There are certain crimes I view as beyond the bounds of forgiveness by mortal man. Some include crimes of violence that shock the conscience -- murder, rape, sexual abuse. Others involve crimes of betrayal -- including those which involve betrayal of one's country. In such cases, I oppose leniency as a matter of principle, for such leniency undermines any sense of justice towards those against whom the crimes were committed.

And so I today stand up and demand that Judge Larry Alan Burns throw the book at Duke Cunningham.

Randy "Duke" Cunningham has recurring prostate cancer and will likely die in prison if sentenced to the 10 years behind bars prosecutors are seeking, his defense lawyers said in court papers filed late Friday.

The documents also reveal that Cunningham and his wife, Nancy, are estranged and that the former 50th District congressman, who pleaded guilty to bribery and tax evasion in November, now lives on a ranch performing manual labor in exchange for room and board.

The U.S. attorney's office in San Diego is arguing that the four years Cunningham accepted bribes and cheated on his taxes ---- as well as tampering with witnesses after he came under federal scrutiny ---- warrant the maximum possible sentence.

Cunningham has admitted demanding bribes starting as early as 2000 and continuing until 2004 in exchange for steering Pentagon contracts to defense contractors MZM Inc. of Washington and ADCS of Poway.

But Cunningham's lead attorney, K. Lee Blalack, argued his client's military service during the Vietnam War and other civic and charitable contributions before the bribery took place, as well as his health status, should cause the court to hand down a lesser sentence of six years.

Reached at his Washington home Saturday, Blalack said he is asking the court for mercy.

"Mr. Cunningham admits doing something very wrong," he said. "The question is what constitutes harsh punishment for a 64-year-old man with health concerns which make a 10-year sentence likely to be unsurvivable.

"When you combine that with his lifelong contributions unusually found in one man to his country in war and in peace, that should warrant some mercy and a sentence appropriate for paying his debt to society."

What a load of bullshit! Cunningham betrayed his country by taking bribes every bit as much as if he had passed defense secrets to our nation's enemies. To argue that he deserves anything less than the maximum sentence based uponhis prior good works (which didn't stop him from taking bribes) or his health situation (which is irrelevant to his crime) is to argue that those somehow diminish the harm that he did. But those factors do not do anything to mitigate the harm -- and indeed, like the bribes themselves, are indicative of a flawed character that puts himself and his needs/desires above society's need to exact retributive justice in official corruption cases.

Besides, the punisments meted out in cases of official corruption need to be severe -- that is the best way to dissuade those who would betray America through their own avarice. The message should be loud nad clear -- take a bribe and this country will sek to have you serve every day of your sentence, even if that means you die in prison instead of surrounded by your loved ones.even

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 558 words, total size 3 kb.

Gates of Vienna reports on a budding movement for freedom of expression in Great Britain.

Statement of Principle

The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas give offense to someone, and some of the most powerful ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, have given profound religious offense in their time.

The free exchange of ideas depends on freedom of expression and this includes the right to criticize and mock.

We assert and uphold the right of freedom of expression and call on our elected representatives to do the same.

We abhor the fact that people throughout the world live under mortal threat simply for expressing ideas and we call on our elected representatives to protect them from attack and not to give comfort to the forces of intolerance that besiege them.

The Baron also supplies contact information for the group and a link to their website.

They will be rallying in Trafalgar Square on March 25. 2006. Spread the word!

Posted by: Greg at 05:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Houston's Mayor Pro Tem, City Councilman Carol Alvarado, has expalnation for of why she isn't responsible for her staff's looting of the city treasury -- supervising her employees is just too much work.

Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado deflected responsibility Thursday for the $130,000 in improper bonuses some of her employees received, saying she trusted subordinates to oversee payroll administration.

"There is no way that an elected official can police every single iota, every single detail, that goes on in their office," Alvarado said. "My job is to delegate, to hire people, to trust people that will bring forward any types of irregularities."

The four employees, who work in the mayor pro tem office that Alvarado oversees, have been placed on administrative leave pending a police investigation into how they received the extra pay since late 2004. They either declined or couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.

Top city officials, including Mayor Bill White, Controller Annise Parker, Finance and Administration Director Judy Gray Johnson and her deputy over payroll, Barbara Glick, also refused to discuss the matter.

If performing basic supervisory duties like ensuring that your employees are not robbing the taxpayers blind is too much work, maybe it is time for you to give up your job as Mayor Pro Tem, Carol -- and to consider resigning from office completely.

And frankly, given your past inattention to detail, I don't see why the people of Houston should continue to place any trust in you at all.

Posted by: Greg at 11:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

You have to wonder if the prior work history of a Dallas candidate for the Texas legislature doesn't give him necessary experience for the job.

A Dallas Democrat seeking election to the Texas House of Representatives has acknowledged that he once worked as a prostitute.

Tom Malin, a salesman and actor, said he no longer works as a prostitute but conceded that his previous life could cost him the nomination in the March 7 Democratic primary.

Besides -- couldn't we just call him an "independent businessman in a personal service industry"?

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember Carol Alvarado, the Houston City Councilwoman who claimed a college degree that had never been awarded? Well, now it seems that some of her staff have claimed bonuses that they have not earned -- to the tune of at least $130,000.

HOUSTON -- Four employees in the office of Houston Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado were removed from their jobs Wednesday in connection with improper bonuses totaling $130,000, KPRC Local 2 reported.

Officials said the investigation began after the city's finance director received reports of payroll irregularities.

Office of Inspector General agents and Houston police raided the offices shortly after lunchtime.

The employees were immediately placed on paid administrative leave. Computers were confiscated from the office, and door locks and card keys were changed.

"The matter concerns improper bonuses that were brought to my attention by the director of finance administration (Tuesday) night," Mayor Bill White said. "These were all four employees of the mayor pro tem's office, which is a permanent office within city council, which supports activities of the city council staff."

White said the four city workers apparently shared $130,000 in bonuses, which was far beyond any bonus allowed in city government. He said two workers each took $50,000 by circumventing the entire payroll approval process.

"That's improper. Period," White said. "It's a betrayal of public trust. This isn't our money. It's the public's money. We will follow it through to the full extent of the law."

The employees were making between $40,000 and $75,000.

Criminal charges are expected. More people could be implicated as well.

The mayor said that there was no sign that Alvarado had anything to do with the irregularities.

"I was disturbed to learn of this irregularity that has been reported. I am cooperating completely. I want a very thorough and complete investigation," Alvarado said. "No members of my council district staff are involved with this investigation."

So, Carol, how will you explain this one? Why have you not exercised proper control over your staff?

UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle provides some additional details.

Posted by: Greg at 04:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Tom DeLay has pretty solid support among Republicans in the 22nd District. His most serious challenger, Tom Campbell runs well-behind the Congressman. Not only that, he is not really known by party activists, for he has not been involved in local Republican affairs.

U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, forced onto the political defensive by ethical and legal charges, went on the offensive Tuesday, claiming one of his Republican primary opponents has overstated his GOP credentials.

DeLay's campaign said challenger Tom Campbell, a lawyer, has not been active in local party politics and has not voted regularly in Republican primaries.

"Every day he proves he's nothing more than an outsider who isn't concerned with conservative issues or fighting for the priorities of Texas taxpayers," DeLay campaign manager Chris Homan said of Campbell.

Campbell's campaign countered that no pure GOP insider would dare challenge the powerful DeLay, even if he has been weakened by a Travis County indictment relating to campaign finance and a federal investigation into his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"The fact is that Tom Campbell is like you and me. He is not a career politician like Tom DeLay. He is a citizen politician," said Michael Stanley, Campbell's campaign chairman. "Tom Campbell calls on Tom DeLay to get beyond the negative, immaterial distractions and get back to the real issues that are important to the people of the district."

And that, my friends, is really the problem. Folks in CD22 don’t know who Tom Campbell is, and really do not have a reason to support him. We are being asked to buy a pig-in-a-poke when he appeals to us for support. Whatever good qualities he may have are overshadowed by the disturbing vacuum in his Republican record. It is, ultimately, why I endorsed Tom Delay in my capacity as precinct chair – we know who and what we are getting with him, and we have a sound Republican record on which to judge him.

Now you may notice that I am not attacking Tom Campbell. He appears to be a good and honorable man. It is my hope that this race leads him to greater involvement in local GOP affairs, so that he is in a position to run in the future, should Tom DeLay either retire or be forced to resign as a result of the Ronnie Earle witch hunt. Campbell certainly stands out as a better alternative than Democrat Nick Lampson, and is likely superior to independent challenger Steve Stockman. Now is not his time – but the future may be.

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

Conscience and corporate ethics get trumped by the pro-abortion/contracetion mentality in Massachusetts.

The state pharmacy board ordered Wal-Mart on Tuesday to stock emergency contraception pills at its stores in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts becomes second state to require the world's largest retailer to carry the morning-after pill.

A Wal-Mart spokesman said the company would comply with the directive by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy and is reviewing its nationwide policy on the drug.

"Clearly women's health is a high priority for Wal-Mart," spokesman Dan Fogleman said. "We are actively thinking through the issue."

Wal-Mart now carries the pill only in Illinois, where it is required to do so under state law. The company has said it "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons," but has refused to elaborate.

The unanimous decision by the pharmacy board comes two weeks after three women, backed by abortion rights groups, sued Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart for failing to carry the drug in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam's Club stores in Massachusetts.

The women had argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

The morning-after pill provides a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Some abortion opponents believe emergency contraception is a form of abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.

It is not a case of "believes". That is what the drug does.

So I guess that means that in Massachusetts, a woman is the ONLY one with freedom of choice. Others cannot refuse to participate in the distribution of what is nothing less than a human pesticide.

Here's hoping that Wal-mart has the corporate will and financial muscle to fprce the phamacy board to back down -- or, barring that, to shut down every phamacy in Massachusetts and Illinois.

Posted by: Greg at 05:46 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, this is serious disregard for the law -- not something private like a supervisor having sexual relations with a subordinate in the workplace and then providing that subordinate with special treatment and encouraging perjured testimony.

Vice President Dick Cheney was hunting illegally – without the required $7 stamp on his license for quail – when he accidentally shot one of his hunting partners, Texas Parks and Wildlife officials said Monday.

And so was Harry Whittington, 78, who was recovering Monday from a shotgun blast to the face, neck and chest.

In its report, the state agency that oversees hunting and fishing said it found that neither Mr. Cheney nor Mr. Whittington had purchased the game bird stamp required to hunt quail in Texas, although both had valid hunting licenses. Both will get warning citations, and there will be no fine or other penalty.

Mr. Cheney's office said Monday he hadn't realized he was lacking the proper stamp and has since sent a $7 check to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

"I don't know how they missed it," said Cheney spokeswoman Jennifer Mayfield. A statement from Mr. Cheney's office said his staff had asked for applicable permits and would "take whatever steps are needed to comply with applicable rules."

Given the response of the MSM, Kossaks and DUers to this story, it is only a matter of time before Congressional Democrats take up the impeachment call.

Posted by: Greg at 05:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Jimmy Carter falsely linked Democrat-authorized, politically-motivated, warrantless domestic spying on Dr. & Mrs. King with national-security-imperative listening to terrorist-connected telephone calls that originate outside the US during Mrs. King's funeral this week. It was shameful and wrong of him to do so.

But now we find out that warrantless surveilance for national security purposes was conducted by President Jimmy Carter -- with his personal authorization -- in 1977.

But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.

The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.

In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."

Notice -- that is "inherent authority". Authority which exists as a part of the authority granted each and every president by Article II of the US Constitution, independent of any statute or law. It is power that Congress cannot restrict or eliminate, and that the courts must recognize.

That is why all of the discussion of the FISA law is irrelevant, and the position of the Bush administration is correct.

That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.

The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

Democrats and some Republicans in Congress say FISA guidelines, approved in 1978 when Mr. Carter was president, are the only way the president may conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.

Administration officials say the president has constitutional authority to conduct surveillance without warrants in the name of national security. The only way Congress could legitimately curtail that authority, they argue, is through an amendment to the Constitution.

The administration's view has been shared by previous Democrat administrations, including Mr. Carter's.

I realize that must stick in the craw of a lot of liberals, but the Constitution trumps any statute. Congress cannot limit the constitutional powers delegated to the other two branches by statute, any more than the president can issue an executive order ending a filibuster or preventing the courts from hearing a case. Congress cannot prevent the exercise of such inherent powers of the Executive branch, any more than the Judicial Branch could issue an order prohibiting ta declaration of war or preventing the president from vetoing a bill.

Let's look at what the Carter Administration had to say about FISA.

When Mr. Bell testified in favor of FISA, he told Congress that while the measure doesn't explicitly acknowledge the "inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance," it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."

Did you get that -- the position of the Carter administration was that the FISA law permitted exactly the sort of activity Carter so inapproriately criticized at Mrs. King's funeral. He climbed on to her corpse to deliver a political attack that he knew was false. He condemned activity that he himself engaged in and defended -- and he knew it. That makes him a hypocritical SOB of the first order. Too bad we cannot impeach him retroactively.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters & Powerline.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Stuck On Stupid, Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, third world country, Everyman Chronicles, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 04:07 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 630 words, total size 5 kb.

Former Congressman Bob Barr spoke at the annual CPAC convention this week. He was, by all accounts, accorded a cool welcome, based in large part on his principled opposition to many of the Bush Administration's tactics in the War On Terror.

"Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights?" Barr beseeched the several hundred conservatives at the Omni Shoreham in Woodley Park. "Are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"

Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this country?" he posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as conservatives say yes."

But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed.

But that is precisely the strength of the conservative movement, Mr. Scorcinelli -- we allow for dissent and disagreement and are willing to listen to them. The Left takes a different approach, shouting down and silencing those who disagree. Would supporters of the Patriot Act or the war in Iraq be welcome to speak at major liberal events? And we all remember the refusal of the Democrats to allow even a single token pro-lifer, Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, to speak at their convention ON ANY SUBJECT WHATSOEVER (which makes his son's continued affiliation with the Party Of Sucking Dismembered Babies Into A Sink while claiming to be a pro-lifer utterly incomprehensible).

Would Vice President Cheney or Secretary of State Rice get a polite but chilly reception at Yearly Kos or an event sponsored by MoveOn.org? Heck -- would card-carrying liberal Democrat Joe Lieberman get such a reception? I think we all know the answer. And the willingness to tolerate dissent and engage in discussion is part of what makes conservatism a much stronger, attractive (and dare I say it) American ideology than liberalism ever will be.

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

Maryland Democrats are recognizing Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele – the presumptive GOP Senate nominee – in their celebration of Black History Month.

The Maryland Democratic Party has been relentless in criticizing Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his run for U.S. Senate, but party officials say that won't stop them from paying homage to the conservative Republican during Black History Month.

"Michael Steele is an important figure in African-American history in Maryland. There is no question about it," said Derek Walker, executive director of the state Democratic Party.

"We should be proud of the achievements of African-Americans, regardless of what party they are from or what their background is," he said.

Now if they could just communicate that message to the Tan Klan members of their party who throw Oreos at Steele and refer to him with racist epithets, simply because Steele has the independence to think for himself.

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

Maryland Democrats are recognizing Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele – the presumptive GOP Senate nominee – in their celebration of Black History Month.

The Maryland Democratic Party has been relentless in criticizing Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his run for U.S. Senate, but party officials say that won't stop them from paying homage to the conservative Republican during Black History Month.

"Michael Steele is an important figure in African-American history in Maryland. There is no question about it," said Derek Walker, executive director of the state Democratic Party.

"We should be proud of the achievements of African-Americans, regardless of what party they are from or what their background is," he said.

Now if they could just communicate that message to the Tan Klan members of their party who throw Oreos at Steele and refer to him with racist epithets, simply because Steele has the independence to think for himself.

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

From the Washington Post.

Bush all but ignored many black civil rights and political leaders during his first four years in office. Instead, he focused on building inroads to African American leaders through the pastors of black evangelical churches and business leaders who were not identified with the traditional civil rights agenda.
Bush became the first president since Herbert Hoover to serve a full term without addressing the NAACP, which many acknowledge as the nation's leading civil rights organization. At the same time, Bush's relations with the Congressional Black Caucus were frosty, contributing to a growing gulf between the administration and black voters.

Given the way the NAACP trashed George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign, why would he want to meet with its leaders or address the group? Given the complicity of many black leaders with Al GoreÂ’s attempt to steal the Florida election with demonstrably false claims of black disenfranchisement, why wouldnÂ’t he choose to ignore the entire dishonorable lot of them? Given the implacable opposition of the CBC to the Bush agenda, what good could have come of reaching out to the group? In the case of each of the jilted parties, it was their own actions which resulted in the marginalization. Plus there have been other, more pressing matters to be dealt with during the Bush presidency, matters of greater import than reaching out to the self-important group of foes who would have never responded to his efforts with a spirit of openness. So instead he bypassed the establishment an went to the grassroots for support of policies that were aimed at dealing with real problems rather than historical grievances.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

SteelersÂ’ great Lynn Swann certainly got a great reception from the crowd at the Pittsburgh SteelersÂ’ victory celebration in the Steel City.

Lynn Swann was just speaking at the Steelers victory celebration in Pittsburgh (Rendell is in attendance). He was interrupted by the crowd chanting GOVERNOR, GOVERNOR, GOVERNOR! He actually had to stop the crowd and remind them that today is just about the glorious Steeler Super bowl victory !

It is a GREAT day in the 'burgh!

And he should get the GOP endorsement this Saturday – making him pretty near unstoppable in the GOP primary as he heads towards a showdown with Gov. Ed Rendell in November.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

If you are a former member of the House of Representatives who is engaged in the legal business of lobbying, you cannot use the House gym, come on the House floor, or exercise any of the other privileges accorded to former House members.

But if you are convicted of a felony related to official misconduct, you still can.

Former Rep. Tom Bliley (R-Va.), a powerful gavel-swinger at the Commerce Committee in the late 1990s, is no fan of new House rules that prevent lobbyists who were lawmakers from stalking the floor during votes or using the chamberÂ’s gym.

The new rule looks more favorably on former members who are convicted felons, such as Jim Traficant (D-Ohio), than former members who are registered lobbyists, Bliley complained in a hallway outside the House chamber last week.

Bliley, who often visits the House floor, said he used to use the gym frequently and attends events of the Chowder and Marching Club — the House Republican “secret society” — near the Speaker’s suite of offices.

“To show you how stupid it is, when he gets out of prison Traficant ... will be able to use the gym as a former member because he’s not a lobbyist,” Bliley said.

Indeed, said one House source familiar with the situation, Traficant’s privileges remain intact, as do those of former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), who just resigned amid a graft scandal. “I don’t believe it was really raised as an issue,” given the lengthy prison terms both men face, said the source.

Many of Bliley’s old colleagues agree. Several lamented the new rules in a Cannon House Office Building washroom just a few feet from where Republicans were voting on a new majority leader last week. One suggested dumping the rule as soon as possible — perhaps this session.

Dumping the rules would be a great idea – both because of the failure to sanction criminal former members of the body, and because the changed rules do nothing substantive to avoid corruption. Feel-good "reforms" that provide no real reform are not hte answer to official corruption -- prosecution is.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

Kathleen Blanco, the incompetent Governor of Louisiana, is now giving ultimatums top the President and the rest of the Federal Government – “Do it my way or face my wrath!”

Gov. Kathleen Blanco kicked off a history-making special session of the Legislature Monday evening at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center with a forceful message to the federal government and state lawmakers to support her levee board and housing programs for hurricane recovery.

In what was widely seen as the sharpest speech of her beleaugured political career since Hurricane Katrina, Blanco admonished President Bush for dodging LouisianaÂ’s requests for aid while announcing an ultimatum to the federal government to give Louisiana a larger share of oil and gas royalites from offshore drilling or face a roadblock to future exploration in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

“If no effort is made to guarantee our fair share of royalties, I have warned the federal government that we will be forced to block the August sale of offshore oil and gas leases,” Blanco said. “It’s time to play hardball, as I believe that’s the only game Washington understands.”

The governor has limited administrative ability to stop the leases, but since such an action has never been taken it is unclear how authoritative her blockage might be. The state receives only a fraction of the annual $5 billion in federal royalties.

Go ahead and try, Kathleen – we would love the opportunity to paint the resulting energy crisis as the work of corrupt and greedy Democrats more interested in lining their own pockets (a Louisiana tradition, we all know) rather than the good of the nation. It might, in fact, be sufficient to get the American people to take you and your state off the dole entirely. You can then fix up your trashy state and tacky city with your own dough. And by the way – those of us here in Houston would be more than happy to put your criminals back onto buses and return them to you.

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

I’m not a fan of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I believe the man to have been a pox upon the Presidency. I believe that Hillary is a hypocrite who betrayed her own feminist principles by achieving power the old-fashioned way – by sleeping with a powerful man rather than earning it on her own merits.

That said, I must also say that my objection to the pair is strictly political, not personal. I bear them no personal ill will, for all that I object to them politically.

And so I am pleased to see this gossipy article, and hope that the analysis is accurate.

The state of Bill and Hillary Clinton's union is apparently strong - at least judging by the mongo diamond that Hillary was sporting on her ring finger yesterday.
Sources say the former President quietly gave the iceberg-sized bling - thought to exceed 3 carats - to his wife months ago, in advance of their 30th wedding anniversary on Oct. 11 last year.
But the sparkling stunner is so big that the former First Lady has been nervous about wearing it and hasn't broken it out of her jewelry box on a regular basis until recently.
The big bauble was on full display yesterday, when the junior senator visited University Settlement, an outreach center on the lower East Side, to talk about cuts to early childhood education proposed by President Bush.
"It was a gift from her husband," was all Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Hanley would say.
Of course, it hasn't always been a bed of roses for the Clintons.
After the former President confessed in 1998 to having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton wrote in her 2003 book, "Living History," "I felt nothing but profound sadness, disappointment and unresolved anger."
"I could barely speak to Bill," she wrote of the family's summer vacation on Martha's Vineyard in 1998. "And when I did, it was a tirade. I read. I walked on the beach. He slept upstairs and I slept downstairs."
But those days are apparently over - just in time for Valentine's Day next week.

The personal and the political are two separate things for me. I felt a lot of compassion for Hillary Clinton during Monica-gate, because no one should have to go through such a terrible betrayal, much less in the glare of the lights of news cameras. I felt genuine concern for Bill Clinton during his illness a couple of years ago. And so I am pleased by the apparent reconciliation between these two powerful Democrats – because everyone, regardless of politics, deserves to love and be loved. Call me a romantic.

And so it is my hope that they may have many more years together – happy years filled with love for one another.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

I’m not a fan of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I believe the man to have been a pox upon the Presidency. I believe that Hillary is a hypocrite who betrayed her own feminist principles by achieving power the old-fashioned way – by sleeping with a powerful man rather than earning it on her own merits.

That said, I must also say that my objection to the pair is strictly political, not personal. I bear them no personal ill will, for all that I object to them politically.

And so I am pleased to see this gossipy article, and hope that the analysis is accurate.

The state of Bill and Hillary Clinton's union is apparently strong - at least judging by the mongo diamond that Hillary was sporting on her ring finger yesterday.
Sources say the former President quietly gave the iceberg-sized bling - thought to exceed 3 carats - to his wife months ago, in advance of their 30th wedding anniversary on Oct. 11 last year.
But the sparkling stunner is so big that the former First Lady has been nervous about wearing it and hasn't broken it out of her jewelry box on a regular basis until recently.
The big bauble was on full display yesterday, when the junior senator visited University Settlement, an outreach center on the lower East Side, to talk about cuts to early childhood education proposed by President Bush.
"It was a gift from her husband," was all Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Hanley would say.
Of course, it hasn't always been a bed of roses for the Clintons.
After the former President confessed in 1998 to having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton wrote in her 2003 book, "Living History," "I felt nothing but profound sadness, disappointment and unresolved anger."
"I could barely speak to Bill," she wrote of the family's summer vacation on Martha's Vineyard in 1998. "And when I did, it was a tirade. I read. I walked on the beach. He slept upstairs and I slept downstairs."
But those days are apparently over - just in time for Valentine's Day next week.

The personal and the political are two separate things for me. I felt a lot of compassion for Hillary Clinton during Monica-gate, because no one should have to go through such a terrible betrayal, much less in the glare of the lights of news cameras. I felt genuine concern for Bill Clinton during his illness a couple of years ago. And so I am pleased by the apparent reconciliation between these two powerful Democrats – because everyone, regardless of politics, deserves to love and be loved. Call me a romantic.

And so it is my hope that they may have many more years together – happy years filled with love for one another.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess that such rhetoric has become so common among Leftists that it does not even get covered by the major media.

When the US didn’t capture Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, it wasn’t by mistake, Congressman Maurice Hinchey of Hurley theorized.

Instead, Hinchey said the Administration had a motive for not capturing him. “Why did we do that? The only logical answer that comes to mind is they didn’t want to capture Bin Laden because if they captured Bin Laden and wiped out the Taliban, which they could have done at that moment, there would have been no justification for going to war in Iraq, and they wanted to use that as a justification for attacking Iraq,” he said.

Hinchey is a critic of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, who he says lied about the reasons for going into Iraq.

In a different time – during WWII, for example, under Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – such rhetoric would have earned one a jail cell for undermining the war effort. Maybe we have not become the dictatorship that the Left claims we have.

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess that such rhetoric has become so common among Leftists that it does not even get covered by the major media.

When the US didnÂ’t capture Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, it wasnÂ’t by mistake, Congressman Maurice Hinchey of Hurley theorized.

Instead, Hinchey said the Administration had a motive for not capturing him. “Why did we do that? The only logical answer that comes to mind is they didn’t want to capture Bin Laden because if they captured Bin Laden and wiped out the Taliban, which they could have done at that moment, there would have been no justification for going to war in Iraq, and they wanted to use that as a justification for attacking Iraq,” he said.

Hinchey is a critic of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, who he says lied about the reasons for going into Iraq.

In a different time – during WWII, for example, under Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – such rhetoric would have earned one a jail cell for undermining the war effort. Maybe we have not become the dictatorship that the Left claims we have.

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

National Review has come down on the same side of the issue that I have in the race between ersatz Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee and Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey.

Even if Laffey were to win the primary but lose the general election, beating Chafee would send a helpful message to the kind of Republican who thinks Chafee's "independence" is something to admire and emulate. (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine come to mind.) That message: that Republican voters will not be taken for granted just because they are in the minority in their state. Then there's the tantalizing possibility that Laffey might actually win both the primary and the general election. It's a chance worth taking. What do conservatives have to lose? The worst possible outcome is only that Rhode Islanders will trade a virtual Democrat for a real one.

So show Laffey some love, and send some cash his way.

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Now let me begin with the observation that I defended Cindy Sheehan's arrest on Tuesday, a position that I believe to be consistent with what I am about to say. I believe the arrest -- and the eviction of the more cooperative Mrs. Young -- were both legally and constitutionally defensible. After all, courts have long recognized that the government may impose legitimate time, place, and manner restrictions on speech without running afoul of the expansive language of the First Amendment. Try, for example, to engage in free speech about the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a courtroom during a trial -- you will find yourself in cuffs faster than you can say "contempt of court".

At the same time, I think the policy on political speech -- at least as regards t-shirts -- is absurd. So did someone on Capitol Hill -- the rule was changed, but no one told the cops.

Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush's arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

"Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts," Gainer's statement said.

As a result, charges have been droppped against the Ditch Bitch and apologies have been issued to both her and Mrs. Young. But I think the policy was defensible, despite the claims by some folks that the Supreme Court decision in Cohens v. California some 3 1/2 decades ago should have settled the matter. In that case, the offending profanity ("Fuck the Draft") had only been visible in the hallway -- Mr. Cohens had folded the jacket so it could not be seen prior to entering the courtroom. The justices noted that the expansive right to free speech might not have protected that expression in the courtroom, where it was more likely to disrupt the proceedings -- and one could analogize that ruling (and others expressly permitting time, place, and manner restrictions on speech) to the case at hand, where a shirt permissible in the Rotunda might be inappropriate in the Gallery, especially during a televised address to the nation.

But I think such the arrest was a bad idea -- as was the removal of Mrs. Young and at least one other individual. Captain Ed puts it very well, and I want to echo his position.

I suspect that CQ readers will disagree with me on this one, but I concur with Gainer. Neither woman should have been arrested or made to leave the gallery on the basis of their t-shirts, especially at a public event like the SOTU speech. I don't think that the two women had equivalent standing, nor do I think that Mrs. Young's t-shirt would have been as potentially distracting as Mrs. Sheehan's. However, the point is that as long as both women behaved themselves, their t-shirts would have had no disruptive effect on the speech. Yes, I know that there is a tradition of restraint in the gallery, but politicians of both parties make extensive use of those guest passes for political purposes during SOTU speeches. Every president in the television age put people up there that they used to emphasize major points of their speech, and no one barks about that exploitation of the gallery.

When I first heard that Sheehan had been arrested, the reports said that she had attempted to unfurl a banner in the gallery. That kind of action certainly would have justified the removal of Sheehan from the gallery but hardly qualified as a criminal act, especially under the amorphous terms of "unlawful conduct." Having to face charges for wearing a t-shift with a slogan on it is flat-out ridiculous. What laws does that "conduct" break? And since when have we become so fragile that the wearing of a protest t-shirt become so unsettling?

Both women should have reconsidered their wardrobe for the speech. However, a fashion crime should not equate to police action, and arresting someone for wearing a dumb t-shirt should not happen in America.

This is exactly right. While the mode of dress of these individuals is indicative of the breakdown of decorum that exists in contemporary society, the conduct did not rise to the level of the criminal. And while I have no doubt that Mrs. Sheehan was going to engage in a disruption of the speech (frankly, I think the Secret Service should have objected to the loony lefty's presence in the Gallery given her rhetoric and conduct), she had done nothing meriting suspicion (though I suppose the arrest could possibly be justified on the grounds of her failure to cooperate with security).

Mark in Mexico notes this little detail about Mrs. Sheehan's missive to her fellow moonbats.

She says, "I am speechless with fury at what happened . . ." and then proceeds to speak for another 18 paragraphs, 57 sentences.

She says, "I did not wear it (a protest T-shirt under her jacket) to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech." She could not have unzipped it during the president's speech because she was arrested 45 minutes before the speech started.

She says that as she was being fingerprinted, "That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights." Her son Casey was killed April 4, 2004 in Iraq. Her activities, from the protests outside the Crawford ranch all last summer to last week's appearence with Hugo Chavez and his stooge Harry Belafonte where she called George Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" and "10 times worse than bin Laden" have been well documented. But, she just then (last night) realized her loss?

My response to Mark is this -- the Ditch Bitch is a self-obsessed narcissist who never learned a basic lesson taught in every astronomy class (an understood by mentally healthy individuals) -- "the Earth revolves around the Sun, not around Uranus".

On the othe hand, maybe some time in jail would have allowed Mama Moonbat to get the psychological help she really needs. She is, after all, a rather sad, pathetic character who has clearly lost contact with realit following the death of her son. Folks on the Left should be ashamed to use her as they do.

UPDATE: My buddy Hube over at Colossus of Rhodey points out that Sheehan as much as admits that the purpose of the shirt WAS, in fact, to grab the cameras and thus engage in a political demonstration in the Gallery. He also asks a great question.

Well, it seems Cindy Sheehan wanted to make "a scene" at the State of the Union Address after all. In her latest Daily Kos entry, she admits as much, although some have zeroed in on the fact that she was "merely hot" and just wanted some relief (she thus exposed the "protest" T-shirt she had on). While the Kos entry does mention she "was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs" and hence unzipped her jacket, she goes on to note

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on.

The debate over free expression is a good one here. Some have argued that Sheehan's 1st Amendment rights were violated (she herself says she is filing a lawsuit ... hey, if she didn't it wouldn't be America after all, eh?) whereas others have stated that it wasn't the time and place to protest. If, for example, Sheehan was allowed to wear such a shirt for that event, why wouldn't she be "within her rights" to take the microphone from President Bush to rebut him after each point he made? Where is the line drawn? And is a dress code a violation of free speech rights in this case?

An interesting issue indeed.

OTHERS WRITING:
Michelle Malkin, Say Anything, Generation Why?, GOP and College, The Jawa Report, Oblogatory Anecdotes, A Blog for All, Cam Edwards, Patterico, Tammy Bruce, Sister Toldjah

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1487 words, total size 10 kb.

She caused a disturbance – she got arrested. Why should that come as a shock to anyone?

Activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night after demonstrating in the spectators gallery of the House of Representatives as part of a larger war protest that was held outside the Capitol.

Sheehan, who was apparently given a gallery ticket by a member of Congress, began to attract notice about 30 minutes to an hour before President Bush's State of the Union speech.

Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, opened her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that, according to a supporter, gave the number of U.S. war dead and asked, "How many more?"

She was also vocal, said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was led out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited.

Now lest you think this was a politically motivated arrest on the part of Capitol police, consider that Sheehan was not the only spectator removed from the gallery over a “message shirt” regarding the war in Iraq.

The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, told a newspaper that she was ejected during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that says, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."

Beverly Young told the St. Petersburg Times that she was sitting in the front row of the House gallery Tuesday night when she was approached by someone who told her she needed to leave.

She said she reluctantly agreed, but argued with several officers in an outside hallway.

In a telephone interview with the newspaper, Young said she told them her shirt wasn't a protest but a message of support.

In other words, it was not simply a question of who Sheehan was or the content of her message – it was a broad, general policy respecting time and place. But the moonbats will not mention Mrs. Young’s experience.

Not that this is even a new policy, as Drudge points out, and was used to shield Bill Clinton from criticism in 1999.

The Pennsylvania school teacher was yanked out of a VIP Senate gallery and briefly detained last week during the impeachment trial for wearing a T-shirt with graphic language dissing President Clinton.

Delp, 42, of Carlisle, Pa., and a friend had just settled into their seats when four Capitol security guards approached them. Delp said at the time that he was ordered to button his coat and follow the guards. Outside the chamber, he was told "several people felt threatened by your shirt."

Even after establishing that Delp was a guest of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the guards wouldn't let him back in and escorted him to a basement security area, where they questioned and photographed him.

After being given one of the photos as a souvenir, Delp said he was banned from the Capitol for the rest of the day. "They were polite and professional," Delp added, "but they really did scare me. I think I should have been given the chance to cover up."

So you see, there really is not much of a story here – a clear and consistent policy was clearly and consistently enforced in an even-handed manner. Sheehan was arrested only because she refused to comply with the directions of those charged with enforcing the policy. Not every location is a public forum.

OTHERS WRITING:
Michelle Malkin, Say Anything, Generation Why?, GOP and College, The Jawa Report, Oblogatory Anecdotes, A Blog for All, Cam Edwards, Patterico, Tammy Bruce, Sister Toldjah

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 599 words, total size 5 kb.

Could you imagine the outrage if any GOP candidate did this to a photo of a Democrat opponent? Leftwing darling and media heroine Colleen Rowley put this on her official campaign website – and then took it down when she got caught defaming the Congressman John Kline, a 25-year Marine vet.

Powerline reproduces Congressman KlineÂ’s response.

Dear Mrs. Rowley,

It has come to my attention that you have placed on your campaign website a doctored photo of me in which my military uniform has been replaced by a Nazi uniform. I demand that you immediately remove from your website that outrageous and disgusting insult to me, my family, and every man and woman who has ever worn a military uniform in defense of our country.

No one knows better than I the rough-and-tumble of a political campaign, but we owe it to the voters not to cross the line of civility, respect and common decency. With regard to each of these, you have clearly crossed the line by portraying me as a Nazi.

I demand a personal apology from you, as well as an apology to every veteran.
Your attempts to smear my good name and 25 years of honorable service in the United States Marine Corps by equating me to a Nazi shows a lack of perspective, a lack of seriousness, and a lack of good judgment. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sincerely,
John Kline
Member of Congress - Minnesota's 2nd District.

Captain Ed notes that in posting this on her site, she has run smack-dab into GodwinÂ’s Law.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches

Hugh Hewitt, who I disagreed with, raises this issue.

Where are the Democrats who should be denouncing this? The ones who, rightly, slammed the comments directed at Congressman John Murtha's service?

But at least the questions directed at Murtha were in regard to the accuracy of his statements and changes in his story over the years – no one accused him of being a Nazi or a Communist.

Heck, I get crap from the Left when I fairly and accurately point out the personal history of the senior hill-billy from West Virginia.

But then again, lying about Republicans is perfectly acceptable to the Left, while telling the truth about Democrats (or even questioning their veracity) is never acceptable to them.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

IÂ’ve long rejected the notion of open primaries. After all, why should members of one party have a voice in the selection of another partyÂ’s candidates? That is rather like giving the Buddhists a voice in selecting the Pope.

In two states, the GOP has taken steps to tighten-up their nominating process. This could doom a McCain run for the presidency, as the two states, Michigan and Washingon, were both strong for John McCain in 2000 because of cross-over voters.

Republicans in states that gave Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) victories or near victories in the 2000 GOP presidential primaries are looking to bar non-Republicans from voting in their primaries in 2008, which would make it even more difficult for the Arizonan to win the nomination should he run in two years.

MichiganÂ’s Republican Party Central Committee more than a week age approved a plan that calls for holding the Republican and Democratic primaries on the same day, forcing voters to cast ballots in either a Republican or Democratic primary but not both, GOP executive director Saul Anuzis said in an interview.

The expectation is that there will be fewer so-called crossover ballots if voters can only participate in one primary, Anuzis added.

The GOP head must now confer with his Democratic counterpart, Mark Brewer. Democrats are thought to support the change.

In Washington state, where Republicans chose the presidential nominee in 2000 through a combination of local caucuses and a statewide primary, the party is looking to shift more power to the caucuses.

Traditionally, conservative activists, from abortion opponents to gun-rights proponents, have dominated caucuses, in Washington and elsewhere.

“Pat Robertson won every caucus state in 1988 except Iowa,” said Chris Vance, who recently stepped down as Washington state’s GOP chairman and managed Sen. Bob Dole’s 1988 presidential campaign.

In both Michigan and Washington, the people deciding who should be the next president of the United States are almost certain to be, as a whole, more conservative than the people who did so in 2000.

And lest liberals raise a fuss, consider this – do you really want me and my fellow GOPers coming over to the Democrat primary to vote for Joe Lieberman?

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

I've always loved a good parody -- especially when it is used to satirize the hypocrisy of a political opponent. John Cornyn certainly did a masterful job creating and delivering one last week, delivered against Jabba the Kennedy (D-Delerium Tremens).

“In the America of [Alito’s] opponents,” Cornyn said, “no plaintiff ever loses a case; no entrepreneur ever wins, no matter how frivolous the claim of employment discrimination; police departments never win a case, no matter how desperate the claim of a criminal defendant; government agencies, ... could never win a case, no matter how outlandish the request for government benefits.”

Shades of Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" libel of 1987 -- with the added benefit of accurately reflecting the truth, something that could never have been said of Kennedy's scurrilous attack on one of America's preeminent legal minds.

This is the sort of stuff we Texans have long known and loved from Cornyn -- a former Texas Attorney General and Texas Supreme Court Justice. Wouldn't he be marvelous as a candidate for higher office?

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Somehow I doubt we’ll be shrill screeches of condemnation from the Left regarding this case – after all, vote fraud is how they have controlled East St. Louis and St. Clair County for decades.

A former Democratic election worker in this battered city was sentenced Monday to a year and a half in federal prison and a City Hall volunteer got probation for scheming to buy votes in the November 2004 election.

Noting that the case reflected an American election process "under attack" by fraud, U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy ordered former precinct committee member Sheila Thomas' prison sentence to be followed by two years of supervised release.

Murphy rejected a prosecutor's request that Yvette Johnson, 47, get 10 to 16 months in prison and he gave her two years' probation, including five months of home confinement.

"I'm just glad that it's over," Johnson told reporters afterward.

Thomas, 31 and her attorney, Paul Sims, declined comment.

Last June, Johnson and Thomas were convicted of conspiracy to commit vote fraud. In the same trial, local Democratic Party chairman Charles Powell Jr., former city director of regulatory affairs Kelvin Ellis, and Democratic precinct committee member Jesse Lewis also were convicted of conspiracy to commit vote fraud.

Thomas, Johnson, Ellis and Lewis also were convicted of election fraud for allegedly paying or offering to pay at least one person to vote.

Johnson and Thomas were the first to be sentenced of the nine people who either were convicted or pleaded guilty in the alleged scheme.

That is all well and good, but I am a bit outraged by this.

In sentencing Thomas, Murphy rejected her attorney's request that she get probation because she was merely a courier of some of that money.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Cutchin argued that Thomas abused the public's trust, pressing that "this kind of conduct can not be tolerated, especially when we're dealing with something so sacrosanct" as elections.

The judge said Thomas "was used by more powerful, experienced, conniving men," but still sentenced her to prison.

Murphy did grant Johnson's request for mercy, citing her rise from poverty and that, aside from the election fraud, she had no criminal background.

Sorry, but I think Judge Murphy got this one dead wrong. I donÂ’t give a ratÂ’s ass that Yvette Johnson once was poor, or that she has no other criminal background. Her crime was nothing less than an attack on the integrity of the American political system. As such, she should have been doing hard time along with Sheila Thomas and the rest of these folks who engaged in a full frontal assault on the voting rights of each and every one of us. Both knew what they were doing, and that it was fundamentally wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

Why, oh why, do we even allow this man to put an (R) after his name?

U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., Monday said he would vote against the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito, the first Republican to do so.

Chafee, in a statement on his Senate Web site, said he was 'concerned about (Alito`s) philosophy on some important constitutional issues. In particular I carefully examined his record on Executive Power, women`s reproductive freedoms and the commerce clause ...'

Chafee is the first Republican to come out against the Alito confirmation but three Senate Democrats -- Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- have said they would vote in favor of Alito`s joining the court.

A running tally by C-SPAN shows support for Alito by 55 senators while 35 have stated opposition. He needs 51 votes to win a seat on the court.

One more reason that IÂ’m urging folks to send their money directly to Steven LaffeyÂ’s campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, here is a Jesse Jackass campaign that I can support.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Sunday a coalition of black city and state leaders will mount a public initiative for housing and jobs aimed at bringing home every displaced New Orleanian who wants to return.

Jackson kicked off the drive in the pulpit of Central City's New Hope Baptist Church, where he called on church members suffering from Hurricane Katrina to demand rapid access to jobs and housing so they can rebuild their shattered neighborhoods.

"You have the right to return," Jackson told a standing-room-only crowd of 300 or so, including about 70 church members who were bused in from Houston.

He urged the congregation to join a mass public march across the Crescent City Connection on April 1. For many, the bridge has become a symbol of injustice after people trying to escape the growing chaos at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center on Aug. 31 were turned back by Gretna police on the West Bank. Gretna officials said that city had no facilities to accept any more fleeing families.

Jackson also announced that his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition has set up a local office and named state Sen. Cleo Fields, D-Baton Rouge, its statewide coordinator.

Jackson's latest effort to bring back displaced New Orleans residents will be his second since the Aug. 29 hurricane. In October, his coalition organized a caravan of five buses that were supposed to be filled with 200 displaced New Orleanians, but instead were filled with adventure seekers and homeless people from cities across the Midwest and South. Only 14 passengers in the group were New Orleans residents.

Regarding his latest attempt, neither Jackson nor Fields proposed policy specifics in an interview Sunday. But they made clear they felt emerging state and city plans to redevelop New Orleans do not do justice to people -- most of them African-American -- who remain in cities like Atlanta and Houston and are unable to return to New Orleans.

We here in Houston will be quite glad to shove most of the New Orleans evacuees back onto buses and get them out of our city as soon as possible. We would like that crowd of whiners, complainers, grifters, robbers, and killers to go back where they came from.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, here is a Jesse Jackass campaign that I can support.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Sunday a coalition of black city and state leaders will mount a public initiative for housing and jobs aimed at bringing home every displaced New Orleanian who wants to return.

Jackson kicked off the drive in the pulpit of Central City's New Hope Baptist Church, where he called on church members suffering from Hurricane Katrina to demand rapid access to jobs and housing so they can rebuild their shattered neighborhoods.

"You have the right to return," Jackson told a standing-room-only crowd of 300 or so, including about 70 church members who were bused in from Houston.

He urged the congregation to join a mass public march across the Crescent City Connection on April 1. For many, the bridge has become a symbol of injustice after people trying to escape the growing chaos at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center on Aug. 31 were turned back by Gretna police on the West Bank. Gretna officials said that city had no facilities to accept any more fleeing families.

Jackson also announced that his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition has set up a local office and named state Sen. Cleo Fields, D-Baton Rouge, its statewide coordinator.

Jackson's latest effort to bring back displaced New Orleans residents will be his second since the Aug. 29 hurricane. In October, his coalition organized a caravan of five buses that were supposed to be filled with 200 displaced New Orleanians, but instead were filled with adventure seekers and homeless people from cities across the Midwest and South. Only 14 passengers in the group were New Orleans residents.

Regarding his latest attempt, neither Jackson nor Fields proposed policy specifics in an interview Sunday. But they made clear they felt emerging state and city plans to redevelop New Orleans do not do justice to people -- most of them African-American -- who remain in cities like Atlanta and Houston and are unable to return to New Orleans.

We here in Houston will be quite glad to shove most of the New Orleans evacuees back onto buses and get them out of our city as soon as possible. We would like that crowd of whiners, complainers, grifters, robbers, and killers to go back where they came from.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

Mike Adams is skewering feminists in a series of columns. In the process, he raises an interesting point about the disregard feminists have for human life.

11. When faced with uncertainty, feminists have less self-control than hunters.

Once when I was deer-hunting in Ivanhoe, North Carolina, I saw something moving in the brush about 100 yards away. It was foggy outside and I was looking through a 4 X 32 scope mounted on a Marlin 30-30. I never take a shot over 100 yards with that little brush gun. And I never shoot at anything unless I know exactly what is out there.

That day I got to thinking about the feminist approach to abortion. Feminists often justify abortion by saying that the procedure is no different than picking a scab. ThatÂ’s when I start asking questions.

I often ask feminists about a film I saw of a fetus in the so-called “first trimester” of development. The baby (sorry, that is my opinion) was yawning, rubbing its eyes, and even rolling around and playing in the womb. I like to ask feminists whether they have ever seen a scab yawn.

When I press them on the issue, they seldom admit that the fetus is a person. But they seldom state unequivocally that it is not. They usually say they “don’t know for sure.” And they say that I “don’t know for sure” either.

That really epitomizes our differences. When I know it is a deer in the brush, I pull the trigger. When I know it is a human, I hold my fire. When I donÂ’t know, I also hold my fire.

The feminist who “doesn’t know” whether it is a person, has the abortion anyway. She just pulls the trigger. That really says it all, doesn’t it?

Yeah, it really does say it all.

After all, if one is unwilling to err on the side of human life when uncertain, what regard does one really have for human life?

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

So, does the allegedly "unquestionable moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan extend beyond questions of war and peace in Iraq to include deciding who should or should not be on the Supreme Court? She thinks it does.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan has threatened to run for Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) seat unless Feinstein filibusters Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

Sheehan, who was in Caracas, Venezuela Friday attending the World Social Forum, heard that several Democrats planned to filibuster Alito but that Feinstein, who is up for re-election in November, announced that she will vote against Alito but would not filibuster the nomination.

"I'm appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn't recognize how dangerous Alito's nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I've already paid the ultimate price," Sheehan said in a statement.

Sheehan became a national figure representing the anti-war movement after her son Casey was killed in Iraq and she stood vigil outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch last summer demanding to speak face-to-face with Bush about her son's death.

Sheehan claimed Alito has "an extensive paper trail documenting the right-wing political agenda that he has actively advanced, not only as a high-ranking official in the Reagan Administration, but also as a judge."

She accused Alito of trying to restrict Congress' power and supporting "efforts to curtail privacy rights, including not only privacy from government surveillance and arbitrary arrest, but also other constitutional rights based on privacy, such as reproductive liberty for women."

Sheehan is scheduled to return from Venezuela on Monday and will travel to the nation's capital to take part in an alternative State of the Union event.

(Another good article appears in the Washington Post)

This dishonest narcissist who has dishonored her son by her anti-American antics doesn't realize that her 15 minutes are up -- and she doesn't get another, any more than she got another meeting with the President.

Hey, Cindy -- it isn't all about you!

UPDATE: DiFi KowTows

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced that she will vote no on cloture regarding the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

“Based on a very long and thoughtful analysis of the record and transcript, which I tried to indicate in my floor statement yesterday, I’ve decided that I will vote no on cloture.”

Lying coward!

(H/T Michelle Malkin, Blogs For Bush & GOPBloggers)

MORE AT: California Conservative, Martin's Musings, Confirmation Whoppers, Don Surber, Texas Fred, Euphoric Reality, MassRight, PunditGuy, Ken Is Speaking, Mike's America, Reasonable Prudence, Daily Brief

TRACKBACKS: Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, Samantha Burns, Gribbit, Conservative Cat, MacStansbury, RightWingNation,, PointFive, Adam's Blog, third world country, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Real Ugly American, Liberal Wrong Wing, Uncooperative Blogger, Publius Rendevous, Bullwinkle, Voteswagon

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 6 kb.

To honor deceased President Ronald Reagan, the Georgia Legislature is considering a resolution to declare Feb. 6 to be Ronald Reagan Day.

But some are complaining about the failure to honor another former president.

Georgia lawmakers are proposing a resolution making February 6th Ronald Reagan Day, in honor of the 40th U.S. President. But according to Plains residents, there's just one small problem with that.

Former President Jimmy Carter, the only President from Georgia, doesn't even have his own day.

We got some strange reactions we got when residents found out that the 39th President of the United States, and their hometown hero, doesn't have his own day in the State of Georgia.

Jimmy Carter was born and raised in Plains. From his old high school, to City Hall, everyone we spoke to had good things to say about the former President.

"The Pharjac Grille is a local landmark that President Carter himself frequents often. While we weren't lucky enough to catch him there when we visited, the owners say the former President deserves his own day in the state of Georgia."

"Jimmy Carter brought the world to Georgia," says Pharis Short, owner of the Pharjac Grill. She knows President Carter well.

"It is logical that if we're gonna honor a President, Jimmy Carter ought to be the first one we honor," she told us.

Let me point out that Jimmy Carter is still alive – which makes the situations somewhat different. Let me also point out that Reagan was a significantly better president than Carter was.

But perhaps Georgia should honor Carter. Might I suggest declaring April 1 to be Jimmy Carter Day?

Posted by: Greg at 02:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Look at what the actual facts and figures tell us about the capital gains tax cut. It increased revenue, even as it allowed folks to keep more of their money.

On Thursday the Congressional Budget Office released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, and buried in one of its nearly impenetrable tables of numbers is a remarkable story that has gone entirely unreported by the mainstream media: The 2003 tax cut on capital gains has entirely paid for itself. More than paid for itself. Way more.

To appreciate this story, we have to go back in time to January 2003, before the tax cut was enacted. Table 3-5 on page 60 in CBOÂ’s Budget and Economic Outlook published in 2003 estimated that capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $125 billion.

Now letÂ’s move forward a year, to January 2004, after the capital-gains tax cut had been enacted. Table 4-4 on page 82 in CBOÂ’s Budget and Economic Outlook of that year shows that the estimates for capital-gains tax liabilities had been lowered to $46 billion in 2004 and $52 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $98 billion. Compare the original $125 billion total to the new $98 billion total, and we can infer that CBO was forecasting that the tax cut would cost the government $27 billion in revenues.

Those are the estimates. Now letÂ’s see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released this week. YouÂ’ll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So letÂ’s do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.

In other words, supply-side economics – AKA Reaganomics – works.

Posted by: Greg at 02:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

Gov. Erlich is ahead in the polls as he seeks reelection in Maryland. Lt. Gov. Steele is in the lead in the race for Senate. The GOP is growing in once solidly Democrat Maryland.

What are the Democrats doing to counter this trend? Seeking out new voters – convicted felons.

Democratic lawmakers, who have long pushed to restore voting rights to Maryland felons, say racial politics and election-year considerations make this the year they open the polls to every ex-convict.

"This law seriously disenfranchises a large number of African-Americans," said Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat who is gathering sponsors for a voting-rights restoration bill she plans to submit.

"Their disenfranchisement impacts the power of African-Americans in this state," said Mrs. Marriott, whose bill would give all felons the vote immediately upon release from prison.

If Mrs. Marriott's bill succeeds this time -- it has died in committee the past three years -- an estimated 150,000 felons would be able to cast ballots in Maryland. About 85,000 of them are black and likely Democrats, according to Justice Maryland, a penal reform group that supports felon voting rights.

These convicted murderers, rapists and armed robbers could vote as early as the Nov. 7 general election, if the law takes effect on the traditional Oct. 1 start date. And felons could sway the results.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, won the 2002 governor's race by 66,170 votes, according to the Maryland State Board of Elections.

Mr. Ehrlich's re-election bid this year is expected to be an even closer contest against either of the Democratic candidates -- Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley or Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan.

"That might be the line used by Democrats as to why they should support the bill," said Tara Andrews, executive director of Justice Maryland.

And let’s make matters perfectly clear here – this measure primarily benefits violent felons and career criminals. First offenders who committed non-violent crimes generally have their rights restored three years after their release from prison.

That should make it obvious whose side the Democrats are on in Maryland – and it isn’t the side of the law-abiding.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 03:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

From Bruce BartlettÂ’s column at Townhall.com.

Ever since Watergate, a key media template has been that the Republican Party is the party of corruption. Thus every wrongdoing of any Republican tends to get page one treatment, while Democratic corruption is treated as routine and buried on the back pages, mentioned once and then forgotten.

Yet any objective study of comparative party corruption would have to conclude that Democrats are far more likely to be caught engaging in it than Republicans. For example, a review of misconduct cases in the House of Representatives since Watergate shows many more cases involving Democrats than Republicans.

Skeptics can go to the web site of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, popularly known as the House Ethics Committee. Click on “historical documents” and go to a publication called “Historical Summary of Conduct Cases in the House of Representatives.” The document was last updated on November 9, 2004 and lists every ethics case since 1798, when Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut attacked Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont with a “stout cane” and Lyon responded with a pair of fireplace tongs.

By my count, there have been 70 different members of the House who have been investigated for serious offenses over the last 30 years, including many involving actual criminality and jail time. Of these, only 15 involved Republicans, with the remaining 55 involving Democrats.

I’ve regularly pointed out that the Democats are the party of corruption in this country – so corrupt that the media doesn’t treat corrupt Democrat public officials as newsworthy. I’ve had folks minimize the importance of Democrat corruption in their comments here. But the numbers tell the story quite clearly.

Posted by: Greg at 03:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

And by this I do not mean the average, run-of-the-mill liberal (usually a decent, reasonable person who is merely wrong) -- I mean the chronically discontent activists who would not be content with the actions of the United States and the current Administration even if George W. Bush went on national television, announced his capitulation to their policy demands, beheaded Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and then lit a match after dousing himself in gasoline.

Feminism and Marxism and other similar movements "have the ambitions of a monotheistic faith, offering a feminist [or Marxist] answer to every moral and social question, a feminist [or Marxist] account of the human world, a theory of the universe....It drives the heretics and half-believers from its ranks with a zeal that is the other side of the inclusive warmth with which it welcomes the submissive and the orthodox."

I'm not so sure about that last part. I don't think the protesters have a coherent world view that answers all questions; rather, I think they are suffering from debilitating, free-floating resentment that paralyzes them and makes realization of their ideas -- or indeed having any ideas -- impossible. The best examination of the problem of resentment came in the 1914 book Ressentiment (the French spelling is in the original) by Max Scheler. Scheler, a forgotten genius, was a philosopher whose work influenced the future John Paul II. According to Scheler, resentment is "an incurable, persistent feeling of hating and despising" that happens in certain people due to certain "psychic, mental, social, or physical impotencies, disadvantages, weakness or deficiencies of various kinds." It's less about social problems than mental illness.

James Hitchcock, interpreting Scheler, broke it down further: Resentment, he wrote, is about moral values themselves. It was the role of certain people, whether through mental problems or some other disadvantage, to hate the idea of morality itself. This is why resentment is incurable, and different from hatred or jealousy. If you're jealous of your neighbors sports car, you get over it when you by your own. If you resent him because he's a Christian -- well, there's really nowhere to go with that, other than to this year's protest march. It's also why resenters can't forge a coherent philosophy. If you're problem is with the natural law and morality itself, you're not going to be happy in this life. Yes, yes, we all know Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman et al hate Bush, the war, etc. But what are they for? The world may never know.

This lack of vision distinguishes resenters from terrorists; indeed, it is the Left that likes to talk about the resentment of terrorists -- because of the evil USA, they are forced to murder innocent people, and so on. In fact, terrorists have an absolutely clear plan. The want to conquer the world and set up sharia law. They don't hate morality, they just have a demonic understanding of it. They are evil. Yet if they ever attained their (impossible) goals, they would no longer feel hatred. One gets the sense that unlike them, Maureen Dowd just cannot be made happy. This is why the remarks about her problem not being political but a resentment at her failure to attract a man -- remarks I for a long time considered out of bounds -- may have some validity. If this attractive woman has not been able to get and keep a mate, perhaps the fault lies not in the stars or the Republicans.

And that is what differentiates my wife or Dan (a regular commenter here and author of Gone Mild) from the ranters and ravers like Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte -- the latter suffer from a pathological resentment of those whose disagree with them.

And yes -- I will concede that we on the right have a few of that ilk in our midst as well. Just not as many.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.

Though the Chronicle is doing all it can to minimize his front-runner status.

Radio talker and former sportscaster Dan Patrick's entry into the state Senate District 7 race made the outspoken, hard-right, born-again Christian communicator the candidate to beat.

He's well-known in the area from years on the air and has a committed base of conservative fans. The three other Republicans vying to succeed retiring Sen. Jon Lindsay — former Houston City Councilman Mark Ellis, and state Reps. Peggy Hamric and Joe Nixon — are scrambling for second place.

With four strong candidates and more than a million dollars streaming in, it's likely no one will claim a majority March 7 and the nomination will be determined in a runoff.

The district is solidly Republican, so the GOP nominee will be the favorite in November against Democrat F. Michael Kubosh.

The article then goes on to claim that all of the currently serving politicians are seeking to run a grassroots campaign! Like Dan, the only non-elected official in the race, is not the ultimate grassroots candidate?

So far, Ellis and Hamric have been focusing on grass-roots efforts, conceding the public campaign to the better-funded Nixon and better-known Patrick.

Dan Patrick is the ultimate outsider -- to hear that incumbent politicians are running grass-roots campaigns is ludicrous!

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

This bit broke yesterday on Drudge.

THE DRUDGE REPORT has learned Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) office is behind a last ditch effort to stop Judge Samuel A. AlitoÕs confirmation before next week's vote using a 2004 recusal request.

THE DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a complaint filed by H. Gerard Heimbecker of Upper Darby, PA accusing Alito of not properly listing the Heimbecker v. 555 Associates case in his Senate questionnaire.

Kennedy legal aide James Flug is behind the efforts to push this latest attack. The veteran aide has been criticized for Sen. Kennedy's misfires during the Alito hearing last week. Flug was reportedly behind the attacks Kennedy used against Alito related to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) and Vanguard recusal case.

In the 2004 case, Heimbecker not only filed a request for Alito to recuse himself but also the entire Third Circuit as well.

One Capital Aide aware the situation challenged Heimbecker's credibility. "The individual who filed this complaint is clearly a serial litigant. It will be interesting to see how far the Democrats will push this and what the mainstream media will make of it."

Now I'm not surprised to see Senator Kennedy (D-Who's You're Daddy?)engaged in more desperate attempts to smear a judge he disagrees with.What i am surprised about is his possible willingness to use a bizarre case like this one to do so.

A Delaware County retiree has filed a judicial-misconduct complaint claiming that Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. failed to disclose the man's case in his responses to a U.S. Senate questionnaire.

H. Gerard Heimbecker, 70, of Upper Darby, said Alito should have noted his efforts to have all the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges, including Alito, recuse themselves from hearing Heimbecker's appeal.

"Judge Alito holds himself and fellow judges above the law and the complainant beneath the law," Heimbecker wrote in the complaint filed Monday. The 3rd Circuit clerk's office docketed the case and said in a letter to Heimbecker that Alito had been given a copy of the complaint on Tuesday.

Heimbecker, a former fireman and sandwich-maker, describes himself as a conservative Catholic and lifelong Republican. He said Alito's alleged omission violates a rule requiring judges to avoid "impropriety and appearance of impropriety."

"He failed to be honest and totally truthful with the committee, for the reasons that he was protecting himself by not having to answer for his actions in covering up the actions of [another] judge," Heimbecker said yestserday.

Heimbecker is acting as his own lawyer in pursuing the complaint against Alito.

Sounds oh-so-serious -- until you look at the facts alleged in the case. This guy didn't just want Judge Alito from hearing his case -- he argued that the entire Third Circuit Court of Appeals was biased against him, and that NONE OF THE JUDGES should be allowed to hear his case.

Heimbecker wanted Alito and the other appeals judges to recuse themselves from presiding over one of a series of legal actions triggered when the landlord of his Bala Cynwyd sandwich shop did not renew his lease.

He asked the 3rd Circuit to recuse itself because of what he described as a witness' relation to a judge and because he claimed the panel was biased and prejudiced against him in not forcing another judge to step aside.

The landlord, 555 Associates, sued Heimbecker for malicious prosecution after he attempted to bring a private criminal complaint against it, said 555 lawyer Gerald E. Arth. The company won a default judgment in Montgomery County against Heimbecker, and he subsequently lost a lawsuit against it, its employees and others that eventually landed in federal court, Arth said.

"He was angry about what had happened in state court, and the resolution of that, and decided to file a lawsuit in federal court which had no merit, was dismissed," Arth said. "He's tried his hardest, I think, to claim that there was a grand conspiracy against him of lawyers, judges, insurance companies and everything else."

Heimbecker described it as "a case of arrogance. They're going to do what they want. I had the facts and the law and they disregarded all of it."

so what it appears we really have is an angry loser in a previous case seeking revenge. There appears to be no substance to his claim -- but since when does lack of substance (or truth) matter to Senator Kennedy (D-What bridge? What car? What dead girl?), who paid a college classmate to take a final for him and who tried to get his cousin to lie about Chappaquidick.

I personally agree with the White house spokesman about the complaint filed against Alito in this case.

"What this proves is that it's very easy in the United States, both to file suit and to file complaints," Schmidt said. "Every American has that right, no matter how frivolous it is."

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 829 words, total size 5 kb.

It seems that there are those in maryland who are hell-bent on making sure than no one as unimportant as the citizens of Maryland get to have a voice on the definition of a fundamental societal institution.

First, a Maryland judge has struck down the traditional definition of marriage, claiming it is irrationally discriminatory.

In the long-awaited 20-page Maryland court ruling, Murdock took the position that banning same-sex marriage was no less discriminatory than outlawing interracial marriage, saying that "although traditions and values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory statutory classification."

In other words, a couple of thousand years of Western culture have no bearing on the laws of the state of Maryland.

Democrats are scrambling like cockroaches to avoid allowing the people a say on the issue -- they know it will hurt their party.

Even before the ruling yesterday, House Democrats took steps to try to prevent a constitutional ban from reaching a vote on the floor. House leaders made a technical change in procedural rules Thursday, over the objections of Republicans. Residual resentment from that move spilled into yesterday's floor session.

Minority Whip Anthony J. O'Donnell (R-Calvert) admonished his Democratic colleagues for what he said was an attempt to shield them from casting a tough vote in an election year. "We should not fear having a debate," he said.

Yesterday, House and Senate leaders met to discuss how to deal with the issue. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) and House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) have cast votes supporting the 1973 law against same-sex marriage.

But both also took the position that a constitutional amendment would be premature, because yesterday's ruling came from a single Circuit Court judge, not from the state's precedent-setting high court.

Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), who chairs the Senate committee that would have to approve an amendment for it to advance, said he saw no reason to act before the Court of Appeals has ruled. "One Circuit Court judge's opinion is not cause for amending the constitution," Frosh said.

Political strategists said Ehrlich and Democrats in the legislature probably have recognized the potential for a ballot initiative to provide the governor with a significant political edge as he seeks reelection. Republican political consultant Kevin Igoe said the ruling was like "waving a red flag at a bull" for Ehrlich's conservative base. If the issue appears on a ballot, he said, it would almost certainly drive up GOP turnout.

And since Maryland does not allow mere citizens to petition for an amendment to the state constitution, it is likely that the voice of the people will never be heard on this issue.

Posted by: Greg at 05:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.