They are going to let the commander-in-chief be the commander-in-chief.

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict.

While the war may be unpopular, the cut-&-run-&-surrender proposals of the neo-Copperheads are even less popular -- especially when they are loaded up with pet pork projects. America wants victory -- and may get it, if the Democrats can beforced to continue backing down.

Posted by: Greg at 10:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

But I guess he hadn’t – not that this formality makes any significant difference.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico formally announced his candidacy for president here Monday, launching a bilingual campaign for the Democratic nomination that emphasized his Hispanic heritage, his extensive diplomatic and political experience and his knowledge of issues.

Richardson, 59, the son of a Mexican mother and half-Mexican father, drew a large crowd of supporters -- and, perhaps as importantly, reporters -- to a ballroom in downtown Los Angeles for the announcement, which had been all but a foregone conclusion for many weeks. Richardson chose to launch his bid in California, the state where he was born, in part to attract as much media attention as possible in a race that already includes numerous high-profile candidates.

I don’t think that playing up his ancestry will work – as my students tell me, with a name like “Bill Richardson” they consider him to be just another white guy. I’m sure that reflects the view of their parents as well.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

But I guess he hadn’t – not that this formality makes any significant difference.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico formally announced his candidacy for president here Monday, launching a bilingual campaign for the Democratic nomination that emphasized his Hispanic heritage, his extensive diplomatic and political experience and his knowledge of issues.

Richardson, 59, the son of a Mexican mother and half-Mexican father, drew a large crowd of supporters -- and, perhaps as importantly, reporters -- to a ballroom in downtown Los Angeles for the announcement, which had been all but a foregone conclusion for many weeks. Richardson chose to launch his bid in California, the state where he was born, in part to attract as much media attention as possible in a race that already includes numerous high-profile candidates.

I don’t think that playing up his ancestry will work – as my students tell me, with a name like “Bill Richardson” they consider him to be just another white guy. I’m sure that reflects the view of their parents as well.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

It is really pretty straight-forward. Any honest commentator would have to recognize that the Democratic Party is responsible for the following attrocities.

1. Preserving and enhancing the legal-standing of the institution of slavery in the ante-bellum South against all humanitarian calls for reform;

2. Extending the peculiar institution of slavery into Texas and Missouri;

3. Attempting to extend the institution of slavery into California, Kansas and other US territories and states;

4. Extending into free-states the slave-masters' legal right to retrieve their "property", escaped slaves. (Dred Scott);

5. Initiating the secession of the Southern states to preserve slavery upon the election of Abraham Lincoln, a Republican with abolitionist views;

6. Undermining the North's resolve to preserve the Union and emancipate the slaves (Democrat Copperheads);

7. Terrorizing freed black Republican politicians and voters during Reconstruction in order to ensure election of white Democrats;

8. Disenfranchising black voters to make the entire South a one-party state (Democrat), a political monopoly not broken until quite recently;

9. Via their control of Southern state governments, instituting Jim Crow laws in the 1880s and preserving them until 1965 (America's apartheid);

10. Governing the South in a manner that tolerated, concealed and surreptitiously-supported racial terrorists such as the Ku Klux Klan, who murdered southern civil rights activists;

11. Resisting Federal enforcement to end racial segregation as initiated by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.

If reparations are due for slavery and the subsequent failure of the promises of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to be fully realized by the freed slaves and their descendants, they are clearly the responsibility of the institution that committed itself to maintaining the subjugation of African-Americans for an additional century after they were emancipated through the efforts of the Republican Party.

Send all demands for reparations to:

The Dishonorable Howard Dean
Chairman
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

What more needs be said about this crowd?

A group hoping to abolish horse-drawn carriage tours of New York will crack the whip on Boston if they persuade the Big Apple to just say nay to “animal slaves.”

“These are two international cities that will get along just fine without carriage rides,” said Edita Birnkrant, New York City campaign coordinator for Connecticut-based Friends of Animals

“People only see the surface of it, where it looks so romantic. It’s a complete life of misery for a horse: noise, traffic, pollution. They’re like animal slaves. It’s their whole lives until they either die or just get too old or sick to work anymore. I’m surprised more of them don’t drop in the street,” she said.

One day these people will figure out that animals are not people. Or maybe not – they are liberals, after all.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems pretty clear that Fred Thompson is going to jump into the presidential race -- his departure from Law and Order was probably the biggest sign, along with his increased number of columns and appearances. Now one key supporter, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, is spreading this word.

I can tell you that Thompson will be making an announcement NLT the first of July. I have had one phone conversation with Thompson and I'm convinced he is getting in the race. Others who have talked to him are also convinced.

I know Jerry Patterson, and find him to usually be a reliable source and astute reader of the political tea-leaves. he wouldn't stick his neck out like this unless it were going to happen.

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

You have to wonder what he has on her, that the Speaker stands by a guy with such a long history of sleaze and corruption.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is defending a close Democratic ally whom Republicans want to reprimand for threatening a GOP lawmaker's spending projects.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had "no idea what actually happened" during a noisy exchange in the House chamber last week between Reps. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

"What I do know is that Congressman Murtha has — enjoys — an excellent reputation in the Congress on both sides of the aisle," said Pelosi in a broadcast interview taped Friday and aired Sunday.

"He writes the defense appropriation bill in a bipartisan way each year and with the complete involvement of the Republicans as to who gets what on the Republican side," she said.

Murtha is a 35-year House veteran who leads the House Appropriations subcommittee on military spending. He is known for a fondness for earmarks — carefully targeted spending items placed in appropriations bills to benefit a specific lawmaker or favored constituent group.

Three observations.

First, I thought the Democrats considered earmarks a bad thing -- but Murtha is the King of Earmarks. Was last year's campaign strategy a case of selective outrage at the practice?

Second, the House Democrats decisively rejected Murhta when Pelosi backed him for a high leadership post earlier this year due to the loud outcry over Murtha's sleaze. Does that sound like folks having high regard for him -- or her, as the new Speaker of the House?

Third, Murtha is n tape indicating his willingness to take bribes during the Abscam case -- and was even named an unindicted co-conspirator. Doesn't that give her any pause before she defends him?

Of course, since Nancy admits she really doesn't know what happened in the confrontation on the House floor, does her opinion really even matter?

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

One has to wonder if these two moonbats hang by their feet beside one another as they sleep -- because Elizabeth Kucinich is, if anything, stranger than Dennis.

Kucinich met her husband-to-be two years ago when she visited his office in the House of Representatives with her boss as a volunteer worker for the American Monetary Institute, an offbeat group dedicated to reforming the “unjust monetary system."

It was love at first sight for both of them. Immediately after their meeting, Dennis Kucinich phoned a friend and said: “I’ve met her [my future wife].”

He was mesmerized to receive a business e-mail from Harper with her usual signature line from "Kama Sutra," one of her favorite films: “Knowing love, I shall allow all things to come and go, to be as supple as the wind and take everything that comes with great courage. My heart is as open as the sky.”

He proposed at their second meeting in Albuquerque, N.M., and they married three months later. The actress Shirley MacLaine attended their wedding.

“I knew at once I really wanted to marry this man,” Elizabeth Kucinich said. “When you know it, why hang around?” It was Dennis’s third marriage, but by the time he met Elizabeth he had been single for more than 20 years.

If Dennis were elected, they would make a great team, Elizabeth said.

“Can you imagine what it would be like to have real love in the White House and a true union between the masculine and the feminine?”

Well, they would certainly be more of a union of masculine and feminine than th last pair of Democrats to occupy the White House -- but I don't think we have to worry about the Kucinich family ever taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Posted by: Greg at 09:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

At least among those who count -- the folks who actually participate in the caucuses.

Mitt Romney has sprinted ahead of presidential competitors John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in a new Iowa Poll of likely Republican caucus participants.

The Des Moines Register poll shows Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, is the top choice of 30 percent of those who say they definitely or probably will attend the leadoff Iowa caucuses in January.

McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona, nips former New York Mayor Giuliani for second place — 18 percent to 17 percent.

However, things could go differently if the list of candidates changes.

Other polls taken in Iowa this month, presenting a different lineup of candidates that included Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson, have shown Giuliani, McCain and Romney bunched together. The former U.S. House speaker and former Tennessee senator have said they are considering presidential bids but have not taken steps toward running.

Rudy's abortion problem and McCain's immigration problem may be sufficient to give the nomination to Romney -- provided there are no significant new entries into the presidential race.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, the incompetent anti-Semite from Plains did a lousy job as president.

Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Excuse me, but the single least competent individual to occupy the Oval Office during my lifetime was this pea-brained peanut farmer. After all, he decimated the military and our intelligence services, helped bring hostile regimes to power in both Iran and Nicaragua, presided over the worst economy in the last four decades and did such a poor job that the liquor-addled lecher Ted Kennedy even looked like a better choice to many of his fellow Democrats (and fellow Americans in general).

UPDATE: Great response from the White House.

“I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there,” Fratto told reporters. “I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”

But then again, Jimmy Carter was irrelevant from about November 1979 onward, so I don't know that it would be fair to characterize him as "increasingly irrelevant". After all, his despicable abandonment of the Shah and his ball-less response to the Iran Hostage Crisis can arguably be seen as marking the start point of the Islamist reaction against America.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Colloquium, Jo's Cafe, Right Celebrity, Wake Up America, Stageleft, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 5 kb.

On you and me, thatÂ’s who!

Everyone takes a hit. Forty-five million working families with two children will see their taxes increase by nearly $3,000 annually. They’d see the current child tax credit cut in half — from $1,000 to $500. The standard deduction for married couples is also cut in half, from the current $3,400 to $1,700. The overall effect on married couples with children is obvious: Far from shifting the burden onto the wealthy, the Democratic budget drives up taxes on the average American family by more than 130 percent.

Seniors get hit hard too. Democrats like to crow that only the richest one percent of Americans benefit from the stimulative tax cuts Republicans passed in 2001 and 2003. What they rarely mention is how much seniors benefited from those cuts in the form of increased income as a result of lower taxes on dividends and capital gains. More than half of all seniors today claim income from these two sources, and the Democratic budget would lower the income of every one of them by reversing every one of those cuts.

I thought that it was only the top 1% of Americans who needed to pay more according to the Democrats. Looks like it is going to be all of us – and as I see it, my taxes will be going up a couple of grand. That’s OK, though – I’m sure we will be able to do without our medications until the middle of October, when this school teacher and his disabled wife will have finally paid off the additional taxes we owe for being among the super-rich who disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

Aside from his betrayal of the troops and readiness to surrender, John Murtha has long left a trail of slime and corruption in his wake. This charge should therefore come as no surprise -- and be seen as entirely in character.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) threatened to deny any further spending projects to a Republican who challenged him over an earmark, his antagonist has charged -- a potential violation of House rules.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) had challenged money that Murtha inserted into an intelligence bill last week.

Rogers turned the tables later that night by saying he would propose a reprimand of Murtha for violating House rules.

The Republican is planning to insert a transcript of their exchange in the Congressional Record to document the potential violation.

The privileged resolution will also require a House vote to reprimand Murtha for his comments, according to a copy received by Politico. Rogers is expected to file it on Monday.

It does not call for an investigation by the ethics committee.

Bravo to Rogers for bringing this matter to the public -- but it also needs to go before the Ethics Committee. And I'm curious -- will the Democrats show anything approaching the level of outrage they always showed over Tom DeLay? Or will they continue to accept corrupt members as they have in the past, even as they talk a good game about ethics while shielding them?

Posted by: Greg at 10:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

That is the effect of the surrender of his law license over his theft of secret documents to cover up the role of the Clinton Administration in the failures that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen.

Samuel R. Berger, the Clinton White House national security adviser who was caught taking highly classified documents from the National Archives, has agreed to forfeit his license to practice law.

In a written statement issued by Larry Breuer, Mr. Berger's attorney, the former national security adviser said he pleaded guilty in the Justice Department investigation, accepted the penalties sought by the department and recognized that his law license would be affected.

"I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license," he said. "While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize."

Why surrender the license? This makes it all clear.

In giving up his license, Mr. Berger avoids being cross-examined by the Board on Bar Counsel, where he risked further disclosure of specific details of his theft.

In other words, Sandy Berger didnÂ’t want to have to tell, under oath and facing penalty for perjury, exactly what he took and why.

Berger joins a long list of Clinton officials, including the former president himself, to have suffered the loss of their law licenses for criminal activities.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Next time you hear the phrase “hate-radio”, remember that it is a phrase that does a much better job describing left-wing talkers and their callers than it does anyone on the right.

It’s a rough day for the idea that conservative talk shows are the home of “hate radio” if you were tuning in the day after Jerry Falwell passed away. Liberal talk shows are blazing with Falwell hate. In the first minutes of Tuesday’s “Stephanie Miller Show,” callers were saying things like “I hope his soul is writhing in Hell, and may Dick Cheney join him next week.” Another wished Falwell would be soon joined in Hell by “Pat Robertson and Bill O’Reilly.” Miller jokingly suggested she shouldn’t have opened the phones. But later in the hour, a self-described “militant homosexual” called to crack wise that he was eating “pagan babies” in celebration of Falwell’s death, and Miller suggested they tasted better when they were fried. She thought it would be funny if a conservative tuned in at that moment: “Right-wingers, this is satire,” she oozed. But it’s not pretty.

The only problem, Stephanie, is that your comments and callers donÂ’t meet the definition of satire. But the callers certainly do meet the standard for being called hateful -- and your egging them on makes it clear you belong in that same category. Would you consider such statements appropriate if the dead political minister were Jesse Jackson?

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

When you start blaming America for 9/11, it is time for you to go. I'm sure that clip will be circulating down here we Texas Republicans look for a credible candidate to unseat him. There is no legitimate justification for 9/11 -- and the fact that Ron Paul argues that there is puts him beyond the pale of the GOP.

At one point, one of Mr. GiulianiÂ’s lesser-known opponents, Representative Ron Paul of Texas, gave what turned out to be a big platform to Mr. Giuliani when he appeared to suggest that the United States invited the attacks of Sept. 11 by having originally invaded Iraq.

“May I comment on that?” Mr. Giuliani said, looking grim. “That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.”

Mr. Giuliani was interrupted by cheers and applause. “And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that,” he said.

Ron Paul needs to get out of the presidential race -- and out of the US Congress. And not only that -- the GOP needs to put distance between ourselves and the Kucinich of the Right. I wonder how a resolution rebuking Ron Paul would go over at the next Executive Committee meeting.

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Don Surber, Jawa Report, Chatterbox Chronicles, WC Varones, NeoCon Express, GOP3, Wizbang, Flopping Aces, WuzzaDem, The Hill Chronicles

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 4 kb.

The anecdote remains with me, years after reading about it. In advance of the arrival of Pope John Paul II for his first papal visit to the United States, a prominent Protestant religious scholar and ecumenist received a call from a journalist for one of the major television networks. This producer needed help from the scholar, you see – in order to provide balance and fairness in the coverage of this historic event, it was necessary for her to find a “respectable anti-Catholic” to provide commentary during the broadcast.

Why the need to find someone to bash the Pope? Why not respectfully present the historical and religious event as significant in and of itself – perhaps even with a little bit of reverence? Because of a misguided notion of “fairness” as found in the so-called “Fariness Doctrine”, that’s why. Because of a government mandate that there be equal time given to different points of view, even the bigots need to be given their say.

Of course, advocates of this faux fairness would argue, equal time doesn’t mean that any old viewpoint needs to be given a chance to be heard on the airways. But as a practical matter, it will mean giving special prominence to “opposing views” that are outside the mainstream in the interest of making “good television” or “good radio”. We already see that, when Ann Coulter is used as the “conservative voice” on liberal shows. Rather than a thoughtful voice, we get screeching rants that contribute lots of heat and very little light. But at least Coulter has the advantage of being somewhat in the mainstream, as measured by book sales and circulation figures.

But imagine a discussion of terrorism. Will it be necessary for every discussion a bombing to include an apologist for Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda? And if the discussion doesn’t, has the station in question violated its obligation to provide balance? Doesn’t the Fairness Doctrine really do nothing more than create a new grievance class – in this case, marginalized terror supporters. Should the WTC attacks on 9/11 have been accompanied with the pious dronings of an America-hating Islamist to explain why our nation deserved to have thousands killed?

But the reality is that such extremes may still be left out, on the theory that their views are sufficiently bizarre to include. Instead, the new rules will be used to force conservative commentators to include liberal views – or broadcasters to exclude the conservative commentators that the audience has again and again shown that it wants. That isn’t fairness – that is out-and-out censorship. And it is the goal of those seeking to revive the Fairness Doctrine.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Azamatterofact, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Rightlinx, Right Celebrity, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 5 kb.

The anecdote remains with me, years after reading about it. In advance of the arrival of Pope John Paul II for his first papal visit to the United States, a prominent Protestant religious scholar and ecumenist received a call from a journalist for one of the major television networks. This producer needed help from the scholar, you see – in order to provide balance and fairness in the coverage of this historic event, it was necessary for her to find a “respectable anti-Catholic” to provide commentary during the broadcast.

Why the need to find someone to bash the Pope? Why not respectfully present the historical and religious event as significant in and of itself – perhaps even with a little bit of reverence? Because of a misguided notion of “fairness” as found in the so-called “Fariness Doctrine”, that’s why. Because of a government mandate that there be equal time given to different points of view, even the bigots need to be given their say.

Of course, advocates of this faux fairness would argue, equal time doesn’t mean that any old viewpoint needs to be given a chance to be heard on the airways. But as a practical matter, it will mean giving special prominence to “opposing views” that are outside the mainstream in the interest of making “good television” or “good radio”. We already see that, when Ann Coulter is used as the “conservative voice” on liberal shows. Rather than a thoughtful voice, we get screeching rants that contribute lots of heat and very little light. But at least Coulter has the advantage of being somewhat in the mainstream, as measured by book sales and circulation figures.

But imagine a discussion of terrorism. Will it be necessary for every discussion a bombing to include an apologist for Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda? And if the discussion doesn’t, has the station in question violated its obligation to provide balance? Doesn’t the Fairness Doctrine really do nothing more than create a new grievance class – in this case, marginalized terror supporters. Should the WTC attacks on 9/11 have been accompanied with the pious dronings of an America-hating Islamist to explain why our nation deserved to have thousands killed?

But the reality is that such extremes may still be left out, on the theory that their views are sufficiently bizarre to include. Instead, the new rules will be used to force conservative commentators to include liberal views – or broadcasters to exclude the conservative commentators that the audience has again and again shown that it wants. That isn’t fairness – that is out-and-out censorship. And it is the goal of those seeking to revive the Fairness Doctrine.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Azamatterofact, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Rightlinx, Right Celebrity, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 511 words, total size 5 kb.

Thomas Sowell notes that even liberal economists understand the impact of tax cuts on budget revenues.

The angry left has no time to spend even considering the argument that what they call "tax cuts for the rich" are in fact tax cuts for the economy.

Nor is the idea new that tax cuts can sometimes spur economic growth, resulting in more jobs for workers and higher earnings for business, leading to more tax revenue for the government.

A highly regarded economist once observed that "taxation may be so high as to defeat its object," so that sometimes "a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget."

Who said that? Milton Friedman? Arthur Laffer? No. It was said in 1933 by John Maynard Keynes, a liberal icon.

Lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues many times, both before and since Keynes' statement -- the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, and the recent Bush tax cuts that have led to record high tax revenues this April.

Now given the constant cries of Democrats to raise taxes, are we to assume that they want the government -- and the economy as a whole -- to operate on less tax revenue? Or that they simply want to punish some folks by confiscating their wealth?

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 1 kb.

Hardly a profile in courage.

Rudy Giuliani yesterday fingered his former top emergency-management aide Jerry Hauer as the man responsible for the tragic decision to put the city's emergency command bunker inside the World Trade Center complex.

"Jerry Hauer recommended that as the prime site and the site that would make the most sense," Giuliani said on "Fox News Sunday," adding, "It was largely on his recommendation that that site was selected."

Giuliani was answering a question about why the city built the $61 million bunker on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center despite the 1993 truck-bomb attack on the WTC, even though Hauer - a Democrat who has since had a falling-out with Giuliani - had told him the existing facility in Brooklyn could be updated.

So Giuliani picked the option that was taken -- but it is the fault of the guy who gave him the options. What we have here is certainly not leadership -- it is an exercise in blamesmanship -- and not very presidential.

Posted by: Greg at 10:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

It appears that there is a good sized contingent of religious conservatives ready to anoint Fred Thompson with that title – if and when he does announce his candidacy.

Several leading Christian conservatives say they will rally to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who they expect to announce "in a matter of weeks" that he will seek the Republican nomination for president next year.

"It's not 'if' but 'when,' he will announce," one Protestant evangelical leader says of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering for position in the 2008 race.

A prominent Roman Catholic social conservative says the three Republicans who have raised the most money and have led the polls -- former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- fall short of social conservatives' expectations, but Mr. Thompson doesn't. "He's right on the issues ... He's better than all of the above."

Both the Protestant and Catholic activist, like other Christian conservatives, spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity.

They say their support for Mr. Thompson is shared by like-minded conservatives, though the sentiment is not unanimous in their circles. Many born-again Christians are said to be skeptical of Mr. Giuliani's views on abortion and same-sex "marriage," of Mr. Romney's change of position on abortion and of his Mormon religious faith, and of Mr. McCain's advocacy of campaign-finance reforms that restrict speech and issues-advocacy ads.

Mr. Thompson, whose celebrity is based on his television and movie acting roles as well as his tenure as a senator from Tennessee, has consistently opposed abortion rights, but until recently had backed campaign-finance laws unpopular with advocacy groups on both the right and left.

I’ve been quite clear that I am behind Mitt Romney’s candidacy. I am generally supportive of his positions on the issue, find his explanation of his evolution on the abortion issue credible (it reflects my own, a couple of decades ago) and don’t find his religion to be troubling in the least. That said, I also find Thompson to be a credible candidate whose entry into the race could be sufficient to stop the two candidacies I find most troubling – those of Giuliani and McCain, both of whom I believe would lose if they somehow received the GOP presidential nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

It appears that there is a good sized contingent of religious conservatives ready to anoint Fred Thompson with that title – if and when he does announce his candidacy.

Several leading Christian conservatives say they will rally to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who they expect to announce "in a matter of weeks" that he will seek the Republican nomination for president next year.

"It's not 'if' but 'when,' he will announce," one Protestant evangelical leader says of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering for position in the 2008 race.

A prominent Roman Catholic social conservative says the three Republicans who have raised the most money and have led the polls -- former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- fall short of social conservatives' expectations, but Mr. Thompson doesn't. "He's right on the issues ... He's better than all of the above."

Both the Protestant and Catholic activist, like other Christian conservatives, spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity.

They say their support for Mr. Thompson is shared by like-minded conservatives, though the sentiment is not unanimous in their circles. Many born-again Christians are said to be skeptical of Mr. Giuliani's views on abortion and same-sex "marriage," of Mr. Romney's change of position on abortion and of his Mormon religious faith, and of Mr. McCain's advocacy of campaign-finance reforms that restrict speech and issues-advocacy ads.

Mr. Thompson, whose celebrity is based on his television and movie acting roles as well as his tenure as a senator from Tennessee, has consistently opposed abortion rights, but until recently had backed campaign-finance laws unpopular with advocacy groups on both the right and left.

I’ve been quite clear that I am behind Mitt Romney’s candidacy. I am generally supportive of his positions on the issue, find his explanation of his evolution on the abortion issue credible (it reflects my own, a couple of decades ago) and don’t find his religion to be troubling in the least. That said, I also find Thompson to be a credible candidate whose entry into the race could be sufficient to stop the two candidacies I find most troubling – those of Giuliani and McCain, both of whom I believe would lose if they somehow received the GOP presidential nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

Yeah, that's right -- Barack Obama is going to decide who needs the cash they earn, and confiscate anything over and above what he feels they deserve to keep.

If elected president, Senator Barack Obama said Sunday, he would seek to repeal President BushÂ’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and use the money to pay for health care, but he did not suggest he would raise other taxes to pay for expanded services.

Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat seeking his party’s presidential nomination, said in a television interview broadcast Sunday that he supported “rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people who don’t need it.” He did not endorse a broader plan to raise taxes on the affluent that has been proposed by John Edwards, one of Mr. Obama’s rivals for the nomination.

And therein lies an essential difference between Republicans and Democrats -- Democrats don't believe that it is really your money, but instead think that your paycheck is a resource for them to draw from for the programs they favor. After all, the government knows better than you do what you should spnd it n.

Posted by: Greg at 10:47 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

Personally, I don't think so. But the presidential candidate sure picked the wrong place to say it.

Note to Sen. Sam Brownback: When in Packerland, donÂ’t diss Brett Favre.

The Kansas Republican drew boos and groans from the audience at the state Republican Party convention Friday evening when he used a football analogy to talk about the need to rebuild the family.

“This is fundamental blocking and tackling,” he said. “This is your line in football. If you don’t have a line, how many passes can Peyton Manning complete? Greatest quarterback, maybe, in NFL history.

Personally, I'm with Brownback. Favre is a great quarterback -- but when their careers are done and assessed, I firmly believe that Manning will come out on top.

Posted by: Greg at 02:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Hey, that’s what it amounts to.

Just days after New Jersey authorities announced the arrest of six men suspected of plotting a terror attack against a military base in the state, two state Democratic lawmakers are pushing a bill to abolish the state's death penalty - even in the most serious cases of terrorism, murder and rape.

A state Senate panel was meeting Thursday to debate replacing the state's death penalty with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

"Terrorists want to be martyrs. Let's not give them another reason to commit heinous acts by singling them out for the death penalty," said state Sen. Ray Lesniak, introducing legislation, which the Union County Democrat said "will ensure that the system of justice administered by our state is effective, consistent and just."

However, the terrorists are looking to die in the course of their act of terror. And I don’t think we could reasonably argue that they are coming to jurisdictions with the death penalty to double their opportunities to die.
And then there is this stupid argument.

"The frequency of murders makes it obvious that the death penalty simply doesn't work as a deterrent," said state Sen. Shirley Turner, whose district includes Trenton, the state capital which has had serious problems with gang violence and murders in recent years.

And the same argument can be made about the failure of imprisonment to have a deterrent effect, so should we do away with imprisonment as well, right? I guess that Turner has never encountered the notion of the death penalty (or imprisonment) as PUNISHMENT.

Posted by: Greg at 12:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey, thatÂ’s what it amounts to.

Just days after New Jersey authorities announced the arrest of six men suspected of plotting a terror attack against a military base in the state, two state Democratic lawmakers are pushing a bill to abolish the state's death penalty - even in the most serious cases of terrorism, murder and rape.

A state Senate panel was meeting Thursday to debate replacing the state's death penalty with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

"Terrorists want to be martyrs. Let's not give them another reason to commit heinous acts by singling them out for the death penalty," said state Sen. Ray Lesniak, introducing legislation, which the Union County Democrat said "will ensure that the system of justice administered by our state is effective, consistent and just."

However, the terrorists are looking to die in the course of their act of terror. And I donÂ’t think we could reasonably argue that they are coming to jurisdictions with the death penalty to double their opportunities to die.
And then there is this stupid argument.

"The frequency of murders makes it obvious that the death penalty simply doesn't work as a deterrent," said state Sen. Shirley Turner, whose district includes Trenton, the state capital which has had serious problems with gang violence and murders in recent years.

And the same argument can be made about the failure of imprisonment to have a deterrent effect, so should we do away with imprisonment as well, right? I guess that Turner has never encountered the notion of the death penalty (or imprisonment) as PUNISHMENT.

Posted by: Greg at 12:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

That seems to be the new White House position on funding the Iraq War.

Hours before the House approved a plan on Thursday to finance the Iraq war only through midsummer, President Bush offered his first public concession to try to resolve the impasse on war spending, acknowledging rising pressure from his own party and the public.

After a briefing at the Pentagon, Mr. Bush said he had instructed Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff, to reach “common ground” with lawmakers of both parties over setting firm goals, or benchmarks, to measure progress in Iraq. Mr. Bush had previously insisted that he wanted about $95 billion for the military with no strings attached.

“It makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward,” Mr. Bush said, even as he threatened to veto the House plan, approved on a 221-to-205 vote Thursday night, which would require him to seek approval in two months for the balance of the war money.

Of course, the key is how to make those benchmarks something other than a timetable for withdrawal. And, of course, what criteria are actually being set -- whether they can be attained, and what the consequences of not meeting them are. My big concern is that such benchmarks will become a de facto timetable if the goals are not reasonable and incremental.

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Polls show the people of Massachusetts are for a proposal to ban gay marriage -- so why is the state's governor trying to make sure they never get their say?

Gov. Deval Patrick has dangled job offers in front of anti-gay-marriage lawmakers to persuade them to switch their votes and kill a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex nuptials, sources said.

Two sources close to the gay-marriage debate said Patrick has used the controversial tactic as lobbying has intensified in recent weeks. The Legislature adjourned a Constitutional Convention yesterday without voting on the proposed ban, tabling the matter until a session scheduled for June 14.

Supporters of gay marriage said Patrick has worked extremely hard behind the scenes to defeat the proposed ban, and the sources said those efforts have included approaching lawmakers believed to be amenable to a vote switch and telling them they would be considered for administration jobs if they helped defeat the ban.

One can argue the merits of gay marriage -- but there is no legitimate basis for strangling the voice of the citizenry. It is interesting that Patrick, whose Clinton Administration job was focused on ensuring that people were allowed to vote, wants to disenfranchise an entire state -- unless he places the will of a core constituency above the will of the people as a whole.

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

The sound you just heard is the crashing and burning of Rudy's presidential campaign.

After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.

At the same time, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign — seeking to accomplish the unusual task of persuading Republicans to nominate an abortion rights supporter — is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani’s social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

That approach, they said, became more appealing after the Legislature in Florida, another state they said would be receptive to Mr. Giuliani, voted last week to move the primary forward to the end of January.

Now I'll be honest -- as much as I admire Rudy for many things, I've never been a big fan of his candidacy. His equivocation last week was troubling to me. This move simply turns me off to the campaign completely -- because it makes me wonder how much of his previous positioning on issues like judges is sincere. And the harder-line pro-lifers will sit home in 2008 rather than vote for him.

Expect a precipitous drop in the polls. And maybe a formal excommunication.

Posted by: Greg at 09:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Andrew Sullivan asks what, it seems to me, is a really dumb question here.

If gun rights are civil rights, why would anyone feel the need to hide the fact that they own one?

I suppose one could also ask why, if freedom of speech and association are civil rights, one would wish to engage in anonymous speech or keep one's membership in political organizations secret. Doesn't Sullivan believe in a right to privacy?

Posted by: Greg at 09:59 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Now here is an idea that, if tried nationally, could really help lower energy prices -- lower the tax burden imposed upon fuel costs.

With pump prices surging toward $3 and possibly beyond this summer, the Texas House voted by a wide margin Tuesday to temporarily save motorists 20 cents a gallon every time they fuel up.

Call it "tax-free gas" for the summer driving season, Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, said after the House tentatively approved his amendment 118-16.

* * *

His amendment to a gas-tax collection bill would repeal the state's gasoline tax for 90 days, which would cost Texas an estimated $500 million to $700 million toward highway construction and public education. But the proposal would make up for it by sapping the $8 billion budget surplus, currently split almost evenly between money set aside for future school property tax cuts and the state's Rainy Day fund.

"That fund goes to times when we are in crisis and, right now, with gas prices through the roof, there is a crisis," Martinez Fischer said. "The last time I checked, that money belongs to the people of Texas."

The proposal may not survive the State Senate in the final three weeks of our biennial legislative session (next regular session -- January, 2009). However, I suspect that enough voices from the public might have an effect to get the measure through, and make Texas a model for every other state and the ferderal government to really help reduce fuel costs.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, that is what they claimed when these same companies began giving more heavily to the GOP in 1995. Surely the same applies here.

Several large Houston-area companies in the Republican-leaning energy industry and other sectors have been shifting federal campaign contributions to Democrats, who are flexing their new power in Congress as they draft legislation on energy and the environment.

Political action committees for companies including ConocoPhillips, BP Corp. and Continental Airlines gave a significantly higher percentage of their contributions to Democrats in the first quarter of 2007 than they did for the November 2006 election, when Republicans lost their majorities in the House and Senate.

Corporate officials warned that first quarter contributions in a two-year election cycle should not be interpreted as an indication of a major change in long-term giving strategy. And some business PACs, including that of energy giant ExxonMobil, are still contributing largely to Republican lawmakers and candidates.

Nevertheless, some Texas mega-employers seem to be following the national trend of businesses steering more of their PAC money to Democrats, who now head the key committees where legislation is drafted.

So which is it – are campaign contributions a vital part of the American political system, or are they corrupt attempts to purchase influence for private benefit rather thant he public good?

Posted by: Greg at 10:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

Looking at this article, I’m starting to wonder if maybe the Reds won the Cold War – and Commisar Schumer is preparing for a show trial. His target? The oil companies.

Schumer said the Government Accountability Office will investigate, and he hopes to have the results in "a couple of months."

A representative of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association was not immediately available for comment yesterday.

Megan Barnett, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, said several factors contribute to the high gas prices, including refinery maintenance, growing demand for gas in developing countries such as China and India, and the upcoming summer driving season, when gas prices traditionally increase.

A GAO finding that the gas companies are at fault, Schumer said, would serve to pressure the companies into producing more or fixing up their refineries. Failing that, he said, legislation compelling changes could be in order.

A GAO investigation?

Did I miss the nationalization of the oil companies?

Or is this simply a prelude to it?

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

That's odd -- Democrats have been telling us such things don't exist, so there is no need to improve ballot security. How can this be happening?

A plot to steal dozens of votes with a non-existent address has been uncovered, officials told KPRC Local 2 Wednesday.

Harris County Tax Assessor Paul Bettencourt said it was obvious to him that several voter registration applications were fraudulent.

"We know because all the handwriting is the same," Bettencourt said.

The applications all had the last names Williams or Johnson. They also had the address of 2519 Dashwood Drive, which does not exist.

Bettencourt said the applications were mailed from El Paso.

The tax assessor's office has received 51 applications so far and more keep coming in.

"Now we have to go through and find out who was trying to do this," Bettencourt said. "And we have to go back to El Paso."

Bettencourt said these types of cases are tough to catch on Election Day because they rely on the honor system, not photo identification. He said he would like to change that to protect voters.

bravo, Paul -- now it is up to the Texas Legislature to close the loopholes that make such fraud possible.

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

Pennsylvania law does not permit municipalities to enact their own gun control laws. So, showing typical liberal disdain for the law, the Philadelphia City Council unanimously passed a gun control law yesterday.

City Council unanimously passed eight long-delayed gun control bills yesterday, deliberately picking a fight with lawmakers in Harrisburg who have consistently refused to give Philadelphia the right to enact its own gun laws.

In addition, Council will soon file a lawsuit in Common Pleas Court against the General Assembly to win the city the authority it needs to legally pass its own firearms legislation, said Councilman Darrell Clarke, who cosponsored the bills with Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller.

"It's utterly ridiculous where we are right now. It's an aberration when somebody doesn't get killed," Clarke said. "We can't wait any longer."

Excuse me – they are going to the courts for authority specifically denied them by the legislature? Don’t these folks know about separation of powers? Or is it that they simply don’t believe that the elected representatives of the people (other than themselves) have the right to enact laws consistent with the constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

And the contempt for the law that these folks are showing is monumental.

Just what happens next - with this legally questionable legislation - isn't clear. Before the Council meeting, Councilman James F. Kenney asked: "What would they do, arrest us?"

Well, I think that might not be a bad idea. Conspiracy to violate the civil rights of every citizen of Philly – that would be about 1,517,550 each. Personally, I’d settle for a million counts each, which would eliminate those Philly residents who are for some reason legally barred from gun ownership. Indeed, I think they could be charged under the relevant Civil Rights statutes, such as Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 241 & 242, and should be individually and collectively sued under Chapter 42 U.S.C.,Section 1983, which was originally part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (AKA the Ku Klux Klan Act).

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam's Blog, The Pet Haven Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightlinx, The Magical Rose Garden, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 4 kb.

Not only that, this cop union gangster is clearly planning to use information improperly obtained from state police files in order to threaten the safety of those who dared to expose the conspiracy to abuse the citizens of New Jersey for daring to speak out against about corruption of the state police.

Two talk-radio hosts in New Jersey say they are worried about their own safety and that of their families after the head of the New Jersey State Police union threatened to make their home addresses and license tags public.

During a profanity-laced tirade on Thursday, State Police Union leader David Jones blasted Craig Carton and Ray Rossi, the hosts of WKXW-FM's "Jersey Guys" program, for discussing an alleged State Police "ticket-writing blitz" on the air.

Information about the stepped-up ticket-writing campaign came from anonymous postings on a police union website.

State troopers, upset about criticism directed at them following Gov. Jon Corzine's car crash (a state trooper was driving the speeding car and Corzine was not ordered to buckle his seatbelt), called for a ticket-writing blitz in retaliation for the public criticism.

When Carton and Rossi brought the anonymous postings to the public's attention, the head of the troopers' union erupted.

Jones said there was no "ticket-blitz," as the police message board stated, and he threatened to "crush" the state troopers who leaked the information.

"If guys, be they troopers or not troopers, choose to vent on a blog board, that's their right,"Jones said at a press conference. "A couple of cowards obviously compromised it, and when I find out who those Girl Scouts are, I'm going to crush 'em like bugs -- rest assured!''

Got that – there is no plan for a ticket blitz, and he is going to use his power as a cop and a union thug to destroy those who exposed the plans for one. And to further make the point that those used their First Amendment rights to expose and criticize public corruption will be punished face the wrath of law enforcement, union thug David Jones waved around a piece of paper with Carton’s personal information including his home address and license plate numbers, and threatened to release similar information on Rossi and other employees at WKXW-FM.

What is most outrageous is that David Jones is clearly a fascist. He believes that citizens commenting on the corruption of the New Jersey State Police and his union is somehow a danger to public safety and a threat to law and order. What this thug does not realize is that the real threat is individuals like him and his members, who would undermine the Constitution of the United States in the name in order to silence American citizens speaking out about government employees and their abuse of power. Maybe it is appropriate that David Jones is assigned to the state police organized crime unit, as he and the union he heads have clearly become an entity involved in organized crime, namely the oppression and violation of the civil rights of every citizen of New Jersey. I wonder if Trooper Jones and his fellow members of the Keystone Kop Klan are familiar with the Ku Klux Klan Act -- which he has clearly violated in the name of the union.

It is clear to me that the State Troopers Fraternal Association is currently being operated in such a manner as to endanger the rights of the people of New Jersey, and should be immediately derecognized as the bargaining unit for state police officers in the state. Furthermore, the cowardly David Jones needs to be subjected to a full rectal examination investigation by a special prosecutor, as do the rest of the officers of this corrupt union and any officer who posted on the site regarding plans to engage in the ticket blitz.

Feel free to contact the union thugs as well.

And while you are at it, please offer your support to Craig Carton and Ray Rossi.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam's Blog, The Pet Haven Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightlinx, The Magical Rose Garden, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | Comments (50) | Add Comment
Post contains 761 words, total size 6 kb.

Well, last night's GOP debate was intriguing -- an not surprisingly, most of the candidates indicated their continued support for the continuation of the mission in Iraq. And, as expected, Giuliani flailed around on abortion, Ron Paul engaged in monologues on federalism and the founders, and one candidate (Tommy Thompson) ended up looking like a deer in the headlights when confronted with an unexpected question.

I agree with Captain' Ed's assessment -- Romney won.

* Who won? -- Mitt Romney won this debate. He looked relaxed, answered clearly, showed real warmth and a sense of humor, and actually answered the questions asked of him -- even the stupid ones, to which I'll return shortly. After Romney, one has to think that Jim Gilmore and Mike Huckabee may have made some strides in breaking out of the third tier. They also showed that they could connect emotionally to the audience and give clear, thoughtful answers.

Roger Simon agrees.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not sure which is more troubling to me -- that Chris Matthews would ask this question, or that he would direct it to Mitt Romney. Romney handled it perfectly, though.

MR. MATTHEWS: Governor Romney, what do you say to Roman Catholic bishops who would deny communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?

MR. ROMNEY: I donÂ’t say anything to Roman Catholic bishops. They can do whatever the heck they want. (Laughter.) Roman Catholic bishops are in a private institution, a religion, and they can do whatever they want in a religion. America --

MR. MATTHEWS: Do you see that as interference in public life?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, I canÂ’t imagine a government telling a church who can have communion in their church. I canÂ’t -- we have a separation of church and state; itÂ’s served us well in this country.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay.

MR. ROMNEY: This is a nation, after all, that wants a leader thatÂ’s a person of faith, but we donÂ’t choose our leader based on which church they go to. This is a nation which also comes together. We unite over faith and over the right of people to worship as they choose. The people weÂ’re fighting, theyÂ’re the ones who divide over faith and decide matters of this nature in the public forum. This is a place where we celebrate different religions and different faiths.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Governor.

I'm curious -- why ask a question about the right of a religious group to give or withhold its sacraments based upon its own religious teachings? Does Matthews really believe that it is the place of government to regulate such decisions, or of politicians to dictate to churches who receives such sacred rites? And why did this question go to the most conspicuously non-Catholic candidate in the group?

But Romney sounded precisely the right note -- one that any American political leader who believes in the First Amendment should have given. Who may or may not receive communion -- or other issues of church doctrine or discipline -- are not matters for government regulation or intervention. They shouldn't be fodder for political debate, either.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

A presidential candidate needs to answer for the misdeeds of religious leaders decades dead? What is Robert Novak's problem?

Today's Mormons, including Romney, cannot be blamed for those events. Nevertheless, the candidate has followed the church's example and ignored the movie. Romney will not comment on "September Dawn" and indeed will not watch it. That follows his decision not to defend his faith or actively fight religious bias that has impeded his candidacy.

Why should Romney have to answer for the sins (if there are any) of Brigham Young? Why should he watch a film that he (and his church) view as an attack on his faith and historically inaccurate to boot? Aren’t we past that sort of garbage yet?

Captain Ed Morrisey makes a similar observation.

Novak's entire column wants to place historical blame for all ills of the Mormon church squarely on the shoulders of Mitt Romney. Novak, at the end of his piece, notes that Romney wouldn't discuss the movie with Novak, and apparently that annoyed the columnist to no end. I don't blame Mitt one bit. The movie has nothing to do with Mitt and nothing to do with the campaign -- and that's even if one could rely on Hollywood to handle history with any accuracy at all.

This is nothing more than an attempt to use a fear of Mormons to smear Mitt Romney, with all the subtlety of a brick blackjack. It's the worst kind of religious bigotry wrapped up in Novak's dire language that it relates to the current war against Islamofascist terrorism, a charge that Novak never even bothers to support in his column. It's designed to force Romney to start conducting Mormon apologetics on the campaign trail instead of talking about public policy and national security.

Indeed, Romney doesn’t need to be dealing with LDS history or theology on the campaign trail, given that his religion should not be an issue as he runs for the job of President. As none other than prominent Southern Baptist leader Richard Land has pointed out, Romney is not seeking to become Theologian-in-Chief.

Not only that, but Novak also makes at least one false statement, pointed out by radio host and author Hugh Hewitt.

[W]hen Novak writes that Romney has "never seized this issue" of religious bias against him, the reporter also reveals he hasn't done much reporting as Romney has done so again and again --at length in my book, but also in profile after profile.

If Novak cannot even get something that simple correct, how can we take him seriously when he comments on the Romney candidacy – or any other presidential candidacy.

Posted by: Greg at 09:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 444 words, total size 3 kb.

A presidential candidate needs to answer for the misdeeds of religious leaders decades dead? What is Robert Novak's problem?

Today's Mormons, including Romney, cannot be blamed for those events. Nevertheless, the candidate has followed the church's example and ignored the movie. Romney will not comment on "September Dawn" and indeed will not watch it. That follows his decision not to defend his faith or actively fight religious bias that has impeded his candidacy.

Why should Romney have to answer for the sins (if there are any) of Brigham Young? Why should he watch a film that he (and his church) view as an attack on his faith and historically inaccurate to boot? ArenÂ’t we past that sort of garbage yet?

Captain Ed Morrisey makes a similar observation.

Novak's entire column wants to place historical blame for all ills of the Mormon church squarely on the shoulders of Mitt Romney. Novak, at the end of his piece, notes that Romney wouldn't discuss the movie with Novak, and apparently that annoyed the columnist to no end. I don't blame Mitt one bit. The movie has nothing to do with Mitt and nothing to do with the campaign -- and that's even if one could rely on Hollywood to handle history with any accuracy at all.

This is nothing more than an attempt to use a fear of Mormons to smear Mitt Romney, with all the subtlety of a brick blackjack. It's the worst kind of religious bigotry wrapped up in Novak's dire language that it relates to the current war against Islamofascist terrorism, a charge that Novak never even bothers to support in his column. It's designed to force Romney to start conducting Mormon apologetics on the campaign trail instead of talking about public policy and national security.

Indeed, Romney doesnÂ’t need to be dealing with LDS history or theology on the campaign trail, given that his religion should not be an issue as he runs for the job of President. As none other than prominent Southern Baptist leader Richard Land has pointed out, Romney is not seeking to become Theologian-in-Chief.

Not only that, but Novak also makes at least one false statement, pointed out by radio host and author Hugh Hewitt.

[W]hen Novak writes that Romney has "never seized this issue" of religious bias against him, the reporter also reveals he hasn't done much reporting as Romney has done so again and again --at length in my book, but also in profile after profile.

If Novak cannot even get something that simple correct, how can we take him seriously when he comments on the Romney candidacy – or any other presidential candidacy.

Posted by: Greg at 09:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 447 words, total size 3 kb.

This early polling data is certainly counter-intuitive.

Good news for Republicans: Their top presidential contenders beat the top Democrats in a 2008 White House matchup, according to a new nationwide Quinnipiac poll released this morning.

The survey comes at a crucial time, just before GOP rivals square off tonight in their first nationally televised debate. And it was taken April 25 to May 1, at and after the time Democrats held their first debate April 26.

IÂ’m betting we pick up House and Senate seats, too.

Posted by: Greg at 09:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.