But being a liberal multi-millionaire means never having to say your sorry.

As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.

The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through 2006.

So let's look at this real closely. John Edwards preaches about compassion and helping the poor -- while foreclosing on Katrina victims and profiting from their misery.

Q: Has he no shame?

A: No -- but then again, we already knew that.

H/T Captain's Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 2 kb.

Her legal troubles marred the early months of her father's presidency. Now her marriage may be the highlight of the waning months of the Bush Administration.

Jenna Bush is getting married.

Is a White House wedding in the works? Jenna Bush, one of President Bush's twin daughters, is engaged to be married to her longtime boyfriend, Henry Hager, the White House announced Thursday.

Asked if the two were getting married in the Rose Garden, Sally McDonough, press secretary for first lady Laura Bush, replied: "They have not set any details, date or place."

Jenna Bush, 25, and Hager, 29, were engaged Wednesday in Maine, she said.

The two have been dating for several years, and Hager is often seen at Jenna Bush's side at Bush family functions and formal events, such as a White House dinner in November 2005 in honor of Britain's Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

Here's hoping that America can put all partisanship aside and wish this young couple nothing but happiness.

But I would like to comment on what may be the most absurd and disrespectful attempt to take a shot at the President -- courtesy, of course, of the New York Times.

President Bush, who has been the sole male in his nuclear family with the exception, perhaps, of his dog Barney, will finally have a son-in-law.

WTF? That sort of lede really has no place in a story of this sort.

On the other hand, The Washington Post scored points with me with the anecdote they used to start this story.

Back in February 2005, Laura Bush was asked about the guy her daughter Jenna was seeing. "This is not a serious boyfriend -- I hate to have to be the one to say it on television," said the first lady. "But he's a very nice young man."

And one not easily dissuaded. Henry Hager proposed marriage to Jenna on Wednesday in Maine. She said yes.

Maybe I just a sucker for silly courtship stories. Or maybe it is the fact that my mother-in-law still has the letter in which my wife offers a not so flattering commentary on me after our first meeting -- two weeks before we began dating and fourteen months before our wedding. Persistence pays off.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh, really?

Democrats seeking the White House have received more than four times as much money from some of the nation's wealthiest enclaves as party contenders did in 2003, an analysis of campaign-finance records shows.

The major Democratic presidential candidates have raised nearly $32 million from the 50 ZIP codes that were the top sources of campaign money in the first six months of the year, the non-profit Center for Responsive Politics found. In contrast, Republicans received $13.8 million.

The analysis for USA TODAY shows Democrats raised the most money in 43 of the 50 postal codes. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the top recipient in 28 areas.

In the first half of 2003, John Kerry, Howard Dean and other Democrats who ran for president raised about $7.7 million from the top 50 donor ZIP codes. President Bush, who did not actively raise money until May of that year, collected nearly $6 million in that period.

The trend in giving from such upscale areas as Greenwich, Conn., is another sign of the financial advantage for the 2008 election enjoyed by Democrats, who have outraised their Republican counterparts by nearly $60 million.

"There's a lot of pent-up demand by Democrats to win back the White House," said John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron in Ohio.

Because fewer than 1% of all Americans donate to presidential campaigns, the contributions from tony neighborhoods also highlight the influence that a tiny fraction of people will have on the contest.

"In some ways, this 2008 primary season won't be decided in the heartland or the swing states, but in Upper East Side apartments, Beverly Hills mansions and Palm Beach villas," center spokesman Massie Ritsch said. The analysis also found:

•Donors living in New York's 10021 ZIP code rank first, providing more than $4.5 million. That's up from $1.2 million in the first six months of 2003, when the area also was the top source of presidential money.

Clinton received the most, $1.4 million, followed by former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, with $941,000.

Investment banker Jewelle Bickford, who gave $4,600 to the former first lady, said Clinton's Senate and White House experience make her the best candidate to cope with the Iraq war: "My support for her is totally pragmatic."

•Areas trying to boost native sons have emerged as top money sources. Donations to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama made Chicago's Gold Coast area No. 17 on the list. The 60610 ZIP code didn't make the list in 2003.

Neither did Paradise Valley, Ariz., where Arizona Sen. John McCain was its top recipient with $275,000.

"It takes more money to run for president," said developer John Graham, who donated $4,600 to McCain. "Everyone has ratcheted up their efforts to help."

•Three of the seven ZIP codes where Republicans have raised the most money are in Texas. Giuliani, a partner in a Houston-based law firm, was the leading recipient in all three.

•Some areas with close ties to Bush are no longer top sources of donations. Among them: North Dallas, where Bush lived before he was elected governor of Texas.

Seems to me that the Democrats are actually the party of the rich and over-privileged. Wouldn't it be great if this money actually went to helping the poor, like Democrats CLAIM they want to do, rather than subsidizing multi-millionaires with no contact with the wants and needs of average Americans as they seek to seize power?

But then again, why would it -- these folks in the wealthiest zip codes are giving to those exactly like themselves. And the only individual who has a clue as to the problems besetting the poor is Hillary -- after all, she has lived in government housing for much of her adult life.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Thoughts, Public Domain Clip Art, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 699 words, total size 6 kb.

First, they wanted to take away a worker's right to a secret ballot.

Now they want to require that employers recognize unions that represent only a minority of employees.

Seven labor unions asked the National Labor Relations Board yesterday to order employers to bargain with unions, even when the unions represent only a minority of employees.

This would be a sharp departure from current practices, in which employers are required to bargain with a union only after it shows that a majority of employees at a workplace support it.

The unions hope that such a change will make it easier to unionize workers. Today, 7.4 percent of private-sector workers belong to unions, less than a fourth of the rate in the 1950s.

Frankly, this notion is absurd. To require an employer to have different wage scales and benefit packages depending on union membership is unreasonable. And that is exactly what the result would eventually be -- because the next step for the unions is to demand not only negotiations, but binding arbitration or mediation with the employers.

Indeed, the entire notion that an employer has an obligation to bargain with a union at all is absurd -- after all, why shouldn't a business be able to look for the best value for his dollar by picking a different supplier? If he can do this with raw materials, he should also be permitted to do this with labor.

Posted by: Greg at 05:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

After all -- if the country is in relatively good shape and the Surge is working, how can they run on a platform condemning the party and president that presided over all this good news?

How do you make a Cambridge liberal cry? Tell him some good news.

Mention the amazing state of the American economy - low unemployment, rising wages and record-setting per-household wealth - and heÂ’ll angrily fling his $4 bottle of Fiji in your face.

Show her the new NASA numbers debunking the “it’s the hottest decade on record” panic, and she’ll kick you with rain forest footwear.

Quote USA Today’s report that large al-Qaeda style attacks in Iraq are down nearly 50 percent since the troop surge began, and he may punch you with a “Peace Now” bumper sticker.

You wonÂ’t read it on the front of the Boston Globe-Democrat, and you sure wonÂ’t hear it from cranky Keith Olbermann, but there is actually good news in the world. And itÂ’s putting the left in a foul mood.

Take Karl RoveÂ’s resignation. After years of demanding the Evil GeniusÂ’ head on a pike, the Bush-bashers are finally getting a Rove-free White House. HeÂ’s leaving Washington, his reputation in tatters. Great news for the left - and theyÂ’re miserable about it.

The answer, of course, is simple -- good news for America is bad news for a party that needs things in America to suck in order to achieve success. It is why, for example, one local blogger who leads a major Democrat organization here in Houston spends much of his time arguing how bad life is here in Texas -- even as our population is growing and our economy is booming. Why? because anything else would call into question the notion that the Democrats have anything to offer the state or the nation.

It must suck to have to tear down your state and nation in order to grab hold of political power.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Karl Rove is leaving, but Condi will remain at the State Department.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants to continue serving President George W. Bush until he leaves the White House, her spokesman said Monday after Bush's top aide Karl Rove resigned.

"The basic question is: Is she planning on sticking around? The answer to that question is, 'yes,'" State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

With Rove's resignation as deputy White House chief of staff announced Monday, Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney are among the last of the remaining top officials with Bush since he first took office in 2001.

Rice became secretary of state in 2005 at the start of Bush's second term in office after being his national security advisor since January 2001.

She had not been spared criticism for her role in prosecuting the unpopular Iraq war, which has taken the lives of 3,684 American soldiers since the March 2003 invasion.

McCormack said that while Rice and other cabinet officials "serve at the pleasure of the president," the top US diplomat has "got a lot on the agenda" for the next 17 months, including grappling with the Iraq war, the Israel-Palestine question as well as the North Korean and Iranian nuclear issues.

"And she has a lot that she wants to accomplish on behalf of this president, on behalf of the American people," he said.

She's hoping to head back to Stanford in 2009.

But I wonder -- might we see the Secretary of State resign next fall to be the GOP Vice Presidential candidate? Or is this the signal that she will not accept such an offer?

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Hillary Clinton may get the nomination from the Democrats, but is she an asset to other Democrats seeking office? Many think not.

Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

"I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.

Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination _ despite privately held fears.

The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.

A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.

A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.

"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."

"Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."

And let's be honest here -- as polarizing as the President has been during his presidency, both Bill and Hillary Clinton have the same sort of effect. There is no candidate that the Democrats could nominate who would fire-up the GOP base to work against the Democrats -- and turn away independent voters in GOP-leaning states.

I really hope she gets the nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 03:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

Whatever will the Democrats do with the Source of All Evil no longer in the West Wing?

Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political adviser, is resigning as White House deputy chief of staff effective Aug. 31, and returning to Texas, marking a turning point for the Bush presidency.

Mr. Rove's departure removes one of the White House's most polarizing figures, and perhaps signals the effective end of the lame duck administration's role in shaping major domestic policy decisions. Mr. Rove revealed his plans in an interview with Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

Mr. Rove, who has held a senior post in the White House since President Bush took office in January 2001, told Mr. Gigot he first floated the idea of leaving a year ago. But he delayed his departure as, first, Democrats took Congress, and then as the White House tackled debates on immigration and Iraq, he said. He said he decided to leave after White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day they would be obliged to remain through the end of the president's term in January 2009.

"I just think it's time," Mr. Rove said in the interview. "There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." Mr. Rove and his wife have a home in Ingram, Texas, and a son who attends college in nearby San Antonio.

Personally, this Republican is not sad to see Karl Rove go, nor do I think he is leaving too soon or showing disloyalty. Let's be honest here -- this is the time when Presidents get ready for the home stretch of their administrations, and if someone is planning to leave early the time to do so is now. Besides, an earlier departure would have looked like an admission of guilt in the Plame case or some other sign of weakness -- instead we have Rove leaving on his own terms.

Posted by: Greg at 03:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

I mentioned last week that John Edwards, despite attacking FoxNews and NewsCorp as enemies of the Democrats, had taken $500,000 in advance money and $300,000 in expense money to write a book.

Well guess where the $300,000 went --to Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan prince, and to the candidate's own daughter, Cate Edwards.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards recently defended taking a lucrative book contract from a publisher controlled by Rupert Murdoch -- whose News Corp. empire Edwards has sharply criticized -- by insisting that “every dime” of his $500,000 advance went to charity.

Left unmentioned by Edwards, however, was that MurdochÂ’s HarperCollins paid portions of a $300,000 expense budget for the book to EdwardsÂ’s daughter and to a senior political aide, Jonathan Prince.

The sums paid to Cate Edwards and Prince, who are listed as co-authors on the little-noticed 2006 coffee table book, "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives," have not been made public, but were confirmed by two sources with first-hand knowledge of the book deal.

Edwards demanded that all Democrat candidates return all money from Fox executive -- and even adopted a policy of not allowing any contribution from any Fox employee, no matter how low on the food chain. But until he demands that this senior campaign staffer and his own daughter divest themselves of the "tainted" cash, he is just one more liberal hypocrite.

Unless, of course, he is willing to fire Prince and disown Cate so that they can keep the filthy lucre obtained from the evil Rupert Murdoch -- but we know that isn't going to happen.

Oh, and for what it is worth, the whole book deal itself smells, given that Edwards received advance and expense payments that sales of his book never even remotely covered.

The book was sold to HarperCollins without an auction after that publishing house showed decidedly more interest than any other, a person familiar with the book's sale said.

The person said the Edwards campaign dealt with editor Joe Tessitore and HarperCollins President and CEO Jane Friedman (who didn't respond to calls and emails seeking comment), but never with Murodch.

The doubters, however, appear to have been validated by the book's sluggish sales. Nielsen Bookscan, which is thought to account for between 60% and 70% of domestic sales, reports that it has sold about 20,000 copies so far, and thus perhaps about 30,000 overall.

Publishing economics are notoriously murky, but with a cover price of $29.95, those sales might have earned back roughly $100,000 royalties, a fraction of the $500,000 advance, publishing industry sources said.

Indeed, the book's gross sales, at full price, would have roughly covered Edwards' advance and expenses -- and publishers usually net roughly half of that gross sum, and then pay authors a relatively small percentage of that net.

So Edwards, his daughter, and his staffer have received payments far in excess of the actual value of what Edwards' book -- and the contract for the book was arranged THROUGH HIS CAMPAIGN. Doesn't it therefore appear that Edwards used campaign dollars to feather the nests of a senior staffer and a family member, as well as himself? I wonder what campaign finance laws have to say on that sort of thing?

More At Malkin

Open Trackbacking At Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Wake Up America, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern dreams, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 6 kb.

Gee -- that didn't take long.

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, the longshot who had pinned his 2008 presidential hopes on a top-two showing in the Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll, has decided to end his candidacy, FOX News has learned.

"I'm outta the race," Thompson told MyFoxMilwaukee.com.

Thompson, 65, said he felt like he'd been hit by a Mack truck after hearing the news of his 6th place finish at Saturday's Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll, adding that his campaign was shocked after hearing the results. They were hoping for a top two finish.

No money and no support -- the kiss of death in a presidential race.

Posted by: Greg at 03:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Mitt Romney wins in Iowa. But so did Mike Huckabee.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won an easy and expected victory in a high-profile Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll on Saturday, claiming nearly twice as many votes as his nearest rival.

Romney had been expected to win the test because he spent millions of dollars and months of effort on an event that was skipped by two of his major rivals.

Romney scored 4,516 votes, or 31.5 percent, to outpace former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who had 2,587 votes, or 18.1 percent. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback was third with 2,192 votes, 15.3 percent.

Announcement of the results was delayed for 90 minutes because a hand count was required on one of the 18 machines.

The biggest loser of the evening likely was former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, who finished in 6th place with 1,039 votes. He had said repeatedly that if he didn't finish in the top two his campaign was likely to end. He left the event before the results were announced.

Now remember -- Fred, Rudy, and McCain all sat this one out, so a Romney victory was a given here. If anything, the diminished turnout and the fact that he didn't win more votes should be of concern to the campaign, though this is a clear win for the former Massachusetts governor.

Mike Huckabee was the surprise, though, coming in second place. I guess some of Sam Brownback's dirty campaign tactics have turned folks off, and we should expect to see him disappear from the campaign in relatively short order.

Tom Tancredo's fourth place finish seems to indicate more support for his position on immigration than it does support for the candidate.

Ron Paul failed to meet expectations set by his campaign.

"We expect to be in the top three," Benton said. "We've got four staffers organizing and we've got a lot of web site RSVPs from volunteers."

I therefore agree with Don Surber -- "If Iowa ever annexes Sim City, he has a chance."

Tommy Thompson is dead -- and I think he even realizes it now.

And the saddest outcome? Duncan Hunter's pathetic 1%, trailing even Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, neither of who competed and one of whom is not even a declared candidate yet. He's a good man and deserved better.

Posted by: Greg at 02:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 3 kb.

They keep saying they want to bring the troops home immediately -- but then outline plans that will keep us in Iraq for years.

Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

As i look at these positions, I see a big problem (besides the duplicity) -- in addition to eschewing victory, each involves drawing down the force in Iraq to the point that it cannot defend itself and accomplish the mission for which it remains behind. If the Democrats REALLY believe that the mission in Iraq is hopeless and that troops killed there are dying in vain, why are they prepared to leave a force that is more of a target and less ready? Are the lives of those soldiers somehow less valuable than those whose sacrifices they are politicizing in the name of surrender?

Well, except for Bill Richardson, who proved he learned something while at the UN. Unfortunately, he took French lessons, and so proposes a strategy could be drawn from the French Defense ministry.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”

In other words, "Throw down you weapons and run, boys!"

Of course, with the Surge working, I wonder how many of these Democrats will embrace it as their own invention in the coming months, just as they did the original use of force in 2003. After all, the only victory they care about is their own political victory -- and winning or losing in Iraq doesn't matter to them at all.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, Stageleft, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, Church and State, CatSynth.com, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, 123beta, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Public Domain Clip Art, CounterCulture, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 591 words, total size 7 kb.

It is clearly unequal justice for similar crimes.

After all, look at these two incidents.

Such a brutal crime was unusual, but not unheard of, in Laramie, Wyo. The victim had spent the evening drinking in a bar and accepted a ride from a stranger. It would be the victim's last. The victim would be assaulted and then left outside of town on the prairie on a cold night — to die. No one would find the victim until the next day. The attacker, who was on drugs, had left his child and the child's mother at home.

Hold it, you are probably thinking -- there is only one crime mentioned there.

Well, sort of.

You see, there are actually two crimes described there -- virtually identical -- that happened three months apart in Laramie, Wyoming. Everybody knows about the Matthew Shepard murder (a despicable act of evil by lowlife scum) -- but they don't know about the killing of Cindy Dixon three months later in a similar manner.

The punishment for the two men who killed Matthew Shepard was life in prison. The killing of Cindy Dixon netted her killer 4-to-9 years for manslaughter.

We know what the difference was -- one was a member of a designated protected class and the other wasn't. Even the added aggravating factor of the sexual assault of Cindy Dixon by her killer failed to get her justice equal to that given for the murder of Matthew Shepherd.

We are a nation that professes to believe in equality. Our Constitution mandates equal protection of the laws. But where is that equal protection when similar crimes result in disparate sentences because the death of one victim is deemed more heinous because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual identity? Why shouldn't the Cindy Dixons of the world get the same sort of consideration as the Matthew Shepherds?

Oh, and let's not forget that these two crimes show the evil of such disparate impact of the law in another way, too. Cindy Dixon's son will see his mother's rapist and killer walk out of prison a free man while that son, Russell Henderson, will do life for the remarkably similar murder of Matthew Shepherd because that murder is deemed a "hate crime". Tell me -- where is the justice there? Why should the law deem the life of Cindy Dixon to be any less valuable than that of Matthew Shepherd?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, Church and State, CatSynth.com, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, , CounterCulture, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 6 kb.

We've seen plenty of attacks on the spouses of GOP candidates recently -- and a recent effort to undermine a GOP candidate because of his daughter's MySpace page appeared to support another candidate. Now it appears that the MSM is out to make a scandal of the fact that the Romney family is supporting -- Mitt Romney!

They have driven here from California, Ohio, Canada or Texas, while others have flown from Michigan, Utah or Florida. There are aunts, uncles, cousins, second cousins, in-laws, nieces, nephews and grandchildren.

At last count, 96 members of the Romney clan, a veritable army, have arrived here over the last few days to help out at SaturdayÂ’s Republican straw poll, bolstering what is already a huge ground operation for the event that far outstrips the efforts of any other campaign.

Leading the shock troops will be Mr. RomneyÂ’s five adult sons, who have come to occupy an increasingly prominent place in their fatherÂ’s campaign, giving speeches, holding fund-raisers, blogging and even weighing in on strategy, all the while helping their father paint a not-so-subtle contrast to some of his leading Republican rivals.

"Shock troops"? I'm curious -- the Kennedy Klan has been deploying for family campaigns for decades. Has the New York Times ever described them "shock troops"? And, of course, the Times finds it important to get in this week's MSM talking point about the lack of military service by the Romney sons, despite the fact that the only two candidates with children in the military are John McCain and Duncan Hunter. I doubt we will get similar coverage of Chelsea Clinton's six-figure sinecure working for friends of her parents.

Frankly, I'm surprised that this article didn't try to make much of century-old polygamous ancestors to make the story even more sordid. Maybe they are saving that for after the Romney victory in the Iowa straw poll.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, Church and State, CatSynth.com, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, , CounterCulture, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 6 kb.

Some people are just scum -- take this Democrat lawyer who has set up a Fred Thompson smear site trying to link him to racist groups.

It doesn't take long for provocateurs to crawl out of the woodwork to attack candidates, especially in stealth attacks. With Fred Thompson, they've apparently started before he officially enters the race -- and in one case, race is the operative word. Apparently hoping to confuse web surfers looking for Fred's website at www.imwithfred.com, a new site has appeared at www.imwithfred2008.com -- only this site welcomes people to the Ku Klux Klan, "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!" It includes links to a variety of disgusting racist sites.

How do we know he is Leftist scum? Donations to Kerry, the DNC, and MoveOn.

Kudos to Captain Ed for uncovering this Democrat Dirty Trick.

Also covered at StixBlog, Blue Crab Boulevard, Blogs for Fred Thompson

Posted by: Greg at 05:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 2 kb.

George H. W. Bush left the White House under a whithering barrage of attacks from political and personal enemies who managed to destroy his credibility in office despite his many successes. And while I was never an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Bush, my admiration for him has grown over the years, especially during the decade I have lived here in Houston. You see, I have had the opportunity to see him (and his wife, Barbara) in situations where he is not "The Former President Of The United States", but rather as simply one more member of a diverse and vibrant community.

Take this spring, during RodeoHouston. My wife is disabled, so we often arrive early on evenings we attend the event so that we can get good parking and avoid crowds. One night we arrived to find the Lil' Rustlers activities for special children still underway on the floor of Reliant Center, with physically and mentally challenged children experiencing the thrill of participating in rodeo events with real cowboys and cowgirls. And at the end of it all, presenting them with gifts and trophies, stood the 41st President of the United States and his wife. Every kid got a hug and a photo -- and there was not a press photographer in sight, and no mention of it appeared in the media. Why not? Because that is the sort of people that the Bushes are.

Which leads me to this article on how a father watches his son bear the same burdens he did in the highest office in the land.

There are times in the life of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president of the United States and father of the 43rd, that people, perfect strangers, come up to him and say the harshest things — words intended to comfort but words that wind up only causing pain.

“I love you, sir, but your son’s way off base here,” they might say, according to Ron Kaufman, a longtime adviser to Mr. Bush, who has witnessed any number of such encounters — perhaps at a political fund-raiser, or a restaurant dinner, a chance meeting on the streets of Houston or Kennebunkport, Me. They are, he says, just one way the presidency of the son has taken a toll on the father.

“It wears on his heart,” Mr. Kaufman said, “and his soul.”

God bless you, sir -- and your son as well.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern dreams, High Desert Wanderer, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:28 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 473 words, total size 5 kb.

After all, in my vocabulary the word to be banned is a synonym for the junior Senator from New York.

The New York City Council, which drew national headlines when it passed a symbolic citywide ban earlier this year on the use of the so-called n-word, has turned its linguistic (and legislative) lance toward a different slur: bitch.

And before you rabid liberals get all indignant, consider the rhetorical brickbats you folks direct at the President. Is mine really any worse?

UPDATE: Volokh may have the answer -- DOGGESS.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Frankly, I don't see this as much of a story.

There's one vote that Rudy Giuliani definitely can't count on in his 2008 presidential bid: his own daughter's. According to the 17-year-old Caroline Giuliani's Facebook profile, she's supporting Barack Obama.

On her profile, she designates her political views as "liberal" and—until this morning—proclaimed her membership in the Facebook group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)." According to her profile, she withdrew from the Obama group at 6 a.m. Monday, after Slate sent her an inquiry about it.

In what may be an effort to avoid public connection to her famous father, the future Harvard freshman and recent graduate of Trinity School in Manhattan uses a slight variation of her name on the Facebook site. But she didn't lock her profile, allowing any Facebook user with access to the Harvard or Trinity School networks (more than 42,000 people) to view her detailed profile. (As a Harvard student, I was able to see it.)

It's not news that Rudy and his two children, Caroline and her 21-year-old brother Andrew, have a rocky relationship. Caroline and Andrew are the children of Donna Hanover, Rudy's second wife. In March, Andrew, who is a junior at Duke, told the New York Times that he and his father had been estranged for some time, and he has spoken candidly about his objections to Giuliani's marriage to Judith Nathan. And after the wedding, the Times reported, Giuliani also stopped attending Caroline's high-school events. Though he went to her high-school graduation, he left without speaking to her and did not join in the post-graduation family celebration, according to the New York Daily News.

Caroline's Facebook profile does not reveal why she doesn't want her father to win the White House. She has not responded to e-mail questions from Slate.

You know, a 17-year-old's political views are really not something a put a lot of stock in, especially given that at 16 I was willing to support either Ronald Reagan or Ted Kennedy for President. At that age, most kids operate more on emotion and image than on intellect.

But I have two really simple questions.

1) Why is this being treated as a significant story by media outlets?

2) Given the acrimonious ending to her parents' marriage and Rudy's boorish behavior at the time and since, why would we expect her to support him?

Malkin agrees.

Posted by: Greg at 04:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

This looks bad -- for both Spitzer and Cuomo.

INVESTIGATORS for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the state inspector general weren't given potentially crucial evidence - private e-mails from top aides to Gov. Spitzer - related to the explosive Troopergate probe, The Post has learned.

"It's a huge gap in the investigation," conceded a source close to both investigations.

Cuomo's probers, who eventually produced an explosive report showing top Spitzer aides used the State Police in a plot to destroy the career of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Rensselaer), allowed the governor's legal counsels to decide what "relevant" e-mails would be turned over as part of the investigation.

Those lawyers - who instructed top Spitzer aides, including the governor's chief of staff, Richard Baum, and communications director, Darren Dopp, not to cooperate with Cuomo's investigators - turned over a small number of scandal-related e-mails from official state e-mail addresses, not personal ones, sources said.

However, Baum, linked to the scandal by e-mails sent to his official state address, has repeatedly used at least one private e-mail address to communicate with other administration officials in recent months, sources with ties to the administration told The Post. One source provided The Post with a private e-mail address containing Baum's name, saying it was the address Baum often used for official communications.

An e-mail sent by The Post to the address went unanswered.

Dopp, who was suspended after the Cuomo report put him at the center of the scandal, also regularly communicated with other senior members of the Spitzer administration by private e-mail, sources said.

Letting those who are being investigated decide what evidence to turn over -- and making no effort to get relevant evidence -- looks like Cuomo's office intentionally did a half-assed job to destroy Spitzer's credibility while not giving the GOP an advantage. At the same time, the failure to turn over these emails makes it clear that the Spitzer regime has something to hide. Could the whole Democrat establishment in New York be heading for a fall?

Posted by: Greg at 03:15 AM | Comments (236) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

But then again, what else is new?

The current editorial laments alleged political prosecutions of Democrats.

Individual Democrats may be paying a personal price. Don Siegelman, a former Alabama governor, was the stateÂ’s most prominent Democrat and had a decent chance of retaking the governorship from the Republican incumbent. He was aggressively prosecuted by both the Birmingham and Montgomery United States attorneyÂ’s offices. Birmingham prosecutors dropped their case after a judge harshly questioned it. When the Montgomery office prosecuted, a jury acquitted Mr. Siegelman of 25 counts, but convicted him of 7, which appear to be disturbingly weak.

The mere fact that he was found guilty of at least some of the charges seems to be irrelevant to the New York Times. The Times deems the case weak due to the acquittals, despite the fact that there was substantial evidence of Siegelman's guilt on even those charges. It seems that the editors believe that Siegelman should not have been prosecuted because it harmed the chance of a Democrat electoral victory -- corruption doesn't matter when your name is followed by a D.

And then there is this little example.

Georgia Thompson is a Wisconsin state employee wrongly put in jail on corruption charges by the Milwaukee United States attorney. Despite strong evidence that she was innocent, Steven Biskupic prosecuted Ms. Thompson for corruption and got a conviction. The news hit shortly before a bitterly fought governorÂ’s race, and opponents of James Doyle, the stateÂ’s Democratic governor, used the conviction to attack Mr. Doyle as corrupt. An appeals court later freed Ms. Thompson, but only after she had spent months in jail.

Excuse me, but now the overturning of a conviction is proof that the prosecution was improper in the first place? I'm curious -- will that be the standard now in all cases in which evidence of official corruption is alleged? In all cases?

Frankly, I'm surprised that the paper hasn't taken a stand agaisnt the William jefferson investigation.

And they fail to note that the same Bush Administration Justice Department has been aggressive in prosecuting GOP politicians. Acknowledging that would completely undermine the dastardly conspiracy theory that the Times spins.

But I like this conclusion.

If Americans are being put in jail for political reasons, Congress must put a stop to it.

Hey, New York Times -- we'll be able to take this editorial much more seriously when you call for the dropping of all charges against Tom DeLay, and the disbarment of rogue partisan prosecutor Ronnie Earle, whose actions reek of partisanship even more than the cases you point to.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

The new legislation granting expanded wiretapping powers for national security purposes has passed after Democratic delaying tactics -- but it is only a temporary fix to a bigger issue.

The House late Saturday night approved the Republican version of a measure amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by a vote of 227-183, with most Republicans and conservative Democrats supporting the bill.

The White-House backed legislation closes what the Bush administration has called critical gaps in U.S. intelligence capability by expanding the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.

Lawmakers have been scrambling to pass a bill acceptable to the White House before they leave for a monthlong summer recess.

President Bush had threatened to veto any bill that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said did not meet his needs.

The Senate approved its Republican-sponsored bill Friday night. Immediately after that vote, a Democratic-sponsored bill failed to reach the 60-vote majority.

Saturday night's vote followed fireworks in the House, where an angry group of Republicans accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of delaying a vote on the bill, the president's legislative priority.

"Last night, the Senate passed this bill at about 9:30. Now it's almost 1 o'clock. We should have had the FISA bill on the floor the first thing this morning," Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan told reporters in the early afternoon.

"We could have passed a rule and passed this bill by 11 o'clock this morning, and it could have been on its way, and the president could have signed it," said Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

Now this legislation expires in six months -- enough time to allow for Congress to re-write the FISA law to meet with today's technological realities. This comes on the heels of a ruling by a FISA judge that the law forbids the interception of any call that passes through equipment based in the US, even if it is between two individuals located outside of the United States. Under that ruling, a call that originated in Canada and ended in Pakistan would be considered a domestic call under the previous FISA regulations if it passed through a server or transmitting station located in San Francisco -- or one that began in the Philippines and ended in Malaysia would be a domestic call if it passed through the US territory of Guam. I won't even get into the question of emails communications that are hosted by a US server like those of Yahoo, AOL, or Gmail. Simply put, telecommunications technology has outstripped the old law.

Personally, I believe that the precedent in the Truong case needs to be followed here -- national security and foreign intelligence surveillance does not need a warrant, but such information cannot be used for criminal prosecutions.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 4 kb.

Remember -- a tax on oil companies translates to a tax on you, because such costs of doing business are factored into the price of products.

Declaring a new direction in energy policy, the House on Saturday approved $16 billion in taxes on oil companies, while providing billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts.

Republican opponents said the legislation ignored the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."

The House passed the tax provisions by a vote of 221-189. Earlier it had approved, 241-172, a companion energy package aimed at boosting energy efficiency and expanding use of biofuels, wind power and other renewable energy sources.

"We are turning to the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

And the future is higher taxes, higher spending, and higher prices. Sounds like a return to the failed Democrat policies of the past.

Posted by: Greg at 12:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

He's planning a purge of the Democrats, forcing out anyone who does not hold to the "progressive" philosophy found on his site and among the nut-roots.

And as Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, AKA “Kos,” made crystal clear at a press conference this afternoon, the battle will not only be against Republicans, but also against Democrats who need to be “cleansed” from the party. Kos didn’t name any names, saying we will find out “soon enough” which Democrats would be targeted for defeat in the primaries. But his message was clear; on issues near and dear to the hearts of the progressive on line community, Democrats will adapt or they will face the wrath of this new force in politics.

In effect, Kos has promised to remake the Democratic Party in the image of the netroots. And while many observers think that this would pull the Democratic Party too far to the left, Markos disagrees.

“There is no Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic party anymore. We are the center,” he said.

Got that -- if you don't fit in with the views I outlined in my piece on Rick Noriega, you will not be welcome among the new "progressive" Democrats. I guess we can define this as a vision of the Democrats as a "Small Tent".

Posted by: Greg at 03:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

And if they won't give to him, no Democrat should take money from them.

John Edwards criticized Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company's Fox News Channel has a right-wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company.

Edwards led the Democratic candidates' boycott of Fox's plans to host a Democratic presidential debate. Now he is objecting to News Corp.'s purchase of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. and highlighting the relationships that Clinton and other rivals have with the company's executives.

"The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party," Edwards said in a statement.

He challenged his rivals to refuse contributions from executives of News Corp., and return any they had already received. The Edwards campaign said it would return less than $1,000 in donations from three Fox employees — a worker at a local Fox station in Florida and two staffers from Fox Cable Networks — even though they are not executives.

Gee -- if FoxNews is so anti-Democrat, why are they executives giving to Democrats in the first place? If FoxNews is so hostile to Democrats, why haven't the Democrat contributers been fired? But John Edwards will show mean old FoxNews -- he won't take any money from any of their employees at all!

Proving once again that John Edwards considers Foxnews a greater threat to America than Osama bin Ladin. After all, he considers the war on terrorism to be a bumper sticker, but he's making the war on FoxNews a centerpiece of his campaign.

UPDATE: Well, maybe not all money coming from Rupert Murdoch's media empire is bad.

"John Edwards will never ask Rupert Murdoch for money -- he won't accept his money," said a statement e-mailed to supporters.

Not so fast, Murdoch's people say. His publishing unit, HarperCollins, paid Edwards a $500,000 advance -- and $300,000 in expenses -- for his 2006 book "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."

"We assume the senator is going to give back the money from his advance," News Corp. spokesman Brian Lewis said.

Of course not -- he spent the expense money and took a tax write-off for donating the advance money to charity. What a hypocrite -- taking money from what he claims is a corrupt source AND using it to lower the burden of taxes he says are not high enough.

H/T Malkin, Captains Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Conservative blogger and columnist John Hawkins today points out some of the extremist rhetoric coming out of the founder of Daily Kos and his fellow bloggers there -- and pulls quotes that anyone who has ever visited the site should recognize as pretty mainstream there. I'm curious what Rick Noriega, newly-minted Kos blogger and honored guest at the Yearly Kos convention, thinks about this stuff.

Most notoriously, the founder of the Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, wrote this about American contractors who were murdered in Iraq and had their bodies desecrated,

"...I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

When you see that sort of hostility towards people risking their lives in Iraq from the man running the Daily Kos, is it any surprise that other diarists on that blog have penned commentary like this,

"Our sons and daughters need to realize that choosing to be a soldier means a decision to place themselves among "the damned," since no matter what they end up doing while on the field of battle, they will eventually be damned.. damned if they do and damned if they do not. Realizing that compliance with a superior's order to shoot and kill the enemy may well lead to the damnation (the self-extirpation) of one's soul. On the other hand, noncompliance will lead to that of being court-martialed." -- Populist Party

"But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country? No. I think theyÂ’re a bunch of idiots. I also think theyÂ’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded." -- AWhitneyBrown

"We need to lose this war and not start the next one so that we can remain a free people. Diminished on the world stage? Perhaps, like Great Britain was diminished when it surrendered its colonial empire. But free." -- bluedogtxn

Why is Rick Noriega seeking the support of those whose response to the murder of Americans by terrorists is to say of the dead "Screw them"?

Does Rick Noriega believe that Texans share the believe that members of the military are among "the damned"?

Does Rick Noreiga support the notion that members of the US military are "a bunch of idiots" and "morally retarded"?

And most importantly for a man seeking to become a member of the US Senate (and a commissioned officer in the National Guard), does Noriega believe that the US needs to be militarily defeated by terrorists and diminished in stature as a world power?

These are important questions to be answered by the presumptive candidate -- at least some of which raise questions not only about his fitness to be a US Senator, but even his fitness to retain his commission in the National Guard.

And while we are at it, maybe Rick Noriega can answer some questions about these other fine members of the online community he has chosen to join, and who he traveled out of state to court in an effort to garner support from non-Texans.

Along those same lines, here's the sort of bizarre paranoia that regular readers of the Daily Kos are exposed to on a regular basis,

"If we do not wake up now and flood Congress to impeach the President and Vice President, one year from now, Daily Kos may be banned and Markos himself may be disappeared, in a federal prison somewhere.

Even as I write these words I feel like a wild-eyed nutcase. If it were not for the OH SO REAL danger this country faces in the next 15 months or so as the people in power see their own doom and are determined to prevent their expulsion from power by suspending next year's elections and declaring martial law WHEN the next 9/11 comes or events that can be construed as a national emergency to "justify" such actions, I would be holding my tongue and crossing my fingers." -- slw0606

"...Bush let North Korea get nukes in order to start an arms race in Asia. He did it so American weapons manufacturers will make money, like we do with Israel.

We need to start talking straight, people. We need to start being up front about what this is all about. We can't wait until Bush walks up and blows our brains out to call this what it is." -- Kosmo

"Was Pat Tillman killed on Cheney's or Rumsfeld's orders?

We must be ever vigilantly cynical regarding the bloodthirsty, money-hungry cut-throats in the White House because they never disappoint the rudest and crudest analysis of their active and ongoing conspiracies. The vilest imaginings of Stephen King is where these deceitful serpents dwell. Never make the mistake that you are being too cold in your analysis of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice." -- 3CCD

Now let's move from conspiracy theories to hateful extremism,

"Because filing briefs don't stop bullets, and when the ballot box fails us, we are not above seeing what's in the ammo box." -- pinche tejano

"And anyone -- Liebercrat or Republican -- who stands to oppose impeachment, conviction and removal should be tried for their role as accomplice in the sedition and treason against the United States." -- GreyHawk

"If the Democrats fail (to end the war), the only option left is revolution and foreign intervention. Tyranny is but assured because Congress cannot and will not exercise it's Constitutional power to end this fascist Coup d'etat." -- wolverine 06

Now as you read these quotes from the diarists -- again, not the commenters -- at the Daily Kos, it should bring up a number of important questions that never seem to get answered.

So how about some answers, Rick -- do you find yourself in agreement with these sentiments that find common acceptance at Daily Kos? Are the President and Vice President -- both men with strong ties to Texas who were overwhelmingly supported by Texans in two elections -- fascists who have engaged in a coup and are planning to imprison and/or murder dissenters? Do you believe that "revolution and foreign intervention" are necessary? Do you believe that the Bush Administration has ordered the murder of individual Americans? Do you believe that those who do not support such the bilge spewed by your Kos Kolleagues are traitors who need to suffer the punishment prescribed for that offense (which includes the death penalty)?

Again, I think these questions are important for you to answer before you stand before Texas voters -- after all, you have chosen to join this fever swamp of left-wing extremism and are actively courting their support. Do you believe such views are representative of those held by the people of Texas -- or that such views are even acceptable to the people of Texas?

But maybe more importantly, do you think that those who embrace such views by joining and seeking the support of those who express them are really fit for service in the highest elective offices in the United States? I'd argue that they are unfit for any position of public trust.

UPDATE: How sick are these people?

But hey, this is a tough crowd. Later in the evening, they booed Mother Theresa.

UPDATE II: Gee -- Rick Noriega really does embrace Kos!

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Public Domain Clip Art, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1358 words, total size 12 kb.

Hey, I'm willing to let it slide that the Rick Noriega is too scared to answer a simple email from me about attempts by his supporters to turn his National Guard change of command into a political event.

I'm willing to excuse his staff adding my email address to their spam-ad list because they harvested it from the email Noriega is dodging.

I'm even willing to concede Noriega has no culpability when one of his supporters potentially violates the Hatch Act by operating a political blog supporting him (note that 2:37 PM time stamp on a Monday) on government time (and soliciting funds for him and other candidates) .

However, this is all we need to see to determine that Rick Noriega is unfit for any office -- Rick Noriega has kow-towed to the KOSsacks.

UPDATE: He also blogged on DailyKos -- meaning he is willing to associate himself with all the hate-mongers and conspiracy theorists there.

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 2 kb.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin doesn't care how successful the Surge is, nor how much political progress is made in Iraq. He's demanding that the war end now, no matter how well things are going in Iraq.

Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan)

Even if Iraqi leaders return from a recess this month and make political progress before a report to Congress in September, it won't be enough to change Sen. Carl Levin's feelings about withdrawing U.S. troops.

Levin told reporters Wednesday that it is possible that President George W. Bush would use any political progress the Iraqis might make -- not to mention reports that violence was down in the month of July -- as cover for continuing a policy that saw him order tens of thousands more troops to Iraq.

For Levin, the Detroit Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would be too little, too late, even if the Iraqis returned from their August recess with "a different attitude" and began working toward benchmarks including regional elections, disbanding militias and other actions.

"That's not enough for me," he said.

It must suck to have your political future depend upon American defeat, Carl. Why don't you resign now, and let someone who loves America take your place?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 4 kb.

In 1992, one of the things that Bill Clinton had going for him was a wife who, by all accounts, was a competent professional woman. Democrats seemed intent on creating a virtual co-presidency, with Hillary presumably to have a leading role in the administration.

Why is it that today there are those so frightened by Jeri Kehn Thompson, and who seek to minimize her accomplishments with epithets like "trophy wife" and "child bride" or other insults? Could it be a bit of misogyny? A concern that a grassroots candidate like Thompson appears able to upset the best laid plans of GOP contenders for the nomination? Or is it a left-wing fear that this young, intelligent, competent woman who also happens to be quite attractive might be an asset to a candidate who can beat anyone the Democrats nominate?

Bob Novak takes on this subtle (and not-so-subtle) misogyny in his current column.

Murmuring about Jeri Thompson hit a peak July 22 on "Fox News Sunday," when the program's roundtable engaged in whimsical contemplation of debate between spouses of Democratic presidential candidates. "Well, first," said Juan Williams of National Public Radio, ". . . I think you should get Jeri Thompson in here, the trophy wife, right?" William Kristol of the Weekly Standard interjected: "That's unfair." Williams: "Unfair, unfair, I know, but --" Kristol: "It is unfair."

That ended the discussion. I asked Williams, a respected journalist, whether he regretted the comment. He did not, but he explained that he got the idea from a July 8 New York Times article by Susan Saulny. "Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?" she asked in the paper's Style section. "Subsequent to that," Williams told me, "I heard the same thing in conversation with people in other campaigns -- about her being so young, so attractive and so powerful."

The archetypal "trophy wife" (a phrase coined by Fortune magazine 18 years ago) conjures up the image of a rich corporate executive who tires of the woman he married when they both were young, whom he has grown old with, and turns to a young, chic new wife, usually seen as a home wrecker. Mrs. Thompson does not fit that mold. Thompson had been divorced for 17 years and was on friendly terms with his first wife when he married Jeri Kehn in 2002. They also have two small children -- not the trophy wife caricature either.

Nor does Jeri Thompson's background fit the caricature. After working for the Senate Republican Conference and the Republican National Committee, she became a big-time political media consultant in Washington. She has been intimately involved in the planning of her husband's campaign, including last week's staff shakeup. When Tom Collamore left as Thompson's campaign manager, he told CNN that he was "very respectful of the desire of Fred and Jeri to make some changes as they move to the next level." Those comments generated whispers in the political community that whoever ran this campaign would have to answer to the candidate's wife.

Competent, experienced, and beautiful -- that certainly puts her ahead of a certain Democrat seeking the presidency. And what's more, it leaves open the possibility that, following a successful Thompson presidency, we might see another Thompson seeking elected office -- and being a powerful figure in the GOP for decades to come.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 634 words, total size 6 kb.

For a variety of reasons that do not need to be discussed, the Founders included in the Constitution the Electoral College. Usually unimportant, the Electoral College system does create the possibility (and has in more than one election) of the nation being governed by a president with fewer popular votes (but geographically wider support) than hid opponent. This is because of the custom of states awarding all electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes within their borders.

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, currently do not follow this practice, but instead award some of their electoral votes based upon the results of presidential voting within congressional districts. Such a proposal is now being considered in California.

A Republican-backed ballot proposal could split left-leaning California between the Democratic and GOP nominees, tilting the 2008 presidential election in favor of the Republicans.

California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections — the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes.

The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change — if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots next year and is approved by voters — would mean that a Republican would be positioned the following November to snatch 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.

That's a number equal to winning Ohio.

Frankly, I'm opposed to the idea, based upon a reality of American politics -- the gerrymander.

Let's be honest here, both parties seek to maximize their political power in legislative bodies by drawing congressional district lines to partisan advantage. This could, in fact, make the likelihood of an Electoral College victory for the popular vote loser even greater than it is now -- because a majority of a state's electoral votes could go to the candidate with fewer popular votes.

For example, not too many years ago the congressional map here in Texas was drawn so that the Democrats needed only 44% of the votes cast to win 57% of the Congressional seats. Presuming that the presidential vote had mirrored the that outcome, the Republican candidate for president in that year would have received only 16 of 34 electoral votes. Multiply this effect across the 50 states and you can see the potential havoc this could cause -- and the incentive for even greater redistricting shenanigans.

Now I'm not one of those who supports the abolition of the Electoral College. In the past, it has served to legitimize candidates with a minority of the popular vote (Abraham Lincoln once and Bill Clinton twice) by giving them a clear mandate for office. It is, on balance, a good thing as it currently operates -- and tampering with it in this manner strikes me as unwise.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

We've struggled with issues of how the nation casts its votes since the 2000 presidential election, during which a few anomalies and a particularly close vote count allowed the election's loser (and yes, I do mean Al Gore -- read your Constitution for details) to cast doubts upon the integrity of the punch card systems that had been standard for decades in many regions of the country.

Optical scanners and computerized systems were presented as "the answer" to election integrity -- but over the last six years there have been concerns raised over the "black box" systems. Now, even the optical scanner systems have been cast into doubt.

Florida's optical scan voting machines are still flawed, despite efforts to fix them, and they could allow poll workers to tamper with the election results, according to a government-ordered study obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

At the request of Secretary of State Kurt Browning, a Florida State University information technology laboratory went over a list of previously discovered flaws to see whether the machines were still vulnerable to attack.

"While the vendor has fixed many of these flaws, many important vulnerabilities remain unaddressed," the report said.

The lab found, for example, that someone with only brief access to a machine could replace a memory card with one preprogramed to read one candidate's votes as counting for another, essentially switching the candidates and showing the loser winning in that precinct.

"The attack can be carried out with a reasonably low probability of detection assuming that audits with paper ballots are infrequent," the report said.

So, what is the solution? Do we rely on these new technologies, despite the flaws? Do we return to the punch cards, which had a relatively low error rate and are relatively easy to use? Or do we go back to hand-counted paper ballots, eschewing the technological fixes but introducing the element of human error?

No system is perfect, no system is fraud-proof, and no system will satisfy everyone. The question therefore becomes "which one will be seen as conferring the greatest legitimacy on the results?"

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Accusations over close ties to lobbyists have led to the search of the home of Senator Ted Stevens.

Agents from the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service raided the Alaska home of Sen. Ted Stevens (R) yesterday as part of a broad federal investigation of political corruption in the state that has also swept up his son and one of his closest financial backers, officials said.

Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in history, is under scrutiny from the Justice Department for his ties to an Alaska energy services company, Veco, whose chief executive pleaded guilty in early May to a bribery scheme involving state lawmakers.

Contractors have told a federal grand jury that in 2000, Veco executives oversaw a lavish remodeling of Stevens's house in Girdwood, an exclusive ski resort area 40 miles from Anchorage, according to statements by the contractors.

Stevens said in a statement that his attorneys were advised of the impending search yesterday morning. He said he would not comment on details of the inquiry to avoid "any appearance that I have attempted to influence its outcome."

If he broke the law, I urge vigorous prosecution. I don't embrace criminals holding office under the my party's banner -- that is the custom of the Democrats.

So far there are no reports of cash hidden in the freezer.

Posted by: Greg at 02:28 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Some folks are ready to write off Fred Thompson due to early fundraising numbers.

Fred Thompson plans to announce Tuesday that his committee to test the waters for a Republican presidential campaign raised slightly more than $3 million in June, substantially less than some backers had hoped, according to Republican sources.

Thompson plans to make the disclosure in a filing with the Internal Revenue Service, as he continues to operate his prospective campaign as a political organization that does not require disclosure to the Federal Election Commission.

Many Republicans had seen the “Law & Order” actor and former U.S. senator from Tennessee as a potential savior in a tough election cycle.

He attracted support from such top-shelf party figures as Mary Matalin, Liz Cheney, George P. Bush and other GOP stalwarts who saw him as a potential Hillary Clinton slayer.

But many Republicans have turned queasy as Thompson has ousted part of his original brain trust and repeatedly delayed his official announcement, which is now planned for shortly after Labor Day, in the first two weeks of September.

Some are already saying a prospective Thompson run is a flop. “I just don’t see it anymore,” said a key Republican who had been extremely enthusiastic about a Thompson candidacy.

"That number is really underwhelming. There were indications it could be double that. They've been saying that people were waiting for Fred, and the money was going to pour in. He looks like he's already losing momentum."

Some thoughts on this.

1) This represents only a one month's worth of fundraising. All things considered, not bad.

2) Exploratory committees are only supposed to raise "what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities”. As Captain Ed has pointed out, Politico (which now is questioning the "low" numbers) raised that issue weeks ago -- and there have already been accusations by the KOS-sacks are, in fact, accusing Thompson of raising TOO MUCH money under that provision.

3) There are many Republicans, especially among the grass roots, who don't give to exploratory committees -- we wait for a candidate to formally announce before writing our checks.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Republican National Convention Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 4 kb.

I caught this little blurb in one of the articles on left-wing attempts to target FoxNews advertisers.

Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.

Oh -- so you mean that all sides of the issue shouldn't be presented? That "fair and balanced" treatment of the issue really means that only one side should be heard -- even though there is significant questioning of the underlying premise that human beings are causing global warming?

It appears to me that the problem is not that FoxNews isn't fair and balanced -- it is that the rest of the news media is not, and they want to silence the only dissenting voice.

Posted by: Greg at 03:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

What do the constant claims that "the war is lost" and we need to "bring them home now" have on America's position in Iraq?

Try to imagine what was running through the mind of Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, as he sat across the negotiating table from his American counterpart, Ryan Crocker, last week. While the U.S. diplomat delivered his stern warning against Iranian meddling in Iraq, Qomi must have wondered: Why should I listen to this guy? Congress is going to start pulling U.S. troops out soon, no matter what he says.

That's the difficulty for Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus as they try to manage a stable transition in Iraq while Congress chants ever more loudly: "Troops out! Troops out!" It's hard for anyone to take American power seriously when prominent members of Congress are declaring the war already lost.

In short, though he essentially agrees with the position of this administration and those of us who still support victory in Iraq -- the Democrats in Congress have undercut the US military and national security with their efforts to ensure defeat in Iraq. Their efforts are making the situation in Iraq -- now and in the future -- worse rather than better.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday, the new York Times ran an article that demonstrated that Alberto Gonzales told Congress the truth about disputes over NSA surveillance programs and his meeting with John Ashcroft.

Today, however, the New York Times insists that Alberto Gonzales be fired or impeached for not telling the truth about such dissent.

Their argument?

As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.

As far as I can tell, there are three possible explanations for the New York TimesÂ’ talk about the veracity of Mr. Gonzales comments and the need for his firing or impeachment.. One, they don't read their own newspaper. Two, the editorial page operates using a different set of facts than the newsroom does, making the reality on the editorial page different from the one that has been reported in the news pages of the New York Times . The third is that the facts don't matter to the editorial page of the New York Times, and that they therefore choose to ignore the reporting of their own reporters in an attempt to undermine the Bush administration.

Regardless, it is clear that the New York Times is no longer a reliable news source -- based upon the reporting and editorials of the New York Times.

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Ronald Reagan, not a "liberal" or "progressive".

The Gipper still has a hold on American hearts and minds. Of five political labels meant to designate presidential hopefuls, "like Reagan" proved to be the most popular in a new Rasmussen survey, trumping a quartet of more familiar descriptors.

The survey revealed that 44 percent of the respondents rated the phrase "like Reagan" positively, followed by "progressive," favored by 35 percent, "conservative" (32 percent), "moderate" (29 percent) and at the bottom, "liberal" (20 percent).

On the other hand, we have what amounts to a statistical dead heat between moderate, conservative, and progressive, each getting roughly 1/3 of the American people to view the term as positive when one takes into account the 3% margin of error.

And as far as progressive goes, I'm all for progress -- but what the left-wing is selling these days is hardly progress, but is instead nothing more than the same old failed liberal crap re-branded.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

But then again, when the group is run by a group of old Clinton, Kerry, and Kennedy hands, why would you expect anything else?

This is about what you'd expect, but Democracy Corps has released yet another survey demonstrating that the Republican Party is losing young people in droves. Among 18-29 year olds, 50% have a favorable view of the Democratic Party compared to only 35% for the Republican Party. There are plenty of reasons for this, but basically they hate George Bush, they hate the Iraq war, and they hate religious conservatives.

The good news, of course, is that people are brand loyal. Once they make up their minds in their twenties which party they like better, they generally stick with it for the rest of their lives. So the Republican Party's deal with the devil to embrace the Christian Right might have helped them out for a while, but in the long term it's a disaster. Sic transit etc.

So let's see -- a left-leaning columnist for a left-leaning publication is pumping a study bya left-leaning froup purporting to show that young people lean to the left. Like I should believe that there is any objectivity there.

Posted by: Greg at 04:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

But I have to ask, does it really mean anything.

State-sanctioned teams of computer hackers were able to break through the security of virtually every model of California's voting machines and change results or take control of some of the systems' electronic functions, according to a University of California study released Friday.

The researchers "were able to bypass physical and software security in every machine they tested,'' said Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who authorized the "top to bottom review" of every voting system certified by the state.

Neither Bowen nor the investigators were willing to say exactly how vulnerable California elections are to computer hackers, especially because the team of computer experts from the UC system had top-of-the-line security information plus more time and better access to the voting machines than would-be vote thieves likely would have.

Now what sort of information were these folks given?

"All information available to the secretary of state was made available to the testers,'' including operating manuals, software and source codes usually kept secret by the voting machine companies, said Matt Bishop, UC Davis computer science professor who led the "red team" hacking effort, said in his summary of the results.

Oh -- so the Secretary of State's office gave them the key to the lock and now loudly announces that the teams were able to open the front door. DUH!

Given unlimited access to the machines, unlimited information about them, and the latest in technological resources, a team of top researchers can break into the machines. But even the researchers recognize that their work does not mesh with real-world conditions.

And interestingly enough, the integrity of the computer code itself was found to be high, with no malicious software issues that could be used to alter the outcome of an election. So much for the claims of opponents of "black box voting" and screenwriters like those who produced Man of the Year.

The problem is, of course, that any system can be gamed. Considering the history of voting irregularities with paper ballots and computer punch cards, are the new electronic systems really any less secure? And while I would like to see a paper trail added to the electronic voting machines, I feel pretty secure about them.

Posted by: Greg at 03:03 AM | Comments (228) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, leading liberals believe they have a God-given right to control the courts and impose liberalism through the judiciary, no matter what the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.

Let's see -- to the best of my knowledge, only one precedent was overturned last year, and that in a lawsuit dealing with product pricing. Brown v. Board of Education was vigorously upheld by the conservative majority -- much to the chagrin of liberals who wanted its central holding overturned so that government could classify students by race and then use that to send students to schools far from their homes, just like was done to little Linda Brown. They upheld the First Amendment by holding that government cannot ban all speech about officeholders prior to an election. Justice Kennedy (a moderate that liberals profess to admire) was able to further clarify the holding on partial-birth abortion from several years ago.

But not to worry -- if Schumer carries through on this threat, the GOP can pay it back in spades from blocking the confirmation of any nominee put forth by a Democrat in the White House. We may yet have a five judge court by the 2012 election.

H/T Malkin, Captain's Quarters

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, , Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern Dreams, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Church and State, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 6 kb.

It looks like the former Massachusetts governor may have to address the Mormon issue head-on -- although it doesn't seem to be something he will do immediately.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday he'll probably deliver a speech explaining the role his Mormon faith plays in his political life, but he argued he's made strong gains among evangelicals despite questions about his religion.

"I have thought about that," Romney said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I haven't made a final decision, but it's probably more likely than not."

* * *

In the interview, Romney acknowledged the issue crops up often enough that he's pondering dealing with it in a comprehensive manner.

"It's probably too early for something like that," Romney said. "At some point it's more likely than not, but we'll see how things develop."

There is precedent for such a step. When John F. Kennedy sought the presidency in 1960, there was a whispering campaign about his Catholicism and he largely put the issue to rest by going to Texas to deliver a speech about the role that religion played in his life.

Romney said it's too early to decide what he would say in such a speech, largely because he hasn't made a final decision to deliver such a talk.

Personally, I don't think Mitt Romney can afford to wait to deal with the issue. His best bet, from where I stand, would be to address the issue at the time of the time of the Texas straw poll, in about five or six weeks. It is an event that all candidates are participating in, in a state where he does not already have a lead. What's more, Texas is a state where the evangelical wing of the GOP is strong -- and a strong showing following such a speech would be viewed as a sign that he has, in fact, laid the matter to rest.

Posted by: Greg at 02:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.