertarian candidate actually win fewer votes than her? Her? Really?

2: Would a McKinney candidacy make the LP look, by the mainstream media's lights, like the serious third party?

My answers?

1. More.

1a. Probably -- she takes all the right positions for the netroots, and the LP voters can't stuff a real ballot box like they do for Ron Paul in online polls.

2. No -- because the MSM actually likes McKinney, while they find the Libertarians insufficiently socialist -- though they do like the stuff about legalizing pot and prostitution.

Perhaps we can get a Cynthia/Cindy ticket in 2008 -- I doubt that Cindy Sheehan can keep herself out of the limelight more than two or three weeks and this would get her a platform.

Posted by: Greg at01:26 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

Thompson Takes The Next Step

Not that this comes as a surprise to anyone at all -- Fred Thompson is going to be forming an exploratory committee to explore the possibility of running for the White House. When? Monday.

"Law and Order" star Fred Thompson will make his flirtation with a White House bid official this week, forming a presidential committee and launching a fundraising effort that could culminate in a formal announcement over the July 4th weekend, advisers to the former senator said.

Thompson, who has been fueling speculation that he would seek the Republican presidential nomination with a spate of appearances and speeches around the country, urged a group of donors in a conference call yesterday to each attempt to raise a total of $46,000 from 10 couples starting on June 4, according to two participants in the call. Once the money begins flowing, Thompson will begin to hire a campaign staff and set up headquarters in Washington and Nashville, his advisers said.

The question is, of course, which staffers are not committed to someone else -- and which "names" will be jumping to Thompson from the other declared candidates in the GOP.

And the launch date for the "real" campaign? The Fourth of July weekend -- giving Fred one month to raise a substantial kitty. Expect him to make his announcement in Nashville.

The big question is -- who among the GOP leaders does this development hurt? Could it be Romney? Or is it McCain, whose political record is similar to Thompson's?

Posted by: Greg at12:48 PM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Don't Go Away Mad -- Just Go Away

When the going gets tough -- the Loony Left posts over at Kos and then abandons the field.

Cindy Sheehan, the "peace mom" who made headlines in 2005 by staging a marathon protest outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch, said Monday that she no longer wants to be seen as a leader of the anti-war movement.

In a 1,245-word missive entitled "Goodbye Attention whor*" posted on the liberal DailyKos blog, Sheehan said her campaign to end the war in Iraq had strained her relationship with her children, cost her a marriage and left her nearly penniless.

"This is my resignation letter as the 'face' of the American anti-war movement," Sheehan wrote. "I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost."

Her sanity and dignity are probably two of the things Sheehan will not recover, having clearly been driven around the bend by her son's death. I don't hate her -- I pity her, both for the loss she has suffered and her inability to channel her grief in a way that didn't destroy her family and disgrace the sacrifice of her son.

But I will point this out to you -- the Democrats embraced her in an opportunistic fashion only, as a weapon agains the GOP, so the conservative suggestion that she was a Democrat tool was, in fact, an accurate one. Once she ceased serving their purpose, she was discarded. It just sort of goes to show you how committed to the cause of ending the war in Iraq they really are -- and how much concern they really ahve for the troops and their families.

Posted by: Greg at05:13 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Fitzgerald Seeks To Punish Crimes Not Charged, Proven

Outrageous -- especially because he knew the guilty party from the first day of his investigation and chose not to charge that individual. How can he therefore seek to sentence a non-leaker like he did the leak?

During the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis Libby, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never charged, and never presented evidence, that Libby illegally disclosed the name of a covert CIA agent. But now, Fitzgerald wants Libby to be sentenced as if he had been guilty of that crime.

Libby is scheduled to face sentencing on June 5. In court papers filed last week, Fitzgerald argues that Libby should be sentenced to 30 to 37 months in jail — a relatively stiff sentence that is appropriate, Fitzgerald says, because of the seriousness of the investigation which Libby was convicted of obstructing.

During the CIA-leak probe, Fitzgerald looked into possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and the Espionage Act. He did not charge anyone with breaking either law. But in his court filing, Fitzgerald writes that the grand jury “obtained substantial evidence indicating that one or both of the…statutes may have been violated.” Therefore, Fitzgerald is asking Judge Reggie Walton to treat Libby as if it had been proven that such crimes occurred. “Because the investigation defendant was convicted of endeavoring to obstruct focused on violations of the IIPA and the Espionage Act,” Fitzgerald continues, “the court much calculate defendant’s offense level by reference to the guidelines applicable to such violations.”

As a basis for his argument, Fitzgerald is using a common legal distinction: It’s more serious to obstruct a murder investigation than a shoplifting investigation. The problem, for Fitzgerald, is that he never proved that a crime, as defined by either the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, actually occurred. Now, he’s arguing not only that he proved a crime occurred but that Libby knowingly took part in it. The formula for calculating the sentence recommendation, Fitzgerald writes, “is designed to match the offense level to the conduct and result intended by the defendant.”

Absolutely outrageous. Fitzgerald didn't charge Libby with leaking, fought to keep him from presenting evidence that any disclosures were legitimate under the law, and hid the identity of the real leaker throughout the investigation -- ultimately choosing not to charge that individual, who was in no way influenced by or connected to Libby, and who in fact was an opponent of Libby and his boss, Dick Cheney. But now Fitzgerald wants to treat Libby like a leaker?

There is only one word taht fits here -- scapegoat.

Posted by: Greg at11:10 PM| Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

CD22 -- Revenge Of The GOP

I'm so looking forward to seeing Nick Lampson crushed in November, 2008. After all, he showed himself unwilling to face a Republican in 2006, and this time there will definitely be an opponent on the ballot to put the seat firmly in the GOP column where it belongs.

HereÂ’s a sign that full-bore preparations for the 2008 elections start when the legislative session ends later today: U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson of Stafford, near Houston, is letting it be known heÂ’s not running next year for the U.S. Senate seat held by John Cornyn, LampsonÂ’s political strategist says.

Mustafa Tameez of Houston, a political consultant to Lampson, said this morning that Lampson, the Democrat who last year captured the U.S. House seat vacated by Tom DeLay of Sugar Land, intends to seek re-election instead—fully knowing that his district historically leans Republican.

A Senate bid is “not going to happen,” Tameez said. “It sounds goofy, but he feels like he made a commitment to the people of Congressional District 22.” Tameez said Lampson feels a Senate try would be “disingenuous.”

Tameez aired Lampson’s decision to stamp out speculation regarding a Senate bid. “We just want it to stop,” he said (unwittingly the desire of some observers of this legislative session).

So Nick is willing to actually stand and face a GOP opponent this time around? Should be fun to watch him go down in defeat to a Republican -- again. After all, constituents keep rejecting him when he has to face an opponent who is actually on the ballot!

And let there be no mistake -- there are several credible candidates out there, ready, willing, and able to write the final line of Lampson's political obituary.

Deluded Democrat reactions at Musings and BayAreaHouston (OMG-- have I actually linked to John twice today?)

Posted by: Greg at08:07 AM| Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Plame Perjury?

If this report is correct, one has to ask why Valerie Plame is not facing perjury charges. After all, her own memo seems to contradict her sworn testimony.

In her testimony before the House, Mrs. Wilson said flatly, “I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him.” She told the House committee that a 2004 Senate report, which concluded that she had indeed suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong. In particular, Mrs. Wilson pointed to a February 12, 2002, memo she had written, which the Senate said showed that she had suggested her husband for the trip, and claimed that the Senate had taken the memo “out of context” to “make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.”

The 2004 Senate report to which Mrs. Wilson referred had quoted a brief excerpt from her memo. In the new report, Sen. Bond publishes the whole thing, and it seems to indicate clearly that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip. The memo was occasioned by a February 5, 2002 CIA intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium. The report had been circulating in the intelligence community for a week by February 12, and Mrs. Wilson headlined her memo, “Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash.”

The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can’t be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.

Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going onÂ… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agencyÂ’s sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

Now Byron York points out the obvious contradiction here -- them memo clearly puts forward her husband as a candidate for the mission to Niger, though admittedly she was not the first person to raise his name. however, she is clearly pushing his candidacy here, advocating for him to be selected. How can this be squared with her sworn testimony that she did not recommend her husband? After all, she is clearly laying out her husband's qualifications for the role -- the day before the vice president was briefed on the uranium matter and asked the questions that ostensibly led to her husband's mission.

There is also evidence that she made contacts abroad with US officials in Africa seeking concurrence for her husband's travel -- only hours after the Cheney briefing. However, there is no way that her timeline can be jibed with the contention that the vice president instigated her husband's trip to Niger -- because it is practically a done deal when she sent the cable, and she had already been putting forth her husband as a candidate to seek information in Niger on the previous day.

Now this leads to a very interesting problem for Plame and Wilson. They are now seeking damages based upon true statements made by executive branch officials trying to correct the record after her husband's statements in the press. We now know that Plame lied about her role in selecting her husband -- and have since the original Senate Committee report was issued. The matter is new even clear than it was at the time. Should this evidence not be the basis for dismissing the suit? Furthermore, should this not be the basis for trying Plame, and perhaps Wilson, on perjury charges?

Regardless, it is clearly a basis for appeal on the part of Scooter Libby -- assuming the president is unwilling to immediately do the honorable thing and issue a full, complete, and unconditional pardon. After all, any misstatements on Libby's parts were not material to the investigation conducted by Fitzgerald, the actual leaker was never prosecuted, and the one individual clearly guilty of perjury is the so-called victim in the case.

H/T Ace

Posted by: Greg at11:41 AM| Comments (141) | Add Comment
Post contains 816 words, total size 5 kb.

Looks Dirty To Me

And this would be labeled as such by the press and the Democrats if Bill and Hillary had an R after their names instead of a D.

A longtime Clinton benefactor used corporate jets to fly the former president and Hillary Rodham Clinton on business, personal and campaign trips that a lawsuit brands as wasteful company spending.

The supporter, Vinod Gupta, also secured contracts worth more than $3 million for
Bill Clinton to provide consulting services to Gupta's Nebraska-based company, infoUSA, from 2003 through 2008, according to the suit.

Since 2002, Gupta spent $900,000 flying the former president to international locations on presidential foundation business and flying Hillary Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York, to political events.

The suit, filed by infoUSA shareholders last year, claims those expenses as well as millions of others unrelated to the Clintons were a "serial misuse of corporate assets and resources." The Clintons are not a party to the suit.

Details of the suit were first reported in February by The Deal, a business publication. Accounts also appeared in Saturday's New York Times and Washington Post.

These freebies have made it onto ethics reports and campaign finance disclosures. However, they do create an appearance of impropriety, because the Clinton sense of entitlement does not concern itself with little matters like appearances.

I'm curious -- will the Clintons provide reimbursem*nt to the company at full cost if Gupta is found to have engaged in wrong-doing?

Oh, and one other question -- why did this story get buried in the Saturday paper on a holiday weekend by both the Post and Times? Is is an attempt to cover it up? And is it collusion to avoid embarrassing the former president and his presidential candidate wife?

In other words, there are lots of questions out there.

Posted by: Greg at01:22 AM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

Dems Grudgingly Fund The Troops

Hey -- abandoning the troops in the field and surrendering to the enemy is a grand old tradition for the Dems, dating back to at least 1864. Fortunately, just like then, there are Republicans to safeguard the nation from Democratic irresponsibility.

Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.

The Senate vote to send the legislation to the president was 80-14. Less than two hours earlier, the House had cleared the measure, 280-142, with Republicans supplying the bulk of the support.

Five months in power on Capitol Hill, Democrats in both houses coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his policies anew. “This debate will go on,” vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, announcing plans to hold votes by fall on four separate measures seeking a change in course.

Unfortunately, the leading Democrat contenders for the White House showed their unfitness for the position.

Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.

"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, a New York senator.

"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that
President Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.

Supporting the troops by abandoning them -- an interesting concept. I guess they are more interested in the nomination that in principle or national security.

Though I will concede that they are not as unfit as John Edwards, who doesn't even recognize that the United States is at war with the forces of Islamist terrorism around the world, and who effectively denies the last 5 1/2 years (the last 15, really) of American history.

Posted by: Greg at10:25 PM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 3 kb.

Dems Pass Ethics Reform After Giving Colleague A Pass

I'm sure the Democrats will implement this provision every bit as completely and even-handedly as the ones that they gave Murtha a pass on earlier this week.

Prodded by Democratic leaders and by freshmen elected partly on promises to clean up Washington, the House approved new ethics legislation yesterday that would penalize lawmakers who receive a wide range of favors from special interests, and would require lobbyists to disclose the campaign contributions they collect and deliver to lawmakers.

Party leaders and new lawmakers worked until the day before the vote to sway some longtime members who had balked at the proposals. It took weeks of persuasion by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other key lawmakers to convince recalcitrant Democrats -- among them some members of the speaker's inner circle.

The new proposals, which in the end passed overwhelmingly, would expand the information available about how business is done on Capitol Hill and make it available online. They would provide expanded, more frequent and Internet-accessible reporting of lobbyist-paid contributions and sponsorships, and would for the first time impose prison terms for criminal rule-breakers. They would also require strict new disclosure of "bundled" campaign contributions that lobbyists collect and pass on to lawmakers' campaigns. Yesterday's legislation passed 396 to 22.

"It is absolutely imperative that we break this circle of deceit that exists, that has existed, between lobbyists, their wealthy clients and this legislature," said Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), who helped rally support for the rules. In November, Space won the seat vacated by Republican Robert W. Ney, who had pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

The House in January passed rules banning gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists. The rules also require sponsors of pet spending projects, known as earmarks, to identify themselves and certify that they have no financial interest in them.

The vote to let Murtha skate, followed by his admission of guilt, makes it clear that this is nothing but window-dressing from the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at10:09 PM| Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Political Speech Most Foul?

Well, that seems to be the position taken in Colorado, where a Democratic Party official has been acquitted of criminal use of a noxious substance for stuffing dog crap in the mailbox of her congresswoman.

A former Democratic Party activist who left dog feces on the doorstep of U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's Greeley office during last year's 4th Congressional District campaign was found not guilty Wednesday of criminal use of a noxious substance.

A Weld County jury deliberated about two hours before acquitting Kathleen Ensz of the misdemeanor count. Her trial began Tuesday.

Ensz's lawyers never denied that their client left a Musgrave campaign brochure full of feces at the front door of the congresswoman's office. But they argued that Ensz was making a statement protected by free speech - the poop was a symbol of what she thought of Musgrave's politics.

"Her only intention of going over there was to make a political statement that Marilyn Musgrave's politics stink," attorney Shannon D. Lyons said after the verdict.

So letÂ’s get this straight.

Stuffing dog crap in the mailbox is free speech.

Presumably this also means that throwing dog crap at an elected official is free speech, despite my argument that such repulsive and disgusting behavior was criminal conduct, not free speech, back when I originally wrote about this case.

Gee – I can’t wait for Hillary to come to town!

Posted by: Greg at12:18 PM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Will Murtha Be Punished Now?

Now that Jack Murtha has admitted violating House Ethics Rules, will he receive an appropriate sanction or his misdeeds?

Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania sent a note of apology to Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan Wednesday, the day after a divided House denied Rogers a vote to officially reprimand the powerful senior Democrat.

Murtha apologized for his "outburst" in a handwritten note Rogers received Wednesday morning, the latter's office confirmed. This marks his first acknowledgement of an episode between the two lawmakers on the House floor.

Last week, the powerful Democrat allegedly threatened to deny Rogers any future spending projects in defense bills after the Michigan Republican challenged his earmark request for $23 million to prevent the administration from closing an intelligence gathering facility in his western Pennsylvania district.

Republicans have called the tirade a flagrant abuse of House rules.

Members and aides on both sides of the aisle continued to speculate that Rogers or another Republican will eventually call on the ethics committee to formally investigate last week's flap, even after Tuesday's partyline vote to prevent debate.

However, Tuesday’s vote followed by Wednesday’s apology makes the duplicity of the Democrats really clear – and clarifies that their promises of a new tone were a lie.

Posted by: Greg at12:15 PM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

Send In The Clowns

This is a classic line, one that will have to join Queen SheilaÂ’s many other inane comments as highlights of her pathetic career in public office.

Rep. Jackson Lee also caused a few observers to scratch their heads when she opened her questioning of Goodling this way: “Allow me just to simply begin a series of questions, Ms. Goodling, and I would ask that they — your answers — be as cryptic and as brief as possible, however truthful, because we do have a shortened period of time.”

The woman is an idiot – but since she serves a racially gerrymandered district designed to put an African-American, no matter how incompetent, in Congress, we shouldn’t be surprised that she lives down to the level of Maxine Watters and Cynthia McKinney.

And interestingly enough, it appears that Congressman Keith Ellison may be giving her a run for her money in the idiocy department.

“So you all bypassed a chief of [the Civil Division] and went to somebody who had no experience in management simply because they were a liberal?” Ellison asked Goodling.

“No, not at all,” she answered. “There were other reasons involved in the decision.”

“Now — “

“To clarify, we — “

“No, I don’t need a clarification,” Ellison said. “Thank you, ma’am.”

“Well, I would like to complete my answer.”

“Well, I don’t need an answer.”

Actually, that is probably true. After all, these hearings into the perfectly legal firings of appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President are not about wrong-doing or oversight. Rather, they are about scoring cheap political points with pseudo-scandals and mini-gotchas. As a result, the actual evidence and testimony is irrelevant, for the conclusions were predetermined before the first question was asked. Ellison simply made the mistake of letting the cat out of the bag.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Here's looking at . . . me!, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Blue Collar Muse, third world county, Allie Is Wired, Right Celebrity, stikNstein... has no mercy, , The Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at12:13 PM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 5 kb.

This Could Hurt

John Edwards can kiss the gay vote goodbye -- or he could if he were comfortable around such people.

Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic strategist who worked on John Edwards's 1998 Senate campaign in North Carolina, does not remember his onetime client very fondly.

In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"

"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."

Maybe we can get registered Democrat Fred Phelps to start showing up outside Edwards campaign events. He can just make his signs read "John Hates fa*gs".

And Shrum also makes it clear that Pretty-Boy John is an intellectual light-weight with a temperament unsuitable for the White House.

While praising Edwards as a man of "many innate political gifts," Shrum says he hoped the senator wouldn't run for the White House in 2004: "I was coming to believe he wasn't ready; he was a Clinton who hadn't read the books."

When Shrum called to say he had decided to join the presidential campaign of another former client, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Edwards was angry. "I can't believe you would do this to me and my family. I will never, ever forget it, even on my deathbed," he quotes Edwards as saying.

Dumb.

Inexperienced.

Emotionally unstable.

That's John Edwards.

Posted by: Greg at10:44 PM| Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Facts Get In Way Of Non-Scandal

Liberals tried to make a scandal out of the fact that the president wasnÂ’t wearing a seatbelt while driving on his ranch in Texas.

Guess what – his actions were legal.

President Bush found himself in a flap Tuesday about seat-belt use, a day after a federal agency began a campaign to encourage drivers to buckle up.

Video cameras caught Bush without his seat belt while driving a pickup on his Texas ranch last weekend, giving a tour to NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to comment in detail on Bush's driving habits but said, "We encourage everybody to wear their seat belts." He noted Bush was driving slowly at his ranch when the incident was taped.

On Monday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began its annual "Click it or Ticket" seat-belt campaign, which runs through June 3.

Bush did not violate Texas law. "On private property, you're not required to wear your seat belt," said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. She said "it's fairly common" in the ranchlands of Texas.

Mind you, I’m opposed to the nanny-statism that legally mandates seat belts and motorcycle helmets, and believe such laws should be repealed. That said, I also know the requirements of Texas law – and recognized immediately that there was no scandal here, because all such private farm and ranch roads are exempt under Texas law.

Posted by: Greg at08:38 AM| Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Now This Will Sure Help

NOT! After all, what sovereign country will abide by the decision of some federal court judge? After all, that is what OPEC is. Would NATO have followed the decision of a Soviet court during the height of the Cold War? The members of OPEC will simply keep their quotas and just quit selling oil to the US.

Decrying near-record high gasoline prices, the House voted Tuesday to allow the government to sue OPEC over oil production quotas.

The White House objected, saying that might disrupt supplies and lead to even higher costs at the pump. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is the cartel that accounts for 40 percent of the world's oil production.

"We don't have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of gas," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the bill's chief sponsor, declared, reflecting the frustration lawmakers have felt over their inability to address people's worries about high summer fuel costs.

The measure passed 345-72. A similar bill awaits action in the Senate.

Why don't we deal with the real issues in the gas price crisis and allow for more exploration and drilling in areas closed by law, encourage the building of more refineries and the upgrading of older ones, and do away with all the special blends of gas required by government fiat. Those things would do more to end the upward spike than getting a non-enforceable judgment from a federal court.

Posted by: Greg at10:05 PM| No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

No Timetable In Iraq Funding Bill

Who knows -- maybe the Democrats will be forced to let the troops win this one if the White House remains firm.

Democrats gave up their demand for troop-withdrawal deadlines in an Iraq war spending package yesterday, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.

Bush, who has already vetoed one spending bill with a troop timeline, had threatened to do the same with the next version if it came with such a condition. Democratic leaders had moved ahead anyway, under heavy pressure from liberals who believe that the party won control of Congress in November on the strength of antiwar sentiment. But in the end, Democrats said they did not have enough votes to override a presidential veto and could not delay troop funding.

The netroots are, of course, frothing, as are assorted moonbats doing fly-bys on radio and television broadcasts.

I just wish they would remember -- there is no substitute for victory.

Posted by: Greg at09:55 PM| Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

whor*s For Hillary?

Well, first she got the p*rn stars – now she’s getting the pimps. Will the group mentioned above be next?

First, we learned that adult movie star Jenna Jameson supports Sen. Hillary ClintonÂ’s run for president of the United States.

Now, we learn that another, um, Taboo Titleholder backs the New York senator’s White House ambitions: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, aka, the “D.C. Madam.”

Yeas & Nays tracked down Palfrey following her appearance at Nathans of Georgetown’s “Q&A Cafe” Tuesday (where she told Nathans owner Carol Joynt that she's a “conservative Democrat”) and inquired into the politics of this former escort service owner.

Palfrey admitted that she’s pulling for Hillary in 2008. “I think she’s great,” she said. “She’s bright and articulate.”

IÂ’m sure that Bill is out rounding up support and contributions from such supporters with great vigor.

Posted by: Greg at01:25 PM| Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

Start Using It?

The nutroots that control the Democratic Party haven't stopped using it since January 21, 2001. Why should we be surprised that they have turned their sites on Alberto Gonzales -- despite the fact that he is not accused of a single high crime or misdemeanor, merely carrying out a policy the nutroots dislike?

The Gonzales hearings have made plain for all to see that the highest law enforcement officer in the land is unwilling to tell the truth under oath. He doesn't recall, or he doesn't know, or he answers questions with questions, evading the issues. He can't remember his own name, his job title, details of meetings or decisions or strategies.* * *

Let's not be shy. Let's get the "I" word -- IMPEACHMENT -- out there loud and clear. Say it, SHOUT it -- it has a good patriotic feel to it. And yes, in fact, the attorney general CAN be impeached. It is legal, it is proper, it is time.

Here is your ammunition for impeachment -- a video, a petition, a whole campaign to get the House Judiciary Committee to launch this action, NOW. We and our friends and partners at Democracy for America want and need your help.

Don't just be angry, don't just be annoyed, don't yell at the ones you love. IMPEACH GONZALES.

Let's see -- these folks were quite supportive of a president who couldn't remember having sex with a federal employee in the office, using his office to actually obstruct justice, misusing FBI files, and other actual high crimes and misdemeanors -- but they are more than willing to go after this administration and its officials for firing employees who serve at the pleasure of the president. I guess though, that it is the party, not the facts, that matter to such folks.

Posted by: Greg at10:26 PM| Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.