Just a reminder about his position on inflammatory language.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Having just spent the last couple of days jumping on Ann Coulter for her comments at CPAC, I feel rather sheepish about citing her column on the Libby verdict. However, for better or for worse, she more or less presents my point of view on the matter.

Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.

It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame's name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department's Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name and Fitzgerald knew it.

With no crime to investigate, Fitzgerald pursued a pointless investigation into nothing, getting a lot of White House officials to make statements under oath and hoping some of their recollections would end up conflicting with other witness recollections, so he could charge some Republican with "perjury" and enjoy the fawning media attention.

As a result, Libby is now a convicted felon for having a faulty memory of the person who first told him that Joe Wilson was a delusional boob who lied about his wife sending him to Niger.

For the record, I usually don’t read Coulter’s column, but it was sent to me by a friend without her byline on it – and only after reading it did I click the link and discover who the author was.

Posted by: Greg at 05:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

Can anyone say "cattle futures"? Well, maybe not.

Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.

One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.

The most recent financial disclosure form for Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, who is seeking his partyÂ’s presidential nomination in 2008, said yesterday that the senator did not know that he had invested in either company until fall 2005, when he learned of it and decided to sell the stocks. He sold them at a net loss of $13,000.

The spokesman, Bill Burton, said Mr. ObamaÂ’s broker bought the stocks without consulting the senator, under the terms of a blind trust that was being set up for the senator at that time but was not finalized until several months after the investments were made.

“He went about this process to avoid an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and he had no knowledge of the stocks he owned,” Mr. Burton said. “And when he realized that he didn’t have the level of blindness that he expected, he moved to terminate the trust.”

I wonder if this is just the tip of the iceberg -- or if we are going to find that Obama is operating at a significantly higher level of ethics than his major opponent, Hillary Clinton

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Even though I gladly joined the denunciation of Ann Coulter signed onto by so many of my fellow conservatives, I have some additional ruminations about the controversy.

Do pronouncements like this make John Edwards one of the dreaded “theocrats” the liberals keep ranting about?

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.

Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country's willingness to go to war "when it's not necessary."

"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."

And Edwards no doubt has a Big Government solution to impose that theological pronouncement upon the rest of us – but the liberals just won’t care.

Posted by: Greg at 04:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

That seems to be the agenda of some Democrats as the spending authorization bill for current military operations is being considered.

President George W. Bush's first spending fight with the Democratic-controlled Congress may come over the Iraq war -- and avocados and cattle and flood protection.

Lawmakers are pushing to add billions of dollars to the administration's war-funding request to meet a host of unrelated demands, including those from California fruit farmers hit by freezing temperatures, ranchers whose livestock were killed in Colorado blizzards and children poised to lose their health insurance.

The potential add-ons threaten a battle in the coming weeks with the White House. Bush has never vetoed a spending measure, and Democrats, betting he won't veto one paying for the war, see a way to aid a number of constituencies seeking federal aid.

``There are urgent, emergency situations that have to be addressed,'' said Senator Kent Conrad), a North Dakota Democrat.

Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, said the extra spending is ``fiscally irresponsible and it's blatantly unseemly.''

``We're supposed to be fighting this war and paying for the troops -- making sure they have what they need,'' he said. ``We're not supposed to be paying for avocado growers.''

I thought that such pork spending was anathema to the Democrats – but I guess they figure that if they cannot stop the funding of the war, they can load it up with all the unnecessary and inappropriate special interest spending they can cram into it. After all, if these items were really worthy of the appropriations required, then they would certainly be offered independently and pass easily.

Posted by: Greg at 04:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

The politics of cut-and-run rears its ugly head in Congress as the Neo-Copperheads and their small band of White Flag Republicans seek to abandon our allies and give in to terrorism in Iraq by tying the hands of the Commander-in-Chief.

Senior House Democrats, seeking to placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place restrictions on President Bush's ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position.

Under the proposal, Bush would also have to set a date to begin troop withdrawals if the Iraqi government fails to meet benchmarks aimed at stabilizing the country that the president laid out in January.

The plan is an attempt to bridge the differences between anti-war Democrats, led by Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), who have wanted to devise standards of troop readiness strict enough to force Bush to delay some deployments and bring some troops home, and Democrats wary of seeming to place restrictions on the president's role as commander in chief.

The legislative jujitsu in the backrooms of Capitol Hill underscores the difficulties the Democrats face in confronting the issue that helped them regain control of Congress -- Iraq. Democrats passed a resolution in February opposing Bush's deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, but Murtha's proposal to go a step further by restricting deployment to troops deemed to be adequately trained and equipped elicited a fierce response from Republicans, while also dividing the Democratic caucus.

It must suck to be rooting for American troops to fail -- and to need to act to facilitate it -- to gain political advantage for your party.

And before anyone accuses me of questioning the patriotism of those members of Congress supporting this plan for failure, let me clarify matters for you -- YES, I AM!

Posted by: Greg at 11:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, that's what we got following last week's assassination attempt, so I guess we will be seeing more on the left -- bloggers and commenters -- angry that the Vice President didn't have the good graces to die because they hate him. Will this report provoke similar laments from the liberal haters?

Vice President Dick Cheney was treated Monday for a blood clot in his left leg that independent experts said was probably not related to his history of heart disease but rather the result of his recent around-the-world trip, which included 65 hours of plane travel over 9 days.

Mr. Cheney’s office said the vice president experienced “mild calf discomfort” sometime after delivering a late-morning speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and visited his doctor’s office at George Washington University.

An ultrasound revealed a deep venous thrombosis, a blood clot, in the lower part of his left leg. He was treated with anticoagulant medication, which he will take for several months, and he returned to work. Although blood clots in the leg can be dangerous if left untreated, experts say most are successfully treated with the anticoagulant drugs that the White House says Mr. Cheney is now receiving.

A crucial determinant in treating blood clots in the leg is the size of the clot, which a statement Monday from Mr. CheneyÂ’s office did not describe. Nor did the statement state the clotÂ’s specific anatomical location.

My darling spouse was treated for this condition several years ago, and so I know how very serious these little things can be. I wish the VP all the best, and pray that he will recover fully.

Oh, and one little note for those with a sense of curiosity about such things -- though it will probably provide ammo for the haters -- regarding the medication Cheney is probably taking. The usual treatment for such clots involves taking the drug Coumadin. Its active ingredient is Warfarin -- which is also the active ingredient in rat poison. Interesting, isn't it, that what can be used to kill in on instance can be used to heal in another.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 3 kb.

If Congress passed a law doing away with the right to vote by secret ballot and replaced it with a "card check" in national elections, the New York Times would be outraged, calling it a fundamental violation of human rights. Why, then, do they support this abomination?

There are many reasons for the long decline in the membership rolls for private sector unions, including powerful changes in the economy and the unionsÂ’ past corruption scandals. And there is little doubt that federal rules and regulations for union organizing have also become increasingly hostile to labor, helping to drive unionsÂ’ share of the work force down from a peak of 35 percent in the 1950s to a mere 7.4 percent today.

The House of Representatives passed a bill last week that would strengthen the rights of employees to form unions, and it drew an immediate veto threat from President Bush. But if Mr. Bush were, as he claims, truly concerned about rising income inequality and truly committed to improving the lives of AmericaÂ’s middle class, he would support the legislation and urge the Senate to approve it.

The problem here is that the New York Times, while going on about the right of employees to organize, ignores the fact that workers also have the right not to organize. But then again, since when has the New York Times really supported the right of individuals to associate or not associate freely -- or to exercise any other right -- when it gets in the way of its liberal ideology?

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess this means that she believes 2/3 of Americans are mean-spirited and against the entire forward movement of American history.

Of the Federal Marriage Amendment she said, "This amendment was wedge politics at it's worst. It was mean-spirited, it was against the entire forward movement of American history. It was the first time anyone was proposing we amend the Constitution to deny citizens rights rather than widen the circle of rights and opportunities."

"In the end, we stopped the Federal Marriage Amendment and we sent a strong message that we will not stand idly by when anyone tries to write discrimination into our Constitution."

In only a single instance where the people have spoken has the pro-gay marriage prevailed—and then because the proposal banning gay marriage was poorly drafted. In every other case, gay marriage has been rejected by the voters by a 2-1 margin. I would therefore argue that Senator Clinton has put herself far outside the mainstream on this one – and has done so by insulting the overwhelming majority of Americans.

But it appears that Hillary is sucking-up – forgive the term – to gay rights groups in a big way. So much for the moderate image she has been trying to project.

Posted by: Greg at 05:46 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

I want to fully associate myself with the sentiments expressed herein.

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.
Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter's fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as "ragheads." She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.

At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a "faggot." Such offensive language--and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it--is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation's premier conservative gathering.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that "words mean things." Both phrases apply to Coulter's awful remarks.

Coulter's vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter's remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter's words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her "raghead" remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year, will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter's mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter's invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

Credentialed CPAC 2007 Bloggers

Sean Hackbarth, The American Mind
James Joyner, Outside the Beltway
Scott Schmidt, Boi From Troy
Joy McCann, Little Miss Attila
Kevin McCullough, Musclehead Revolution
Fausta Werz, Fausta's blog
Patrick Hynes, Ankle Biting Pundits
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters

Other Conservative Bloggers
Owen Robinson, Boots and Sabres
N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Michael Demmons, Gay Orbit

Frankly, there really is no defending Ann Coulter’s blunder – because even if one accepts the comment as a satirical comment on the recent uproar over comments by one of the stars of Grey’s Anatomy, connecting it to the ever-so-metrosexual John Edwards is truly inappropriate. This sort of foolish offensiveness is why she deservedly needs to be cut loose by the mainstream of conservatism.

Now if only folks on the Left will take on Bill Maher for comments like this. After all, playground-level insults are certainly less serious than death-wishes for elected officials.

Posted by: Greg at 04:58 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 690 words, total size 6 kb.

I’m sorry, folks, but this does speak a lot about the man’s character.

Rudy Giuliani's biggest challenge in his White House run to date could be how he responds publicly to comments his son made about their strained relationship.

Andrew Giuliani, 21, stunningly told The New York Times that he and his father have been estranged - not even talking "for a decent amount of time" - because of the son's problems with the ex-mayor's current wife, Judith Nathan Giuliani.

"There's obviously a little problem that exists between me and his wife," the Duke University student told the paper. "And we're trying to figure that out. But as of right now, it's not working as well as we would like."

In an interview airing today on ABC's "Good Morning America Weekend Edition," he tempered his comments.

"I do not want to hurt him," he said. "No matter what he's done, I love my father . . . It's not as good as it once was - but it's better than when it was its lowest, and it's getting better all the time."

Wife number three. Public extramarital antics that disgraced his office. Children effectively abandoned by their father. Is he really the best that we can do in the GOP? And even if he is, does he really merit support from those of us who argue for pro-family policies?

Posted by: Greg at 04:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 1 kb.

IÂ’m sorry, folks, but this does speak a lot about the manÂ’s character.

Rudy Giuliani's biggest challenge in his White House run to date could be how he responds publicly to comments his son made about their strained relationship.

Andrew Giuliani, 21, stunningly told The New York Times that he and his father have been estranged - not even talking "for a decent amount of time" - because of the son's problems with the ex-mayor's current wife, Judith Nathan Giuliani.

"There's obviously a little problem that exists between me and his wife," the Duke University student told the paper. "And we're trying to figure that out. But as of right now, it's not working as well as we would like."

In an interview airing today on ABC's "Good Morning America Weekend Edition," he tempered his comments.

"I do not want to hurt him," he said. "No matter what he's done, I love my father . . . It's not as good as it once was - but it's better than when it was its lowest, and it's getting better all the time."

Wife number three. Public extramarital antics that disgraced his office. Children effectively abandoned by their father. Is he really the best that we can do in the GOP? And even if he is, does he really merit support from those of us who argue for pro-family policies?

Posted by: Greg at 04:43 PM | Comments (51) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

1 5VoPpmugqRQzi6m butalbital butalbital high

Posted by: butalbitalA4C1j at Mon Mar 2 04:15:06 2009 (QqseZ)

2 gAsG6DOCP3 azithromycin azithromycin vaginosis

Posted by: azithromycinUNyPrAjF4hOW at Mon Mar 2 12:13:09 2009 (CBaaF)

3 UZxXMNN640z ultracet ultracet and patient education

Posted by: ultracetH90H at Mon Mar 2 12:28:27 2009 (yVuA6)

4 zABGBOdBNcKC8N9 fioricet buy fioricet online from pharmacy that uses ups or dhl for delivery

Posted by: fioricetYFxCMN at Mon Mar 2 19:04:02 2009 (WkzBk)

5 how92Qh8 meridia meridia recall

Posted by: meridiaw7tVdzW at Mon Mar 2 21:17:14 2009 (UOLkj)

6 K8n4AZybS497Ys doxycycline doxycycl hyc and immune system

Posted by: doxycyclineykW09oAnjo7D at Mon Mar 2 23:38:22 2009 (LBJpY)

7 butalbital cheap butalbital

Posted by: butalbitalczs2g at Thu Mar 5 02:31:47 2009 (pBZB1)

8 ambien what doses does ambien cr come in

Posted by: ambienTls7v432 at Thu Mar 5 07:18:04 2009 (iqcPK)

9 a03iHAB4 acyclovir acyclovir dosing

Posted by: acyclovirlMApy at Fri Mar 6 23:01:18 2009 (JzuLr)

10 Digalo Download Discreet Combustion Download Discreet Lustre Download Dvdidle Pro Download Dxo Optics Pro Download Easy Audio Cd Ripper Download Edgecam Download Effective Studios Sitestudio Download Eset Smart Security Download Extensis Suitcase Download Extra Drive Creator Download Family Tree Maker Download Filemaker Pro Download Fixed Noise Kreate Download Fl Studio Producer Download

Posted by: zyuofi at Mon Oct 5 16:42:18 2009 (vLWL5)

11 Quark Xpress Passport Download Quarkxpress Download Raxco Perfectdisk Download Realbasic Download Realize Voice Download Realviz Imagemodeler Download Remograph Remo Download Rhinoceros Download Riverdeep 3d Home Architect Download Riverdeep 3d Home Landscape Download Rosetta Stone Download Roxio Creator Download Roxio Digitalmedia Studio Deluxe Suite Download Roxio Easy Media Creator Download Roxio Popcorn Download

Posted by: clzbut at Mon Oct 5 22:40:24 2009 (j6kZF)

12 Cheap OEM software norton antivirus 2002 2c symantec ;-)

Posted by: Zozo908 at Tue Oct 6 13:39:05 2009 (s/9wn)

13 s'il Y a des analogues ?, acheter viagra en france, saya,

Posted by: Rkxsooix at Thu Oct 8 15:32:46 2009 (W+c4a)

14 Dans cela quelque chose est. Il est clair, merci pour l'explication., viagra en france, jtdlq,

Posted by: Txxthxxn at Mon Oct 12 19:08:33 2009 (Do8B5)

15 je F?licite, la r?ponse remarquable..., acheter cialis, 812,

Posted by: Ncwdddgs at Mon Oct 12 19:09:30 2009 (IykM7)

16 Je n'en sais rien., cialis en france, puahw,

Posted by: Slmotpvs at Mon Oct 12 21:31:03 2009 (JqV9E)

17 comment1, finishing a cutting board, 8OO, spiral slicer recipes, %-DD, bowie knife set, gakyiz, hightailert shrimp peeler and deveiner, 0905, mortician skin peeler lyrics, 819, kitchen aid 5 gadget set, 23982, seasoning a bamboo cutting board, nfktr, henckels knife set block, afffb, aluminum core cookware, 82970, wallet and knife gift set, 106859,

Posted by: tailor made bread slicer at Sat Oct 24 18:04:09 2009 (0Br1x)

18 Little Crazy Straight Jacket Mix google

Posted by: Anna at Tue Oct 27 03:02:04 2009 (NNGjW)

19 comment1, cable slicer, 8497, pokey jobar wood over sink cutting board, :OOO, apple peeler machine suction bottom, wyyuy, how do i cut base board, 976333, crystal charlene peeler, 337021, christmas storage containers, > , how to clean slicers, 8-O, veneer peeler blade holder, qeqow, what is nonreactive cookware, 36446, containers for bulk flour storage, 8-((,

Posted by: citram black steel cookware at Tue Oct 27 03:38:17 2009 (UQVeR)

20 Dans cela quelque chose est. Le merci bien pour l'aide dans cette question., compra cialis, =)), achat alli en ligne, 104, acheter alli, 53584,

Posted by: Fmewyuvv at Wed Oct 28 08:53:53 2009 (Iflhf)

21 comment4, fghjkk, =((,

Posted by: Hindu123 at Fri Oct 30 12:20:43 2009 (pC/j7)

22 comment5, iphone 3gs reviews, kzboh,

Posted by: consumer rate extended car warranty list at Thu Nov 5 08:16:43 2009 (XhAYD)

23 comment1, history of memorial day, sxhhpf,

Posted by: omelette recipe at Sat Nov 7 10:07:10 2009 (iAXna)

24 comment4, carly fiorina tenure vs mark hurd, 8]]], 2009 black friday, 81540,

Posted by: why did ashlee simpson and ryan cabrera at Sat Nov 7 14:17:50 2009 (yd2F1)

25 comment6, videx off the shelf, videx off the shelf, http://culinary.c4.fr/videx-for/eayga.html videx off the shelf, tsolq,

Posted by: side effects of rebetol at Sun Nov 8 00:40:39 2009 (OvbUy)

26 comment5, buy norvir online, 636310, fda recommendations using combivir with , >:-PPP, fansidar precautions, 366,

Posted by: tamiflu dose at Sun Nov 8 12:19:18 2009 (N64le)

27 comment3, relenza availabilty, xral, jenny craig kirstie alley, 6000, japanese star anise norvir, tocsdc,

Posted by: crixivan flu prophylaxix at Sun Nov 8 14:48:22 2009 (thcc9)

28 C'est la pi?ce tr?s pr?cieuse, viagra acheter, 8]]],

Posted by: Xqdvidjm at Tue Nov 10 03:00:23 2009 (Ah2Ej)

29 Le merci bien., viagra achat, 661028,

Posted by: Nfwytlww at Tue Nov 10 07:30:25 2009 (hdz5/)

30 Admirablement!, viagra acheter, 223,

Posted by: Rsgsfjic at Tue Nov 10 10:34:01 2009 (9VpkT)

31 Est d'accord, l'id?e tr?s utile, acheter du viagra, miaf,

Posted by: Mlqbucqv at Tue Nov 10 10:35:13 2009 (aUdyU)

32 L'information amusante, acheter viagra sur le net, peuag,

Posted by: Aobvscid at Tue Nov 10 11:33:20 2009 (BNSFI)

33 je F?licite, vous ?tiez visit?s par l'id?e brillant simplement, viagra, kyhtx,

Posted by: Damgqhps at Tue Nov 10 11:34:19 2009 (gtcDj)

34 Excusez que je vous interromps, mais vous ne pourriez pas donner plus d'information., viagra sur le net, 1096,

Posted by: Lgqmikmu at Tue Nov 10 13:52:41 2009 (5PiVI)

35 Il est clair, le merci bien pour l'aide dans cette question., acheter viagra generique, 280,

Posted by: Ctyupwbq at Tue Nov 10 14:26:31 2009 (++UK8)

36 Dans cela quelque chose est. Maintenant tout est devenu clair, le merci bien pour l'explication., le viagra, =P,

Posted by: Wlazbica at Tue Nov 10 15:44:37 2009 (9gwDc)

37 vous ?tes droits absolument, achat viagra generique, 9179,

Posted by: Lnfqjbsq at Tue Nov 10 16:18:40 2009 (9LWtV)

38 le message Autoritaire , d'une mani?re s?duisante..., viagra, eiy,

Posted by: Ldgwhtlt at Tue Nov 10 17:00:31 2009 (Gw0Dd)

39 que finalement ?, vente viagra, ocwpy,

Posted by: Wnaslndj at Tue Nov 10 19:04:18 2009 (2ttSP)

40 ? mon avis ici quelqu'un s'est fait une obsession, acheter viagra pharmacie, 8]],

Posted by: Flvgjcdl at Tue Nov 10 19:05:51 2009 (fczj7)

41 Logiquement, je suis d'accord, acheter du viagra, vufrmf,

Posted by: Vtdtamja at Tue Nov 10 23:00:58 2009 (a09n7)

42 comment1, ashlee simpson biography, vsqvig,

Posted by: ashlee simpson bio at Tue Nov 10 23:09:32 2009 (RzkPM)

43 Merci pour l'explication, plus facilement, mieux ?, acheter viagra sur le net, lhq,

Posted by: Wtxllcgr at Wed Nov 11 00:11:27 2009 (JHJbC)

44 je F?licite, quels mots..., l'id?e excellente, le viagra, bmba,

Posted by: Pzyctjhl at Wed Nov 11 03:51:44 2009 (DeXJi)

45 C'est la phrase simplement magnifique, viagra sans ordonannce, =-[[[,

Posted by: Skvizgkb at Wed Nov 11 06:50:41 2009 (SSC2q)

46 Chez moi la situation semblable. Nous examinerons., achat viagra sans ordonannce, %PP,

Posted by: Jpovrazh at Wed Nov 11 07:44:04 2009 (0gLHA)

47 comment3, avelox for pneumonia, :-DD,

Posted by: zithromax purchace at Wed Nov 11 13:26:24 2009 (Oa3TE)

48 comment6, russian women living outside russia, >:-]],

Posted by: used car extended warranty vehicle exten at Wed Nov 11 17:40:04 2009 (BHRmI)

49 comment2, big black ferr, yabndo, brittany spear titslips, =PPP, interracialporno, 4337, megatits, 8-D, buff tits, 72567, russian pornography, =DDD, zone porno, uksyl, big tits round arse, %-O, pornografia free, %-[[, pornografi dan pornoaksi, =P,

Posted by: clown petits at Wed Nov 18 06:01:35 2009 (fAC0q)

50 comment5, pseudomonas avelox, =-OO, zithromax pfizer, 190829, zithromax single dose, fkq, zithromax purchace, 612, zithromax dose, cjw, how long before zithromax expires, exzgtq, avelox effects, hmvbz, zithromax causing hypertension, jjl, buy antibiotics uk, 10447, avelox 400mg, 765,

Posted by: is zithromax gluten free at Wed Nov 18 18:12:07 2009 (YJeO1)

51 Thank you incredibly substantially for your exciting text. the north face outlet sale http://www.thenorthfaceoutlet2013sale.com

Posted by: the north face outlet sale at Thu Jan 10 00:31:16 2013 (qEcpl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

When they get a chance to listen to Mitt Romney, not just the detractors, conservatives like him.

Presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney yesterday won a straw poll of conservative political activists gathered in Washington, a very early indication of how an important Republican constituency might vote.

Romney was the first choice for the GOP nomination, with 21 percent of the 1,705 activists who voted at the 34th annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani came in second with 17 percent, and Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.) was third with 15 percent.

Mitt Romney didn't even register on the radar screen last year. He has now jumped out front. This is how a grassroots campaign works, and bodes well for the future.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

This one is a no-brainer -- so much so that even the Houston Chronicle is on the right side of the issue.

Imagine a representative democracy in which legislators could pass or defeat bills without letting their constituents know which way each legislator voted. Voters, in turn, would have no way of holding their representative accountable at election time.

Such a scenario, in which legislators could say they voted yea or nay regardless of the truth, seems unthinkable. Yet it exists in Austin in the Texas Legislature. While the Texas House passed an internal rule requiring a recorded vote on final passage of all bills, it does not have the force of law and could be suspended at any time.

* * *

Texas needs a constitutional amendment requiring a recorded vote on every amendment and on second and third readings of every bill. A vote against recorded votes is a vote against open government, accountability and the principles of democracy itself.

Interestingly enough, though, it has only taken the Chronicle 140 years to get around to supporting such a measure -- which they never felt a need to do during the 135 consecutive years when Democrats held control of the legislature. Open government, accountability, and the principles of democracy are only important, one would have to presume, when Republicans are in control.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Overtaken by Events, The Pink Flamingo, Renaissance Blogger, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Right Pundits, Random Dreamer, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, and Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 5 kb.

And I would argue that it bodes well for Scooter Libby.

Jurors asked for the definition of "reasonable doubt" Friday after completing a shortened, eighth day of deliberations Friday in the perjury trial of ex-White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,'" jurors wrote. "Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

The note offered the first real glimpse into the deliberations and suggested jurors were discussing Libby's memory. Prosecutors say he lied about conversations he had with reporters regarding outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Libby said he told investigators his best recollection of those conversations and never intentionally lied.

Seems to me that this means that the jury is open to the possibility that Libby didn't intentionally mislead anyone, but rather had a memory lapse. That, on its face, indicates that the jury has reasonable doubt, and should acquit immediately.

Posted by: Greg at 01:24 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Look what turned up in a bit of genealogical research turned up -- Barack Obama comes from a family of slave owners.

Many people know that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's father was from Kenya and his mother from Kansas.

But an intriguing sliver of his family history has received almost no attention until now: It appears that forebears of his white mother owned slaves, according to genealogical research and census records.

The records - which had never been addressed publicly by the Illinois senator or his relatives - were first noted in an ancestry report compiled by William Addams Reitwiesner, who works at the Library of Congress and practices genealogy in his spare time. The report, on Reitwiesner's Web site, carries a disclaimer that it is a "first draft" - one likely to be examined more closely if Obama is nominated.

According to the research, one of Obama's great-great-great-great grandfathers, George Washington Overall, owned two slaves who were recorded in the 1850 census in Nelson County, Ky. The same records show that one of Obama's great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers, Mary Duvall, also owned two slaves.

And yet somehow, were any sort of reparations program to be passed, I as a white man whose family tree includes no slave-owners, would be expected to pay reparations to Obama and his family, despite their slave-holding heritage.

But then again, even if his white mother's family hadn't owned slaves a century-and-a-half ago, Obama's ancestral hands likely still would not be clean on this score.

What the Sun may not realize is that almost certainly some of Obama's African forebears also owned slaves --- and that his current family members in Kenya may know quite a lot about modern-day slave trafficking. Human slavery is not just a historical anomaly in Kenya, the Sudan, or even Saudi Arabia. It is happening at this very moment. But apparently reminding its readers of that painful fact would not serve the Baltimore Sun's goal of hyping Obama as the new JFK, the White and Black Man's Hope.

Slavery is a horrific thing. But it would be far better if our media didn't cover up today's victims of African and Middle Eastern slavery --- when the world can still do something to save them.

I'm curious, will the media pursue this story? Or will it again bury an unflattering story about Obama's roots, just as it did when it was disclosed that Obama's daddy was a polygamist, a much closer connection than Mitt Romney's great-grandfather.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Random Dreamer, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Rightlinx, third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Overtaken by Events, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 6 kb.

Most committee appointments should be allowed to go through without comment or controversy. However, one placing a corrupt congressman with a history of using one of the agencies he will supervise to help cover up his crimes mandates placing every member of the House of Representatives on the record.

House Republicans plan to force a floor vote on the appointment of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), who is the subject of a federal bribery investigation, to a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.

The decision to put Jefferson on the panel was made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), and House Democrats endorsed the move at a private meeting Tuesday night, but his appointment must be confirmed by a vote on the House floor. Such an action would normally be a formality, but Republicans said yesterday that they would pursue a rarely used maneuver to force a recorded vote on the matter.

"This is a terrible mistake by the Democratic leadership, to take someone with serious ethical allegations against him and put him on one of the most sensitive and important committees in Congress," said Rep. Peter T. King (N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the committee.

Remember, this is the same William Jefferson who commandeered emergency equipment and personnel to remove personal property -- including evidence in the criminal probe against him -- from his New Orleans home in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, while people still needed rescuing. This appointment will give him oversight responsibilities for FEMA. While I agree that a New Orleans area official belongs on the committee, it cannot be this one.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

When you have knowledge of the sexual abuse of teens in state custody by state employees, action should be swift and decisive.

Rick Perry's actions were anything but, having waited until yesterday to move to reform the Texas Youth Commission, despite knowing of such abuse since last fall of sexual abuse dating back to 2005.

Gov. Rick Perry's staff learned last fall of a Texas Rangers investigation into allegations of sexual abuse in 2005 at a West Texas state juvenile facility, but the governor took no major action to reform the Texas Youth Commission until after the report became public last week.

On Wednesday, Perry removed the agency's board chairman, Pete Alfaro, of Baytown, and appointed Don Bethel, of Lamesa, as Alfaro's replacement.

Perry also recommended that at its meeting Tuesday, the board hire Ed Owens, the deputy executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, as the acting TYC director and set up an inspector general who answers directly to the board.

And late Wednesday, the Senate voted to ask the legislative audit committee to recommend the entire state agency be put into a conservatorship. Perry would have the final say on whether a conservatorship is adopted.

Legislative committees held hearings last year in which former TYC employees and the parents of youth offenders testified that there was widespread physical and sexual abuse of those incarcerated in the system.

But Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Sens. John Whitmire, D-Houston, and Juan Hinojosa, D-McAllen, said they didn't find out until last week about the Texas Rangers' report on the possible sexual assault of boys by TYC administrators at the West Texas State School in Pyote.

They said there appeared to be a cover-up by high-ranking TYC officials.

I'd agree with that last assessment -- and would go further, including the Governor among those involved in a cover-up. Here's hoping that the legislature acts decisively to investigate and, if appropriate, punish that apparent malfeasance.

And for those who think I'm being harsh, please realize that any teacher facing similar allegations of sexual abuse would have been out of the classroom in a matter of day and not permitted back in until cleared -- if then. Instead, TYC abusers were permitted to stay in supervisory roles and to move elsewhere in the field of education with no check upon them.

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

I’m curious – when did an individual’s politics become the basis for whether or not they should be allowed in a certain business – or whether they should be allowed to operate a business in a certain area?

The millionaires who've turned to this state's left-leaning Legislature to authorize a $300 million tax subsidy for a new basketball arena have been playing right-wing politics. Two members of the new Sonics ownership group are heavyweight financiers of a national political group dedicated to banning gay marriage.

Together, co-owners Tom Ward and Aubrey McClendon donated more than $1.1 million to Americans United to Preserve Marriage, a conservative Christian group that opposes gay marriage.

The group is led by Gary Bauer, an outspoken leader of conservative groups including the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family.

I’m curious – should their position on homosexual marriage be the basis for denying the subsidy requested? Would a “conversion” be a legitimate basis for granting it? My answer, in both cases is “No.”

But then again, I donÂ’t think the government should be in the business of subsidizing stadiums and arenas, any more than I believe they should be in the business of building factories for companies that say they cannot afford to do so.

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | Comments (140) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

I have to say that I agree with this analysis, even though Rudy is not my candidate.

Many on the right profess amazement at the lead he's opened up among Republican primary voters, considering his pro-choice views and sloppy personal life.

Meanwhile, writers on the left express disbelief at the notion that a pro-choice Republican candidate might be able to win the GOP nomination. According to the best Leftist analyst of American politics, Michael Tomasky, abortion is simply "too fundamental an issue for most Republican caucus goers and primary voters (even in California, with its likely Feb. 5 primary) to work around."

There's a perfectly simple answer to the Rudy paradox. When Republican voters look at Rudy Giuliani, they know one key fact about him: They know he's no liberal.

* * *

We're going to hear a lot about how rude, abrasive, arrogant, high-handed, combative, isolated, difficult and aggressive Rudy Giuliani was as mayor. And yet he was the key factor in turning New York into the safe, clean, pleasant, polite, neighborly and genuinely nice place it was when we were attacked on 9/11.

His record is clear: He fought the left mercilessly, and he not only won politically, he won as far as history's proper judgment of his tenure in New York.
Is it any wonder conservative Republicans are so eager to think the very best of him?

Well-said.

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Over at Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan has a great interview with Mitt Romney up at his site.

Of particular interest to me, given the quote on this site's masthead, is this little tidbit about the man who is among Romney's favorite presidents.

But I love John Adams. His book is on my desk there. The first time I read that book by David McCullough when I got to the last page I literally had tears in my eyes because I felt like I was losing a family friend.

Adams is often underrated, coming as he does between Washington and Jefferson, two giants of American history. That Romney has such high regard for him shows a high level of understanding of what it means to be a good president, and an American patriot.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

County Judge Robert Eckels wants his replacement to be an old friend -- but the grassroots who elected him want a current county-wide officeholder to fill the top spot on the Harris County Commissioner's Court.

Some Republicans are threatening to withhold future political support for County Judge Robert Eckels unless he backs a high-profile elected official as his successor rather than a relatively obscure former lawmaker.

"This decision is extremely important to whether the base will get behind Eckels if he runs for higher office," said County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill.

Although Eckels is stepping down to become a partner in the Fulbright & Jaworski law firm, he has said he eventually may seek statewide office.

Many GOP precinct chairs want Eckels and the Commissioners Court to tap a Republican official already holding countywide office, such as District Clerk Charles Bacarisse or Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt, Woodfill said.

But Ed Emmett, a transportation consultant and former state representative, appears to be the consensus choice of the Republican majority on the Commissioners Court.

The body consists of Eckels and the four county commissioners — fellow Republicans Steve Radack and Jerry Eversole and Democrats Sylvia Garcia and El Franco Lee.

Eckels, who may resign as early as the next meeting March 6, said he has not decided whom to support as his successor. "This will be about who the court is comfortable with and who will provide the best leadership for the community," he said.

But Radack said Emmett appears to have the votes. "Based on a conversation I had with Eckels, I have the impression he will recommend Emmett," Radack said.

An Emmett appointment would be a bad move on the part of Eckels and his colleagues, as I've said from the beginning. The people of Harris County deserve a COunty Judge who has stood before us and received our votes for office, not a political crony who hasn't held elective office in two decades. I'd be happy with either Paul Bettencourt or Charles Bacarisse, or even Beverly Kaufman -- all tested leaders who have been shown support by the people of Harris County.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

I've not gone wading in the muck over at Kos or DemocrtICK Underground yet to see, but I suspect that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this story about a failed attempt on the life of Vice President Cheney.

A suicide bomber blew himself up this morning outside the main gate of the United States military base at Bagram, just north of Kabul, where Vice President Dick Cheney had stayed the night. The attack killed and wounded American soldiers and Afghan and Pakistani truck drivers and laborers waiting for access at the gate. The explosion happened at the first security gate of the base, far away from where Mr. Cheney was staying, and he was not injured.

There are conflicting reports on the number of casualties. An Afghan guard said he counted up to 15 dead at the scene, including three American soldiers, and 12 others wounded. But a report from the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan said that four people were killed in the blast, including the suicide bomber, and NATO says only three were killed, including an American soldier and a coalition soldier.

The Associated Press reported that the Taliban claimed responsibility and said Mr. Cheney was the target of the attack.

The bomber was carrying the explosives on his body and was blown apart, the Afghan guard said.

I, for one, am glad that the Vice President is safe and sound, even as I mourn the deaths of innocents murdered by this Taliban killer.

Let this serve as a stark reminder of the nature of those we fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world. And be aware that many of those opposed to the war are going to reveal their true colors in their response to this attempt on the life of the Vice President.

MORE AT Captains Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Given the problems besetting the Fletcher Administration in Kentucky, I have to applaud the decision by Lt. Gov. Steve Pence to endorse someone other than Gov. Ernie Fletcher for reelection.

Republican Lt. Gov. Steve Pence threw his support to former U.S. Rep. Anne Northup, who entered the race saying the incumbent's legal turmoil has rendered him politically vulnerable to Democrats.

"She is the better candidate for the Republican party," Pence said. "She has a real chance of winning."

Pence had already refused to run for re-election with Fletcher and publicly questioned whether the first Republican governor elected in Kentucky in more than 30 years could win in the wake of a grand jury investigation into his administration's hiring practices.

A third Republican, businessman Billy Harper, is also vying for the GOP nod. Seven Democrats are running and have sharply criticized Fletcher.

The governor was indicted last year on charges that he illegally rewarded political supporters with protected state jobs. The indictment was dismissed in a deal with prosecutors, but the special grand jury later said Fletcher had approved a "widespread and coordinated plan" to skirt state hiring laws.

Hurrah for Pence -- the situation in Kentucky stank to high heaven, and choosing to set aside personal loyalties in favor of the good of the state and the party is admirable. Well done!

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

One more attempt to silence the American people when they start to oppose the liberals.

Senate Democrats are considering placing curbs on soft-money 527 groups amid evidence that they are beginning to lose the political advantage these largely unregulated funds have given them over Republicans.

This is a move Democrats had strenuously opposed during the last Congress, when they were believed to benefit from the lionÂ’s share of 527 money, but now there is evidence that more of the money from these groups, named for a clause in the tax code, is flowing to the GOP.

Of course, that isn't the only attempt by the Dems to throttle political speech. they want to introduce public financing of congressional campaigns, too, and do more "campaign finance reform", which we know means speech limitation for the common man.

Why don't we simply go back to the system that worked so well for most of the first two centuries of the Republic -- Congress and the states staying out of the business of regulating political speech.

Posted by: Greg at 06:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like the Clinton campaign is going to let no slight pass uncommented -- or unanswered.

There's more than meets the eye in that ongoing skirmish between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

Clinton's advisers are using the fuss to send a warning shot. They want the Obama campaign to know that everything it does will be closely scrutinized from now on and that Obama won't be getting any free shots against Clinton.

The donnybrook started when Hollywood mogul David Geffen said Hillary Clinton is too polarizing, that she should apologize for her 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war, that her husband, Bill, has a reckless personality, and that the Clintons have a facility for lying. This prompted Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson to fire off a zinger to the media.

"By refusing to disavow the personal attacks from his biggest fundraiser against Senator Clinton and President Clinton, Senator Obama has called into serious question whether he really believes his own rhetoric," Wolfson said. "How can Senator Obama denounce the politics of slash and burn yesterday while his own campaign is espousing the politics of trash today?"

Well, given that the Clintons have exemplified the politics of white-trash for years, I suppose they would recognize the politics of trash. For that matter, the biggest problem with Geffen's comments from the standpoint of the Clinton campaign is that everything he said was true of the former First Couple. After all, Bill Clinton is a well-documented liar and lecher, and Senator Clinton's lack of candor in the many investigations of her husband's corrupt administration are well-known.

Which might explain why the Clinton campaign is working so hard to prevent any discussion of Bill Clinton's impeachment for perjury -- or any of his other shortcomings as president.

With a swift response to attacks from a former supporter last week, advisers to the New York Democrat offered a glimpse of their strategy for handling one of the most awkward chapters of her biography. They declared her husband's impeachment in 1998 -- or, more accurately, the embarrassing personal behavior that led to it -- taboo, putting her rivals on notice and all but daring other Democrats to mention the ordeal again.

"In the end, voters will decide what's off-limits, but I can't imagine that the public will reward the politics of personal destruction," senior Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson said Friday, when asked whether the impeachment is fair game for Clinton's opponents. Earlier in the week, Wolfson dismissed references to President Bill Clinton's conduct as "under the belt."

I just don't see how one uses Bill Clinton as one's biggest asset but avoids the liabilities that come with him. But Hillary Clinton wants to try.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Right on the Right, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, 123beta, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 586 words, total size 7 kb.

Mitt Romney is the only major GOP candidate still married to his first wife, who he still refers to as his sweetheart on the campaign trail. There isn't even a hint of infidelity on his part -- and if there were , we would certainly have heard of it by now. So why the articles about polygamy three and four generations back in his family?

While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

The article goes into intriguing historical detail about various nineteenth century ancestors and their polygamous marriages, all of which is interesting to me as a historian and a student of theology, but as an American preparing to vote in 2007 it is utterly useless and pointless.

I think there are two main reasons for this. The first, of course, is simply raw, anti-Mormon bigotry on the part of some in the media. But it goes beyond that, given that we don't see any articles about the family history of Mormons Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch. The problem is that Romney is an attractive candidate who could possibly become the next President of the United States (or at least the GOP nominee for that office), and that scares some folks in the media, as Dean Barnett points out.

TO START WITH THE OBVIOUS, MITT ROMNEY IS THE most conservative candidate in the field who has, at present, a chance of winning. The press doesnÂ’t like conservatives, or at the very least, is more hostile to conservatives than it is to liberals. The press sees everything regarding a conservative in the worst possible light; liberals are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

A second reason is that Mitt Romney doesnÂ’t look like a politician should, or at least the way the media thinks a Republican politician should. Given that Romney is constantly praised for his patrician demeanor, his impeccable manner and his smooth-as-silk politicking, I know this point is counter-intuitive, but bear with me.

The press has come to expect Republicans to fit certain molds. They are supposed to be inarticulate and not quick on their feet. The press has stereotyped every Republican presidential nominee since Ford in this way. They are also supposed to be intellectually unimaginative or downright unintelligent. Again, every Republican presidential nominee since Ford has had to live with this label. They are further required to be creatures of politics who have accomplished nothing or next to nothing outside of the political world. Lastly, all Republicans ought to have a bit of Elmer Gantry in them. They should preach about morality and piety, but they should always be obliging enough to have at least a few skeletons jangling in their closet.

Mitt Romney fails to live up to any of these stereotypes. Glib and articulate, itÂ’s hard to imagine Romney ever fearing a press conference or a debate. Intellectually, Romney graduated HarvardÂ’s Business and Law Schools with top honors. Furthermore, it seems like heÂ’s completely unfamiliar with the media dictates that Republicans should wrestle with English like itÂ’s a hostile foreign language and make themselves available for lampooning as dullards.

Even more gratingly, Mitt Romney didnÂ’t become a full-time politician until 2002. Until then, he had been a phenomenally successful businessman who had made hundreds of millions of dollars in a fiercely competitive industry while earning a reputation for honesty and intellectual probity.

Lastly, and probably most frustratingly for the media, the Romney closet is depressingly barren. When Mitt Romney talks about family values, heÂ’s able to point to his own wife of 40 years and a brood of children and grandchildren that seems too good even for a Christmas card.

In short, Mitt Romney is more formidable than a Republican presidential candidate has any right being. He is a fat target in a way that a guy like Mike Huckabee never could be, even if Huckabee hadnÂ’t lost all that weight.

In short, he really doesn't have the vulnerabilities that many GOP candidates have had over the years, and so they are casting about for anything to stop this candidacy cold.

The media, of course, will draw "appropriate boundaries" in Election 2008. We will not get media rehashing of the problems in the Clinton marriage. Obama's father and step-father and the implications of his religious upbringing are off-limits, we are told. Biden's plagiarism and racist comments, and the tendency of John Edwards to excuse religious bigotry will also be swept under the rug. But the marital history of Romney's ancestors over a century ago, as well as his religious faith, will remain fair game, because they have nothing substantive to strike at him with.

H/T Captains Quarters, Blogs for Bush, Outside the Beltway, Conservative Times, Iowa Voice

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, 123beta, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 990 words, total size 10 kb.

Well, it could happen if the Democrats make any further efforts to undercut the troops in the field and their commander-in-chief.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President BushÂ’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

Joe Lieberman is and has been a Democrat in the best tradition of his party for many years -- a patriot who believes in a strong defense and the goodness of America. Sadly, this strain has been sadly lacking among the elected officials of that party for many years now, dating back a couple of decades. While Lieberman would certainly be on the left in the GOP, his commitment to this country would make him a welcome addition to my party.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Only a week after joining her fellow Neo-Copperheads in urging the abandonment of America’s allies in Iraq, Queen Shelia has expressed her support for providing military equipment to the Chavez regime in Venezuela.

A U.S. congresswoman called Wednesday for Washington to reconsider its ban on selling parts for U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to Venezuela, saying she had traveled to the South American country to repair strained political relations.
U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, told reporters that she was making the first U.S. congressional visit to Venezuela since President Hugo Chavez's December re-election with the message: "I want an immediate repairing of the relations between the United States and Venezuela."
Jackson Lee described Venezuela as a friendly nation that the U.S. should cooperate with and said that the F-16 jets, which are built in Texas, was an issue of concern to her constituents in Houston.
Pledging to "personally go back and raise" the issue, she called for the U.S. Congress "to reconsider sanctions on the F-16s."
The U.S. State Department has banned arms sales to Venezuela, including parts necessary to maintain its fleet of F-16s, citing a lack of support by Chavez's government for counterterrorism efforts and its close relations with Iran and Cuba.

She said her fact-finding mission to Venezuela was part of an effort by a new Democrat-controlled Congress to show that "Venezuela has many friends in this new Congress."

To bad America doesn’t.

Now remember, though – this is the same woman who asked if the Mars Rover would take pictures of the flags left behind by the Apollo astronauts, so we are not talking about the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. But to think that she is so oblivious to the situation in Venezuela and the nature of the Chavez regime is frightening.

Then again, since when has the mere fact that appeasement has failed wherever it has been tried kept a liberal from advocating it?

More at Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.

Only a week after joining her fellow Neo-Copperheads in urging the abandonment of AmericaÂ’s allies in Iraq, Queen Shelia has expressed her support for providing military equipment to the Chavez regime in Venezuela.

A U.S. congresswoman called Wednesday for Washington to reconsider its ban on selling parts for U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to Venezuela, saying she had traveled to the South American country to repair strained political relations.
U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, told reporters that she was making the first U.S. congressional visit to Venezuela since President Hugo Chavez's December re-election with the message: "I want an immediate repairing of the relations between the United States and Venezuela."
Jackson Lee described Venezuela as a friendly nation that the U.S. should cooperate with and said that the F-16 jets, which are built in Texas, was an issue of concern to her constituents in Houston.
Pledging to "personally go back and raise" the issue, she called for the U.S. Congress "to reconsider sanctions on the F-16s."
The U.S. State Department has banned arms sales to Venezuela, including parts necessary to maintain its fleet of F-16s, citing a lack of support by Chavez's government for counterterrorism efforts and its close relations with Iran and Cuba.

She said her fact-finding mission to Venezuela was part of an effort by a new Democrat-controlled Congress to show that "Venezuela has many friends in this new Congress."

To bad America doesnÂ’t.

Now remember, though – this is the same woman who asked if the Mars Rover would take pictures of the flags left behind by the Apollo astronauts, so we are not talking about the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. But to think that she is so oblivious to the situation in Venezuela and the nature of the Chavez regime is frightening.

Then again, since when has the mere fact that appeasement has failed wherever it has been tried kept a liberal from advocating it?

More at Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 3 kb.

And if there is any justice left in our court system, Scooter Libby will be cleared of all charges in a case that amounted to little more than an instance of prosecutorial pique.

A federal jury ended its first day of deliberations yesterday in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby after the presiding judge urged jurors to rely on their "life experiences" in deciding whether the vice president's former chief of staff lied to investigators -- or made an honest mistake -- about his role in a CIA leak.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton's instructions to the jury of eight women and four men reinforced the issue of the fallibility of human memory that has been central to one of Washington's most celebrated trials in years.

Prosecutors allege that Libby, then Vice President Cheney's top aide, lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury to obscure the fact that, in the spring and summer of 2003, he aggressively sought out and shared with reporters information about Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA officer. Plame is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was emerging then as a harsh, early critic of President Bush and the Iraq war.

The only person accused in the three-year CIA leak investigation, Libby, 56, is charged with five felonies: two counts of making false statements to FBI agents, two counts of perjury and one count of obstructing justice. He is not charged with the leak itself. If convicted of all charges, he would face a potential prison term of 1 1/2 to three years under federal sentencing guidelines, prosecutors outside the case have said.

Libby's attorneys contend that Libby did not intentionally lie, but inaccurately remembered his conversations about Wilson and Plame with administration colleagues and Washington journalists.

And that is, ultimately, the big issue -- were any statements made by Libby intentionally misleading, or were they based upon inaccurate recollections? Interestingly enough, despite contradictory statements by many of the other witnesses, Patrick Fitzgerald chose to charge only Scooter Libby with a crime, in a leak case in which the rogue prosecutor knew from day one who the leaker was and made a decision not to prosecute the leak.

This is a case that never should have been prosecuted, on charges that never should have been brought. Let's hope the jury quickly acquits.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess she thinks being Speaker of the House means you cannot be criticized.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney's comments that the Congressional Democrats' plan for Iraq would "validate the Al Qaeda strategy."

Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

It seems that Pelosi thinks that she and Murtha and the rest of the Neo-Copperheads are immune from criticism -- because no one can seriously argue that Cheney's comments are wrong. That is not to say that the DemocratICK leaders support al-Qaeda or share their ideology, simply to note that the course of action they are taking is precisely in line with the stated goal of al-Qaeda leaders to wear down America's political will. What else can you call the position taken by the new DemocrtICK majority and their White Flag Republican cohorts in seeking unilateral capitulation in Iraq?

Sorry, but it seems to me that the biggest gripe these folks have is not that Cheney is wrong, but rather that he is speaking an inconvenient truth.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

This story is beyond belief -- were it not for the long history of political violence engaged in by the American Left against political opponents. But this case is extreme even by those standards.

A Fredericksburg man is facing several assault charges after police say he hunted down a group of Republicans and confronted them in their home over their beliefs.

Police said Andrew Stone, 23, recently went to a home in Fredericksburg at around 5:30 p.m. after he saw a name and nearby address on a Republican Web site.

Stone confronted three residents about their political viewpoints, police said. When he found out the residents supported the Republican-led war effort in Iraq, police say Stone became enraged.

Stone then hit the homeowner and his roommates several times as they tried to force him out of the door, police said.

Stone faces three counts of assault and battery.

Now this story really does not do the event justice. Michelle Malkin has more, including an account by one of the victims of the attack.

"I was taking a shower a little after 5pm while two of my housemates were cooking dinner. A man (Stone) came to the door asking for Reed Pannell. He was very polite and had some military literature with him so the housemates assumed he was either a recruiter or a friend of mine from class. As they were waiting for me to get out of the shower, Stone came inside, sat down in our living room, and quietly read the paper while he waited. I rushed out of the shower, came down with just a pair of jeans on and shaving cream still on my face.

At this point, Stone politely stood up, shook my hand, and told me that he had found my address on facebook. He asked if I was a College Republican as it said on my account, I told him yes. He then asked me "Oh, so that means you support the war, right?" and I responded with a yes. He then said that since I was for the war, if I was interested in signing up for the army. At this point I was sure he was a recruiter, and I told him that I'd definitely look into it as soon as I graduate (I'm a junior political science/econ major right now at UMW). This is where something changed in his eyes and he started getting aggressive. He took a step towards me and said that I support the war, yet don't want to fight in it.

At this point my roommate, Matt, stepped into the room and told him he was being disrespectful, and that it was time to leave. I told Matt that I could handle the guy (I've gotten into debates like this before). Stone responded to Matt by saying that "I'm not done talking to your roommate, he's a pussy and can't back up anything he believes in". At this point I, not politely, told him to leave our house. He refused, saying he was not done talking with us. He threw the military literature he had at me, which turned out to be United States Air Force literature. He said that I would never make it in the army and that was why he brought over USAF literature (implying he came over in a sinister manner--not only have I never seen/spoken to him before, but what if I had said that I had wanted to join up, right then and there? Oops, take this Air Force literature...).

My roommate Matt pushed Stone's shoulder towards the door at this point, and the second that happened Stone swung and struck Matt in the side of the head. Both exchanged several punches to the face/body and then I jumped in, throwing them both onto our couch. My other roommate called the police while both Matt and I tried to restrain him on the couch, but he kept hitting us. Both of us were yelling at him to leave, but he kept screaming that he wanted to fight us one on one like men, that we're "pussies" for not being in Iraq, and that we're hypocrites. He going crazy. Both of us struck him several times while he was on the couch. We finally dragged him off of the couch and forcibly pushed him out of the door. He then forced his way back into the house, where he struck Matt several more times. We both pushed him outside and went outside with him, where he would not leave our porch, and he continued to strike us both. Matt ended up pushing him over the railing, but fell along with him face first, with Stone holding onto my right arm as he did so.

The police on the phone with my other roommate told us to get inside, and so we did, and locked the door. As we entered my house, we yelled at Stone that the police were coming, and that if he was in the right, he should tell them. Personally, I'm surprised that he stayed--any logical person would flee after assaulting two people at once, unprovoked (the third roommate was not assaulted). The police showed up (4 cruisers) 30 seconds later, and Stone continued to be incredibly disorderly. They got his story, then ours, talked with eachother for 30 seconds and then arrested Stone. They asked if we wished to press charges, we said that we did. He is now out on bail, but he is charged with assault and battery, trespassing, and we have a restraining order against him.

We then hopped on facebook to see this guy's profile--he is NUTS.

...Later that day we found a list of names on the front porch, complete with addresses, boys and girls, all members of the college Republicans. I was 9th on the list. I contacted a few of the people on the list and only one had received a visit from this guy, and they hadn't even answered the door because they knew of his affiliation and what he was coming to say. For lack of better words, we were pretty unsuspecting. His arraignment is on March 1st, and our school newspaper is doing a large investigation of his ties to other organizations on campus, etc. For now, we're all pretty scared about what this guy'll do now that he's back on the streets.

Malkin also includes a online posts by this clown, Andrew Stone, on her site. Good grief, he fits right in with the NutRoots anti-war types -- profane, anti-Semitrc, and ready to advocate violence against political opponents. He just took it to the next level by preparing a hit-list and beginning to act upon it.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1132 words, total size 6 kb.

First, Merck suspended lobbying on making Gardasil mandatory. Now the Texas House has voted to overturn Rick Perry's executive order mandating the vaccine for Texas schoolgirls.

A House committee handed a stinging rebuke to Gov. Rick Perry by voting to rescind his executive order requiring pre-teen girls to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

Wednesday's Public Health Committee vote was 6-3, with all the Republican members and one Democrat voting to reverse Perry's order. Three other Democrats voted against the bill, which now goes to the full House for consideration.

Passage is all but guaranteed since 90 of the 150 House members have signed on as co-sponsors, said the author of House Bill 1098, Rep. Dennis Bonnen.

"I'm very pleased that the majority of the committee saw the wisdom of not putting every 11-year-old girl into a mandated situation of a vaccination that we don't know all the facts about," said Bonnen, R-Angleton.

Perry spokesman Robert Black said the committee's vote doesn't change the governor's position.

"He believes the state should do everything it can to protect young women from getting cancer," Black said. "He has encouraged the Legislature to have a vigorous debate on this issue. They are."

Another bill, HB 1397 by Rep. Joe Deshotel, D-Beaumont, would require the Texas Department of State Health Services to develop a public education plan about HPV. It also was passed by the committee on a 9-0 vote.

So as you can see, the vote is not one of opposition to the vaccine -- it is a rejection of the naked power-grab of a governor intent upon playing doctor with evey little girl in Texas. Education -- and presumably eventual legislation to make the vaccine more widely available -- are supported by many of us who opposed by Perry's actions. What we objected to was the high-hande3d manner in which teh governor sought to override the political proces.

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

How long until the DemocratICK majority in Congress implodes?

The Democratic majority was only three weeks old, but by Jan. 26, the grass-roots and Net-roots activists of the party's left wing had already settled on their new enemy: Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), the outspoken chair of the centrist New Democrat Coalition.

Progressive blogs -- including two new ones, Ellen Tauscher Weekly and Dump Ellen Tauscher -- were bashing her as a traitor to her party. A new liberal political action committee had just named her its "Worst Offender." And in Tauscher's East Bay district office that day in January, eight MoveOn.org activists were accusing her of helping President Bush send more troops to Iraq.

Helping? Jennifer Barton, the lawmaker's district director, played them a DVD of Tauscher blasting the increase as an awful idea in a floor speech eight days earlier.

"The words are fine and good, but we are looking for leadership," scoffed Susan Schaller, one of the activists.

Leadership? Barton showed them the eight golden shovels Tauscher had received for bringing transportation projects to her suburban district, along with numerous awards she had won for her work protecting children, wetlands, affordable housing and abortion rights.

"That's fine and good," Schaller repeated, "but this is about Iraq."

The anti-Tauscher backlash illustrates how the Democratic takeover has energized and emboldened the party's liberal base, ratcheting up the pressure on the party's moderates. That pressure is also reaching House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a San Francisco liberal who recognizes that moderate voters helped sweep Democrats into the majority. Pelosi has clashed with Tauscher in the past, but she's now eager to hold together her diverse caucus and to avoid the mistakes of GOP leaders who routinely ignored their moderates.

* * *

Democratic leaders want their activists to focus on beating Republicans. But the grass roots and Net roots believe the political tide is shifting their way, and they can provide the money, ground troops and buzz to challenge Democratic incumbents they don't like. MoveOn.org had two Bay Area chapters before the election; now it has 15, and they could all go to work against Tauscher in a primary. "Absolutely, we could take her out," said Markos Moulitsas Zúniga -- better known as Kos -- the Bay Area blogger behind the influential Daily Kos site.

This could be fun -- the Dem majority being flanked by the most liberal wing of its base, the part far outside the mainstream, and brought down by its own "supporters".

Keep up the good work, Markos!

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

While the Washington Post wants to know IF the system of public financing for presidential races can be saved, they really ought to be asking the more appropriate question -- "Should the public financing system be saved?"

THE PRESIDENTIAL public financing system is probably dead for the 2008 campaign. Certainly, the notion that candidates would limit their spending during the primary season in return for receiving federal matching funds has become quaint; the limits are so outdated and the amount of funds that can be raised so great that no serious candidate will take that bargain. And, for the first time, it looks as if the second part of the post-Watergate financing reform -- providing each major-party nominee with full financing for the general election campaign -- is about to become extinct as well.

Top-tier candidates of both parties, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former senator John Edwards, have already started raising money for a general election race. (They'll have to give it back if they don't win the nomination.) So has Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), but with a twist: Mr. Obama has asked the Federal Election Commission to rule on whether he could legally collect money for the general election campaign but ultimately decide to take public funding were he to win the nomination and his GOP opponent followed suit.

The reality is that running a full modern campaign cannot be done on the budget set by law under public financing. Furthermore, the editorial begs the question of the desirability of public financing of campaigns. Why should we accept some artificial limit on political speech in the form spending limits? Why should we accept the inherent rationing of speech that results? Isn't it better for America to return to the system that served us well for most of the first two centuries of American history -- unlimited spending by candidates who raise money from willing contributors?

I think the answers to those questions should be self-evident to any believer in the First Amendment.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

I can't say I'm particularly surprised by this move, given that it is an easy pander to the black voters in South Carolina who she is actively courting.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that South Carolina should remove the Confederate flag from its Statehouse grounds, in part because the nation should unite under one banner while at war.

"I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day," Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview.

"I personally would like to see it removed from the Statehouse grounds," the New York senator said during her first trip to the early voting state since announcing her White House bid.

Other Democratic hopefuls, including Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, have said the flag should come down. The banner, which once flew over the Statehouse dome and now flies nearby, is the subject of an ongoing NAACP boycott.

Personally, I'm pleased that the flag does not fly over the state capitol building any longer, but I'm troubled by efforts to remove it from what is, after all, essentially a memorial to the state's Confederate war dead. Even if the battle flag is removed, some flag of the Confederacy should fly as a part of that memorial, simply as a matter of historical accuracy and perspective.

However, if Senator Clinton is going to take this stand, she really needs to go further and condemn not just the flying of that flag, but also those who put it over the state capitol building in the first place as a sign of opposition to the civil rights movement. That would involve condemning, by name, former Senator Fritz Hollings, the grand old man of the DemocrtatICK Party in South Carolina, who supported and signed into law the bill raising that flag over the capitol dome. Not only that, but she should condemn, by name, the political party that supported secession in the South and capitulation in the North -- the DemocratICK Party, which in 1864 ran on a platform of appeasement and negotiated peace with the Confederacy even as victory was within grasp.

But then again, doing either of those things would cost Hilary Clinton votes -- the former because it would cost her the support of Hollings and his political heirs, and the latter because the position of latter-day Democrats on the Iraq War is eerily similar to the Copperheads of 1864.

Posted by: Greg at 07:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.

Don’t you just love it when the word “racist” gets flung around by someone to hide their own questionable conduct? Well, Campaign 2008 has had an instance of that happen already, over questions about an endorsement made by a powerful black politician in South Carolina.

Days before U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton makes her first visit to South Carolina as a presidential candidate, one of her top supporters here faces accusations that his support for her is tied to a contract his firm landed with ClintonÂ’s campaign.

State Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Richland, said such accusations are offensive and smack of racism.

When asked Tuesday by a reporter, Jackson said he was backing Clinton, D-N.Y. A day later, a national political Web site reported JacksonÂ’s consulting firm, Sunrise Enterprises, had agreed to work for Clinton for $10,000 a month.
That story was picked up by The New York Post and on cable television. The Post story questioned whether “Jackson’s endorsement was bought by a higher bidder.”

That, Jackson said, was a low blow.

“I’m somewhat offended in the sense that ... the national media thinks that an African-American in my position cannot support a candidate without being paid off,” Jackson said. “Second, they seem to have a hard time believing that in South Carolina there could be a legitimate African-American public relations firm that’s not a hustler.”

Well, the fact that Jackson was, in fact, paid to work for Clinton just days before he made his public statement certainly raises questions. So does the fact that Jackson didn’t disclose that financial relationship when he made his endorsement. There is certainly an appearance of impropriety there, related to the timing issue, which Jackson himself calls “unfortunate”. So what makes asking these questions – questions which could be legitimately asked of any white politician with a consulting firm – racially tinged? The answer, of course, is absolutely nothing, and the charge is simply intended to obscure the scandal and stop it in its tracks.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

You should not have to retreat from an intruder in your own home – or from anyone threatening your safety anywhere else – if you are following the law. The very notion of the “duty to retreat” constitutes an affront to the notion that law-abiding individuals should not have to cower before criminals or face legal jeopardy themselves.

Aficionados of Hollywood Westerns know all about the legal code that says "shoot first, ask questions later". But now, Republican legislators in Texas - spiritual home of the six-shooter and a John Wayne-style frontier spirit - wants to enshrine the principle into law.

Sponsors of a new bill in the state legislature call it the Castle Doctrine - the idea that anyone invading your home or threatening your safety deserves everything they have coming to them. Critics are already calling it the "shoot thy neighbour" law and questioning whether Texas, of all places, really needs to give its citizens further encouragement to take matters of crime and punishment into their own hands.

"I believe Texans who are attacked in their homes, their businesses, their vehicles or anywhere else have a right to defend themselves from attack without fear of being prosecuted and face possible civil suits alleging wrongful injury or death," Texas Senator Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio - home to The Alamo - said recently in support of the bill.

"You've got to assume a criminal's not there to buy girl scout cookies; you could be harmed," the bill's other sponsor, Texas Representative Joe Driver told The Los Angeles Times. "You should be able to meet force with force without getting in trouble."

Opponents claim that such legislation is unnecessary because in practice such cases are not prosecuted – but if that is the case, there is nothing wrong with enshrining the practice into law, is there? And as for their fears of “Wild West-style violence”, I cannot help but recall that was their objection to concealed-carry, too, and that their predictions were so far from the mark as to render their arguments in this case incredible.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.