After committing political suicide this past week, we now hear that Rick Perry doesn't have an ambition to seek any office higher than governor.

Gov. Rick Perry has no interest in national politics and may seek re-election in 2010, his chief political consultant said Friday.

Dave Carney said speculation that recent decisions by Perry, including his mandate that middle-school girls be inoculated against a sexually transmitted virus linked to cervical cancer, are designed to raise the governor's profile nationally is "one of the most retarded things about the political observers in Texas."

"He hates Washington. He doesn't like to go there," Carney continued.

Perry also isn't worried about his legacy, Carney added. The 56-year-old governor, who has served since 2001, is on track to be the longest-serving governor in Texas history.

"He's one of the few politicians in the world who doesn't care about what people write, what editorials say. That's why he's been so successful. He doesn't put his personal ego and reputation ahead of doing the right thing," Carney said.

Well, Rich Perry has done the wrong thing time and again over the last few years, and a lot of us would be happy to see him gone. If he runs for reelection in 2010, it had better be as an independent, because most of us will not support him then (and for the record, I didn't vote for him in 2006).

Posted by: Greg at 03:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

I do not believe that Gardasil should be mandated by any government. That said, I do support the method being pursued by this New York lawmaker.

A Democratic state assemblywoman plans to introduce legislation next week that would require schoolgirls in New York to get shots meant to knock out the virus linked to cervical cancer.

The question of whether to inoculate girls against human papilloma virus recently touched off controversy in Texas where Gov. Rick Perry issued an executive order requiring the vaccine.

''This is a revolutionary opportunity to eradicate a disease that kills many, many women. As a mom, I'm grateful my daughter will not have to fear having cervical cancer,'' Amy Paulin of Westchester County, whose 18-year-old daughter just received her first shot, told the New York Daily News for its Friday edition.

Paulin's legislation would require girls be inoculated with the three-shot series against HPV, a sexually transmitted disease that causes 70 percent of cervical cancers. Children whose parents have religious objections to the vaccine, called Gardasil, would be exempt.

I’ve explained my opposition to requiring this vaccine in the past, and won’t go into those reasons again. They have to do with the right of families to determine appropriate medical care, and the lack of a reasonable nexus between the vaccine and the right to a public education – and I have in a general sense rejected the “middle schoolers gone wild” argument espoused by a small minority of my fellow conservatives. I’ve also said that I would get the vaccine for my daughter if I had one, and that I believe girls OUGHT to be vaccinated without state coercion.

However, if such a requirement is the wave of the future, this method, not the dictatorial decree by a single officeholder, should be how the requirement is enacted into law.

It’s called democracy, folks, and it is how such decisions should be made – if it is proper that they even enter the realm of government decison-making at all.

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

If Karl Rove said anything even remotely close to this, he simply needs to be fired by the President.

According to a congressman's wife who attended a Republican women's luncheon yesterday, Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president's amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

Like most members of the GOP, I come from a background in which hard work was stressed as a positive thing. I was raised to believe that no work was beneath the dignity of any person so long as they did it to the best of their ability. Indeed, that is why my folks encouraged me to take my first job (age 14) stacking bundles of newspaper, bagging empty cans, and putting old jars and bottles in crates at the base recycling center. It is why I did stock work for three years at the base PX and worked the drive-thru window at Burger King while finishing graduate school. RoveÂ’s statement insults those of us in the conservative base who have done the kind of menial/manual labor that he seems to view with disdain, and too good for his own child.

And I wonÂ’t get into the fact that he clearly thinks that such work is the proper field for my many Hispanic students. There is an implicit racism there that needs no comment.

Assuming, of course, that this report is accurate.

Posted by: Greg at 11:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

That's the only way to interpret the decision not to fire the two NutRoots bloggers his campaign has recently hired.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Thursday he was personally offended by the provocative messages two of his campaign bloggers wrote criticizing the Catholic church, but he's not firing them.

Edwards issued a written statement about the fate of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, two days after the head of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights demanded they be fired for messages they wrote before working on the campaign.

The campaign distributed written apologies from the two women, who stressed they were writing on personal blogs and not on behalf of the campaign. Edwards said he believes in giving everyone a "fair shake."

"I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word," Edwards said.

The problem is that what they wrote was not merely "critical" of the Catholic Church. I'd be fine with that. What they wrote were crude, hate-filled anti-Catholic rantings that (at least in Marcotte's case) were clearly intended to malign the faith of Catholics (indeed, of all Christians).

I'll just ask -- would Edwards keep around staffers who wrote equally offensive things about the beliefs of Jews or Muslims, or attacked in such crude and insulting language major leaders of the black and Hispanic communities? I think we can all answer that question without too much help -- and can therefore see that John Edwards is merely talking a good game when it comes to rejecting bigotry, even as he embraces it by keeping these two hatemongers on his staff.

I guess we know whose votes John Edwards is counting on in order to win the presidency -- bigots, not Catholics. In doing so, he has embraced the KKK heritage of the DemocratICK Party.

Posted by: Greg at 11:26 PM | Comments (241) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, here is the statement of Rep. John Zerwas on the Rick Perry’s decision to play doctor with every little girl in Texas by unilaterally making the HPV vaccine mandatory if they are to receive a public education. And he is clearly against it.

Governor Perry’s mandating the vaccination of 11 year-old girls against the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually-transmitted disease, to me represents a radical and unwise shift away from the state’s current policies for vaccinating children.

To start, though HPV does present some serious health risks for women if left untreated, it does not present the same level of public health hazard as do the measles, mumps, rubella, and whooping cough. There is a reason why vaccines for these other illnesses are mandated: they are contagious diseases that can be transmitted by virtue of an infected child walking in a classroom and breathing. As in real estate, location matters here because the HPV cannot be transmitted without sexual activity – and, therefore, does not constitute a public health threat to Texas’ schoolchildren while in the classroom.

It follows, then, that I cannot support extending the mandated childhood immunization program as preferred by the Governor. Such a prescription, in my view, will only serve to undermine public trust in the existing, and badly needed, childhood immunization efforts.

In other words, exactly what I have been arguing since Friday – there is no nexus between HPV and presence in a public school classroom that justifies requiring it for all girls. This is simply a naked power grab by Rick Perry.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, here is the statement of Rep. John Zerwas on the Rick PerryÂ’s decision to play doctor with every little girl in Texas by unilaterally making the HPV vaccine mandatory if they are to receive a public education. And he is clearly against it.

Governor PerryÂ’s mandating the vaccination of 11 year-old girls against the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually-transmitted disease, to me represents a radical and unwise shift away from the stateÂ’s current policies for vaccinating children.

To start, though HPV does present some serious health risks for women if left untreated, it does not present the same level of public health hazard as do the measles, mumps, rubella, and whooping cough. There is a reason why vaccines for these other illnesses are mandated: they are contagious diseases that can be transmitted by virtue of an infected child walking in a classroom and breathing. As in real estate, location matters here because the HPV cannot be transmitted without sexual activity – and, therefore, does not constitute a public health threat to Texas’ schoolchildren while in the classroom.

It follows, then, that I cannot support extending the mandated childhood immunization program as preferred by the Governor. Such a prescription, in my view, will only serve to undermine public trust in the existing, and badly needed, childhood immunization efforts.

In other words, exactly what I have been arguing since Friday – there is no nexus between HPV and presence in a public school classroom that justifies requiring it for all girls. This is simply a naked power grab by Rick Perry.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

That’s right, our liberal friends at ACORN, the DemocratICK Party supporting group that has been connected with vote fraud around the nation.

A man who worked for an advocacy group that signs up new voters pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court to voter registration fraud, the U.S. attorney's office said.

Dale D. Franklin, 44, was hired by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, to work with Project Vote, another not-for-profit group that helps register voters.

Franklin admitted to giving the Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners a forged voter registration application while he worked as a recruiter in late September and early October, the U.S. attorney's office said in a statement.

He faces up to five years in prison and a fine up to $250,000. A sentencing hearing has not been scheduled.

In November, four other ACORN workers were indicted on charges of submitting false voter registrations to the Kansas City election board.

Once again, we find the same pattern – the same liberals who object to reliable proof of identity to vote are involved in creating fictitious voters, to make it easier to engage in vote fraud.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

ThatÂ’s right, our liberal friends at ACORN, the DemocratICK Party supporting group that has been connected with vote fraud around the nation.

A man who worked for an advocacy group that signs up new voters pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court to voter registration fraud, the U.S. attorney's office said.

Dale D. Franklin, 44, was hired by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, to work with Project Vote, another not-for-profit group that helps register voters.

Franklin admitted to giving the Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners a forged voter registration application while he worked as a recruiter in late September and early October, the U.S. attorney's office said in a statement.

He faces up to five years in prison and a fine up to $250,000. A sentencing hearing has not been scheduled.

In November, four other ACORN workers were indicted on charges of submitting false voter registrations to the Kansas City election board.

Once again, we find the same pattern – the same liberals who object to reliable proof of identity to vote are involved in creating fictitious voters, to make it easier to engage in vote fraud.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Look at what we would stand to lose under a single-payer, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton style “single payer” system. After all, this is the English system, touted as a model by the DemocratICK candidates.

Women in labour could face lengthy journeys by ambulance to distant specialist units under plans which would strip dozens of local hospitals of consultant-led maternity services.

Department of Health proposals unveiled yesterday seek a smaller number of consultant units to deal with the most complicated births and the sickest babies.
It would be left to local, midwife-led units to handle the majority of births, while more women would be encouraged to have their babies at home.

Unusually, the health minister responsible for maternity services, Ivan Lewis, was not present at the report's launch.

To put that into American English for you, that means that having an actual attending physician at a birth would become even less common in England, and specialists – ObGyns – would be rarer still.

Indeed, we see that the quality of healthcare continues to decline under the NHS. Why would we try to implement such a system here?

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Look at what we would stand to lose under a single-payer, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton style “single payer” system. After all, this is the English system, touted as a model by the DemocratICK candidates.

Women in labour could face lengthy journeys by ambulance to distant specialist units under plans which would strip dozens of local hospitals of consultant-led maternity services.

Department of Health proposals unveiled yesterday seek a smaller number of consultant units to deal with the most complicated births and the sickest babies.
It would be left to local, midwife-led units to handle the majority of births, while more women would be encouraged to have their babies at home.

Unusually, the health minister responsible for maternity services, Ivan Lewis, was not present at the report's launch.

To put that into American English for you, that means that having an actual attending physician at a birth would become even less common in England, and specialists – ObGyns – would be rarer still.

Indeed, we see that the quality of healthcare continues to decline under the NHS. Why would we try to implement such a system here?

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

Now the New York Times is covering it!

Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language.

The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, ShakespeareÂ’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions.

Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, is among the leading Democratic presidential candidates.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.”

Mr. EdwardsÂ’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.

Will the Edwards campaign – like the Biden campaign – be tarnished by yet another scandal that that would have passed unnoticed in years past, but became a story because of the intrepid work of the journalists of the blogosphere.

UPDATE: Terry Moran of ABC News asks – Does John Edwards Condone Hate Speech?

UPDATE 2: Have the girls been fired by Edwards? Will they stay fired?

Posted by: Greg at 08:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like the official blogger of the Edwards campaign will need to do a whole lot of scrubbing if the wants to sanitize her history of hatemongering – especially directed against Catholics and other Christians. She certainly helps put the “ICK” in the DemocratICK Party.

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Or this.

There’s a pragmatic reason that the Vatican might be a little hesitant to come right out and say that there’s no limbo (definition here, for those who don’t know much about Catholicism) is because the concept is wielded by everyday Catholics to explain where the souls of unborn babies go, which is just an extra way to guilt trip women who have abortions. But it’s sort of a balancing act, as far as I can tell, because as most people understand it, unbaptized children go to limbo but when Jesus returns, they all get to go to heaven. So it’s a way to guilt trip women who have abortions without casting god as such an uncruel monster as to throw souls into hell that never even had a shot at sinning. So that’s limbo: it sucks enough to make women feel guilty about abortion, but it doesn’t suck so much as to run people off.

I suspect Pope Ratz will give into the urge eventually to come out and say there’s no limbo and unbaptized babies go straight to hell. He can’t help it; he’s just a dictator like that. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw. The alternative is to let Catholic women who get abortions feel that it’ll all work out in the end, which is just not doable, due to that Jesus-like compassion the Pope is so fond of. Still, it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.

Which all brings me to recommending this great post by Austin Cline at Jesus’ General about why authoritarian types are so damn interested in cobbling people’s sex lives and meddling around in people’s private sexual decisions, like in this case why the Catholic church is so interested in making sure that people can’t make the perfectly sound decision to limit their family size while enjoying a healthy sex life—either you’re going to have to forgo birth control or you’re going to have to feel guilty to the point where you fear you’re casting babies into hellfire, by their standards. It’s a way to disrupt people’s lives so the church can get more control.

Oh dear – what a hateful bitch she is.

I wonder if the Edwards campaign really wants to be associated with the Know-Nothing wing of the DemocratICK Party that still espouses the same anti-Catholic hate that long-sustained the party’s paramilitary terrorist auxiliary, the Ku Klux Klan.

H/T Kathryn Jean Lopez

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 516 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like the official blogger of the Edwards campaign will need to do a whole lot of scrubbing if the wants to sanitize her history of hatemongering – especially directed against Catholics and other Christians. She certainly helps put the “ICK” in the DemocratICK Party.

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: YouÂ’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Or this.

ThereÂ’s a pragmatic reason that the Vatican might be a little hesitant to come right out and say that thereÂ’s no limbo (definition here, for those who donÂ’t know much about Catholicism) is because the concept is wielded by everyday Catholics to explain where the souls of unborn babies go, which is just an extra way to guilt trip women who have abortions. But itÂ’s sort of a balancing act, as far as I can tell, because as most people understand it, unbaptized children go to limbo but when Jesus returns, they all get to go to heaven. So itÂ’s a way to guilt trip women who have abortions without casting god as such an uncruel monster as to throw souls into hell that never even had a shot at sinning. So thatÂ’s limbo: it sucks enough to make women feel guilty about abortion, but it doesnÂ’t suck so much as to run people off.

I suspect Pope Ratz will give into the urge eventually to come out and say thereÂ’s no limbo and unbaptized babies go straight to hell. He canÂ’t help it; heÂ’s just a dictator like that. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the PopeÂ’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into SatanÂ’s maw. The alternative is to let Catholic women who get abortions feel that itÂ’ll all work out in the end, which is just not doable, due to that Jesus-like compassion the Pope is so fond of. Still, itÂ’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.

Which all brings me to recommending this great post by Austin Cline at Jesus’ General about why authoritarian types are so damn interested in cobbling people’s sex lives and meddling around in people’s private sexual decisions, like in this case why the Catholic church is so interested in making sure that people can’t make the perfectly sound decision to limit their family size while enjoying a healthy sex life—either you’re going to have to forgo birth control or you’re going to have to feel guilty to the point where you fear you’re casting babies into hellfire, by their standards. It’s a way to disrupt people’s lives so the church can get more control.

Oh dear – what a hateful bitch she is.

I wonder if the Edwards campaign really wants to be associated with the Know-Nothing wing of the DemocratICK Party that still espouses the same anti-Catholic hate that long-sustained the partyÂ’s paramilitary terrorist auxiliary, the Ku Klux Klan.

H/T Kathryn Jean Lopez

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.

Despite almost universal opposition, Governor Rick Perry refused to back down from his effort to play doctor with every little girl in Texas yesterday.

Gov. Rick Perry stood firm Monday against a political firestorm generated by his order that sixth-grade girls be inoculated against a sexually transmitted virus linked to cervical cancer.

Social conservatives from Texas to Washington called on Perry to reverse his order making Texas the first state to require the vaccine, saying the mandate makes sex seem permissible and that parents should be the ones to decide whether to immunize their daughters. And several Texas lawmakers expressed outrage at Perry for circumventing the legislative process.

"This needs closer examination. How much will it cost the state?" asked Sen. Jane Nelson, chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, at a press conference. "Most importantly, as a mother of four daughters, I want to make sure our daughters' health is protected and parental rights are preserved."

Nelson, R-Lewisville, asked Perry to reverse his order and said she also would ask the attorney general whether the Legislature has any recourse if he doesn't.

Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, said he would file legislation to reverse Perry's order. There also is the question of what happens to several bills already filed to make the human papilloma virus shots mandatory for school enrollment.

Interestingly enough, these are Perry's ALLIES opposing him -- based upon his usurpation of the proper function of the sate legislature. But Perry will not acknowledge that criticism, instead attacking a strawman argument about teen sexuality.

"Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity any more than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use," the governor said. "If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?"

But as I pointed out, that isn't the argument that the opponents are making. Rather than confront the real issue of the proper role of government, the separation of powers, and the lack of a nexus between public education and HPV transmission, Perry wants to take the argument of a small group with an absurd position and present it as the mainstream position. It is an incredibly dishonest tactic, and insults every Texan.

All the Merck commercials tell women to talk to their doctors to determine if Gardasil is right for them. None of the advertising material suggest consultation with the governor or other elected officials. That is as it should be -- and the most fundamental reason for opposing making this vaccine mandatory.

PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS TOPIC:
1) Perry Engages In Dictatorial Tactic -- Issues Gardasil Executive Order
2) An Open Letter To Governor Rick Perry

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

It was supposedly a way of defending institutional integrity when Democrats used their ability to block cloture votes when the GOP had a Senate majority. Now the Republicans are using the tactic to prevent the passage of a cut-and-run resolution on Iraq, and the Democrats are howling.

A long-awaited Senate showdown on the war in Iraq was shut down before it even started yesterday, when nearly all Republicans voted to stop the Senate from considering a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional combat troops into battle.

A day of posturing, finger-pointing and backroom wrangling came to nothing when Democratic and Republican leaders could not reach agreement on which nonbinding resolutions would be debated and allowed to come to a vote. The Senate's 49 to 47 vote last night to proceed to debate on Bush's new war policy fell 11 votes short of the 60 needed to break the logjam. Just two Republicans, Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Susan Collins (Maine), voted with the Democrats to proceed with the debate. Both are considered among the most vulnerable senators standing for reelection in 2008.

Republicans insisted that the impasse will soon be broken. But the leaders of the two parties appeared to be far from a compromise last night, and the White House has worked hard to block action on a resolution disapproving of the president's decision to boost troop levels.

"What you just saw was Republicans giving the president the green light to escalate in Iraq," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said after the vote. Reid contended that Republicans "are trying to avoid a debate on this matter."

Republicans said they have no desire to avoid a debate, asserting that they simply want a fair hearing on their proposals.

"We are ready and anxious to have this debate this week," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

Hey, harry, didn't you folks like to use this very method to stop legislation you opposed as recently as last year? How, then, can you object to its use today, now that you are in the majority?

Oh, that's right -- the shoe is on the other foot, and you don't like having to play by the rules you established when you obstructed Senate business while in the minority.

And frankly, I want to see the GOP prevent any vote on any measure that will undercut the troops and their mission by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, it looks like potential GOP candidates for President will be making trips to Houston seeking support. That's no surprise, considering that we are the fourth largest city in America. But they are coming, and coming early.

Whoever wins the 2008 Republican presidential nomination probably has Texas' electoral votes in his pocket, and prospective candidates also are making the rounds pocketing Texas cash.

Already this month, three top-tier candidates are stretching their hands out to Houston.

U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona was in Houston on Monday, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is scheduled today, and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani headlined a dinner last week.

Though Romney has lagged behind McCain and Giuliani in fundraising and organizing in Texas, he said he will name a state team of financial and political supporters after meeting with potential backers this evening at the Houston home of L.E. Simmons, the founder of SCF Partners, which invests in energy companies.

Romney said he will draw on ties cultivated in the Lone Star State when he headed Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that did business with energy interests.

"I have a good network in Texas," Romney said in a phone interview with the Houston Chronicle.

Another notable Texan backing Romney is Kevin Rollins, of Austin, who recently left as chief executive officer of Dell Computer.

And given Rudy Giuliani's connection to a local law firm, it won't be any surprise to see him stumping in town either. That makes the three leading candidates very active in our community. And why not -- this will be only the second presidential election since 1980 when the GOP has not had a Houston connection to the national race in the form of someone named George Bush in the thick of things.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

We saw how well a promise to raise taxes worked for Walter Mondale in 1984. Surely it will be no more popular in 2008.

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.

"We'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a healthcare plan that cost anywhere from $90 to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source," Edwards said on NBC's Meet the Press news program.

The 2004 vice presidential nominee and former North Carolina senator said his plan would "get rid of George Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year."

He said the plan would also reduce healthcare costs.

Of course, we’ve already seen how well nationalized health care has worked in Canada and England – in the latter medical care is rationed based upon budgetary considerations, and in the former people skip across the border to the US to quickly receive treatment and diagnostic tests that take months to get in Canada. Do we really want to see our system follow their models, and for medical advances to slow to a trickle as the economic incentive for them is leached away – and your taxes go up, as they inevitably will? After all, you know that the “optional” single-payer program will quickly become mandatory.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

We saw how well a promise to raise taxes worked for Walter Mondale in 1984. Surely it will be no more popular in 2008.

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.

"We'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a healthcare plan that cost anywhere from $90 to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source," Edwards said on NBC's Meet the Press news program.

The 2004 vice presidential nominee and former North Carolina senator said his plan would "get rid of George Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year."

He said the plan would also reduce healthcare costs.

Of course, we’ve already seen how well nationalized health care has worked in Canada and England – in the latter medical care is rationed based upon budgetary considerations, and in the former people skip across the border to the US to quickly receive treatment and diagnostic tests that take months to get in Canada. Do we really want to see our system follow their models, and for medical advances to slow to a trickle as the economic incentive for them is leached away – and your taxes go up, as they inevitably will? After all, you know that the “optional” single-payer program will quickly become mandatory.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

In keeping with the apology by President Bush, I promise that I will correctly pronounce the name of the other party.

Relying on self-deprecating jokes, unusual candor and outright flattery, President Bush on Saturday wooed lawmakers he not only needs but will have to answer to in the final two years of his presidency.

Bush had not seen fit to attend a Democratic congressional retreat since 2001, his first year in office. But the new political reality that has Democrats in charge of Capitol Hill for the first time in a dozen years changed his mind. When he appeared before House Democrats at a Virginia resort, he seemed to be trying to make up for lost time.

With his first words, he sought to put to rest one bone of contention between the White House and the new congressional majority: The dropped "ic."

Henceforward, I will cease referring to the Democrat Party. To ensure correct pronunciation, I will now refer to the party of abortion, racial discrimination, socialism and military surrender as the DemocratICK Party. Happy now, folks?

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Dear Governor Perry;

I'm troubled by your decision to mandate that sixth-grade girls must receive the Gardasil vaccine as a condition of exercising the right to receive a free public education in the state of Texas. I'm troubled by your staff's insistence that your unilateral action on behalf of your big campaign contributor Merck and its lobbyist, your former chief of staff, may not be revoked by the legislature using its constitutional oversight powers-- or, based upon the statement of your spokesperson, any court. But since you seem to be a graduate of the Paul Begala School of Lawmaking, I won't argue with you over the question of the legitimacy of your position.

However, since you seem intent upon forcing pharmaceuticals upon children in order to prevent a sexually-transmitted condition not readily contracted by activity in the course of a normal school day, I'd like to offer a suggestion for the next executive order you should issue. It, too, involves prevention of a sexually condition which would not often be contracted in the ordinary course of a school day, but which much more often impacts the lives and education of school-aged girls in Texas, as well as the state budget.

That condition is teen pregnancy.

Governor, in the last decade I have had 10-15% of my female students either give birth or become pregnant during the course of the school year, or even enter my tenth-grade classroom already a mother. Their pregnancies wreak havoc on their lives and education, causing them to miss school on a frequent basis due to their pregnancy or the demands of motherhood. I've witnessed them drop out of school or seek a GED rather than a diploma so they could go to work rather than college. I've seen them enter unwise, early marriages and unstable live-in situations.

Furthermore, I know that most of them have been recipients of Medicaid dollars for delivery, and for the subsequent medical care their child needs. They often find themselves on food stamps and living in subsidized housing. During their pregnancies and the post-partum period, these young women are often segregated into special educational facilities, and many school districts find it necessary to provide some sort of daycare program for the offspring of their students.

Clearly, this condition adversely impacts the lives of Texas students and their children, as well as the budgets of the state of Texas and every school district and local government. It is therefore imperative, sir, that you take action to safeguard all of the above, just as you have with your decision bypass the legislative process to mandate Gardasil via executive order.

I urge you, Governor Perry, to mandate that every entering sixth-grade girl in the state of Texas receive Norplant implants as a precondition to enrolling in a public school in the state. Furthermore, you should by executive order mandate that the replacement of those implants be required as a precondition for being permitted to continue in a public school beyond tenth grade, due to the limited effective life of the Norplant implants. This will protect every school girl in Texas from the perils of teen pregnancy, and much more effectively than the abstinence-only education programs currently offered in our public schools.

Now some may object that government-mandated Norplant violates the right of a woman, even an eleven-year-old, to control her own body. You've already crossed that line with your Gardasil executive order. Others may argue that government-mandated Norplant may give these same young woman the message that unprotected sex is now safe. But you've already crossed that line as well. And still others might argue that government-mandated Norplant might be viewed as permission to engage in sex. That line has also been crossed by your executive order. And as for those who argue that such decisions are best left to parents in consultation with family physicians -- you blew right past that line when you chose to play doctor with every little girl in the state by mandating Gardasil.

So if you are really interested in protecting young girls from sexually-transmitted conditions that negatively impact their lives, you must issue the Norplant executive order.

Unless, of course, your real motivation for the Gardasil executive order was paying back Merck for the campaign contributions and doing favors for former staffers and the family members of your political allies.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, The HILL Chronicles, Right Celebrity, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Right Pundits, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123 Beta, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Faultline USA, Blue Star Chronicles, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:09 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 837 words, total size 9 kb.

After all, George Soros did spend millions in an attempt to buy the 2004 presidential election for John Kerry. And Soros has lined up squarely behind Barack Obama in 2008. So I have to ask if Obama and other prominent Dems will denounce this comment made at the Davos Economic Conference in Switzerland.

"America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany," Soros said. "We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process."

Now let's start with this question -- do Obama and the rest of the Dem candidates believe that "Bush & GOP=Hitler & Nazis" rhetoric is accurate and appropriate? Do they believe that America needs "de-Nazification", a process which, if implemented here as it was in Germany following WWII, would involve stripping Republican Party members and supporters of their civil rights and civil liberties, banning them from political participation, limiting their employment, and subjecting the media to censorship?

This is an issue with no gray area at all.

Either Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party believe that Soros is taking a legitimate position in urging the suspension of the rights of American citizens because of their political beliefs and activities, or they do not. If they do, they must condemn the extremist rhetoric. If they remain silent, they implicitly support his call for the abrogation of the First Amendment government suppression of the political views of their opponents.

Who wants to bet that the denunciations will not be forthcoming -- either because they fear losing this big-bucks contributor, or because they secretly agree?

H/T Captain's Quarter & QandO

Posted by: Greg at 08:39 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks to me like the John Edwards campaign has taken into its heart a dishonest hack who is not averse to trying to send inconvenient facts down the memory hole.

The individual in question, the shrilly profane Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, was hired on to be Edwards' blog czarina. Among her early moves was to go back and sanitize her own blog, removing potentially embarrassing material.

You know, like this post, preserved for posterity in a Google cache.

In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will — not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.

This written, of course, a full month after the rape charges were dismissed because of the constantly evolving story of the faux-victim in the case and the filing of ethics charges against DA Nifong for his handling of the case.

After the post was linked by Jon Ham of the John Locke Foundation, the new Edwards staffer went back and "sanitized" her post via the DELETE key, and replaced it with this pathetic justification.

UPDATE: Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, IÂ’m deleting it and hereÂ’s my official stance. The prosecution in the Duke case fumbled the ball. The prosecutor was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself. That is my final word.

Change of language, change of stance, and a clear attempt to make it appear that she had not continued to accuse these young men of an offense which it is increasingly clear they did not commit.

In other words, Amanda lied -- in an attempt to cover her own tracks.

No doubt she will spend the next year -- until the Edwards candidacy folds under its own inadequacy after Iowa and New Hampshire -- engaging is similar acts designed to deceive the American public.

H/T Reason's Hit & Run

Posted by: Greg at 03:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

And personally, I'm quite content to see that happen. I argued that we should use a system with a paper trail back when Harris County selected its paperless system before the 2002 elections.

Gov. Charlie Crist announced plans on Thursday to abandon the touch-screen voting machines that many of FloridaÂ’s counties installed after the disputed 2000 presidential election. The state will instead adopt a system of casting paper ballots counted by scanning machines in time for the 2008 presidential election.

Voting experts said FloridaÂ’s move, coupled with new federal voting legislation expected to pass this year, could be the death knell for the paperless electronic touch-screen machines. If as expected the Florida Legislature approves the $32.5 million cost of the change, it would be the nationÂ’s biggest repudiation yet of touch-screen voting, which was widely embraced after the 2000 recount as a state-of-the-art means of restoring confidence that every vote would count.

Several counties around the country, including Cuyahoga in Ohio and Sarasota in Florida, are moving toward exchanging touch-screen machines for ones that provide a paper trail. But Florida could become the first state that invested heavily in the recent rush to touch screens to reject them so sweepingly.

Personally, I like the optical scanner machines -- but then again, as a teacher who works with scantron test sheets on a regular basis, i am familiar with the technology and trust it on a regular basis. And it isn't that I don't trust the touch screen system and other paperles forms of voting -- I do. But I feel there has to be a back-up, and I saw first-hand the limitations of the touch screen system this fall when the confusing nature of the machines and their instructions may have given the CD22 election over to Nick Lampson rather than Shelley Sekula-Gibbs.

Hopefully we will gt some sort of paper trail here in Harris county -- and the sooner the better.

Posted by: Greg at 11:12 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah, heÂ’s a poverty pimp and a race ho, but he also has a sense of humor.

Mr. Sharpton said that when Mr. Biden called him to apologize, Mr. Sharpton started off the conversation reassuring Mr. Biden about his hygienic practices. “I told him I take a bath every day,” Mr. Sharpton said.

ItÂ’s nice to know the man doesnÂ’t take himself too seriously.

Posted by: Greg at 02:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

I find this development a bit disturbing.

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

"They are pressing the point of her succession and that the [Department of Defense] needs to play ball with the speaker's needs," one source said. The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.

I guess the Whore of Babylon-by-the-Bay thinks that she and her fellow Congresscritters shouldn’t have to mingle with the masses – and neither should their employees and relatives.

Now I’ll concede that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were grounds for giving the Speaker special protection in this regards, but I wonder if it should not have ended some time ago. However, I’d be willing to accept the request IF it were limited to the Speaker herself. But it isn’t – she wants to turn the US military into her own personal airline for her the favored few. And that, my friends, is intolerable.

Also, I love this little tidbit from a Pelosi aide.

The aide asserted that the administration was using a Washington Times reporter, in effect, to negotiate with the speaker's office by leaking information about Mrs. Pelosi's request.

I guess we see the Democrat double standard on leaks.

Leaks that embarrass high-ranking Democrats are bad leaks, even if they do no real harm to the nation. This is especially true if the recipient of the leak is from a non-approved media outlet like the Washington Times.

Leaks that endanger national security and undermine the war effort are good leaks, especially when they go to the al-Qaeda Ministry of Intelligence the New York Time, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, or other terrorist left-leaning media outlets.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

I find this development a bit disturbing.

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

"They are pressing the point of her succession and that the [Department of Defense] needs to play ball with the speaker's needs," one source said. The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.

I guess the Whore of Babylon-by-the-Bay thinks that she and her fellow Congresscritters shouldn’t have to mingle with the masses – and neither should their employees and relatives.

Now I’ll concede that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were grounds for giving the Speaker special protection in this regards, but I wonder if it should not have ended some time ago. However, I’d be willing to accept the request IF it were limited to the Speaker herself. But it isn’t – she wants to turn the US military into her own personal airline for her the favored few. And that, my friends, is intolerable.

Also, I love this little tidbit from a Pelosi aide.

The aide asserted that the administration was using a Washington Times reporter, in effect, to negotiate with the speaker's office by leaking information about Mrs. Pelosi's request.

I guess we see the Democrat double standard on leaks.

Leaks that embarrass high-ranking Democrats are bad leaks, even if they do no real harm to the nation. This is especially true if the recipient of the leak is from a non-approved media outlet like the Washington Times.

Leaks that endanger national security and undermine the war effort are good leaks, especially when they go to the al-Qaeda Ministry of Intelligence the New York Time, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, or other terrorist left-leaning media outlets.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, William M. Arkin proved today that he, not those of us who disagree with him, is “arrogant and intolerant”. After all, he seems a little bit miffed that after using his First Amendment rights to bash the troops and spew his moronic views, some Americans (including some of those same troops, their families, and veterans) would dare to use their rights under the First Amendment to respond and to criticize. Indeed, he seems to believe that harsh responses are a threat to the First Amendment.

Well, one thing's abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn't the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans -- who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.

Excuse me, Comrade Arkin, but it seems to me that you are the one who doesn’t believe in the right to say what one believes. After all, are we to remain silent and bow down before the Almighty Wisdom of William M. Arkin, Journalist and Demigod? Are you immune from criticism and critique, or even vitriol, after you have insulted our troops? No one is stopping you from speaking – but you seem to wish to delegitimize any speech that you disagree with. You know, just as you argued it isn’t legitimate for soldiers to disagree with the all-wise and knowing public opinion polls when you stated in your earlier column that you “hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.” Or more accurately, the views of an ignorant and ill-informed (thanks to folks like you and your employer).

Of course, now he defames them even further, after implicitly calling them over-privileged mercenaries with fascist tendencies. Now he has gone and said it flat out.

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

In other words, Arkin objects that those who are in Iraq have an opinion that he disagree swith, and he want to do his damnedest to make sure that they understand that only he, and those who think like him, have the right to an opinion – precisely what he object to in the comments, blog-posts, and emails he complains about.

They don’t like the cut-and-run Democrats – how dare they, after that party won the last elections!

They don’t like liberals – who do they think they are, objecting to folks who have been out to undercut their mission since before it began.

They don’t like journalists – don’t they understand that reporters are High Priests of the First Amendment and immune to criticism?

They don’t like dissent – even though what they are complaining about is rhetoric that gives aid and comfort to the enemy (a phrase I intentionally use) while they are in the field.

And they don’t like citizens – even though they are citizens, and are simply exercising their rights as citizens to be critical of Arkin and his ilk.

And then there is the grand finale to his comedy of errors.

The notion then that we should defer to the military to fight when and how and where they want is absurd. As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem to be those who are wearing the uniform.

I’ll agree – deferring to the military is not a value I espouse. But I consider that to be closer to American values than the contempt that Arkin has shown the troops in these last two pathetic excuses for political commentary. They are angry and frustrated that their viewpoint doesn’t get out, while wing-nuts and moonbats on the Left are given plenty of ink and air time by the MSM. For them to argue that too many Americans are ignorant of what is going on in Iraq is not arrogant and intolerant – and for Arkin to again argue that the troops are a threat to American values and freedom places him beneath contempt and beyond serious consideration.

Oh, and this little update tidbit – Arkin has apparently wimped out and taken down this post from his front page on his WaPo blog. Unfortunately for him, it still appears if you have the permalink. I wonder how long until he scrubs this cowardly piece from that location, too. Don’t worry, Billy-boy – bloggers worldwide have the page cached and saved and will preserve your trash for posterity.

UPDATE: Arkin has since returned the post to his frontpage.

More at Michelle Malkin, Jammie Wearing Fool, Candy Slice Of Life, Riehl World View, Right Wing Nut House, Bill's Bites, Sensible Mom, CatHouse Chat, Don Surber, 7.62mm Justice, Running The Gauntlet, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Blackfive, Hugh Hewitt, Hot Air, Riehl World News, OpFor, Blue Crab Boulevard, Jammie Wearing Fool, Bill's Bites, Leaning Straight Up, NW Bloggers, Hennessey's Views, Alphabet City, Flopping Aces, TacJammer, Gun Toting Liberal

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, A Blog For All, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Jo's Cafe, Maggie's Notebook | Conservative Blog, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 10 kb.

Well, William M. Arkin proved today that he, not those of us who disagree with him, is “arrogant and intolerant”. After all, he seems a little bit miffed that after using his First Amendment rights to bash the troops and spew his moronic views, some Americans (including some of those same troops, their families, and veterans) would dare to use their rights under the First Amendment to respond and to criticize. Indeed, he seems to believe that harsh responses are a threat to the First Amendment.

Well, one thing's abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn't the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans -- who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.

Excuse me, Comrade Arkin, but it seems to me that you are the one who doesn’t believe in the right to say what one believes. After all, are we to remain silent and bow down before the Almighty Wisdom of William M. Arkin, Journalist and Demigod? Are you immune from criticism and critique, or even vitriol, after you have insulted our troops? No one is stopping you from speaking – but you seem to wish to delegitimize any speech that you disagree with. You know, just as you argued it isn’t legitimate for soldiers to disagree with the all-wise and knowing public opinion polls when you stated in your earlier column that you “hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.” Or more accurately, the views of an ignorant and ill-informed (thanks to folks like you and your employer).

Of course, now he defames them even further, after implicitly calling them over-privileged mercenaries with fascist tendencies. Now he has gone and said it flat out.

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

In other words, Arkin objects that those who are in Iraq have an opinion that he disagree swith, and he want to do his damnedest to make sure that they understand that only he, and those who think like him, have the right to an opinion – precisely what he object to in the comments, blog-posts, and emails he complains about.

They don’t like the cut-and-run Democrats – how dare they, after that party won the last elections!

They don’t like liberals – who do they think they are, objecting to folks who have been out to undercut their mission since before it began.

They don’t like journalists – don’t they understand that reporters are High Priests of the First Amendment and immune to criticism?

They don’t like dissent – even though what they are complaining about is rhetoric that gives aid and comfort to the enemy (a phrase I intentionally use) while they are in the field.

And they don’t like citizens – even though they are citizens, and are simply exercising their rights as citizens to be critical of Arkin and his ilk.

And then there is the grand finale to his comedy of errors.

The notion then that we should defer to the military to fight when and how and where they want is absurd. As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem to be those who are wearing the uniform.

I’ll agree – deferring to the military is not a value I espouse. But I consider that to be closer to American values than the contempt that Arkin has shown the troops in these last two pathetic excuses for political commentary. They are angry and frustrated that their viewpoint doesn’t get out, while wing-nuts and moonbats on the Left are given plenty of ink and air time by the MSM. For them to argue that too many Americans are ignorant of what is going on in Iraq is not arrogant and intolerant – and for Arkin to again argue that the troops are a threat to American values and freedom places him beneath contempt and beyond serious consideration.

Oh, and this little update tidbit – Arkin has apparently wimped out and taken down this post from his front page on his WaPo blog. Unfortunately for him, it still appears if you have the permalink. I wonder how long until he scrubs this cowardly piece from that location, too. Don’t worry, Billy-boy – bloggers worldwide have the page cached and saved and will preserve your trash for posterity.

UPDATE: Arkin has since returned the post to his frontpage.

More at Michelle Malkin, Jammie Wearing Fool, Candy Slice Of Life, Riehl World View, Right Wing Nut House, Bill's Bites, Sensible Mom, CatHouse Chat, Don Surber, 7.62mm Justice, Running The Gauntlet, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Blackfive, Hugh Hewitt, Hot Air, Riehl World News, OpFor, Blue Crab Boulevard, Jammie Wearing Fool, Bill's Bites, Leaning Straight Up, NW Bloggers, Hennessey's Views, Alphabet City, Flopping Aces, TacJammer, Gun Toting Liberal

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, A Blog For All, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Jo's Cafe, Maggie's Notebook | Conservative Blog, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | Comments (102) | Add Comment
Post contains 1015 words, total size 10 kb.

And the Dems keep telling us what a shitty economy we are in. I say – give us more of this shit!

Know what's really impressive about today's boffo 3.5 percent GDP growth number for the fourth quarter? It wasn't so long ago that Wall Street economists were wondering if the number would be a "one-handle"–meaning growth between 1.0 and 1.9 percent. And instead of a "hard or "soft" landing, investment pros are now talking about a "growth scare" where a surprisingly robust economy would push the Federal Reserve into raising interest rates.

In any event, I am starting to lend more personal credence to the theory that a combination of strong growth, fat corporate profits, and already tight labor market might push the unemployment rate to lows we have not seen since the 1960s.

LetÂ’s hear it for the Bush Boom!

Posted by: Greg at 02:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

This one deals not only with the illegitimate nature of the segregation caucuses, but also their operating procedure and the sexism that infests at least one of them.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez has quit the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, accusing the chairman, Rep. Joe Baca, of telling people she's a "whore."

Baca denied the charge.

In an interview with The Politico Wednesday, Sanchez, a California Democrat as is Baca, also cited concerns about whether Baca was properly elected Hispanic Caucus chairman in November and about his general attitude toward female lawmakers. The caucus represents 21 Hispanic Democrats in Congress.
"I'm not going to be a part of the CHC as long as Mr. Baca illegally holds the chair Â… I told them no. There's a big rift here," Sanchez said. "You treat the women like shit. I have no use for him."

In a statement to The Politico, Baca said Sanchez "has decided to resign from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), and has chosen to air baseless statements. Let me be clear; her comments are categorically untrue."

The last time lawmakers withdrew from the Hispanic caucus was in the late 1990s when the group's Republican members left over partisan differences.
Sanchez said she had been approached earlier this year to contribute funds from her office budget to support the CHC's shared staff, a requirement for all its members. She refused.

"I told them to take me off the list, take me off the Web site, take me off everything," Sanchez said.

IÂ’d be inclined to believe the denials, were it not for a longstanding history of accusations by female members of the caucus that Baca has engaged in demeaning and inappropriate conduct towards them. But this again points out the problems endemic in allowing these racist segregation caucuses to exist at all.

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

This could set off a real feeding frenzy, should County Judge Robert Eckels resign from his position leading the Commissioners Court. For those not from Texas, that is not a judicial body, but the governing body for the state's largest county.

Harris County Judge Robert Eckels said Wednesday he is mulling offers from the private sector and can't rule out walking away from the four-year term he just won in November.

An early resignation would create a political whirlwind in county government, where officials serve without term limits and open seats are rare.

"In the last 90 days I've had conversations with a New York firm and international investment banking firms," Eckels said, saying he often has been approached by lobbying and law firms interested in hiring him.

"I have had more serious discussions than in the past. They are more concrete."

He is contemplating those offers, he said, but it is premature to talk about who he is "visiting with."

"I don't have to decide today. But I don't rule out anything," said Eckels, who was in Los Angeles on business. "I wouldn't do anything until I knew the county was in good shape and I had a chance to visit with my colleagues. I'm not looking for something else to do."

Either way, Eckels said he will make a decision sooner rather than later. He has been county judge since 1995.

The article notes that Eckels has engaged in a number of conversations on the issue with Tax Collector/Assessor Paul Bettencourt. No doubt one of the major goals is getting Bettencourt into Eckels' job in the event he does decide to leave. That is a rather complicated task, given that without Eckels the Commissioners Court is divided 2-2 between the two major parties.

But wait -- the Chronicle has this little tidbit later in the article.

If Eckels stepped down, it could create a political standoff, since the commissioners, who would be charged with appointing someone to serve until the next general election, are split 2-2 along party lines.

"The constitution doesn't allow offices to be vacant. Eckels will still serve until his successor is appointed and qualified," County Attorney Mike Stafford said. That also means that Eckels, a Republican, potentially could break a partisan tie in appointing his successor.

Possible successors mentioned in political circles include Bettencourt, District Clerk Charles Bacarisse, Commissioner Jerry Eversole and businessman Ned Holmes, all Republicans.

That could be interesting -- permitting Eckels to essentially choose his successor before departing the position as County Judge.

Now I know all the potential successors from my activities as GOP precinct chair here in my part of the county. As a personal choice, I'd prefer Bettencourt or Bacarisse just in order to avoid another opening on the Commissioners Court and to have the senior position in the county filled by a candidate who has stood before all the voters of the county and won election to office. Both men are well-respected, though Bettencourt definitely has a higher profile and would be less vulnerable to a challenge in either the primary or general election (not that I think that Bacarisse would be a weak candidate). On the other hand, Bettencourt has been touted as a likely candidate for the CD22 seat in 2008 -- his selection as County Judge would undoubtedly remove him from consideration for that office.

I'll be keeping my ear tot he ground on this one, and probably be writing more on the matter in the very near future.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 605 words, total size 4 kb.

That is the implicit position he takes in this little snippet of debate over tying the minimum wage increase to a tax cut for small businesses which will be adversely hit by this unfunded mandate by the federal government.

"How many more billions of dollars do we have to give you, Mr. Republican?" the Massachusetts Democrat shouted. "How many more dollars do we have to give you to get an increase in the minimum wage? It is shocking. It is disgraceful."

Let’s look real close at this statement about the proposed tax cut. It speaks volumes about how Jabba the Drunk (D-Chappaquidick) understands tax policy and the federal role in the economy.

“How much money do we have to give you?”

Implicit in this is that the money made by a business – or an individual, for that matter – does not really belong to them. Rather, in Kennedy’s eyes every red cent of that money rightfully belongs to the government, and the portion that remains in the hands of the taxpayer is nothing less than a gift from the all-powerful government to the serfs that work to feed its insatiable appetite for tax dollars. Under this view, a tax cut is nothing less than a gift of government money to a private interest. Indeed, Kennedy doesn’t seem to understand that, as a government mandate, the minimum wage is no less a tax on business that a straight tax on profits, and so the proposed “tax cut” is nothing less than a trade-of of one tax for another.

Kennedy’s view is antithetical to American thought. Government is supposed to be limited, a servant of the people. Indeed, when Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with the rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, he was cribbing from John Locke, who argued that we had a right to life, liberty and property. Those who signed that document understood that the pursuit of happiness was, in fact, the pursuit of money and property. The Constitution of the United States concerns itself with limiting government power, and the Bill of Rights concerns itself with protecting the property rights of the people. Federal taxing and spending power were to be strictly limited, with the people entitled to the fruits of their labor with only a limited governmental claim upon their earnings.

Kennedy’s question is therefore grounded in a fundamental inversion of the founding principles of American government. There is therefore only one appropriate response in rebuttal to Kennedy’s cry of “How much money do we have to give you, Mr. Republican?” It is “No, Mr. Democrat – How much money must you take from the American people to feed the ravenous beasts of government spending and federal mandates?”

Will there be a Republican courageous enough to utter those words?

Oh, and as a side note, the tax breaks for small business (tax swaps, if you recognize the minimum wage as nothing less than a tax upon business) did pass.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, Renaissance Blogger, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 571 words, total size 5 kb.

That is the implicit position he takes in this little snippet of debate over tying the minimum wage increase to a tax cut for small businesses which will be adversely hit by this unfunded mandate by the federal government.

"How many more billions of dollars do we have to give you, Mr. Republican?" the Massachusetts Democrat shouted. "How many more dollars do we have to give you to get an increase in the minimum wage? It is shocking. It is disgraceful."

LetÂ’s look real close at this statement about the proposed tax cut. It speaks volumes about how Jabba the Drunk (D-Chappaquidick) understands tax policy and the federal role in the economy.

“How much money do we have to give you?”

Implicit in this is that the money made by a business – or an individual, for that matter – does not really belong to them. Rather, in Kennedy’s eyes every red cent of that money rightfully belongs to the government, and the portion that remains in the hands of the taxpayer is nothing less than a gift from the all-powerful government to the serfs that work to feed its insatiable appetite for tax dollars. Under this view, a tax cut is nothing less than a gift of government money to a private interest. Indeed, Kennedy doesn’t seem to understand that, as a government mandate, the minimum wage is no less a tax on business that a straight tax on profits, and so the proposed “tax cut” is nothing less than a trade-of of one tax for another.

Kennedy’s view is antithetical to American thought. Government is supposed to be limited, a servant of the people. Indeed, when Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with the rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, he was cribbing from John Locke, who argued that we had a right to life, liberty and property. Those who signed that document understood that the pursuit of happiness was, in fact, the pursuit of money and property. The Constitution of the United States concerns itself with limiting government power, and the Bill of Rights concerns itself with protecting the property rights of the people. Federal taxing and spending power were to be strictly limited, with the people entitled to the fruits of their labor with only a limited governmental claim upon their earnings.

Kennedy’s question is therefore grounded in a fundamental inversion of the founding principles of American government. There is therefore only one appropriate response in rebuttal to Kennedy’s cry of “How much money do we have to give you, Mr. Republican?” It is “No, Mr. Democrat – How much money must you take from the American people to feed the ravenous beasts of government spending and federal mandates?”

Will there be a Republican courageous enough to utter those words?

Oh, and as a side note, the tax breaks for small business (tax swaps, if you recognize the minimum wage as nothing less than a tax upon business) did pass.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, Renaissance Blogger, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 5 kb.

I’ve often railed against restrictions on political speech that masquerade as “campaign finance reform”. Personally, I don’t believe in ANY restrictions on political speech, save for bona fide application of laws on libel and slander.

Today the LA Times takes a half a step in the direction of supporting the ideal enshrined in the First Amendment by urging that the Supreme Court take the opportunity of a pending case to make speech a little more free than McCain-Feingold allows. It ultimately comes down to a case of how certain forms of speech are classified.

The speech-curtailing measure at issue is part of the broader McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The centerpiece of that law banned "soft money" contributions to political parties that were used to circumvent limits on how much donors could contribute to candidates for federal office. What is glaringly offensive to the 1st Amendment is an accompanying ban on "electioneering communications" paid for out of the treasuries of independent organizations.

As defined by the law, electioneering communications are advertisements that mention a candidate for federal office and are broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. They need not (and usually do not) tell viewers to vote for or against a candidate.

Unfortunately, this means that there are vast chunks of the year when advocating grassroots action is illegal. After all, suggesting that a key senator or representative be contacted qualifies as “electioneering”, despite the fact that it clearly is not.

There are a lot of phoney "issue ads" out there ("Tell Sen. Smith you disagree with him about Iraq" can sound a lot like an endorsement for challenger Jones), but the court has to err on the side of preserving political speech. When it comes to speaking out about a candidate, opponents (and news outlets like ours) should not have a monopoly in the closing days of a campaign, especially if the outside organization weighing in is genuinely acting on its own.

The particular facts of the Wisconsin Right to Life ads are a compelling indictment of the law's overreach and should prod the high court to reconsider whether the law could be constitutional under any set of facts. The addition of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. may dictate a different outcome — retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cast the deciding vote upholding the limits in 2003.

But if the court isn't willing to go back to the drawing board, Congress should. An advertisement praising or criticizing a politician — even one seeking reelection — has more in common with the endorsement editorials that appear on this page than it does with the campaign contributions (in hard or soft dollars) that have received only minimal 1st Amendment protection from the courts.

The "bright line" that needs to be drawn is the one between financing someone else's message and articulating your own.

But more to the point, so what if it is, in fact, electioneering? Is it not the right of American citizens to speak freely on the election of our political leaders? DonÂ’t Americans have the right to associate together for precisely that purpose? Such speech is precisely what the First Amendment is meant to protect!

But then again, I also believe in unlimited, unrestricted campaign donation – a system that worked for most of the history of the Republic, and which generated less corruption than the “reforms” designed to “clean up politics”.

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.

I guess I donÂ’t see a problem with this executive order which has driven the NY Times insane.

President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the presidentÂ’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

Of course, this sort of goes along with such unreasonable power grabs as the one contained in this earlier document.

The President. . . may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. . . [and] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. . . .”

In other words, the executive power of the United States is vested in the President of the United States. Sounds rather like the role that the executive order envisions, doesnÂ’t it?

Posted by: Greg at 11:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Radio host turned State Senator Dan Patrick has introduced a bill related to his biggest issue -- rising property taxes. The bill would set a vote on an amendment to the Texas Constitution setting the annual growth in residential appraisals a 3%, ending the current 10% cap that can effectively result in a tax bill that doubles every seven to eight years.

It will be an uphill fight, but Houston Sen. Dan Patrick on Monday filed one of his longtime priorities, a constitutional amendment lowering the annual cap on homestead reappraisals from 10 percent to 3 percent.

He also filed a related proposal to limit appraisal increases on vacation homes and other nonhomestead residential properties to 10 percent a year. At present, there aren't any limits on how much those properties can be reappraised from year to year.

As a conservative talk show radio host, the Republican freshman senator has long advocated lower limits on appraisals, a key ingredient in rising property taxes.

But a lower statewide appraisal limit wasn't recommended by a task force appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to study the issue because the chairman, Dallas businessman Tom Pauken, didn't believe the amendment can muster the necessary two-thirds votes in the House and the Senate.

Now I agree with Pauken -- this bill is unlikely to get the 2/3 vote necessary for the amendment to go to the people. However, it is important that this bill be filed and voted upon by the legislature. There has been a growing discontent over property taxes the last several years, and legislative stonewalling on the issue has been the obstacle to meaningful reform that will allow Texans to keep their homes. We deserve to know which legislators are for the taxpayer, and which ones are for the right of local governments to take an ever-increasing portion of our paychecks.

And for those of you who wonder why this is a big issue down here, consider this example. My property taxes for my very modest home run around $2500. With the 10% annual appraisal cap, they could double to $5000 by 2014. Each year the increase eats up every penny of my annual pay raise under my school district's current salary schedule -- and by 2022 would outstrip the raises on the current salary schedule by a rate of $2 for every $1 in pay raise. And if you stop to think about it, for Texans on a fixed income such increases can drive them right out of the houses they have owned for decades and in which they have raised families.

We need this appraisal cap now -- and if we don't get it, we need to know which legislators to vote out in 2008, regardless of party label.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

If anyone wonders how folks got the idea that Barack Obama went to a madrassa, they might want to consider this little bit of information.

“In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school,” [Obama] wrote in his first memoir, “Dreams from my Father.” “The teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies.”

So just a quick point – while the school may not have been a madrassa, it was not a secular school in the fashion that we understand it. And given other evidence showing that Obama was enrolled in a Catholic school as a Muslim student, it is not unreasonable to suggest that he was raised, at least nominally, a Muslim – especially given Islamic law defining the children of male Muslims as Muslims. Saying that is not a smear, is not an attack, and is not a lie – it is a fair analysis of the facts as they exist, including the words of the Senator himself.

And frankly, I don’t really care about that upbringing – although I again note that it does raise interesting questions about his status under Islamic law and the effect of that status on his ability to conduct normal diplomatic relations with Muslim nations.

Posted by: Greg at 12:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

If anyone wonders how folks got the idea that Barack Obama went to a madrassa, they might want to consider this little bit of information.

“In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school,” [Obama] wrote in his first memoir, “Dreams from my Father.” “The teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies.”

So just a quick point – while the school may not have been a madrassa, it was not a secular school in the fashion that we understand it. And given other evidence showing that Obama was enrolled in a Catholic school as a Muslim student, it is not unreasonable to suggest that he was raised, at least nominally, a Muslim – especially given Islamic law defining the children of male Muslims as Muslims. Saying that is not a smear, is not an attack, and is not a lie – it is a fair analysis of the facts as they exist, including the words of the Senator himself.

And frankly, I don’t really care about that upbringing – although I again note that it does raise interesting questions about his status under Islamic law and the effect of that status on his ability to conduct normal diplomatic relations with Muslim nations.

Posted by: Greg at 12:42 PM | Comments (201) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

We can see what good ethics rules do for Democrats.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other prominent Democrats have failed to disclose they are officers of family charities, in violation of a law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the fourth-ranking House Democrat, and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana also did not report they serve as family foundation directors, according to financial disclosure reports examined by USA TODAY.

I’ll take their commitment to ethics reform seriously after they start following the old rules that they considered too lax.

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

We can see what good ethics rules do for Democrats.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other prominent Democrats have failed to disclose they are officers of family charities, in violation of a law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the fourth-ranking House Democrat, and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana also did not report they serve as family foundation directors, according to financial disclosure reports examined by USA TODAY.

IÂ’ll take their commitment to ethics reform seriously after they start following the old rules that they considered too lax.

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.